<![CDATA[The Catacombs - Add'nl Clergy]]> https://thecatacombs.org/ Mon, 04 May 2026 20:24:00 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[Fr. Hesse: Decline of Charity since the Council of Trent]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=7093 Sun, 20 Apr 2025 09:45:35 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=7093 Decline of Charity since the Council of Trent
Rev. Gregory Hesse

A rare conference by Fr. Hesse in which he discusses the important role of charity in the governing of the Church and in our own spiritual lives. He offers an interesting analysis of charity as being a third faculty of the soul, besides the intellect and the will. He also notes how a proper understanding and appreciation of charity, going back to well before Vatican II, led to an excess of false charity during and after that infamous council.

CONFERENCE AUDIO FILE
]]> Decline of Charity since the Council of Trent
Rev. Gregory Hesse

A rare conference by Fr. Hesse in which he discusses the important role of charity in the governing of the Church and in our own spiritual lives. He offers an interesting analysis of charity as being a third faculty of the soul, besides the intellect and the will. He also notes how a proper understanding and appreciation of charity, going back to well before Vatican II, led to an excess of false charity during and after that infamous council.

CONFERENCE AUDIO FILE
]]> <![CDATA[Fr. Hesse: Against the ‘Popesplainers’]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=7047 Tue, 08 Apr 2025 14:20:12 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=7047 Father Gregor Hesse: Against the ‘Popesplainers’
Part I

CFN [Emphasis mine] | October 30, 2024

Editor’s Note: The following is an edited transcript of a lecture given by Father Hesse at the Fatima 2000 Conference in Rome titled ‘Discernment of Spirits’, Nov. 18-24th. To our knowledge, this is the first time that the content of this presentation has been published on the internet. This conference in particular is especially relevant for our time, with Father Hesse identifying certain errors made by defenders of the post-conciliar revolution that are now quite common in polemical debate.

The title of my presentation is “The Discernment of Spirits”. It will treat of how to distinguish if some statement has been made by Our Lord or by the devil … if some statement bears the truth or is just a lie.

The only metaphysical certitude we can have (that is, absolute safety in knowing that we are presented with the truth) is, of course, in Revelation and Sacred Tradition. Everything else has to be examined in accordance with Divine Revelation and Sacred Tradition.

In his Spiritual Exercises, St. Ignatius points out that the devil first gives good thoughts, then more good thoughts and then he lets the bad thoughts creep in. The devil will tell you a lot of truths. He will continue for a long time to tell you the truth and then he will start to let the errors and the lies creep in.

About the discernment of spirits, the famous Jesuit theologian, Scaramelli, says that one of the best ways to find out if something corresponds to the truth or not is by checking it against the Church Magisterium (with the teaching of the Catholic Church). The same is said by Cardinal Bona, who wrote a book on the discernment of spirits. He said that whenever the devil talks, you have 90 percent truth and 10 percent lie. And it is the 10 percent lie that causes all the havoc, confusion and loss of souls.


Two Principles

How do we know if something is true or not?

There are two principles.

The first principle is that we have to check it against the teaching of the Church.

The second principle is contained in Our Lord’s words “a tree is recognized by its fruits”. You watch for awhile, see what is happening and then you will find out if the source of everything has been divine or evil. Don’t forget that Our Lord talked about the wolves in sheep’s clothing. And St. Thomas said, “The worst wolves in sheep’s clothing are the heretics and then, bad prelates.”

Why did he say the bad prelates? He was talking about the bishops who enable heretics to spread their lies. Because if a heretic is silenced by a bishop, then the heretic is finished (of course, we are talking about the old days when there was no mass communication). The problem was that all too often, the bishops did not silence the heretics. They just listened or they didn’t care.

St. Thomas, who noted that the divine truth never changes, and who also noted that Our Lord warned “Fear ye not them that kill the body … but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell,” concluded that capital punishment for heretics could be justified, because it is our souls that are at stake here, and not our bodies.

I do not fear a murderer, I fear a subtle, intelligent heretic.


Two Mistakes

I said that one of the best ways to find out if some statement is coming from the devil or from God is to compare it with the teaching of the Church.

Now, what exactly do the words “teaching of the Church” mean? What has to be understood by the term “Magisterium of the Church”? There are two basic errors in understanding this.

The first mistake is to believe that only a defined Dogma is binding in the faith. The second mistake is to think that everything the Pope says and does, and everything the bishops say and do has to be repeated or followed. This of course, is ridiculous. A speech or sermon given by the Pope is not ordinary teaching (Magisterium). It is simply a sermon given by the bishop of bishops.


Humani Generis

Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis made very clear what is to be understood under the term of ”binding” teaching of the Church. Precisely, Pope Pius XII taught that nobody should suppose that whatever is said or written in the encyclicals does not demand consent just simply because the Popes in writing encyclicals do not exercise their extraordinary teaching.

Those encyclicals are statements with the power of ordinary teaching of the Church. Ordinary does not mean vulgar or base, ordinary simply means “according to the rules.” And he quotes the Lord saying “He who hears you hears Me.” Pius XII further explains that, most of the time, what a Pope says in one of his encyclicals has been said before …either by a council, by a predecessor of the reigning Pope, or even by an encyclical of the same Pope.

So Pius XII underlines the fact that the teaching of the Church has to be obeyed even if it is not extraordinary teaching defining a dogma. It is sufficient to have a Papal Encyclical, it is sufficient to have a Papal Bull.


How About Contradictions?

Now, lets suppose that you find contradicting lines between two different encyclicals. Let’s say that Pope “A” says “yes” to something and Pope “B” says “no” to something. What do you do? Well in that case, you choose what has been said previously and choose what is consistent with the traditional teaching of the Church. You follow this course for the very simple reason that the Pope is the supreme person in the Church. He is not the supreme principle. The supreme principle of the Church is the truth, and the truth is laid down in the faith. The basis of the faith (as the Dogmatic Constitution of the First Vatican Council entitled Dei Filius says) is based on Revelation and Tradition. And those two cannot change, cannot be changed, and cannot be “updated” to the times.


Liturgy

The unchangeableness of Liturgy reflects this. Liturgy is a source of the faith in the sense that liturgy has to contain everything the Church believes. This is why I will quote from the Pope St. Pius V’s famous Bull Quo Primum, the first document you find in the old Missal. Pope Pius V declares that “this decree is valid from now on until forever”. Now this was said on July 14, 1570 and he says that this missal that he is publishing with Quo Primum must never be changed. It must never be changed by whomever. That means his successors too. This is not just the ordinary phrase used in every papal document saying “this has value from now on forever”. He specifies, that nobody, whoever it may be would ever be able to abolish this, his decree. Otherwise, he would have just utilized the usual formulations. But he says explicitly, this document can never be recalled or reduced by whomever. And that binds his successors who have indeed sworn the Coronation Oath to be found in the Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum which is one of the- oldest collections of Papal decrees – probably put together in the 9th Century with texts that contain centuries of tradition. And in this Coronation Oath, the Pope swears an oath and says that he will never change what he has inherited from his God-willed predecessors.


Intellect and Will

I mentioned the wolves in sheep’s clothing. How do they operate? How do they spread their error? To understand how easy it is to spread error, we just have to consider the following facts.

First of all, a complete collection of church teachings containing only important Papal decrees is so massive that it is something no human being can memorize. So we have one source of error, lack of memory.

Second, it would be absolutely naive to believe that every single member of the Church is a holy person and always speaks the truth. It is all too common with human beings to make their wishes father of their thoughts. And it is all too common for them to want to spread certain ideas simply because it suits their own purpose. This is the second source of errors and heresies.

You see the human soul has two faculties, the intellect and the will. So you can sin against the truth in your intellect and/or your will.

You can sin against the truth in your intellect by just simply forgetting some truth and saying something different. You can sin against the truth in your will by just simply not wanting to tell the truth. An example of this is to be found in some of the official heretics of our day (mind you there are thousands who are not official heretics but there are others, like Hans Kung, whose teachings have been formally declared heretical by the official Magisterium).

When you ask them what they think, they will give you a different answer every year. They don’t want to tell the truth or maybe they just have bad memories. Both are sources of confusion.


Pascendi

On September 8, 1907, St. Pius X published probably his most important encyclical, Pascendi. He talks about the teachings of the modernists. The name modernists has been given to them by St. Pius X himself. In 1907, the modernists where neither new nor original.

Basically, the characteristic of the modernist is not to be explicitly, clearly a heretic, but implicitly and subtly. The modernist will not necessarily tell you that he does not believe in the Immaculate Conception. He will tell you that the term “Immaculate Conception” has to be understood in a different way today than it would have to be understood in 1854 when the Dogma was pronounced by Pope Pius IX.

The modernists will not directly deny the Divinity of Christ. No. The modernists will tell you everything about Our Lord’s human nature, about Our Lord being a man, about Our Lord being the man, about Jesus of Nazareth being the man who saved the world, about Jesus of Nazareth being the man on whom everything is concentrated. He will not say, “Jesus was not God”, but he will not speak anymore about the fact that Jesus was and is God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity become man.


Calculated Unclarity

He will deliberately clothe the content of his speech in sheep’s clothing, in the clothes of “charity and understanding”, and in the clothes of being nice and wanting happiness. He will not speak about saving our souls. He will not mention the fact that everything Christianity is about is to save our souls for the greater glory of God. He will never speak about the greater glory of God. But he will constantly remind us that we have to be kind and nice. So he will do the negative by saying the positive.

It is like the famous American phrase, “think positive!” This is exactly what the modernists want us to do. Think positive, be kind, be charitable, be nice, be happy, smile. The modernists will repeat, until we can’t even stand it anymore, all the “niceties” of the faith, but will never mention the threat of eternal condemnation, the trouble that heresy will bring and the problem of sin.

St. Pius X says the modernist is deliberately ambiguous in his terminology. To make sure that you cannot hunt him down as a heretic, he will not pronounce his heresies as such, but will simply leave out the essentials.

But this is not all. There are two groups of modernists. See, to make things more confusing, you have to have two groups of modernists. You have to have the conservatives, so in case a liberal comes up you can point out a conservative modernist, and you have to have the progressive ones so in case a conservative comes up, you are able to point out a progressive modernist.

And believe it or not, all that I am saying here has been prophesied by St. Pius X in 1907, when he explains that the easiest way to understand the modernists is to reduce their evolution to the battle between two forces, the one that tends towards “progress” and the other one that tends away from “progress” by being conservative. If you’ll pardon a personal comment, this is why I don’t like to be called a conservative, because I do not believe I am a modernist, I am a traditionalist.

St. Pius X says that, the “conservative” influence is dominating in the Church because it is contained in tradition. Keep in mind, this is what the modernists believe, not what the Church, St. Pius X or I believe. The modernists contend that “the conserving force exists in the Church and is found in tradition; tradition is represented by religious authority”, and this is quite natural, because it is in the essence of authority to guard tradition. They also hold that authority is quite remote to real life, removed from reality. They say that authority resists the force that wants to move it towards progress. In essence, “conservative” modernists do not speak about an unchangeable truth. In their view, truth does not bind because it is unchangeable, but because it comes from authority.


Now this is nonsense

Authority on its own, never makes the truth, never changes the truth, and never can take anything away from the truth. Remember Our Lord said “I am the truth.” He is the truth, and His truth is contained in the Gospel and in Sacred Tradition… a Sacred Tradition that does not know “progress” as we have heard somewhere recently, but Sacred Tradition that has been concluded forever with the death of the last apostle. This is what Vatican I defines. So they say the conservatives are conservatives because they don’t understand anything about real life and because they have simply been endowed with a lot of authority and they want to defend their own authority.

Opposed to this, the “progressive” modernists hold that there is a force that tends towards progress, and this progress corresponds to the “innermost needs of the consciousness of the laity.” This is the literal translation of what St. Pius X says. He is speaking about the modernist desire to adapt truth and to adapt the teaching of the Church, to the “innermost needs of the consciousness of the laypeople.” In fact, you will find the term “consciousness,” substituting many truths of the Magisterium in our day.

The one who came up with the idea that everything is “consciousness” was a German philosopher, and this idea was later on adapted to medicine by the famous Sigmund Freud. Well, according to my knowledge, Sigmund Freud has never been granted Church authority, has never been made a member of the Church Hierarchy, and has never been quoted as Church teaching. However, you will frequently find his terminology in today’s sermons, pastoral letters and other documents.

Quite frankly, the “innermost needs of the consciousness of the laity” are not interesting to the Church or Christ. Our Lord Jesus Christ wants us to be saved, that means He wants us to make our innermost needs correspond to His teaching – that same teaching of which no single jot can ever be lost –  that same teaching of which He said “Heaven and earth shall pass away but My words would be for ever.” He wants this innermost need to correspond to His will. In fact, our innermost needs are to fulfill the will of Christ, to listen to His Mother at Fatima and not to listen to the modernists who want to destroy our souls.

So, “the  consciousness of the laity” is something the Church is simply, plainly not interested in. Because the consciousness of the laity is either some self-appointment to authority never granted or it is the conformation of the individuals will with the will of Christ. In other words, either we obey what Our Lord says or the Church has no interest in our consciousness.

St. Pius X further warned, “and in this, reverend brethren, We see this dangerous and destructive teaching which proclaims the laity as the seed of progress in the Church”.


Not a “Church of the Laity”

You see, this is the point. The Church by definition, by it’s own definition is essentially a priestly Church. And if I would want to bore you, I could give you some 50 quotations from Denzinger Schonmetzer on that point – quoting the popes and councils, especially the Council of Trent and Vatican Council I. The Church is not a church of lay people. The Church has been founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ whose power has been vested in His Vicar on earth. It is the Vicar of Christ who grants jurisdiction of this power to His most reverend Cardinals, bishops and priests. If there has ever been a vocation of the laity, this vocation comes from the priests and the bishops. The Church is governed by the Pope the Cardinals and the bishops, not by a democratic agreement of the laity. “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church.” Peter was not a layman. St. Peter was one of the first bishops and he was the first Pope. The fact that John Paul II, and before him all the other 263 popes were successors of St. Peter is a dogma of the faith. It is not an agreement of the faithful, or by the faithful.


On Papal Infallibility

On July 18, 1870, Pope Pius XI together with the Vatican Council I, pronounced the Dogma of Papal Infallibility. In this dogma however he made clear what this means.

First of all he says St. Peter was truly pope, St. Peter was truly the Vicar of Christ and St. Peter was definitely and truly not the last Vicar of Christ. He then explains that all the successors of St. Peter, all the popes throughout history have been the Vicars of Christ – the supreme teachers on earth, the supreme pastors and the supreme judges.

This is why, not so long ago, the Popes used to wear the tiara with the three crowns, for the three priestly offices.

Pius IX and Vatican Council I then say that St. Peter having been the supreme teacher – and his successors having been the supreme teachers – they therefore have the right and the power to come to a final decision binding their successors, and binding all the faithful on earth for ever._And in the 4th chapter of this decree of Vatican I, Pius IX defines and says who does not believe this does not belong to the Church.

However, he also defines that the Holy Spirit has not been given to St. Peter or his successors to define a new doctrine. It has been given to St. Peter and his successors so that they may guard tradition and explain tradition.

So Pius IX binds his successors too. He binds his successors to safeguard the tradition. By proclaiming this dogma of infallibility, Pius IX did not empower his successors to do what they want. On the contrary, the same Puis IX approved with his own signature a letter written by the German bishops in 1871 to Bismark and to some others who had trouble with this new dogma. Pius IX explained that this does not mean that the pope can do whatever he wants, but that the pope is the only one on earth who can solve a problem that has not yet been solved with absolute certainty and forever. He is the only one who can answer a theological question that has not yet been answered definitely and forever.

But the same document explains that this does not mean that the pope has the right to change the tradition or to proclaim something new. In fact, Puis IX is very strict with his successors. For example, he doesn’t say that if a bishop does not fulfill his duty, the pope may act. No, Pius IX says, in agreement with the German bishops that if a bishop does not fulfill his duty, the Pope has to act. Pope Pius IX says this twice in a document that bears his own signature.

I remind you again of the Coronation Oath where the pope says, ”We put under strict exclusion from the church anybody who wants to change tradition be it somebody else or We”. So you see the Papal duty to keep to tradition, the duty to explain the faith the way it has always been done. Pius IX also used the phrase eadem sententia eodem sensu (the same sentence in the same sense). That means, if somebody tries to explain to me that the dogma of the Trinity has to be understood in a different way at the Council of Nicea than it has to be understood today, I will say right in his face that he is not a Catholic.

The Dogma of Transubstantiation is the Dogma which says that at the moment of consecration at Mass the bread and wine are changed substantially into the Body and Blood of Our Lord. If somebody tries to tell us that this was something to be understood differently at the Council of Trent than it has to be understood today, then I’m sorry, whoever says this is a heretic.

And to show you how serious these things are I mention one point that I will developed later on.

In 1794, Pope Pius VI condemned the so-called Synod of Pistoia. This was a few dozen bishops assembling at Pistoia here in Italy, and pronouncing some new so-called “doctrines”. Eight years after this synod, Pope Pius VI, having examined every line that had been published, condemned several of those lines and condemned the whole Synod of Pistoia as such.

Pius VI explained that those who participated in this Synod knew the tricky art of betraying the faith the way the modernists do. He didn’t actually call them modernists, but “renewers”. Because they are afraid of hurting Catholic ears, they try to throw out their nets by covering their words and making them ambiguous. By this, they hide the error contained in their words so as to allow it to enter souls.

Pius VI then said that the purpose of a Synod is not to be ambiguous, but to avoid ambiguities and to clarify what is obscure, clear up any kind of confusion and to make sure the doctrine is explained explicitly.

The purpose of the Council of Trent was to do away with the error of the Protestants, not to create new ambiguities, not to create new errors.

In fact, until the 20th Century, there was never an ecumenical council that had been called for anything but defining doctrine – that means, turning ambiguous terms into certain terms. And only one of those ecumenical councils, the Council of Lyon, for historic reasons, did not manage to define Dogma, the others did. And the only reason they were called was to make sure that the doctrine of the Church was clear, understandable and corresponding to the wisdom of Our Lord.

And this is why I quote this. It is relevant to our times because the greatest source of confusion in our day is the ambiguities and errors of the Second Vatican Council of which I will treat in Part II.]]> Father Gregor Hesse: Against the ‘Popesplainers’
Part I

CFN [Emphasis mine] | October 30, 2024

Editor’s Note: The following is an edited transcript of a lecture given by Father Hesse at the Fatima 2000 Conference in Rome titled ‘Discernment of Spirits’, Nov. 18-24th. To our knowledge, this is the first time that the content of this presentation has been published on the internet. This conference in particular is especially relevant for our time, with Father Hesse identifying certain errors made by defenders of the post-conciliar revolution that are now quite common in polemical debate.

The title of my presentation is “The Discernment of Spirits”. It will treat of how to distinguish if some statement has been made by Our Lord or by the devil … if some statement bears the truth or is just a lie.

The only metaphysical certitude we can have (that is, absolute safety in knowing that we are presented with the truth) is, of course, in Revelation and Sacred Tradition. Everything else has to be examined in accordance with Divine Revelation and Sacred Tradition.

In his Spiritual Exercises, St. Ignatius points out that the devil first gives good thoughts, then more good thoughts and then he lets the bad thoughts creep in. The devil will tell you a lot of truths. He will continue for a long time to tell you the truth and then he will start to let the errors and the lies creep in.

About the discernment of spirits, the famous Jesuit theologian, Scaramelli, says that one of the best ways to find out if something corresponds to the truth or not is by checking it against the Church Magisterium (with the teaching of the Catholic Church). The same is said by Cardinal Bona, who wrote a book on the discernment of spirits. He said that whenever the devil talks, you have 90 percent truth and 10 percent lie. And it is the 10 percent lie that causes all the havoc, confusion and loss of souls.


Two Principles

How do we know if something is true or not?

There are two principles.

The first principle is that we have to check it against the teaching of the Church.

The second principle is contained in Our Lord’s words “a tree is recognized by its fruits”. You watch for awhile, see what is happening and then you will find out if the source of everything has been divine or evil. Don’t forget that Our Lord talked about the wolves in sheep’s clothing. And St. Thomas said, “The worst wolves in sheep’s clothing are the heretics and then, bad prelates.”

Why did he say the bad prelates? He was talking about the bishops who enable heretics to spread their lies. Because if a heretic is silenced by a bishop, then the heretic is finished (of course, we are talking about the old days when there was no mass communication). The problem was that all too often, the bishops did not silence the heretics. They just listened or they didn’t care.

St. Thomas, who noted that the divine truth never changes, and who also noted that Our Lord warned “Fear ye not them that kill the body … but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell,” concluded that capital punishment for heretics could be justified, because it is our souls that are at stake here, and not our bodies.

I do not fear a murderer, I fear a subtle, intelligent heretic.


Two Mistakes

I said that one of the best ways to find out if some statement is coming from the devil or from God is to compare it with the teaching of the Church.

Now, what exactly do the words “teaching of the Church” mean? What has to be understood by the term “Magisterium of the Church”? There are two basic errors in understanding this.

The first mistake is to believe that only a defined Dogma is binding in the faith. The second mistake is to think that everything the Pope says and does, and everything the bishops say and do has to be repeated or followed. This of course, is ridiculous. A speech or sermon given by the Pope is not ordinary teaching (Magisterium). It is simply a sermon given by the bishop of bishops.


Humani Generis

Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis made very clear what is to be understood under the term of ”binding” teaching of the Church. Precisely, Pope Pius XII taught that nobody should suppose that whatever is said or written in the encyclicals does not demand consent just simply because the Popes in writing encyclicals do not exercise their extraordinary teaching.

Those encyclicals are statements with the power of ordinary teaching of the Church. Ordinary does not mean vulgar or base, ordinary simply means “according to the rules.” And he quotes the Lord saying “He who hears you hears Me.” Pius XII further explains that, most of the time, what a Pope says in one of his encyclicals has been said before …either by a council, by a predecessor of the reigning Pope, or even by an encyclical of the same Pope.

So Pius XII underlines the fact that the teaching of the Church has to be obeyed even if it is not extraordinary teaching defining a dogma. It is sufficient to have a Papal Encyclical, it is sufficient to have a Papal Bull.


How About Contradictions?

Now, lets suppose that you find contradicting lines between two different encyclicals. Let’s say that Pope “A” says “yes” to something and Pope “B” says “no” to something. What do you do? Well in that case, you choose what has been said previously and choose what is consistent with the traditional teaching of the Church. You follow this course for the very simple reason that the Pope is the supreme person in the Church. He is not the supreme principle. The supreme principle of the Church is the truth, and the truth is laid down in the faith. The basis of the faith (as the Dogmatic Constitution of the First Vatican Council entitled Dei Filius says) is based on Revelation and Tradition. And those two cannot change, cannot be changed, and cannot be “updated” to the times.


Liturgy

The unchangeableness of Liturgy reflects this. Liturgy is a source of the faith in the sense that liturgy has to contain everything the Church believes. This is why I will quote from the Pope St. Pius V’s famous Bull Quo Primum, the first document you find in the old Missal. Pope Pius V declares that “this decree is valid from now on until forever”. Now this was said on July 14, 1570 and he says that this missal that he is publishing with Quo Primum must never be changed. It must never be changed by whomever. That means his successors too. This is not just the ordinary phrase used in every papal document saying “this has value from now on forever”. He specifies, that nobody, whoever it may be would ever be able to abolish this, his decree. Otherwise, he would have just utilized the usual formulations. But he says explicitly, this document can never be recalled or reduced by whomever. And that binds his successors who have indeed sworn the Coronation Oath to be found in the Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum which is one of the- oldest collections of Papal decrees – probably put together in the 9th Century with texts that contain centuries of tradition. And in this Coronation Oath, the Pope swears an oath and says that he will never change what he has inherited from his God-willed predecessors.


Intellect and Will

I mentioned the wolves in sheep’s clothing. How do they operate? How do they spread their error? To understand how easy it is to spread error, we just have to consider the following facts.

First of all, a complete collection of church teachings containing only important Papal decrees is so massive that it is something no human being can memorize. So we have one source of error, lack of memory.

Second, it would be absolutely naive to believe that every single member of the Church is a holy person and always speaks the truth. It is all too common with human beings to make their wishes father of their thoughts. And it is all too common for them to want to spread certain ideas simply because it suits their own purpose. This is the second source of errors and heresies.

You see the human soul has two faculties, the intellect and the will. So you can sin against the truth in your intellect and/or your will.

You can sin against the truth in your intellect by just simply forgetting some truth and saying something different. You can sin against the truth in your will by just simply not wanting to tell the truth. An example of this is to be found in some of the official heretics of our day (mind you there are thousands who are not official heretics but there are others, like Hans Kung, whose teachings have been formally declared heretical by the official Magisterium).

When you ask them what they think, they will give you a different answer every year. They don’t want to tell the truth or maybe they just have bad memories. Both are sources of confusion.


Pascendi

On September 8, 1907, St. Pius X published probably his most important encyclical, Pascendi. He talks about the teachings of the modernists. The name modernists has been given to them by St. Pius X himself. In 1907, the modernists where neither new nor original.

Basically, the characteristic of the modernist is not to be explicitly, clearly a heretic, but implicitly and subtly. The modernist will not necessarily tell you that he does not believe in the Immaculate Conception. He will tell you that the term “Immaculate Conception” has to be understood in a different way today than it would have to be understood in 1854 when the Dogma was pronounced by Pope Pius IX.

The modernists will not directly deny the Divinity of Christ. No. The modernists will tell you everything about Our Lord’s human nature, about Our Lord being a man, about Our Lord being the man, about Jesus of Nazareth being the man who saved the world, about Jesus of Nazareth being the man on whom everything is concentrated. He will not say, “Jesus was not God”, but he will not speak anymore about the fact that Jesus was and is God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity become man.


Calculated Unclarity

He will deliberately clothe the content of his speech in sheep’s clothing, in the clothes of “charity and understanding”, and in the clothes of being nice and wanting happiness. He will not speak about saving our souls. He will not mention the fact that everything Christianity is about is to save our souls for the greater glory of God. He will never speak about the greater glory of God. But he will constantly remind us that we have to be kind and nice. So he will do the negative by saying the positive.

It is like the famous American phrase, “think positive!” This is exactly what the modernists want us to do. Think positive, be kind, be charitable, be nice, be happy, smile. The modernists will repeat, until we can’t even stand it anymore, all the “niceties” of the faith, but will never mention the threat of eternal condemnation, the trouble that heresy will bring and the problem of sin.

St. Pius X says the modernist is deliberately ambiguous in his terminology. To make sure that you cannot hunt him down as a heretic, he will not pronounce his heresies as such, but will simply leave out the essentials.

But this is not all. There are two groups of modernists. See, to make things more confusing, you have to have two groups of modernists. You have to have the conservatives, so in case a liberal comes up you can point out a conservative modernist, and you have to have the progressive ones so in case a conservative comes up, you are able to point out a progressive modernist.

And believe it or not, all that I am saying here has been prophesied by St. Pius X in 1907, when he explains that the easiest way to understand the modernists is to reduce their evolution to the battle between two forces, the one that tends towards “progress” and the other one that tends away from “progress” by being conservative. If you’ll pardon a personal comment, this is why I don’t like to be called a conservative, because I do not believe I am a modernist, I am a traditionalist.

St. Pius X says that, the “conservative” influence is dominating in the Church because it is contained in tradition. Keep in mind, this is what the modernists believe, not what the Church, St. Pius X or I believe. The modernists contend that “the conserving force exists in the Church and is found in tradition; tradition is represented by religious authority”, and this is quite natural, because it is in the essence of authority to guard tradition. They also hold that authority is quite remote to real life, removed from reality. They say that authority resists the force that wants to move it towards progress. In essence, “conservative” modernists do not speak about an unchangeable truth. In their view, truth does not bind because it is unchangeable, but because it comes from authority.


Now this is nonsense

Authority on its own, never makes the truth, never changes the truth, and never can take anything away from the truth. Remember Our Lord said “I am the truth.” He is the truth, and His truth is contained in the Gospel and in Sacred Tradition… a Sacred Tradition that does not know “progress” as we have heard somewhere recently, but Sacred Tradition that has been concluded forever with the death of the last apostle. This is what Vatican I defines. So they say the conservatives are conservatives because they don’t understand anything about real life and because they have simply been endowed with a lot of authority and they want to defend their own authority.

Opposed to this, the “progressive” modernists hold that there is a force that tends towards progress, and this progress corresponds to the “innermost needs of the consciousness of the laity.” This is the literal translation of what St. Pius X says. He is speaking about the modernist desire to adapt truth and to adapt the teaching of the Church, to the “innermost needs of the consciousness of the laypeople.” In fact, you will find the term “consciousness,” substituting many truths of the Magisterium in our day.

The one who came up with the idea that everything is “consciousness” was a German philosopher, and this idea was later on adapted to medicine by the famous Sigmund Freud. Well, according to my knowledge, Sigmund Freud has never been granted Church authority, has never been made a member of the Church Hierarchy, and has never been quoted as Church teaching. However, you will frequently find his terminology in today’s sermons, pastoral letters and other documents.

Quite frankly, the “innermost needs of the consciousness of the laity” are not interesting to the Church or Christ. Our Lord Jesus Christ wants us to be saved, that means He wants us to make our innermost needs correspond to His teaching – that same teaching of which no single jot can ever be lost –  that same teaching of which He said “Heaven and earth shall pass away but My words would be for ever.” He wants this innermost need to correspond to His will. In fact, our innermost needs are to fulfill the will of Christ, to listen to His Mother at Fatima and not to listen to the modernists who want to destroy our souls.

So, “the  consciousness of the laity” is something the Church is simply, plainly not interested in. Because the consciousness of the laity is either some self-appointment to authority never granted or it is the conformation of the individuals will with the will of Christ. In other words, either we obey what Our Lord says or the Church has no interest in our consciousness.

St. Pius X further warned, “and in this, reverend brethren, We see this dangerous and destructive teaching which proclaims the laity as the seed of progress in the Church”.


Not a “Church of the Laity”

You see, this is the point. The Church by definition, by it’s own definition is essentially a priestly Church. And if I would want to bore you, I could give you some 50 quotations from Denzinger Schonmetzer on that point – quoting the popes and councils, especially the Council of Trent and Vatican Council I. The Church is not a church of lay people. The Church has been founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ whose power has been vested in His Vicar on earth. It is the Vicar of Christ who grants jurisdiction of this power to His most reverend Cardinals, bishops and priests. If there has ever been a vocation of the laity, this vocation comes from the priests and the bishops. The Church is governed by the Pope the Cardinals and the bishops, not by a democratic agreement of the laity. “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church.” Peter was not a layman. St. Peter was one of the first bishops and he was the first Pope. The fact that John Paul II, and before him all the other 263 popes were successors of St. Peter is a dogma of the faith. It is not an agreement of the faithful, or by the faithful.


On Papal Infallibility

On July 18, 1870, Pope Pius XI together with the Vatican Council I, pronounced the Dogma of Papal Infallibility. In this dogma however he made clear what this means.

First of all he says St. Peter was truly pope, St. Peter was truly the Vicar of Christ and St. Peter was definitely and truly not the last Vicar of Christ. He then explains that all the successors of St. Peter, all the popes throughout history have been the Vicars of Christ – the supreme teachers on earth, the supreme pastors and the supreme judges.

This is why, not so long ago, the Popes used to wear the tiara with the three crowns, for the three priestly offices.

Pius IX and Vatican Council I then say that St. Peter having been the supreme teacher – and his successors having been the supreme teachers – they therefore have the right and the power to come to a final decision binding their successors, and binding all the faithful on earth for ever._And in the 4th chapter of this decree of Vatican I, Pius IX defines and says who does not believe this does not belong to the Church.

However, he also defines that the Holy Spirit has not been given to St. Peter or his successors to define a new doctrine. It has been given to St. Peter and his successors so that they may guard tradition and explain tradition.

So Pius IX binds his successors too. He binds his successors to safeguard the tradition. By proclaiming this dogma of infallibility, Pius IX did not empower his successors to do what they want. On the contrary, the same Puis IX approved with his own signature a letter written by the German bishops in 1871 to Bismark and to some others who had trouble with this new dogma. Pius IX explained that this does not mean that the pope can do whatever he wants, but that the pope is the only one on earth who can solve a problem that has not yet been solved with absolute certainty and forever. He is the only one who can answer a theological question that has not yet been answered definitely and forever.

But the same document explains that this does not mean that the pope has the right to change the tradition or to proclaim something new. In fact, Puis IX is very strict with his successors. For example, he doesn’t say that if a bishop does not fulfill his duty, the pope may act. No, Pius IX says, in agreement with the German bishops that if a bishop does not fulfill his duty, the Pope has to act. Pope Pius IX says this twice in a document that bears his own signature.

I remind you again of the Coronation Oath where the pope says, ”We put under strict exclusion from the church anybody who wants to change tradition be it somebody else or We”. So you see the Papal duty to keep to tradition, the duty to explain the faith the way it has always been done. Pius IX also used the phrase eadem sententia eodem sensu (the same sentence in the same sense). That means, if somebody tries to explain to me that the dogma of the Trinity has to be understood in a different way at the Council of Nicea than it has to be understood today, I will say right in his face that he is not a Catholic.

The Dogma of Transubstantiation is the Dogma which says that at the moment of consecration at Mass the bread and wine are changed substantially into the Body and Blood of Our Lord. If somebody tries to tell us that this was something to be understood differently at the Council of Trent than it has to be understood today, then I’m sorry, whoever says this is a heretic.

And to show you how serious these things are I mention one point that I will developed later on.

In 1794, Pope Pius VI condemned the so-called Synod of Pistoia. This was a few dozen bishops assembling at Pistoia here in Italy, and pronouncing some new so-called “doctrines”. Eight years after this synod, Pope Pius VI, having examined every line that had been published, condemned several of those lines and condemned the whole Synod of Pistoia as such.

Pius VI explained that those who participated in this Synod knew the tricky art of betraying the faith the way the modernists do. He didn’t actually call them modernists, but “renewers”. Because they are afraid of hurting Catholic ears, they try to throw out their nets by covering their words and making them ambiguous. By this, they hide the error contained in their words so as to allow it to enter souls.

Pius VI then said that the purpose of a Synod is not to be ambiguous, but to avoid ambiguities and to clarify what is obscure, clear up any kind of confusion and to make sure the doctrine is explained explicitly.

The purpose of the Council of Trent was to do away with the error of the Protestants, not to create new ambiguities, not to create new errors.

In fact, until the 20th Century, there was never an ecumenical council that had been called for anything but defining doctrine – that means, turning ambiguous terms into certain terms. And only one of those ecumenical councils, the Council of Lyon, for historic reasons, did not manage to define Dogma, the others did. And the only reason they were called was to make sure that the doctrine of the Church was clear, understandable and corresponding to the wisdom of Our Lord.

And this is why I quote this. It is relevant to our times because the greatest source of confusion in our day is the ambiguities and errors of the Second Vatican Council of which I will treat in Part II.]]> <![CDATA[Fr. Luigi Villa: There is a Hell]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6588 Sun, 03 Nov 2024 10:04:03 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6588 There is A Hell by Fr. Luigi Villa]]> There is A Hell by Fr. Luigi Villa]]> <![CDATA[The Catholic World of Father Denis Fahey]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6282 Mon, 08 Jul 2024 11:19:17 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6282 The Catholic World of Father Denis Fahey

Catholicism.org [emphasis mine] |  February 21, 2006 

Sometimes it is not enough for a man to die. A mediocre man, even a good one, is soon forgotten. But if he was a great man and he had a profound influence for good, his enemies will use every opportunity to desecrate his grave and distort his legacy long after he is gone.

Fr. Denis Fahey was such a great man. Although he died in 1954, his works have become more significant with each passing year. As the world plunges further and further into a satanic darkness, and the saving light of the infallible magisterium of the Church is obscured by the soft apostasy of so many of today’s unworthy shepherds, reasonable people are looking for answers that explain a debacle of near universal proportions. Fr. Fahey provides those answers — solid Catholic ones that faithfully echo the social teachings of the Church through the ages. Because of his faithfulness, Modernists and other heretics, as well as the doubtful and weak in faith, continue to question, discredit, and attack this holy priest.

For example, a Catholic radio station recently aired an interview with author Sandra Meisel, during which she vented her spleen at Fr. Fahey, calling him an anti-Semite and denouncing him for daring to assert that the Jews and the Masons are opposed to the Catholic Church. The interviewer expressed his admiration for her opinions and his complete concurrence with what she said.

Coincidentally, a friend of mine telephoned Catholic Answers’ (Karl Keating’s organization) “staff apologist’s line” with a question about Freemasonry. He had seen no mention of the Masons in the new Catholic catechism. He simply wanted to know more about the Masons and what the Catholic Church taught concerning them. The staff apologist referred him to an article by science fiction writer, Sandra Meisel, that had appeared in the December 2002 edition of Deal Hudson’s Crisis magazine, entitled “Swinging at Windmills — A Close Look at Catholic Conspiracy Theories.” The apologist told my friend that it was an excellent article and contained everything he would need to know about the topic. My friend was very disturbed by what he found therein and asked me if I would read it. I have studied the article and found that it is filled with calumnies, personal attacks, confusion, and misstatements. In short, it’s a real “hatchet job” in the same vein as the interview the author provided on the radio.

With one exception that will be mentioned later, we will not dwell further on Sandra Meisel. She is cited only to demonstrate that Fr. Fahey continues to be attacked, misquoted, and discredited. Although he died fifty years ago, Fr. Fahey’s influence is, indeed, very current.


The Foundation of Fr. Fahey’s Life Work

Fr. Fahey was born in Ireland in 1883. At seventeen, he entered the Holy Ghost Fathers at Grignon-Orly, located near Paris in France. He made his profession in 1907. Further educated at the Gregorian University in Rome, he was ordained in 1910, taking his Ph.D. in Philosophy from the Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas. In 1912 he received his Ph.D. in Theology from the Gregorian University. That year he returned to Ireland and was appointed Director of Scholastics and Professor of Philosophy at the Irish Province of the Holy Ghost Congregation in Dublin. He served as chaplain at an internment camp in Switzerland towards the end of World War I. Otherwise, his residence remained in Ireland until his death in 1954. He spoke German, French, and Italian. A prolific writer, he authored several books that focused extensively on the defense of and richer cultivation of the Kingship of Christ in his Catholic homeland.

During his studies in Rome, Fr. Fahey learned how the Mystical Body of Christ transformed the pagan society of the Roman Empire and prepared it for the “upward movement of recognition for the programme of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Priest and King.” He also learned that the revolutions of the modern world, in the words of Pope Leo XIII, “were but one phase of the development of a pre-arranged plan, which is being carried out over an ever-widening area to multiply the ruins of which we have previously spoken.” Fr. Fahey came to understand “that all the revolutions were bringing about the elimination of the rule of Christ the King in view of ultimately eliminating the Mass and the supernatural life of Christ, the Supreme High Priest.” These two major streams of thought — the recognition of the Kingship of Christ and the unmasking of the forces opposed to His Kingdom — furnished the “two guiding lights of theological and historical studies which I have pursued ever since.” He spent the rest of his writing and teaching career working out the theoretical and practical implications of these two great notions. In particular, he attempted to expound and build upon the social teachings of the modern popes — Bl. Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X and Pius XI.

[Image: Father_Denis_Fahey_at_CSSp_Seminary_at_K...a_1950.jpg]

Father Denis Fahey at the C.S.Sp. Seminary at Kimmage, circa 1950.

These “two guiding lights” may be restated as follows: First, recognizing and promoting the Kingship of Christ is absolutely necessary for earthly happiness as well as the salvation of every human being. The Reign of Christ the King is the only source of hope for the world, both materially and spiritually. It is the only means for building and preserving civilization. Second, any person, group, organization, or social movement that opposes Christ’s Reign is a witting or unwitting tool of demonic powers. Needless to say, in a world that is swimming in heresy, Naturalism, Modernism, Marxism, Socialism, and every other imaginable error, such a teaching causes a great deal of discomfort. Fr. Fahey had an excellent education, a powerful intellect, and remained faithful to the Magisterium of the Church. Because he was also a clear, powerful teacher and writer, he was the enemy of the Modernists and revolutionaries of his day and is hated by those who have come along ever since.


The Seven Principles of Fr. Fahey’s Teachings

Illuminated by these two great beacons, Fr. Fahey’s teaching consists of seven basic principles. Because they represent the true Catholic teaching on these matters, they can be somewhat jarring to us, who live in a country that is steeped in subjectivism 1, liberalism 2, and indifferentism 3. Drawing mainly on the writings of modern popes (his works are filled with countless quotes and citations), he lays out Christ the King’s program of order for the world. He contrasts this with Satan’s program for disorder. What follows is a very condensed description of the seven basic principles given by Fr. Fahey.

First, “Our Lord’s Mystical Body, the Catholic Church, Supernatural and Supranational, which all states and nations are called upon to acknowledge, has been established by God as the One Way for the ordered return of human beings to Him. Into it all men of all nations are called to enter as His members.”

In contrast, the devil wants the state to put all religions on the same level. This is the first step toward inducing the secular government to persecute the Catholic Church, which, by divine ordinance, can never compromise her singular authority. Providing equal rights to truth and error spreads disorder. As a result, truth becomes confused with error. Satan uses every means and whatever vehicle he can to promote the principles of the French Revolution — “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.”

Second, Our Lord’s plan calls for states and nations to acknowledge the “Indirect Power” of the Catholic Church in civil affairs — the right of the pope and bishops to decide what helps or hinders our life as members of Christ. The Church is the sole divinely appointed guardian of the whole moral order — natural and revealed.

Whereas, “Satan aims at getting States and Nations to treat with contempt the Indirect Power of the Catholic Church and at setting up the State or the Race as the authority to decide all moral questions.”

Satan’s plan calls for the State to legislate for the Church in every way, including all jurisprudence. With this in mind, it should be quite evident how the current American clergy scandal fits into Satan’s plan. Because the American bishops have been unwilling to control the priests and “protect innocent children,” the State has been “forced” to take over the role of overseeing the morals of the Catholic clergy in this country. Many good but misguided people have supported the current attempt of the State to take control of the bishops in America in the mistaken belief that this will protect innocent children from further harm by wayward members of the clergy.

Satan also lures men into talk of restoring order in the world without the help of Christ and His Church. In the popular press, this grievous error is referred to as the “separation of Church and State.” Mainly through the efforts of the secret societies and their agents in the press, the electronic media and the cinema, Satan promotes the lie that the Church opposes political independence and self-government. A naturalistic, supranational organization, such as the United Nations, is promoted as a substitute for unification under the Kingship of Christ.

Third, “the Unity and Indissolubility of Christian marriage symbolize the union of Christ and His Mystical Body. This is the foundation of the Christian Family. Our Lord wants members to cultivate purity and honor virginity under the guidance of His Immaculate Mother.” He wants men to know, love, and serve Him in this world, so that they may be happy with Him in the next. Parents are obliged by God to propagate and fill the earth with Catholic saints.

“Satan aims at undermining Christian family life, directly by the introduction of divorce and indirectly by the propagation of immorality… Satan hates the pure, especially the Immaculate Queen of Heaven.” Conjugal infidelity, birth prevention, and all base vices are promoted. Immodest fashions are introduced and encouraged. (Fr. Fahey did not mention sodomy and abortion by name because Western Civilization had not yet fallen as low as it now has. During his lifetime, these were crimes that were considered too vile even to mention in public.) Movies, plays, and all forms of entertainment are used for this diabolical and disordered purpose.

Fourth, “Our Lord wants children educated as Members of His Mystical Body, so that they may be able to look at everything, nationality included, from that standpoint, and observe the order following therefrom in relation to God, themselves and others. Thus is true personality developed.” All education, in every branch, must be regulated in the Christian spirit, under the direction of the Church.

Whereas, writes Fr. Fahey, “Satan aims at impeding or, if possible, preventing altogether the education of young people of both sexes as Members of Christ,” not only schools, but cinema, television, and all possible news sources are used to subvert the morals of the youth. Women are especially targeted for corruption.

Fifth, “the Divine Plan for order calls for wide diffusion of ownership of property, in order to facilitate families in procuring the sufficiency of material goods required for the virtuous life of their members as human persons, and for Unions of owners and workers in Guilds or Corporations, reflecting the solidarity of the Mystical Body in economic organization.” As many people as possible should be induced to become land owners.

“Satan aims at the concentration of property in the hands of a few, either nominally in those of the State, or in those of the money manipulators. He knows that, given fallen human nature, this will lead to the subordination of men to production of material goods and to the treatment of all those not in power as mere individuals , not as persons. For this, he favored Liberalism or Individualism and now favors the reaction against Individualism — Collectivism and Communism.” Several generations ago, unbridled Capitalism served to concentrate wealth into the hands of fewer people. Now, zealous promoters of Collectivism, Socialism and Communism insinuate themselves into all organizations, including the Church and its religious orders and other institutions. The purpose of it all is to destroy religious sentiment in everyone, particularly the youth.

Sixth, “the Divine Plan for order calls for a monetary system so arranged as to facilitate the production and exchange of material goods in view of the virtuous life of Members of Christ in happy families.” Strong, holy families are to be supported and promoted. Laws and social conditions should favor the family unit. “. . . The art of money manipulation in the hierarchy of the arts is inferior to the industrial arts which cater for [sic] man’s secondary needs and to agriculture which produces man’s primary needs, all those arts are meant to be at the service of Members of Christ in happy families.” The art of agriculture is to be considered as the ideal labor for supporting family life.

On the contrary: “Satan aims at a monetary system, by which human persons will be subordinated to the production of material goods, and the production, distribution and exchange of material goods will be subordinated to the making of money and the growth of power in the hands of the financiers. He is pleased that money is employed as an instrument for the elimination of the Divine Plan and for the installation of Naturalism.” Money and real wealth are separated. The desire for money, which is merely a medium of exchange, is unlimited, whereas the desire for property, and material goods needed to foster strong family life, is limited by nature. The money manipulators want money to change hands at an ever-greater frequency, in order to increase their amount of it. As a result, a culture of “consumerism” is fostered and the pace of society constantly intensifies to satisfy this purpose. Usury 5 is encouraged and debt is promoted as a means of accumulating consumer goods. The moral order is weakened in order to undermine prosperity and temporal happiness. Satan hates the human race and, therefore, he widens the road that aids the advance of the culture of death. Through readily available contraceptives he encourages fornication and, having enthroned health and luxury as the most desirable good, he cushions the illusionary deception among married couples that having fewer children brings more material prosperity, and consequently, peace and happiness. “A murderer from the beginning,” Satan delights in the current culture of abortion and euthanasia. (Fr. Fahey would not even have entertained a notion as perverse as sodomite “marriages”.)

Seventh, “Our Lord Jesus Christ wants all His Members to grasp the Programme for Order laid down by His Father and unite with Himself in the central act of submission to the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Mass. In this sacrifice, the re-presentation of Calvary, all Catholics profess their willingness to respect God’s Rights and their readiness to strive, as a united body, to mould society in accordance with Our Lord’s Programme for Order.” The Catholic Order “cannot penetrate into a soul without making it better, so it cannot enter into the public life of a people without establishing order….”

“Satan wants to confuse and bewilder human beings, so that they may give up the idea that there is an order laid down by God, which they are bound to find out, if they do not know it already, and to observe. On account of his relentless hatred of the Supernatural Life, he detests above all the central act of submission to the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. He strives to eliminate it wherever he can, and, where he cannot do so, he endeavors to have it treated as a mere formality not intended to influence life. He tries to get the young and inexperienced to accept that they are on the road to happiness, when they neglect the Mass and its significance for life, cast off moral restraint and reject the claims of duty.”

Fr. Fahey quotes the great Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, “He [Satan] considers that he has made a notable advance towards his goal when he has succeeded in having other religions placed on the same level as the True Church of Christ. He is well aware of the anti-supernatural influence of that official attitude on the average members of society . He knows well that, when error has become incarnate in legal formulae and in administrative practice, it penetrates so deeply into people’s minds that it is impossible to eradicate it.”

Upon these seven basic principles of a properly ordered Catholic culture are based all of the social teachings of Fr. Fahey. His development of them gives us one of the most comprehensive and accurate expositions of solid Catholic social teaching. Even with such a brief listing, our observation of the events of recent history confirms the truth of his teachings and the accuracy of his predictions. When reflecting on his own work, Fr. Fahey said, “Whatever is in harmony with the Divine Programme for Order will make for real progress; whatever is opposed to it spells decay and death. Thus I try to train them [his students] to make Our Lord the center of their lives in every department.”


Fr. Fahey and Organized Naturalism

Fr. Fahey defines “Naturalism” as follows: “Naturalism consists in the negation of the possibility of the elevation of our nature to the Supernatural Life and order, or more radically still, in the negation of the very existence of that Life and order. In our day, owing to the progress of the anti-Christian revolt, the more radical meaning has become common. Naturalism may be defined, therefore, as the attitude of mind which denies the reality of the Divine Life of Grace and of our Fall therefrom by Original Sin. It rejects our consequent liability to revolt against the order of the Divine Life, when this Life has been restored to us by our Membership of [in] Christ, and maintains that all social life should be organized on the basis of that denial.”

Any system of thought or organization that rejects the divine plan and tries to substitute anything other than His plan would be called naturalistic. It is based on the denial of divine revelation. Groups that hold this view are “Organized Naturalists.” Simply, they are groups of men who work to establish an order that leaves out the essential element — God and His divine Order — the Kingship of Christ. “Naturalism means complete sterility in regard to salvation and eternal life.” The devil is considered the first naturalist. He rejected the divine plan for salvation and substituted his own with his defiant cry, “I will not serve!” Satan’s aim has never changed. He wants to subvert the divine plan and recruit as many men as possible into his disordered cadre — for his malicious delight and their eternal damnation.

Fr. Fahey goes through great pains to expose the various systems that espouse Naturalism. While in Rome, he learned that an individual’s errors do not have as much of an impact on the Kingship of Christ as the various systems of organized Naturalism. But organizations involve groups of men who can work together — and often consciously and maliciously do — to undermine quietly or revolt openly against Christ’s Kingdom. Individuals come and go but organizations last for generations. “There is unorganized opposition to the Supernatural Life in each one of us, owing to the Fall. This unorganized opposition of individuals inevitably leads to the formation of little anti-supernatural groups here and there, even without the concerted action of vast organized forces. But the fact that there exists concerted anti-supernatural action on the part of organized bodies is so far removed from the preoccupations of the average Catholic that it needs to be specially stressed and its aims made clear.” As he explains elsewhere, “Though the knowledge of the aims and methods of those organized forces, on which the popes so strongly insist, does not suffice to explain everything in contemporary history; yet without that knowledge contemporary history is a puzzle, and the fathers will not be able to battle for the rights of Christ the King as they should.”

Fr. Fahey singles out the three main forces of organized Naturalism in today’s world. One is invisible; the other two are visible. “The invisible host is that of Satan and the other fallen angels, while the visible forces are those of the Jewish Nation and Freemasonry. The Jewish Nation is not only a visible organization, but its naturalistic or anti-supernatural character is openly proclaimed, by its refusal to accept the Supernatural Messias and by its looking forward to a naturalistic messianic era.”

It does not take too much effort to uncover the obvious flaw of Freemasonry — the reason it merits special attention by Fr. Fahey. By Masonry’s open refusal to recognize the primacy of the Catholic Faith and by its secret rituals in which initiates take formal vows to oppose the papacy, Masonry declares itself the organized enemy of the Kingship of Christ. Leaving aside the secret anti-Catholic oaths and the satanism involved in the highest levels of Masonry, “indifferentism” is the official creed of the Freemasons — one religion is as good as another — a man may believe whatever he wants as long as he is a “good” man. Ultimately, Masonry replaces God with the pantheistic deification of man. Once a conspiratorial organization indulges its members in this kind of Luciferian sin, an infinite variety of errors, perversions, and revolutions have the potential to germinate. As history demonstrates, these evil fruits have been propagated by Masonic societies ever since their formal organization in 1717.

Fr. Fahey’s description of the beliefs and activities of the Jews and Freemasons are particularly troublesome for modern Americans. Most of us have been trained to accept the following notions as self-evidently true and/or worthy goods: “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” “Freedom of Religion,” the “Separation of Church and State,” that all political power comes from the people, that usury is a perfectly legitimate means of getting rich, and that the Jews are the most persecuted people in history, always the victim in any conflict, while organized Jewry never works to undermine the gospel of Jesus Christ. The vast majority of Catholic Americans has no idea that these notions are evil, fallacious and, therefore, anti-Catholic. Nor are they remotely aware that these subversive errors have been calculatedly foisted on them by those two above-mentioned groups of organized naturalists and their willing agents and sympathizers. The first time they encounter Fr. Fahey’s challenge of these closely held misconceptions, many people dismiss him as rabidly radical or, at best, seriously misguided. Those who are willing to take the time and make the effort to research carefully the Church’s traditional teachings on these matters eventually come to accept the veracity of Fr. Fahey’s exposition.

“Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” was the cry of the Freemasons who were responsible for the French Revolution and the subsequent bloodbath called “The Terror.” Liberty is defined as license. True equality as children of God was deformed and became egalitarianism (the erasing of all distinctions between individuals). Fraternity was substituted for the virtue of charity in members of the Mystical Body of Christ. As we have already noted, “Freedom of Religion,” (also known as “indifferentism”) is a main tenet of the Masons — one of the errors they promote openly. “Separation of Church and State” is one of the most diabolic of the maxims of Freemasonry, one that is continually conjured forth by the secularists in their effort to eliminate the Church’s God-given influence over the laws and actions of civil government. The belief, promulgated by the revolutionary protagonist Jean Jacques Rousseau, that political power arises from the people, rather than descending to human authority from God, was the inversion of true order. This French Freemason, and the cynic Voltaire, were two of “power to the people’s” most famous propagandists.

Usury, defined previously as the charging of excessive interest on loans, particularly loans to individuals and families for purchasing the necessities of life, forms the basis of modern America’s national economy. Money is sought for money’s sake. Real ownership of property is nearly impossible. (As economist Douglas Casey recently stated, “If you think you own your home, try not paying the taxes on it.”) Families have been lured by promises of prosperity to abandon the agricultural life, or even the dream thereof. None of this happened by accident. The Church, in its wisdom, warned us of these dangers for many generations. We are now witnessing the diabolical fruits of these errors. National and personal debt now exceed anything in recorded history.

Fr. Fahey takes a great deal of care to describe accurately the perennial efforts of the Jews to undermine Christian society and substitute the Zionist Messianic State in the place of the Kingship of Christ. Using the writings of the popes and councils of the Church, he carefully and clearly lays out the teachings of the Church in regard to the treatment of the Jews and their conversion to the Faith. “On the one hand, the Sovereign Pontiffs strive to protect the Jews from physical violence and to secure respect for their family life and their worship, as the life and worship of human persons. On the other hand, they aim unceasingly at protecting Christians from the contamination of Jewish Naturalism and try to prevent Jews from obtaining control over Christians.” The chief duty of the Church towards the Jews is to work for their conversion to the Catholic Church and their acceptance of Christ’s Kingship on earth. “We must never forget that [Jesus and the Virgin Mary were Jews and that Jesus’ Individuality came from the Jews] or allow ourselves to fall victims to an attitude of hatred for Jews as a nation. We must always bear in mind that He is seeking to draw them on to that supernatural union with Himself which they reject.”

In one rather ironic twist, Sandra Meisel, in the previously mentioned article in Crisis magazine, accuses Fr. Fahey of being an anti-Semite. She quotes the definition of “anti-Semitism” as given by the Jewish historian Leonard Dinnerstein: “hostile expressions toward or negative behavior against individuals or groups because of their Jewish faith or heritage.” After Fr. Fahey correctly defines anti-Semitism as a hatred of or unjust treatment of the Jews because of their race or religion, he goes on to explain what the Jews mean by the term. “Anti-Semitism is the word used by the Jews to designate any form of opposition to themselves, and they strive persistently to associate irrationality and want of balance with the term. They evidently want the world to believe that anyone who opposes Jewish pretensions is more or less mentally deranged.” It is strikingly similar to the definition given by Leonard Dinnerstein. In fact, Dinnerstein’s definition and Meisel’s diatribe easily prove Fr. Fahey’s point — the Jews use the word “anti-Semitism” as a derogatory term against anyone who opposes them and their designs for the Christian world in any way whatsoever.

Repeatedly, Fr. Fahey asks members of the Mystical Body to pray and work for the conversion of the Jews. Pointedly, he asks, “If a great number of Jews sincerely accepted the True Messias and put all the restless energy and unshakable tenacity into the furtherance of the Kingship of Christ, which they now display against His rule, would not the conversion of the world be more rapidly achieved?”


What is a Modern Catholic to do?

Reading Fr. Fahey forces a modern Catholic to pause and reflect — to consider 1) the roles of the Church and the State, 2) the Church’s social teachings, 3) the Kingship of Christ, and 4) the organized naturalists, including the Jews, Freemasons, and their agents of influence in the press, international finance, and the government. If he is a serious, thoughtful Catholic, the reader is prompted to study further, especially the writings of the popes (prior to Vatican II). As he understands more about true Catholic social principles, so, too, will he realize the awful magnitude of the gulf that has grown between the Church and modern society, particularly for Americans living in the twenty-first century. When one reflects on the devastation in the Mystical Body itself that has been caused by the forces of Organized Naturalism, he can become quite overwhelmed. In our day, we are witnessing the fulfillment of Fr. Fahey’s observation, “It is the good men, good once, we must hope, good still, who are to do the work of anti-Christ and so sadly to crucify the Lord afresh…. Bear in mind this feature of the last days, that this deceitfulness arises from good men being on the wrong side.” As Fr. Fahey states emphatically, it “…is a challenge to the Catholic Church of a duel to the death.”

Fr. Fahey clearly described the traditional teaching of the relationship between Christ’s Mystical Body and the rest of society. “The two Societies [Church and State] are independent and self-sufficient, each in its own sphere, so that no direct subordination exists between them. There is, however, indirect subordination. Since both societies exercise jurisdiction over the same subject, man, it sometimes happens that spiritual and temporal interests conflict; and when this happens, spiritual interests and the society which governs them, being the higher, the nobler, and the more important, must prevail.”

With these considerations in mind, what is a modern, American Catholic to do? “Our main duty as Catholics in the face of this Naturalism is, as always, the strengthening of our supernatural life by a formation in which our membership of [in]Our Lord’s Mystical Body will become the leit-motiv [overriding consideration] of everything.” Fr. Fahey gives us the approach to follow if we are to achieve any measure of success in the struggle to re-establish the Kingship of Christ on earth. We must enter the arena and fight the enemy face-to-face. Catholics must win non-Catholics to the Faith by the “probity of their morals and the integrity of their lives.” We must have a unity of aim and similarity in all plans of action. Catholics, therefore, must be united whenever the interests of the Church are at stake, even though they may differ on matters of secondary importance. We must avoid the two “criminal excesses of weak Catholics” — i.e., worldly prudence (often a soft apostasy) and, at the other extreme, false courage.

In his essay entitled A Brief Sketch of My Life Work, Fr. Fahey gives us the essence of our struggle to re-establish Christ’s Kingdom in these latter days. He refers the reader to True Devotion to Mary by St. Louis Marie de Montfort. In it, St. Louis “stresses the two functions of our Blessed Mother, the positive one of making our Lord known, and the negative one of making war upon His enemies.” Fr. Fahey recommends that we meditate on the following passage from True Devotion:

Quote:“Mary must be manifested more than ever by her mercy, her power, and her grace in these latter times; by her mercy, bringing back and lovingly welcoming the poor strayed sinners who will be converted and will return to the Catholic Church; by her power, against the enemies of God, idolaters, schismatics, Mohammedans, Jews, and men hardened in impiety, who will rise in terrible revolt to seduce all those who oppose them and to make them fall by promises and threats; she must also be made manifest by her grace animating and sustaining the valiant soldiers and faithful servants of Jesus Christ, who shall battle for His interests.

“And lastly, Mary must be terrible to the devil and his ministers, as an army in battle array, principally in these latter times, because the devil, knowing that he has but little time, and now less than ever, to damn souls, will every day redouble his efforts and his combats. He will before long raise up cruel persecutions and will lay terrible snares for the faithful servants and true children of Mary whom he finds more difficult to conquer than the others.”

That is our charge: To devote ourselves to defending the rights of Christ the King and fighting to establish His Kingdom, by submitting ourselves in holy slavery to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. It begins with our personal sanctification. If we are not in the state of sanctifying grace, we need to get there by making a good confession. Our main weapons are prayer and penance. Daily, we must offer everything — our prayers, works, joys, thoughts, and sufferings — to our Lady to do with as she pleases. We need to beg her to intercede for the conversion of America and the restoration of Christ’s Kingdom on earth — the Catholic Church. Let us make a strong effort to attend and to pray the Holy Mass as frequently as we can; and let us not fail to pray the Rosary well, as our Lady has requested us to do. Indeed, if we are to be effective in our efforts to restore the Kingship of Christ, we must pray the Holy Rosary every day, socially, if possible — as a family — for the triumph of her Immaculate Heart.

Finally, let us give of ourselves, not only of our prayers. Let us become active, devout, faithful, practicing Catholics. The apostles of the modern age should include “the workmen, merchants, and employers.” This refers to us, the laity. Let us lead by our example and our charity towards our Catholic brothers and sisters, as well as towards everyone else we encounter throughout the day. Fr. Fahey argued that Catholics need to become active, both politically and socially. “…Unless the precepts, doctrines, and example of Christ are faithfully followed by all in public and private life, no peace worthy of the name can be attained, and certainly not the peace of Christ, which is pre-eminently to be desired.” If we are able, let us work to influence the legislators to pass laws that are just. Let us lobby politicians and people in the media to operate for good rather than evil. Let us contribute our time and our money towards this most holy endeavor — the crusade to restore the Kingship of Christ. “It is infinitely better to go down struggling for the integral truth than to win a seeming victory by whittling it down.”

May our Blessed Mother, terrible as an army in battle array, intercede for us, guide us and protect us in our fight to re-establish the rightful order established by her divine Son on earth, in His Mystical Body, the Church.

1 Subjectivism holds that all reality and truth are “subjective” — in the person himself (as the subject).

2 Liberalism means “erecting some particular section or aspect of human activity, economic or political, into a separate domain with its own autonomous end, completely independent of the final end of man as a member of Christ.”

3 Indifferentism means one religion is as good as another and it does not matter what a person believes so long as he acts honorably.

4 Usury is defined as charging interest on an unproductive loan. This is distinguished from interest charged on a loan for which a profit may be expected, such as a business venture. Usury is considered unjust because it charges simply for money—a thing that does not have an existence outside of being a means for something else. An easy way to understand the concept is by an example. If a person borrows a consumable, such as a gallon of milk, he repays the debt by returning a gallon of milk. Usury is charging a man interest on a loan to buy the milk. If he pays interest on the loan, he is, in effect, charged twice for the milk—once for the milk itself and an additional amount (the interest) for drinking it. Nowadays, the term most often refers to excessive interest charged on any loan; and this is always immoral.]]> The Catholic World of Father Denis Fahey

Catholicism.org [emphasis mine] |  February 21, 2006 

Sometimes it is not enough for a man to die. A mediocre man, even a good one, is soon forgotten. But if he was a great man and he had a profound influence for good, his enemies will use every opportunity to desecrate his grave and distort his legacy long after he is gone.

Fr. Denis Fahey was such a great man. Although he died in 1954, his works have become more significant with each passing year. As the world plunges further and further into a satanic darkness, and the saving light of the infallible magisterium of the Church is obscured by the soft apostasy of so many of today’s unworthy shepherds, reasonable people are looking for answers that explain a debacle of near universal proportions. Fr. Fahey provides those answers — solid Catholic ones that faithfully echo the social teachings of the Church through the ages. Because of his faithfulness, Modernists and other heretics, as well as the doubtful and weak in faith, continue to question, discredit, and attack this holy priest.

For example, a Catholic radio station recently aired an interview with author Sandra Meisel, during which she vented her spleen at Fr. Fahey, calling him an anti-Semite and denouncing him for daring to assert that the Jews and the Masons are opposed to the Catholic Church. The interviewer expressed his admiration for her opinions and his complete concurrence with what she said.

Coincidentally, a friend of mine telephoned Catholic Answers’ (Karl Keating’s organization) “staff apologist’s line” with a question about Freemasonry. He had seen no mention of the Masons in the new Catholic catechism. He simply wanted to know more about the Masons and what the Catholic Church taught concerning them. The staff apologist referred him to an article by science fiction writer, Sandra Meisel, that had appeared in the December 2002 edition of Deal Hudson’s Crisis magazine, entitled “Swinging at Windmills — A Close Look at Catholic Conspiracy Theories.” The apologist told my friend that it was an excellent article and contained everything he would need to know about the topic. My friend was very disturbed by what he found therein and asked me if I would read it. I have studied the article and found that it is filled with calumnies, personal attacks, confusion, and misstatements. In short, it’s a real “hatchet job” in the same vein as the interview the author provided on the radio.

With one exception that will be mentioned later, we will not dwell further on Sandra Meisel. She is cited only to demonstrate that Fr. Fahey continues to be attacked, misquoted, and discredited. Although he died fifty years ago, Fr. Fahey’s influence is, indeed, very current.


The Foundation of Fr. Fahey’s Life Work

Fr. Fahey was born in Ireland in 1883. At seventeen, he entered the Holy Ghost Fathers at Grignon-Orly, located near Paris in France. He made his profession in 1907. Further educated at the Gregorian University in Rome, he was ordained in 1910, taking his Ph.D. in Philosophy from the Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas. In 1912 he received his Ph.D. in Theology from the Gregorian University. That year he returned to Ireland and was appointed Director of Scholastics and Professor of Philosophy at the Irish Province of the Holy Ghost Congregation in Dublin. He served as chaplain at an internment camp in Switzerland towards the end of World War I. Otherwise, his residence remained in Ireland until his death in 1954. He spoke German, French, and Italian. A prolific writer, he authored several books that focused extensively on the defense of and richer cultivation of the Kingship of Christ in his Catholic homeland.

During his studies in Rome, Fr. Fahey learned how the Mystical Body of Christ transformed the pagan society of the Roman Empire and prepared it for the “upward movement of recognition for the programme of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Priest and King.” He also learned that the revolutions of the modern world, in the words of Pope Leo XIII, “were but one phase of the development of a pre-arranged plan, which is being carried out over an ever-widening area to multiply the ruins of which we have previously spoken.” Fr. Fahey came to understand “that all the revolutions were bringing about the elimination of the rule of Christ the King in view of ultimately eliminating the Mass and the supernatural life of Christ, the Supreme High Priest.” These two major streams of thought — the recognition of the Kingship of Christ and the unmasking of the forces opposed to His Kingdom — furnished the “two guiding lights of theological and historical studies which I have pursued ever since.” He spent the rest of his writing and teaching career working out the theoretical and practical implications of these two great notions. In particular, he attempted to expound and build upon the social teachings of the modern popes — Bl. Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X and Pius XI.

[Image: Father_Denis_Fahey_at_CSSp_Seminary_at_K...a_1950.jpg]

Father Denis Fahey at the C.S.Sp. Seminary at Kimmage, circa 1950.

These “two guiding lights” may be restated as follows: First, recognizing and promoting the Kingship of Christ is absolutely necessary for earthly happiness as well as the salvation of every human being. The Reign of Christ the King is the only source of hope for the world, both materially and spiritually. It is the only means for building and preserving civilization. Second, any person, group, organization, or social movement that opposes Christ’s Reign is a witting or unwitting tool of demonic powers. Needless to say, in a world that is swimming in heresy, Naturalism, Modernism, Marxism, Socialism, and every other imaginable error, such a teaching causes a great deal of discomfort. Fr. Fahey had an excellent education, a powerful intellect, and remained faithful to the Magisterium of the Church. Because he was also a clear, powerful teacher and writer, he was the enemy of the Modernists and revolutionaries of his day and is hated by those who have come along ever since.


The Seven Principles of Fr. Fahey’s Teachings

Illuminated by these two great beacons, Fr. Fahey’s teaching consists of seven basic principles. Because they represent the true Catholic teaching on these matters, they can be somewhat jarring to us, who live in a country that is steeped in subjectivism 1, liberalism 2, and indifferentism 3. Drawing mainly on the writings of modern popes (his works are filled with countless quotes and citations), he lays out Christ the King’s program of order for the world. He contrasts this with Satan’s program for disorder. What follows is a very condensed description of the seven basic principles given by Fr. Fahey.

First, “Our Lord’s Mystical Body, the Catholic Church, Supernatural and Supranational, which all states and nations are called upon to acknowledge, has been established by God as the One Way for the ordered return of human beings to Him. Into it all men of all nations are called to enter as His members.”

In contrast, the devil wants the state to put all religions on the same level. This is the first step toward inducing the secular government to persecute the Catholic Church, which, by divine ordinance, can never compromise her singular authority. Providing equal rights to truth and error spreads disorder. As a result, truth becomes confused with error. Satan uses every means and whatever vehicle he can to promote the principles of the French Revolution — “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity.”

Second, Our Lord’s plan calls for states and nations to acknowledge the “Indirect Power” of the Catholic Church in civil affairs — the right of the pope and bishops to decide what helps or hinders our life as members of Christ. The Church is the sole divinely appointed guardian of the whole moral order — natural and revealed.

Whereas, “Satan aims at getting States and Nations to treat with contempt the Indirect Power of the Catholic Church and at setting up the State or the Race as the authority to decide all moral questions.”

Satan’s plan calls for the State to legislate for the Church in every way, including all jurisprudence. With this in mind, it should be quite evident how the current American clergy scandal fits into Satan’s plan. Because the American bishops have been unwilling to control the priests and “protect innocent children,” the State has been “forced” to take over the role of overseeing the morals of the Catholic clergy in this country. Many good but misguided people have supported the current attempt of the State to take control of the bishops in America in the mistaken belief that this will protect innocent children from further harm by wayward members of the clergy.

Satan also lures men into talk of restoring order in the world without the help of Christ and His Church. In the popular press, this grievous error is referred to as the “separation of Church and State.” Mainly through the efforts of the secret societies and their agents in the press, the electronic media and the cinema, Satan promotes the lie that the Church opposes political independence and self-government. A naturalistic, supranational organization, such as the United Nations, is promoted as a substitute for unification under the Kingship of Christ.

Third, “the Unity and Indissolubility of Christian marriage symbolize the union of Christ and His Mystical Body. This is the foundation of the Christian Family. Our Lord wants members to cultivate purity and honor virginity under the guidance of His Immaculate Mother.” He wants men to know, love, and serve Him in this world, so that they may be happy with Him in the next. Parents are obliged by God to propagate and fill the earth with Catholic saints.

“Satan aims at undermining Christian family life, directly by the introduction of divorce and indirectly by the propagation of immorality… Satan hates the pure, especially the Immaculate Queen of Heaven.” Conjugal infidelity, birth prevention, and all base vices are promoted. Immodest fashions are introduced and encouraged. (Fr. Fahey did not mention sodomy and abortion by name because Western Civilization had not yet fallen as low as it now has. During his lifetime, these were crimes that were considered too vile even to mention in public.) Movies, plays, and all forms of entertainment are used for this diabolical and disordered purpose.

Fourth, “Our Lord wants children educated as Members of His Mystical Body, so that they may be able to look at everything, nationality included, from that standpoint, and observe the order following therefrom in relation to God, themselves and others. Thus is true personality developed.” All education, in every branch, must be regulated in the Christian spirit, under the direction of the Church.

Whereas, writes Fr. Fahey, “Satan aims at impeding or, if possible, preventing altogether the education of young people of both sexes as Members of Christ,” not only schools, but cinema, television, and all possible news sources are used to subvert the morals of the youth. Women are especially targeted for corruption.

Fifth, “the Divine Plan for order calls for wide diffusion of ownership of property, in order to facilitate families in procuring the sufficiency of material goods required for the virtuous life of their members as human persons, and for Unions of owners and workers in Guilds or Corporations, reflecting the solidarity of the Mystical Body in economic organization.” As many people as possible should be induced to become land owners.

“Satan aims at the concentration of property in the hands of a few, either nominally in those of the State, or in those of the money manipulators. He knows that, given fallen human nature, this will lead to the subordination of men to production of material goods and to the treatment of all those not in power as mere individuals , not as persons. For this, he favored Liberalism or Individualism and now favors the reaction against Individualism — Collectivism and Communism.” Several generations ago, unbridled Capitalism served to concentrate wealth into the hands of fewer people. Now, zealous promoters of Collectivism, Socialism and Communism insinuate themselves into all organizations, including the Church and its religious orders and other institutions. The purpose of it all is to destroy religious sentiment in everyone, particularly the youth.

Sixth, “the Divine Plan for order calls for a monetary system so arranged as to facilitate the production and exchange of material goods in view of the virtuous life of Members of Christ in happy families.” Strong, holy families are to be supported and promoted. Laws and social conditions should favor the family unit. “. . . The art of money manipulation in the hierarchy of the arts is inferior to the industrial arts which cater for [sic] man’s secondary needs and to agriculture which produces man’s primary needs, all those arts are meant to be at the service of Members of Christ in happy families.” The art of agriculture is to be considered as the ideal labor for supporting family life.

On the contrary: “Satan aims at a monetary system, by which human persons will be subordinated to the production of material goods, and the production, distribution and exchange of material goods will be subordinated to the making of money and the growth of power in the hands of the financiers. He is pleased that money is employed as an instrument for the elimination of the Divine Plan and for the installation of Naturalism.” Money and real wealth are separated. The desire for money, which is merely a medium of exchange, is unlimited, whereas the desire for property, and material goods needed to foster strong family life, is limited by nature. The money manipulators want money to change hands at an ever-greater frequency, in order to increase their amount of it. As a result, a culture of “consumerism” is fostered and the pace of society constantly intensifies to satisfy this purpose. Usury 5 is encouraged and debt is promoted as a means of accumulating consumer goods. The moral order is weakened in order to undermine prosperity and temporal happiness. Satan hates the human race and, therefore, he widens the road that aids the advance of the culture of death. Through readily available contraceptives he encourages fornication and, having enthroned health and luxury as the most desirable good, he cushions the illusionary deception among married couples that having fewer children brings more material prosperity, and consequently, peace and happiness. “A murderer from the beginning,” Satan delights in the current culture of abortion and euthanasia. (Fr. Fahey would not even have entertained a notion as perverse as sodomite “marriages”.)

Seventh, “Our Lord Jesus Christ wants all His Members to grasp the Programme for Order laid down by His Father and unite with Himself in the central act of submission to the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Mass. In this sacrifice, the re-presentation of Calvary, all Catholics profess their willingness to respect God’s Rights and their readiness to strive, as a united body, to mould society in accordance with Our Lord’s Programme for Order.” The Catholic Order “cannot penetrate into a soul without making it better, so it cannot enter into the public life of a people without establishing order….”

“Satan wants to confuse and bewilder human beings, so that they may give up the idea that there is an order laid down by God, which they are bound to find out, if they do not know it already, and to observe. On account of his relentless hatred of the Supernatural Life, he detests above all the central act of submission to the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. He strives to eliminate it wherever he can, and, where he cannot do so, he endeavors to have it treated as a mere formality not intended to influence life. He tries to get the young and inexperienced to accept that they are on the road to happiness, when they neglect the Mass and its significance for life, cast off moral restraint and reject the claims of duty.”

Fr. Fahey quotes the great Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, “He [Satan] considers that he has made a notable advance towards his goal when he has succeeded in having other religions placed on the same level as the True Church of Christ. He is well aware of the anti-supernatural influence of that official attitude on the average members of society . He knows well that, when error has become incarnate in legal formulae and in administrative practice, it penetrates so deeply into people’s minds that it is impossible to eradicate it.”

Upon these seven basic principles of a properly ordered Catholic culture are based all of the social teachings of Fr. Fahey. His development of them gives us one of the most comprehensive and accurate expositions of solid Catholic social teaching. Even with such a brief listing, our observation of the events of recent history confirms the truth of his teachings and the accuracy of his predictions. When reflecting on his own work, Fr. Fahey said, “Whatever is in harmony with the Divine Programme for Order will make for real progress; whatever is opposed to it spells decay and death. Thus I try to train them [his students] to make Our Lord the center of their lives in every department.”


Fr. Fahey and Organized Naturalism

Fr. Fahey defines “Naturalism” as follows: “Naturalism consists in the negation of the possibility of the elevation of our nature to the Supernatural Life and order, or more radically still, in the negation of the very existence of that Life and order. In our day, owing to the progress of the anti-Christian revolt, the more radical meaning has become common. Naturalism may be defined, therefore, as the attitude of mind which denies the reality of the Divine Life of Grace and of our Fall therefrom by Original Sin. It rejects our consequent liability to revolt against the order of the Divine Life, when this Life has been restored to us by our Membership of [in] Christ, and maintains that all social life should be organized on the basis of that denial.”

Any system of thought or organization that rejects the divine plan and tries to substitute anything other than His plan would be called naturalistic. It is based on the denial of divine revelation. Groups that hold this view are “Organized Naturalists.” Simply, they are groups of men who work to establish an order that leaves out the essential element — God and His divine Order — the Kingship of Christ. “Naturalism means complete sterility in regard to salvation and eternal life.” The devil is considered the first naturalist. He rejected the divine plan for salvation and substituted his own with his defiant cry, “I will not serve!” Satan’s aim has never changed. He wants to subvert the divine plan and recruit as many men as possible into his disordered cadre — for his malicious delight and their eternal damnation.

Fr. Fahey goes through great pains to expose the various systems that espouse Naturalism. While in Rome, he learned that an individual’s errors do not have as much of an impact on the Kingship of Christ as the various systems of organized Naturalism. But organizations involve groups of men who can work together — and often consciously and maliciously do — to undermine quietly or revolt openly against Christ’s Kingdom. Individuals come and go but organizations last for generations. “There is unorganized opposition to the Supernatural Life in each one of us, owing to the Fall. This unorganized opposition of individuals inevitably leads to the formation of little anti-supernatural groups here and there, even without the concerted action of vast organized forces. But the fact that there exists concerted anti-supernatural action on the part of organized bodies is so far removed from the preoccupations of the average Catholic that it needs to be specially stressed and its aims made clear.” As he explains elsewhere, “Though the knowledge of the aims and methods of those organized forces, on which the popes so strongly insist, does not suffice to explain everything in contemporary history; yet without that knowledge contemporary history is a puzzle, and the fathers will not be able to battle for the rights of Christ the King as they should.”

Fr. Fahey singles out the three main forces of organized Naturalism in today’s world. One is invisible; the other two are visible. “The invisible host is that of Satan and the other fallen angels, while the visible forces are those of the Jewish Nation and Freemasonry. The Jewish Nation is not only a visible organization, but its naturalistic or anti-supernatural character is openly proclaimed, by its refusal to accept the Supernatural Messias and by its looking forward to a naturalistic messianic era.”

It does not take too much effort to uncover the obvious flaw of Freemasonry — the reason it merits special attention by Fr. Fahey. By Masonry’s open refusal to recognize the primacy of the Catholic Faith and by its secret rituals in which initiates take formal vows to oppose the papacy, Masonry declares itself the organized enemy of the Kingship of Christ. Leaving aside the secret anti-Catholic oaths and the satanism involved in the highest levels of Masonry, “indifferentism” is the official creed of the Freemasons — one religion is as good as another — a man may believe whatever he wants as long as he is a “good” man. Ultimately, Masonry replaces God with the pantheistic deification of man. Once a conspiratorial organization indulges its members in this kind of Luciferian sin, an infinite variety of errors, perversions, and revolutions have the potential to germinate. As history demonstrates, these evil fruits have been propagated by Masonic societies ever since their formal organization in 1717.

Fr. Fahey’s description of the beliefs and activities of the Jews and Freemasons are particularly troublesome for modern Americans. Most of us have been trained to accept the following notions as self-evidently true and/or worthy goods: “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” “Freedom of Religion,” the “Separation of Church and State,” that all political power comes from the people, that usury is a perfectly legitimate means of getting rich, and that the Jews are the most persecuted people in history, always the victim in any conflict, while organized Jewry never works to undermine the gospel of Jesus Christ. The vast majority of Catholic Americans has no idea that these notions are evil, fallacious and, therefore, anti-Catholic. Nor are they remotely aware that these subversive errors have been calculatedly foisted on them by those two above-mentioned groups of organized naturalists and their willing agents and sympathizers. The first time they encounter Fr. Fahey’s challenge of these closely held misconceptions, many people dismiss him as rabidly radical or, at best, seriously misguided. Those who are willing to take the time and make the effort to research carefully the Church’s traditional teachings on these matters eventually come to accept the veracity of Fr. Fahey’s exposition.

“Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” was the cry of the Freemasons who were responsible for the French Revolution and the subsequent bloodbath called “The Terror.” Liberty is defined as license. True equality as children of God was deformed and became egalitarianism (the erasing of all distinctions between individuals). Fraternity was substituted for the virtue of charity in members of the Mystical Body of Christ. As we have already noted, “Freedom of Religion,” (also known as “indifferentism”) is a main tenet of the Masons — one of the errors they promote openly. “Separation of Church and State” is one of the most diabolic of the maxims of Freemasonry, one that is continually conjured forth by the secularists in their effort to eliminate the Church’s God-given influence over the laws and actions of civil government. The belief, promulgated by the revolutionary protagonist Jean Jacques Rousseau, that political power arises from the people, rather than descending to human authority from God, was the inversion of true order. This French Freemason, and the cynic Voltaire, were two of “power to the people’s” most famous propagandists.

Usury, defined previously as the charging of excessive interest on loans, particularly loans to individuals and families for purchasing the necessities of life, forms the basis of modern America’s national economy. Money is sought for money’s sake. Real ownership of property is nearly impossible. (As economist Douglas Casey recently stated, “If you think you own your home, try not paying the taxes on it.”) Families have been lured by promises of prosperity to abandon the agricultural life, or even the dream thereof. None of this happened by accident. The Church, in its wisdom, warned us of these dangers for many generations. We are now witnessing the diabolical fruits of these errors. National and personal debt now exceed anything in recorded history.

Fr. Fahey takes a great deal of care to describe accurately the perennial efforts of the Jews to undermine Christian society and substitute the Zionist Messianic State in the place of the Kingship of Christ. Using the writings of the popes and councils of the Church, he carefully and clearly lays out the teachings of the Church in regard to the treatment of the Jews and their conversion to the Faith. “On the one hand, the Sovereign Pontiffs strive to protect the Jews from physical violence and to secure respect for their family life and their worship, as the life and worship of human persons. On the other hand, they aim unceasingly at protecting Christians from the contamination of Jewish Naturalism and try to prevent Jews from obtaining control over Christians.” The chief duty of the Church towards the Jews is to work for their conversion to the Catholic Church and their acceptance of Christ’s Kingship on earth. “We must never forget that [Jesus and the Virgin Mary were Jews and that Jesus’ Individuality came from the Jews] or allow ourselves to fall victims to an attitude of hatred for Jews as a nation. We must always bear in mind that He is seeking to draw them on to that supernatural union with Himself which they reject.”

In one rather ironic twist, Sandra Meisel, in the previously mentioned article in Crisis magazine, accuses Fr. Fahey of being an anti-Semite. She quotes the definition of “anti-Semitism” as given by the Jewish historian Leonard Dinnerstein: “hostile expressions toward or negative behavior against individuals or groups because of their Jewish faith or heritage.” After Fr. Fahey correctly defines anti-Semitism as a hatred of or unjust treatment of the Jews because of their race or religion, he goes on to explain what the Jews mean by the term. “Anti-Semitism is the word used by the Jews to designate any form of opposition to themselves, and they strive persistently to associate irrationality and want of balance with the term. They evidently want the world to believe that anyone who opposes Jewish pretensions is more or less mentally deranged.” It is strikingly similar to the definition given by Leonard Dinnerstein. In fact, Dinnerstein’s definition and Meisel’s diatribe easily prove Fr. Fahey’s point — the Jews use the word “anti-Semitism” as a derogatory term against anyone who opposes them and their designs for the Christian world in any way whatsoever.

Repeatedly, Fr. Fahey asks members of the Mystical Body to pray and work for the conversion of the Jews. Pointedly, he asks, “If a great number of Jews sincerely accepted the True Messias and put all the restless energy and unshakable tenacity into the furtherance of the Kingship of Christ, which they now display against His rule, would not the conversion of the world be more rapidly achieved?”


What is a Modern Catholic to do?

Reading Fr. Fahey forces a modern Catholic to pause and reflect — to consider 1) the roles of the Church and the State, 2) the Church’s social teachings, 3) the Kingship of Christ, and 4) the organized naturalists, including the Jews, Freemasons, and their agents of influence in the press, international finance, and the government. If he is a serious, thoughtful Catholic, the reader is prompted to study further, especially the writings of the popes (prior to Vatican II). As he understands more about true Catholic social principles, so, too, will he realize the awful magnitude of the gulf that has grown between the Church and modern society, particularly for Americans living in the twenty-first century. When one reflects on the devastation in the Mystical Body itself that has been caused by the forces of Organized Naturalism, he can become quite overwhelmed. In our day, we are witnessing the fulfillment of Fr. Fahey’s observation, “It is the good men, good once, we must hope, good still, who are to do the work of anti-Christ and so sadly to crucify the Lord afresh…. Bear in mind this feature of the last days, that this deceitfulness arises from good men being on the wrong side.” As Fr. Fahey states emphatically, it “…is a challenge to the Catholic Church of a duel to the death.”

Fr. Fahey clearly described the traditional teaching of the relationship between Christ’s Mystical Body and the rest of society. “The two Societies [Church and State] are independent and self-sufficient, each in its own sphere, so that no direct subordination exists between them. There is, however, indirect subordination. Since both societies exercise jurisdiction over the same subject, man, it sometimes happens that spiritual and temporal interests conflict; and when this happens, spiritual interests and the society which governs them, being the higher, the nobler, and the more important, must prevail.”

With these considerations in mind, what is a modern, American Catholic to do? “Our main duty as Catholics in the face of this Naturalism is, as always, the strengthening of our supernatural life by a formation in which our membership of [in]Our Lord’s Mystical Body will become the leit-motiv [overriding consideration] of everything.” Fr. Fahey gives us the approach to follow if we are to achieve any measure of success in the struggle to re-establish the Kingship of Christ on earth. We must enter the arena and fight the enemy face-to-face. Catholics must win non-Catholics to the Faith by the “probity of their morals and the integrity of their lives.” We must have a unity of aim and similarity in all plans of action. Catholics, therefore, must be united whenever the interests of the Church are at stake, even though they may differ on matters of secondary importance. We must avoid the two “criminal excesses of weak Catholics” — i.e., worldly prudence (often a soft apostasy) and, at the other extreme, false courage.

In his essay entitled A Brief Sketch of My Life Work, Fr. Fahey gives us the essence of our struggle to re-establish Christ’s Kingdom in these latter days. He refers the reader to True Devotion to Mary by St. Louis Marie de Montfort. In it, St. Louis “stresses the two functions of our Blessed Mother, the positive one of making our Lord known, and the negative one of making war upon His enemies.” Fr. Fahey recommends that we meditate on the following passage from True Devotion:

Quote:“Mary must be manifested more than ever by her mercy, her power, and her grace in these latter times; by her mercy, bringing back and lovingly welcoming the poor strayed sinners who will be converted and will return to the Catholic Church; by her power, against the enemies of God, idolaters, schismatics, Mohammedans, Jews, and men hardened in impiety, who will rise in terrible revolt to seduce all those who oppose them and to make them fall by promises and threats; she must also be made manifest by her grace animating and sustaining the valiant soldiers and faithful servants of Jesus Christ, who shall battle for His interests.

“And lastly, Mary must be terrible to the devil and his ministers, as an army in battle array, principally in these latter times, because the devil, knowing that he has but little time, and now less than ever, to damn souls, will every day redouble his efforts and his combats. He will before long raise up cruel persecutions and will lay terrible snares for the faithful servants and true children of Mary whom he finds more difficult to conquer than the others.”

That is our charge: To devote ourselves to defending the rights of Christ the King and fighting to establish His Kingdom, by submitting ourselves in holy slavery to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. It begins with our personal sanctification. If we are not in the state of sanctifying grace, we need to get there by making a good confession. Our main weapons are prayer and penance. Daily, we must offer everything — our prayers, works, joys, thoughts, and sufferings — to our Lady to do with as she pleases. We need to beg her to intercede for the conversion of America and the restoration of Christ’s Kingdom on earth — the Catholic Church. Let us make a strong effort to attend and to pray the Holy Mass as frequently as we can; and let us not fail to pray the Rosary well, as our Lady has requested us to do. Indeed, if we are to be effective in our efforts to restore the Kingship of Christ, we must pray the Holy Rosary every day, socially, if possible — as a family — for the triumph of her Immaculate Heart.

Finally, let us give of ourselves, not only of our prayers. Let us become active, devout, faithful, practicing Catholics. The apostles of the modern age should include “the workmen, merchants, and employers.” This refers to us, the laity. Let us lead by our example and our charity towards our Catholic brothers and sisters, as well as towards everyone else we encounter throughout the day. Fr. Fahey argued that Catholics need to become active, both politically and socially. “…Unless the precepts, doctrines, and example of Christ are faithfully followed by all in public and private life, no peace worthy of the name can be attained, and certainly not the peace of Christ, which is pre-eminently to be desired.” If we are able, let us work to influence the legislators to pass laws that are just. Let us lobby politicians and people in the media to operate for good rather than evil. Let us contribute our time and our money towards this most holy endeavor — the crusade to restore the Kingship of Christ. “It is infinitely better to go down struggling for the integral truth than to win a seeming victory by whittling it down.”

May our Blessed Mother, terrible as an army in battle array, intercede for us, guide us and protect us in our fight to re-establish the rightful order established by her divine Son on earth, in His Mystical Body, the Church.

1 Subjectivism holds that all reality and truth are “subjective” — in the person himself (as the subject).

2 Liberalism means “erecting some particular section or aspect of human activity, economic or political, into a separate domain with its own autonomous end, completely independent of the final end of man as a member of Christ.”

3 Indifferentism means one religion is as good as another and it does not matter what a person believes so long as he acts honorably.

4 Usury is defined as charging interest on an unproductive loan. This is distinguished from interest charged on a loan for which a profit may be expected, such as a business venture. Usury is considered unjust because it charges simply for money—a thing that does not have an existence outside of being a means for something else. An easy way to understand the concept is by an example. If a person borrows a consumable, such as a gallon of milk, he repays the debt by returning a gallon of milk. Usury is charging a man interest on a loan to buy the milk. If he pays interest on the loan, he is, in effect, charged twice for the milk—once for the milk itself and an additional amount (the interest) for drinking it. Nowadays, the term most often refers to excessive interest charged on any loan; and this is always immoral.]]> <![CDATA[Mgr Antonio de Castro Mayer: On the KINGSHIP Our Lord Jesus-Christ]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6239 Tue, 25 Jun 2024 13:11:14 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6239 PDF of the English translation]:


Le Sel de la Terre
'MANDEMENT' (A bishop's letter) On the KINGSHIP Our Lord Jesus-Christ
SALT Of The EARTH No. 82, AUTUMN 2012 English Translation


"Love much the intelligence and the comprehension of the truth."
"For it is necessary to understand well in order to believe truly: even as it is still more necessary to believe in order to understand well." - Saint Augustin, Letter to Consentius and Sermon 43.

Mandement on the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus-Christ

by Mgr Antonio de Castro Mayer
by the grace of God and the Holy Apostolic See, bishop of the Diocese of Campos.


We reproduce here, translated into French for the first time, the remarkable pastoral letter addressed by Mgr. de Castro Mayer to his clergy and faithful on December 8, 1976. The theme of this letter is the social kingship of Our Lord Jesus-Christ. As, over the next four years, we commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the ill-fated Second Vatican Council, the need to recall Catholic doctrine on Christ the King is greater than ever. Among the Council's errors, religious freedom ranks first. Religious freedom is the "legal apostasy of society", as Leo XIII put it in E giunto (July 19 1889), it's the secularization of Catholic states, it's the rejection of the social kingship of Our Lord. This is precisely what Monsignor de Castro Mayer proposes to explain here, drawing extensively on the texts of the pontifical magisterium. We admire the profoundly Catholic and supernatural spirit of this 'mandement'. How we'd love to read similar ones today!

N.B.: We encourage our readers to refer to issue no. 37 of Le Sel de la terre, dedicated to Mgr de Castro Mayer.



Dear collaborators and dear Sons,

AT THE CLOSING of the Holy Year of 1925, Pope Pius XI instituted the feast of Our Lord Jesus-Christ the King. He fixed the day as the last Sunday in October, the one before the feast of All Saints. The new calendar moved it to the last Sunday of the liturgical year, at the end of November.

With this new liturgical Feast, dedicated in particular to solemnizing the universal kingship of Our Lord Jesus-Christ, the Pope's aim was to provide an effective remedy for secularism, the plague that is eating away at human society, "the plague of our age", says the Pope.

To justify His expression, and to express His hope in the fruits that the new liturgical solemnity would produce, Pius XI wrote His memorable encyclical Quas primas, dated December 11 of the Holy Year 1925. Fifty years have passed: his teaching remains just as timely, given that the punishments that have befallen mankind, particularly with the long war of 1939-1945, have not turned men away from their impiety. And even those who make profession of religious faith continue to live as if God did not exist.

It is therefore useful, indeed necessary, to repeat to the faithful, again and again, the importance of the feast of Our Lord Jesus-Christ the King, in order to encourage them to practice, in their private lives as well as in their family and social lives, the submission due to the Sovereign of the universe, and so that hope of the fruits that this Feast is destined to produce in souls is not frustrated.

This is the reason for this conversation with you, dear collaborators and beloved sons, through which we hope to encourage one another to zeal for the glory of God and the salvation of souls.


Divine sovereignty

First of all, let us strengthen our faith in the universal kingship of our divine Saviour.

He is truly king of the universe, that is to say He has absolute sovereignty over the whole human race, over all men, even over those outside His sheepfold, the Holy Roman Catholic Church. For, truly, every person is a creature of God. He owes his whole being to Him, both for the unity of his nature, and for each of the parts of which he is composed: body, soul, powers, intelligence, will, sensibility. Even the actions of these powers, and all their organs, are gifts from God. God's sovereignty extends to the goods of fortune, which are the fruits of His ineffable liberality. The simple consideration that no one chooses or can choose the family to which he or she belongs on earth, with its respective social position, is enough to convince us of this fundamental truth of our existence.

It follows that God Our Lord is the sovereign master of all men, both as individuals and as social groups, insofar as, when they are constituted into various communities, they do not lose their condition of creature. This being so, the very existence of civil society obeys the designs of God, who made man's nature social. Consequently, all peoples, all nations, from the most primitive to the most civilized, from the smallest to the greatest powers, all are subject to the divine sovereignty, and therefore obliged to recognize this gentle heavenly domination.


The Kingship of Jesus-Christ

God confided this sovereignty to His only Son, as the Holy Scriptures frequently attests.

Generally speaking, St Paul declares that God "made His Son heir of all things" (Heb 1:2). For his part, Saint John confirms the thought of the Apostle to the Gentiles in many passages of his Gospel. For example, when he reminds us that "the Father judges no one, but that He has given all power to judge to the Son" (Jn 5:22). Now, the prerogative of rendering justice belongs to the king; he who possesses it is endowed with sovereign power.

This universal kingship which the Son inherited from the Father is not to be understood only as the eternal inheritance by which, with the divine nature, He received all the attributes which make Him equal and consubstantial with the first person of the Holy Trinity, in the unity of the divine essence. This universal kingship is attributed especially to Jesus-Christ as man, mediator between heaven and earth. For the mission of the Incarnate Word was precisely to establish the Kingdom of God on earth. Indeed, the expressions in Sacred Scripture relating to the Kingship of Jesus-Christ refer, without the shadow of a doubt, to His human
condition.

He is presented to the world as the Son of David, come to inherit His Father's throne, which extends to the ends of the earth, and which is eternal, without limit of time. It is in these terms that the archangel Gabriel announces the dignity of Mary's Son: "You will bear a son, to whom you will give the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; He will reign forever over the house of Jacob, and His kingdom will have no end" (Lk 1:31-33). It was also as king that the Magi from the East sought Him out to worship Him: "Where is He that is born king of the Jews?" they asked Herod on their arrival in Jerusalem (Mt 2:2). Consequently, the mission that the eternal Father entrusted to His Son in making Him man consisted in establishing a kingdom on earth, the kingdom of heaven. It is through the establishment of this kingdom that the ineffable charity with which, from all eternity, God has loved mankind, mercifully drawing them to Himself, will become a reality:  "Dilexi te, ideo attraxi te miserans - I have loved you, therefore in My mercy I have drawn you" (Jer 31:3).

This is why Jesus devotes His public life to announcing and establishing His kingdom, sometimes referred to as the kingdom of God, sometimes as the kingdom of heaven. In the oriental manner, He uses evocative parables to establish the idea and nature of the kingdom He has come to found. And His miracles seek to convince His people that His kingdom has arrived, that He is in their midst. "Si in digito Dei ejicio daemonia, profecto pervenit in vos Regnum Dei - "But if I by the finger of God cast out devils; doubtless the kingdom of God is come upon you." (Lk 11:20).

The constitution of this kingdom absorbed so much of His activity that the Judaic apostasy profited of the idea to justify the accusation it brought against Him before Pilate's tribunal: "Si hunc dimittis, non es amicus Caesaris - If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend" they cried to the proconsul, "for whoever makes himself king declares himself against Caesar!" (Jn 19:12). And Jesus Christ, by approving the opinion of His enemies, confirms before the Roman procurator that He really is king: "You say well, I am king" (Jn 18:37).


King in the Literal Sense

The royal character of Jesus-Christ's work can no longer be doubted. He is king.

But our faith demands that we understand the scope and meaning of the divine Redeemer's kingship. From the outset, Pius XI excludes the metaphorical sense by which we call king and royal that which is most excellent in a human way of being or acting, as when we speak of the queen of goodness, the king of poets, and so on.  No. Jesus-Christ is not king according to this transposition of meaning. He is king in the true (proper) sense of the word. In the Holy Scriptures, we see Him exercising the royal prerogatives of a sovereign government, dictating laws and threatening punishment to those who transgress them. In His famous "Sermon on the Mount" (Mt 5:4ff.), the Savior can be said to have promulgated the code of His kingdom. As the true sovereign, He demands obedience to His laws on pain of nothing less than eternal damnation. Similarly, in the Last Judgment scene - when the Son of Man comes to judge the living and the dead - where He announces the end of the world:  'The Son of Man will then come with great power and majesty [...], He will separate men as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats [...] and He will say to those on His right, "Come, you blessed of my Father", and to those on His left, "Go, you cursed, to eternal fire" [...].  'And they will go away, these to eternal torment, and the righteous to eternal life' (Mt 25:31ff.).

A sentence that is both very gentle and fearsome. Very sweet for the good, because of the unparalleled excellence of the reward awaiting them. Fearsome and frightening for the wicked, by the extreme punishment to which they are eternally condemned.

Such a consideration is enough to show the capital importance for men to discern where here below, on earth, the kingdom of Jesus-Christ lies, since to be part of it or not decides their eternal fate. We say "here, on earth", because it is in this world that man merits his reward or punishment after death. It is here on earth, then, that men must incorporate themselves into this ineffable kingdom of God, both temporal and eternal, since it is formed in this world to blossom in heaven.


The Catholic Church, Kingdom of God

The same sacred Scriptures that have led us to the knowledge of the Kingship of Jesus-Christ tell us who, in the present world, are the authentic leaders of His Kingdom, as continuators of the divine Master's mission. The authorized guides of Christ's flock are the legitimate successors of the Apostles; indeed, it was on the Apostles that the Savior built His Church, that is to say His kingdom, and it is within her bosom that men make their way to heaven.

In fact, it was to the Apostles that Jesus entrusted His power, and He demanded the same obedience from them as He did from Himself: "Whoever listens to you listens to Me", said the divine Master, "whoever despises you despises Me" (Lk 10:16). In another passage, explaining the power to govern, to direct His society, the Church, He declared to them: "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed also in heaven" (Mt 18:18).

After His resurrection, He clarifies the sovereign power granted to the Apostles, saying that it even includes the forgiveness of sins, God's exclusive prerogative: "Sins will be forgiven to those to whom you forgive them, and they will be retained by those to whom you retain them" (Jn 20:23). Having thus made it clear throughout His life, and by means of various expressions, that He was passing on to His Apostles His power to guide men to heaven, as if to sum up His will, at the moment of leaving this world to return to the bosom of the eternal Father, Jesus entrusts them with the direction of His work; it will continue on earth, for at the end of the world, God must be glorified and souls saved: "All power," He tells His Apostles, "has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go, then, and teach all peoples to observe all the things I have commanded you" (Mt 28:20). There is an obligation to obey the Apostles' orders as if they were legitimate superiors, on pain of losing one's soul: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mk 16:16). Believing, that is to say, accepting and living in accordance with the Apostles' doctrine - that is "believing" in the truest sense of the word, with all one's soul - and consequently behaving as a subject of the kingdom of Jesus-Christ, of the holy Church. For, at the supreme moment when He handed over His powers to the Apostles, Our Lord guaranteed the permanence of His work, of His Church, of His kingdom - three expressions which have the same meaning; and this by declaring that He would remain with the Apostles until the end of the world, in other words, that the Apostles would be the legitimate successors with whom He would remain present, so that they would maintain the integrity of the inheritance received: "I will always be with you until the consummation of the ages" (Mt 28:20).


The Church is Hierarchical

Finally, to ensure that the unity of government necessary for kingdoms to preserve themselves and achieve, in an orderly fashion, the purpose for which they are constituted is not lacking, Jesus instituted the sacred hierarchy which, in the holy Church, instructs, governs and sanctifies the people. He made Peter the indestructible rock of the Church, giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven and gathering in his hands all the power conferred on all the Apostles: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven (Mt 16:18 ff.).

In like manner the Church that possesses the successor of Peter and the successors of the Apostles, She is the Church of Christ. In Her lies the kingdom of Jesus-Christ. And this Church, the only one of its kind in the world, which possesses, in the pope, the successor of Saint Peter, and in the bishops, the successors of the Apostles, is the Catholic Church, apostolic and roman. And insofar as we are part of it, insofar as we live according to its doctrine, that we belong to the kingdom of Christ, that we  ourselves are faithful vassals of the King of glory, and we ourselves are on our way to the kingdom of heaven, eternal beatitude.

Dear sons, look at the other denominations, those that usurp the title of Christian: they all have a later date of birth than the divine Master. Only the Roman Catholic Church can trace Her origins back to the time of Jesus-Christ. From then on, She alone is truly apostolic, coming in direct line from the Apostles. She is the Church of Christ.


A Principally Spiritual Kingship

Jesus is King in the truest sense of the word. He exercises His sovereignty on earth through His Church, His mystical body, a visible and hierarchical society, endowed with all the powers to lead men towards the end for which they w ere created: to give glory to God and save their souls. Thus, to be part of Christ's Church and to live as a docile and obedient subject of the King of kings, Jesus-
Christ, is the condition of eternal happiness.

These considerations make it clear from the outset that the kingdom of Jesus Christ is spiritual - "praecipuo quodam modo, in a very special way", says Pius XI in his encyclical. It is spiritual because it concerns domains related to the spiritual life, which transcends the limits of earthly life, as well as to divine worship and the sanctification of souls.

The Saviour Himself attested to this before Pilate's court. In response to the proconsul's question: "Are you a king?", Jesus answered affirmatively: "You say well, I am king" (Jn 18:37). Shortly before, He had already explained to the Roman magistrate the special nature of His reign: "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My people would have fought so that I would not be handed over to the Jews. But My kingdom is not from here" (Jn 18:36); that is, He does not concern himself with earthly affairs restricted to this world. And in the next verse, Jesus is more explicit, linking His kingdom with the empire of truth: 'For this reason I was born and came into the world, that I might bear witness to the truth. Every one that is of the truth, heareth My voice." (Jn 18:37).

Although all power, even in the civil order, belongs to Jesus according to His humanity by virtue of the hypostatic union, the Savior reassures the rulers of the earth: His reign is not of this world. In the same sense, every year at Epiphany, the Church repeats: "Non eripit mortalia qui regna dat coelestia - He does not seize mortal kingdoms who gives the celestials."


The Two Powers

As we have just seen, the divine Master has foreseen the coexistence of two sovereign powers on earth.

One presides over temporal life, and is embodied in the person of Caesar. This power must be respected, honored and obeyed, for the Lord commands us to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" (Mt 22:21). The reason for this is that this power too is conferred by God our Lord, as the divine Master declared to the representative of the Roman emperor, when He told him: "You would have no power over Me if it had not been given to you from on high" (Jn 19:11). And the Apostle adds: "All power comes from God" (Rom 13:1). Consequently, Christians must accept civil power and submit to it with love, that is, not out of fear of punishment, but as to an authority
delegated by God, for the prince acts as a minister of God. (Rom 13:4).

The other power looks after the interests of the soul, bringing man into relationship with God and leading him to eternal salvation. It deals with religious duties, worship of God and obedience to the divine commandments. This power is the proper power of the reign of Jesus-Christ; it must be respected and obeyed with special reverence, because contempt for it reaches God Himself: "Whoever despises you despises me, and whoever despises Me despises the One who sent Me" (Lk 10:16).

All men are bound to obey these two supreme powers: in temporal affairs, all must obey civil power, even those who share in religious power; in God's affairs, all must obey spiritual power, even civil authorities. However, although sovereign, state authority gives way to religious authority, for "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). Consequently, in the event of conflict, religious duties prevail, provided they concern the eternal destiny of souls.


Relationship between Church and State

Thus, the natural structure of the government of human society, according to historical order - that is, taking into account Revelation and the constitution of the holy Church to preside over spiritual affairs - requires 'mutual collaboration' between these two supreme powers, Church and State. The Church will recognize civil power and lead the faithful to sincere respect for the authority of the State, to which it will provide loyal collaboration in everything that is for the benefit of society and does not run counter to the law of God. For its part, the State will recognize the one Church to which God has entrusted the care of spiritual matters, namely: the divine cult and the salvation of souls. And since man's life on earth must be directed towards eternal salvation, not only must the State not oppose the Church's specific action, but it must also help it, positively, by creating a framework in society that encourages the practice of virtue, piety and faith, and makes it difficult to sin, impiety, and in general, the proliferation of vice.

Leo XIII formulates this thought with precision:
Quote:"For one and all are we destined by our birth and adoption to enjoy, when this frail and fleeting life is ended, a supreme and final good in heaven, and to the attainment of this every endeavour should be directed. Since, then, upon this depends the full and perfect happiness of mankind, the securing of this end should be of all imaginable interests the most urgent. Hence, civil society, established for the common welfare, should not only safeguard the well-being of the community, but have also at heart the interests of its individual members, in such mode as not in any way to hinder, but in every manner to render as easy as may be, the possession of that highest and unchangeable good for which all should seek. Wherefore, for this purpose, care must especially be taken to preserve unharmed and unimpeded the religion whereof the practice is the link connecting man with God.

"Now, it cannot be difficult to find out which is the true religion, if only it be sought with an earnest and unbiased mind; for proofs are abundant and striking. We have, for example, the fulfilment of prophecies, miracles in great numbers, the rapid spread of the faith in the midst of enemies and in face of overwhelming obstacles, the witness of the martyrs, and the like. From all these it is evident that the only true religion is the one established by Jesus-Christ Himself, and which He committed to His Church to protect and to propagate.1."

Dear sons, you see that it is exclusively in a state constituted in accordance with this doctrine that the kingship of Jesus-Christ can be effective and complete. This is why it has been constantly taught by the ecclesiastical magisterium.

1 - Enc. Immortale Dei, #6 Nov. 1, 1885.


The Church Fathers

Thus, St Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 390) declares that imperial magistrates are subject to the authority of bishops as the flesh is to the spirit and earthly things to heavenly things 2; St John Chrysostom (d. 407) expounds the relationship between spiritual and temporal authority by means of the comparison between the sun and the moon 3; St. Ambrose, in his letter to Valentinian against Auxentius, declares that "the emperor is in the Church and not above the Church; for the good emperor helps the Church, he does not refuse it4".

Saint Augustine, in chapter 24 of Book V of The City of God, cites, among the emperor's obligations, that of placing his power at the service of the divine majesty in order to extend its reign. And in a letter to Count Boniface, governor of Africa, commenting on the words of the Psalm: "Serve the Lord in fear", he teaches that kings serve the Lord by forbidding and punishing transgressions of God's commandments. On this point, St. Augustine makes a clear difference between the way kings serve God, and the service proper to each individual: the individual serves God by living in accordance with the faith, whereas the king does so by promulgating laws with the appropriate severity, to command what is right and forbid what is contrary to justice. After giving several examples from the Old
Testament, in which he emphasizes the action of rulers against the works of impiety, the holy doctor concludes: kings serve the Lord as kings, serving Him as only kings can.

In the middle of the 5th century, St. Leo I, pope from 440 to 461, wrote to Emperor Leo of Constantinople to urge him to apply the decrees of the Council of Constantinople against the maneuvers of the Eutychians (monophysite), and reminded him that "royal power was not given to him only for the government of the world, but above all for the defense of the Church1".

2 - Hom. XVII.
3 - Hom. XV on the 2nd  to the Corinthians.
4 - Saint Ambrose, Sermo contra Auxentium, de basilicis tradendis, preached in Milan in 386, when Valentinian II gave the order to grant some churches to the Arians.


Roman Pontiffs and Emperors

It was particularly in its relations with the emperors of Constantinople that the Church had occasion to reaffirm these principles of Catholic doctrine. Thus, in August 484, Pope Saint Felix II pointed out to Emperor Zeno that he must protect the freedom of the Church and that he himself must submit to priestly power in the causes of God, this submission being beneficial even to the State. Saint Gelasius, also pope, had to repeat the same sacred lesson to Emperor Anastasius I. In 494, he sent him this famous document on the subject of the two powers existing on earth, and the harmony that must be maintained between them:  'I beg your piety not to deem it presumptuous of me to exercise the duties received from God: let it not be thought that a Roman prince takes the truth addressed to him as an insult. For, august emperor, there are two supreme powers governing the world: the holy authority of the pontiffs and the royal power.

Between them, the priestly authority is all the greater as the pontiffs must even give an account before the divine tribunal of the deeds of kings. Surely you know, most merciful son, that even though your dignity places you above other men, in spite of everything you must bow your head before those who are entrusted with divine matters [...]

If, in fact, the priests themselves obey your laws in matters of public order, knowing that the empire has been granted to you by divine disposition, and because they do not wish to give the appearance of opposing, even in purely material matters, a judgement which is beyond their jurisdiction, how much more appropriate for you to obey religiously those whose duty it is to administer the divine mysteries 2?

Around the year 506, another pope, St. Simacus, reminded Emperor Anastasius of Catholic doctrine. In order to forestall any possible objection from his august correspondent, he wrote to him: "Perhaps you will say: it is written: 'We must be subject to all power'. To this, the Pope replies: "We respect human authorities as long as they do not set their will against God. Moreover, if all power comes from God, all the more does the power that presides over divine affairs issue from it. Be subject to God in us, and we will be
subject to God in you."

Later, it was the turn of St Nicholas I (pope from 858 to 867) to refresh Emperor Michael III's memory of the two supreme powers to which men are subject in the world: in spiritual matters, the empire must be subordinate to the priesthood, while sacred ministers are subordinate to the empire in the temporal order1.


1 - Letter 156, 3.
2. Letter to the emperor Anastase, 494


The Middle Ages

When the new European nations were formed as a consequence of the ruin of the Roman Empire, the Church continued to teach its doctrine on the obligations of the state in religious matters.

As far back as the 7th century, St. Isidore of Seville (d. 636) recognized that kings have full powers in the affairs of the century, but that they cannot neglect their duties towards God, nor their respect for the Church, "quam a Christo tuendam susceperunt - whose custody they have received from Christ 2". The thought of the Archbishop of Seville, along with that of St. Augustine, reappeared in the ecclesiastical masters of later centuries. They used a variety of images to expound the Church's traditional teaching. Following the example of St. Bernard, they speak of two swords: the sword of the spirit wielded by the Church, which concerns matters of the soul, and the temporal sword, intended for the service of the Church. At other times, as in the case of Pope Innocent III, the intimate union between body and soul is used as an example to illustrate the harmony and mutual dependence between the two supreme authorities that guide men towards the fullness of earthly life, subordinated to eternal life.

Or again, in Gracian, the relationship between Church and State is compared to those that exist between the sun and the moon. Just as this satellite of the earth benefits from the light of the sun then also in turn beneficial to the earth, so by the guidance of the Church the State achieves its proper purpose, which is to make its subjects happy.

1. Letter 'Proposueramus quidem, Sept. 28 865 A.D.
2. Sent. III 51

Such is the traditional doctrine that flows from the acts of the ecclesiastical magisterium concerning political relations between the Church and the various sovereigns. Pope Urban II, for example, wrote to Alfonso VI of Spain: "Two dignities, King Alfonso, govern this world in the first place: that of priests and that of kings; however, the priestly dignity, my dear son, so surpasses the royal dignity that, of the kings themselves, we must give account to the King of kings 1."

St. Thomas Aquinas, both in his Summa Theologica and in his treatise on the government of states written for the King of Cyprus 2, sets out and justifies the common teaching of the Church on this question. Starting from the principle that the end of society cannot be opposed to the end of each of its members, and that their ultimate end is the enjoyment of God, he concludes that political government must also ensure that men gathered in society attain heavenly beatitude through a virtuous life.

"However," continues St Thomas, "as guiding or leading to this end does not belong to human government, but to divine government [...] and in order that the spiritual may be distinguished from the temporal, the ministry of this kingdom has not been granted to earthly kings but to priests, and principally to the Sovereign Priest, successor of Peter, vicar of Christ, the Roman Pontiff, to whom all the kings of Christendom must be subject as to Our Lord Jesus-Christ Himself 3."

And in the next chapter, the Angelic Doctor adds:
"[...] It belongs, for this reason, to the office of the king to procure for the multitude a good life [according to virtue], as befits the attainment of heavenly beatitude; that is to say, he must prescribe what leads to this heavenly beatitude, and forbid, as far as possible, what is contrary to it 4. "


1 - PL 151, 289 - In VILLOSLADA, Historia de la Iglesia católica, II, Edad Media,
Madrid, 2nd ed. LAC, p. 409.
2 - De Regimine Principum or De Regno, L. I, c. 14.
3 - ID, ibid.
4 - ID, L. I. c. 15.


Christian Civilization

In this way, the Church, the true educator of humankind, leads society towards that ideal situation where life in society achieves equilibrium and well-being, thanks to natural subordination of all earthly activity to the ultimate end in which lies the perfection of happiness to which reasonable nature aspires. Leo XIII reminds us that this was the condition of society in the Middle Ages.

Indeed, in his encyclical Immortale Dei of November 1 1885, he wrote:
Quote:"There was a time when the philosophy of the Gospel governed the States. [...] At that time, the priesthood and the empire were bound together by a happy concord and the friendly exchange of good offices. Organized in this way, civil society produced fruits beyond all expectations, the memory of which remains, and will remain, consigned as it is to innumerable documents that no artifice of adversaries can corrupt or obscure."

At this time, what Yves de Chartres considered an indispensable law of relations between the Church and civil society was being realized:
Quote:"When the empire and the priesthood live in harmony, the world is well governed," he wrote to Pascal II [pope from 1099 to 1118], "and the Church is flourishing and fruitful. But when discord arises between them, not only do small things not grow, but the great themselves wither miserably 1."


The Apostasy of the "New Law"

Unfortunately, dear sons, modern times mark the rupture of the perfect harmony between priesthood and empire, which Leo XIII praised as the source of so many benefits for human relations.

First, it was the Christian rulers who resented the Pope's autonomy. This led to the dissolution of Western religious unity, culminating in the 18th century in what the aforementioned pontiff qualifies as "new law". In the name of the equality and dignity common to all men, any authority whose origin is not the human will itself is rejected.

"It follows that the State does not believe itself bound by any obligation to God, does not officially profess any religion, [...] that it must attribute to them all equality in law, for the sole purpose of preventing them from disturbing public order 2. "

Dear sons, a minimum of reflection on such a theory shows that in a political and social order conceived in this way, the kingship of Jesus-Christ disappears, and the salvation of souls becomes very difficult. A society founded on these principles does not recognize, purely and simply, the sovereignty of God our Lord. How can it call itself Christian if its legitimate representatives - while individually claiming to be Catholics and piously fulfilling their religious duties- - cannot, as public persons, recognize the will of God expressed in His true Church?

We think, dear sons, that it is hardly necessary to point out that, in such a legal disposition, the salvation and sanctification of souls, far from being encouraged, on the contrary encounter the greatest obstacle: they lack the favorable environment that would be provided by legislation openly concerned with the rights of God.

1 - Letter 238. Quoted by Leo XIII in Immortale Dei.
2 - Leo XIII, Immortale Dei.


The Secular State, the Ideal of the Occult Powers

Furthermore, in his encyclical Humanum genus of April 20, 1884, the same Leo XIII denounced the fact that the secular state, strictly neutral in religious matters, is the means that occult forces consider most apt to annihilate and "destroy the whole religious and social Christian order". To this end, they teach that "among the various forms of religion, there is no reason to prefer one over another; all must be placed on an equal footing". The Pope observes that "this principle is enough to ruin all religions, and particularly the Catholic religion for, being the only true one, it cannot, without suffering the last of the insults and injustices, tolerate that other religions are equal to it 1".

The logical consequence of such a principle is the secularism of the State, "the great error of the present age", which consists in relegating concern for religion to the rank of indifferent things. This is why we said, dear sons, that in a political and social regime conceived in this way, it is impossible for the Church to fulfill the mission it has received to establish the reign of Jesus-Christ on earth.

1 - Leo XIII, Humanum genus, April 20, 1884.


The Inversion of Values

Likewise, dear sons, it's worth noting that in the "new law", the social status of religion is reversed. It has been transformed from a guide and organizer of human acts to one of the many private manifestations of the soul, subject like all others to the limits imposed by public order. According to the traditional magisterium, on the contrary, in line with common sense, the State, whose task it is to provide for the goods of the temporal order, is subordinate in its activities to the ultimate end of citizens, and can do nothing to make it difficult to obtain it; on the contrary, it must encourage knowledge of true religion and the practice of virtue.

In the new conception, it is the Church that is subordinate to the State, since, in its activities, it must abstain from anything that the State deems contrary to public order. How can the Church still provide the world with an image of God's excellence and sovereignty, when it sees its field of action restricted to the simple particular interest, which the State enlarges or reduces according to what seems best to it? With such a conception, it's hard to see how a Communist government could be blamed for, say, condemning a priest for baptizing a child, even if he had done so with the parents' consent.


Objective Public Order

And if anyone, dear sons, were to object that this is not just any public order, understood arbitrarily, but the only true public order - that which is objective and indisputably constitutes the common good, and which therefore excludes abuses of authority - if anyone were to oppose such a sophism, it would be easy for you to reply that, in such a hypothesis, we are already leaving the "new law". It's worth pointing out here that without the acceptance of an objective morality, and without the exact notion of the good that morality gives us, an objective public order is inconceivable, since it becomes impossible to know the common good. And if we disregard (abstract -Ed.) true religion, we can no longer conceive of a just objective morality. Consequently, when we appeal to public order or the common good against abuses of authority, we leave behind the "new law" that recognizes no norm superior to man, declaring once and for all that the human will is the source of all law.

'Common good, objective public order' - these are terms that cannot be understood unless they are linked to the idea of a morality superior to man, serving as a standard for the acts of rational creatures. This objective morality culminates in the human being's obligation to worship God, according to the sovereign will of the Almighty Lord. In other words, it obliges man to profess the
true religion. With great aptness, St. Pius X asserted, against Le Sillon - the secular apostolic movement seeking to bring all religions closer together: "There is no true civilization without moral civilization, and there is no true moral civilization without true religion1" .


1 - Apostolic letter Our Apostolic Charge, August 25, 1910.



Half-truths

The quotation from St. Pius X's apostolic letter on Le Sillon leads us to alert you, my dear sons, to the way in which heterodoxy nestles in our midst. Let us apply to faith a rule of action that is proper for the moral virtues.

There is, in fact, a prudence in action that requires a certain indulgence when dealing with men bearing a fallen nature, and whose purpose is to avoid extinguishing a wick that is still smoking. "If you have to put the iron in the wound, you must first feel it with a light hand", said Saint Gregory the Great 1".

But transposing this prudence to the realm of principles can be catastrophic. "Truth," asserted the same Saint Pius X, "is one and indivisible, eternally the same, and does not submit to the whims of the times 2. This is why truth is uncompromising, and why it inherently perishes when it is shared and attenuated. We cannot, therefore, apply to it the condescension with which moral virtue tolerates a certain adaptation to different situations, nor that patience dictated by prudence summed up by the maxim once enunciated by Cicero:

"Summum jus, summa injuria3 - excessive justice, the height of injustice." For the moral order of actions, without sacrificing the regulatory norms of human behavior, must take account of human deficiencies, in imitation of divine patience, which seems to turn a blind eye to human sins in order to obtain their penance and conversion4.

Truth is not to be found in this realm of 'action'. It belongs to the order of 'being', of what is or is not. It is understandable that a human act should be incomplete; it is inconceivable that a truth should be incomplete, because the true idea corresponds to the being to which it refers. If the idea corresponds to reality, there is truth; in the contrary case, the idea is incomplete. It is simply false.

If, out of condescension towards the human frailty, we transpose the prudential principle of action into the order of being and of the truth, by proposing imprecise terms which are not certain, but which do not appear to be totally false either, thus offering a kind of half-truth, we undermine and destroy the faith in the spirit of the faithful. The perpetrators of such a calamity are those who, when false systems arise, strive to find an arrangement, a compromise with these ideologies, by the intermediary of movements which pretend to be apostolic, but which are sufficiently vague and floating so as not to hurt the susceptibility of those outside the Church's flock. They act as a fifth column among the faithful, the edifice of faith being washed out of them.

1 - Quoted by SAINT PIE X in His encyclical Jucunda sane, March 12, 1904.
2 - Encyclical Jucunda sane.
3 - De Officiis, I, 10.
4 - Book of Wisdom, 11, 23.


Agreement Among All Religions

Such a course of action received its doctrinal justification in a principle we see proclaimed in the 16th century by the famous Erasmus of Rotterdam: "Every man possesses the true theology." At the root of this maxim is the assertion that, in the final analysis, there is a profound religious agreement between all men, despite their doctrinal differences. It is only on this condition that the statement "every man possesses the true theology" makes sense. Consequently, there is no conflict between opposing religions, since they are opposed in appearance only. They are merely different manifestations of the same true theology possessed by every man. If we delve more deeply into a religious thought that at first sight seems different from the others, we find, beyond the divergences, the same identical basis common to all. Consequently, the best way to deal with new religious theories and non-Catholic beliefs is to avoid confrontation, polemics and rigid positions, and to ensure that each member of the faithful keeps an equal distance from the different 'credo', since all men find unity in the true theology they hold. Underneath the different religious denominations, there is agreement, a common ground. In other words, there are no errors as such. There are only divergences.

This mental attitude, generalized by diffusion of the free examination of the Protestant pseudo-reformers, prepared minds for compromise with apostasy when the "new law" arose, born of the rise of liberalism from philosophers of the 18th century.


A Vitally Christian State

You know, dear sons, the position taken on this issue by the men of the 19th-century French newspaper 'L'Avenir': Lamennais, Lacordaire, Montalembert.

Despite official censure by the Church, this position reappeared in the aforementioned Sillon social movement and in the well-known ideas of certain Catholic philosophers, who advocated a 'vitally' Christian society, flourishing within a state officially and legitimately secular.

In the thinking of these authors, society would have evolved: from the sacred State of the Middle Ages, to the modern secular state. A natural, historical evolution, which would even have seen a deepening of the doctrinal. For, in the latter period, the independence of the two powers - spiritual and temporal, religious and civil, Church and State - would have been further strengthened. 

Thanks to a better understanding of the limits of its action and power, the State would henceforth remain entirely aloof from the religious question, contenting itself with giving the Church - as well as the citizens who are members of it and the religious sects already existing or to come - full civil freedom, so that it could carry out its work in individual souls and within families, through action of an exclusively private nature. The state would not be Christian, but neither would it be oppressive. Within the framework of this legal status, the Church would have the freedom to create, through its apostolic action, a 'vitally' Christian society in an autonomous state, which would not exert religious pressure, being absolutely incompetent in this field. Still according to this opinion, such a state would adapt to the actual times, where is manifested, in the bosom of various peoples and even to the utmost interior of a nation, a pluralism of beliefs.

Lastly, such a state would be more attentive to the dignity of man and to divine Revelation, both of which require the free determination of the creature in the choice of its religious 'credo'.

This would be a way of overcoming, at the level of principles and therefore radically, the misunderstandings between Church and State that have arisen throughout history.


Ignorance of Natural Law and of the Catholic Doctrine

The extent to which this way of understanding the state's religious situation is far removed from natural reason and Christian Revelation, and how detrimental it is to the Church's mission of restoring all things in Christ Jesus, that this is evident, beyond the reflections of common sense, by the entire tradition of the ecclesiastical magisterium. This magisterium, far from accepting a modification of patristic doctrine in the light of historical developments on the question of the relationship between State and religion, has endeavoured on the contrary to confirm the teaching of all time, by highlighting the incalculable and inescapable evils that would result from the formal denial of public recognition of God's rights over State and society. 


The Church's True Doctrine on this Subject

The Church has never accepted that, as a matter of principle, the State should be secular or neutral in religious matters. This can easily be seen in the history of the Church since the end of the Middle Ages.

In fact, what we are asserting is contained in the definition of Boniface VIII (pope from 1294 to 1303), declaring that it is necessary for salvation that all creatures submit to the Roman pontiff (Bull Unam Sanctam, November 18, 1302). But it is above all in his unceasing condemnation of 'religious indifferentism' designated as 'the cause of the apostasy of the nations', that one can find this teaching. For religious indifferentism is a necessary consequence of the proposition that the State must be secular as a matter of principle. Yet this religious indifferentism, the logical consequence of the official atheism sought by the secular state, has been denounced by pontiffs, particularly since the French Revolution, as the greatest obstacle to the full realization of the reign of Our Lord Jesus-Christ.



From Pius VI to Gregory XVI

Pius VI, in His first encyclical 'Inscrutabile divinae Sapientiae consilium' of Christmas 1775, Leo XII, in his encyclical 'Ubi primum' of May 5, 1824, Pius VIII (1829-1830), in 'Traditi' (his only encyclical written at the start of his short-lived twenty-month pontificate), all, as Christ's vicars on earth, full of zeal for the glory of God and the salvation of souls, all, unanimously, pointed to 'religious indifferentism as the cause of the evils' afflicting society and hindering the Church's action.

Pius VII, who governed the Church during the extremely difficult period of Napoleon's hegemony (1800-1823), did not fail to censure the equality of cults sought by Bonaparte: 
Quote:"Under the equal protection given to all cults," warned the Pope, "hides and disguises the most dangerous, the most cunning persecution imaginable against the Church of Jesus-Christ, and, by misfortune, the most elaborate [attempt] to throw confusion and even destroy it, if it were possible for the forces and wiles of hell to prevail against it".

Under the Bourbon Restoration, Pius VII deplored the similar position taken by Louis XVIII's Constitutional Charter, also favorable to the freedom of all cults.

Gregory XVI, too, could only repress this "delirium" - as he called religious indifferentism and the freedom of all cults taught within the Church - since this delirium was professed, as we have seen, by influential clergymen and laymen, so blinded that they did not hesitate to present it as a very profitable means to the
cause of religion (encyclical Mirari vos, August 15, 1832).


Quanta cura and the Syllabus

Despite these authoritative explanations and condemnations, dear sons, the avalanche of new ideas swelled and threats against "the cause of the Church, the salvation of souls and the good of human society itself" increased. Pius IX therefore repeated the magisterial teaching of his predecessors in several encyclicals, consistorial addresses and apostolic letters, once again condemning such absurdities of the human mind. The importance of the subject, however, was so great for the Church's mission, that the Pope felt it was his duty as Vicar of Christ to issue a special and more solemn magisterial document, in which he would make clear the absolute opposition between the new naturalistic conceptions of the state, culture and civilization, and Catholic doctrine.

Furthermore, he ordered a catalog to be drawn up, bringing together all these errors in propositions that would express them without distorting their nature, and at the same time show the logical link between them: this act of papal magisterium is known as the 'Syllabus', and Pius IX sent it to the bishops of the entire world with his encyclical 'Quanta Cura' of December 8, 1864.

In it, the Sovereign Pontiff proscribed the thesis of secularism on the part of the State, because it impedes the action that the Church is charged with exercising by divine command:
Quote:These misleading and perverse opinions," writes the Pope, "are all the more detestable in that they aim principally to hinder and overthrow that power of salvation which the Catholic Church, by virtue of the mission and mandate received from Her divine Author, must exercise freely until the consummation of the centuries, no less with regard to individuals than to nations, peoples and their leaders. They seek to destroy this mutual alliance and concord between the Priesthood and the Empire, which has always proved propitious and salutary to Religion and society.

Consequently, Pius IX calls 'shameless impiety' the relentlessness of those who, in accordance with the impious and absurd principle of naturalism, teach that... ' ... the best political regime and the progress of civil life absolutely require that human society be constituted and governed without any more regard for Religion than if it did not exist, or at least without making any difference between true and false religions. And against the doctrine of the Holy Scripture, of the Church and of the Holy Fathers, they assert without hesitation that: the best condition of society is one in which power is not recognized as having the duty of repressing violations of Catholic law by legal penalties, except in the case as required for public tranquility"1.

1 - PIE IX, Quanta cura, December 8, 1864.


Leo XIII and Tradition

Despite the vigilance of Pius IX, dear sons, new ideas continued to spread and endanger the existence of the Church as a society of public right, realizing on earth the kingdom of God for the eternal salvation of mankind. It was therefore necessary for the successor of Pius IX to reassert Catholic teaching against the naturalism and secularism of the State, which were undermining the edifice of the social kingship of Our Lord Jesus-Christ.

Leo XIII struck at the root of the evil, denouncing the founding principle on which the secular state is based, indifferent in spiritual matters and entirely autonomous from any religious denomination: the principle that power comes from the people.

"All power comes from God", teaches the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the Apostle (Rom 13:1); "all power comes from the people", dogmatizes the Revolution and the "new law". This law opposes God and man, as two totally alien persons, autonomous from each other. From man, in his free and sovereign will, asserts the "new law", the State takes root, as in its primary source, so that political society accepts no higher authority than the people, whose will is expressed through universal suffrage.

Here, Leo XIII points to the cause of social apostasy. For such a principle justifies an agnostic and even atheistic state, very conciliatory or neutral in matters of religion. Moreover, it is through this principle that the rebellion of the creature is accomplished, for it is the social expression of the satanic cry "non serviam - I will not serve"; as is also the expression of the unholy ideal suggested by the angel of darkness to our first parents: "You shall be as gods, knowing for yourselves what is good and what is evil" (Gen 3:5).

In order to cut this evil at its root, his encyclical Diuturnum illud of June 21, 1881, Leo XIII dealt at length with the origin of political authority, setting out exactly the doctrine of the Faith, corroborated by reason, diametrically opposed to the teachings of the "new law", the acceptance of which is indispensable to the Church if it is to fulfill its mission on earth. Drawing on St. Paul (Rm 13:1), and St. Peter (1 Pe 2, 13) the Pope reminds us that all power comes from God. Consequently, he who resists power is resisting a divine order, which may lead to his own condemnation, since those who govern act as God's ministers.

This first principle of the good civil order of society implies two indispensable consequences for the public establishment of the Kingdom of God in the State: firstly, civil authorities can do nothing against the law of the Lord. For while they govern as agents of God, their power is limited by the decrees of the One by whose will they exercise power. Secondly, among its most important obligations, by virtue of the same fundamental principle, political power has that of rendering official worship to God, its sovereign Lord. Not just any worship, but the worship willed by God, i.e. the true worship of the Catholic Church.

'This is why, just as no one is allowed to neglect his duties towards God, [...] so political societies cannot without crime behave as if God did not exist in any way, or do without religion as foreign and useless, or admit one indifferently according to their good pleasure. In honoring the Divinity, they must strictly follow the rules and mode according to which God Himself has declared that He wishes to be honored 1'.

The doctrine on the divine origin of political power logically unfolds in two directions that concern the religious attitude of the State, namely: the affirmation of harmony between religious and civil society, between Church and State, and the affirmation of the State's subordination to the Church in the religious and spiritual realm. As you can see, dear sons, we are returning to the doctrine of the early centuries of the Church, in accordance with the principle of St. Vincent de Lerins, a principle that the first Vatican Council canonized: "In the Catholic Church, one must apply oneself with the utmost diligence to professing what has been believed' everywhere, always and by all'.2

At a time when the apostasy of the nations was on the increase, a subject of such great importance demanded particular attention from the Holy See. Leo XIII responded to the expectations of the faithful with several encyclicals, especially 'Immortale Dei', dated November 19, 1885, on the Christian constitution of States. Even today, dear sons, reading these documents from the pontifical magisterium is extremely opportune.

1 - LEON XIII, encyclical Immortale Dei.
2 - Commonitorium, 2, 5, in KIRCH, Enchiridion Fontium historiæ Ecclesiasticae Antiquae, 742.


Tolerance of Evil

In Leo XIII's political teaching, the traditional doctrine on the two powers - spiritual and temporal, Church and State - is presented in a systematic and clear exposition, dispelling any kind of doubt on the matter. It is only natural that later popes should refer to it. This is what St. Pius X did in His encyclical 'Vehementer' of February 11, 1906, prompted by the French government's rupture of diplomatic relations with the Holy See, and also in his apostolic letter 'Our Apostolic Mandate' of August 25, 1910, on the errors of the Sillon, already mentioned. Benedict XV did likewise in his first encyclical Ad Beatissimi, of November 1, 1914. Also Pius XI, in various documents, but especially in the one we commented on above on the kingship of Jesus-Christ [Quas primas, December 11, 1925], where he called on the faithful to unite to triumph over "the plague of our time, secularism". Finally, Pius XII, in his first encyclical 'Summi Pontificatus' of October 20, 1939, took up the argument of 'Quas primas' in order to once again, insistently, recommend the social kingship of Our Lord Jesus-Christ. 

Throughout his long pontificate, Pius XII addressed this subject on a number of occasions. Thus, in his "Address to the Participants of the 5th Congress of Italian Catholic Jurists", on December 6, 1953, he clarified the principle previously established by Leo XIII: "That which does not correspond to truth and the moral norm has objectively no right to existence, propaganda or action." Man, in fact, was created for truth and goodness. And in his effort to attain the knowledge of truth and the practice of the good, he enjoys, because of his social nature, the right to be helped by the ambient framework established in society by the action of the State. Therefore a state which, as a matter of principle, authorizes or promotes the public practice of false religions, or of principles contrary to moral law, would not help, but would actually make it more difficult for its members to perfect their reasonable lives. This, moreover, was the reason
given by Pius XII to justify his doctrinal intolerance: 
Quote:'It is contrary to nature [...] to consider error and evil as indifferent things. God Himself could not give positive authorization to teach or do what is contrary to religious truth or moral good, because it would be in contradiction with His absolute truthfulness and holiness 1.

Of itself, therefore, the State is under a grave obligation to favor true religion and repress false cults. However, the application of this principle must be nuanced. In other words, it is in the designs of Providence that public power should carefully examine the factual situation of the people, or of all the peoples subject to it, in religious matters.

And, as circumstances require, it may or may not tolerate false or superstitious cults alongside true religion. It can never positively approve the existence and propaganda of such cults. However, the actual conditions in which society finds itself may be such that a legislative act authorizing the existence and even the propaganda of certain false beliefs may constitute an act with a double effect: one bad effect, which is the public authorization of superstition; and another good effect - the appeasement of conflicts that would make it impossible for people to live together, or other analogous goods. In these concrete circumstances, the State can tolerate the existence and practice of false religions, provided this is required by the common good, which remains the norm regulating the rights and duties of the State.

1 - PIE XII, Allocution aux juristes catholiques italiens, December 6, 1953.


Abnormal Situation

Like Leo XIII, Pius XII makes it clear that this is not the ideal situation for the state's relations with religion and divine worship. At no time and in no way do they accept the thesis of the secular state, based solely on the proper purpose of civil society, which would be purely temporal. They are, however, inclined to justify the 'toleration ' of evil, i.e. the religious neutrality of the state when (and uniquely in this case) an imperative social requirement makes it indispensable. In practice, tolerance finds its backing in the way God our Lord Himself acts, who desires man to come to faith through a free determination of his will. This is illustrated by the Gospel parable of the weeds sown by the enemy in the field where the father of the family has sown wheat. Although the presence of tares is an evil, the Lord nevertheless allows it to grow in the midst of the wheat, because the good of uprooting it could turn into a greater evil, or stand in the way of some excellent good. In the parable, this is the danger that the wheat will also be lost.

Saint Thomas Aquinas explains how civil authority can tolerate certain evils in society:
Quote:'Human government derives from divine government, and must take it as its model. Now God, although omnipotent and sovereignly good, nevertheless allows evils to occur in the universe, when He could prevent them, because their suppression would remove great goods and lead to greater evils. Thus, in human government, those rightly tolerate some evils, lest some goods be prevented, or even lest worse evils be incurred 1.

However, it should not be forgotten that toleration relates exclusively to evil things 2.

This is why, in itself, it is never a good. Consequently, 'it cannot claim any rights 3'.


Faith must be Free

In reality, anyone who would base his argument on the freedom that must characterize the act of faith would be going against the whole of the Church's traditional doctrine if he were to deduce from it the right of man to freely and publicly profess the religion he finds best, or a religion that is false because he himself is convinced that it is true. Apostolic Tradition has never taught this.

And, my dear sons, the parable of the tares and the wheat (Mt 13:24-30) cannot be used to support some pseudo right to profess false religions, because, in traditional teaching, there is no interpretation of the parable in this sense.

Saint Augustine, who for some time had been in favor of compromises with heretics, was soon admitted that it was right for them to be repressed. Saint John Chrysostom deems it appropriate any repression of the public activity of heretics, excepting only capital punishment. Saint Thomas Aquinas also considers it natural to prevent heretics from engaging in religious activity.

In fact, when we say that faith must be embraced by a free act of the will, we are in no way giving a right of power to error, since in adherence to error or evil, there is no perfection, either of the intelligence or of the will. On the contrary, there is a deficiency. So man, as a reasonable being, has the right to freely adhere to revealed truth and freely practice virtue, but 'he does not have the right to deform his intelligence by accepting error, or his will by the practice of vice'. Our Lord himself affirms that he who sins is not free, but is enslaved by sin. Saint Thomas Aquinas explains:
Quote:'The condition of a slave arises when a person acts not according to his nature, but under the pressure of another. Now, man, according to his nature, is reasonable. So when he acts in accordance with reason, he acts according to his nature, driven by a proper movement, his own. And this is what freedom is all about. But when he sins, he acts contrary to reason, and it is as if he were moved by another. This is why he who sins is enslaved by sin 4.

1 - II-II, q. 10, a. 11.
2 - Saint Augustine, En. in Ps. 1, 20.
3 - Let's be clear: the "tolerated" have no natural right to be tolerated, but their tolerance can be guaranteed by a civil right. On the other hand, tolerance is for the common good, not for the particular good of the tolerated; it is therefore a matter of general justice, not commutative justice. (Editor's note)
4 - Commentary on St John's Gospel, lectura 4, c. 8; see also Leo XIII's encyclical Libertas praestantissimum, June 20, 1888.

If the state were not obliged to protect true religion exclusively, it would be fundamentally failing in its purpose. This purpose is clearly to provide citizens with the means to achieve a suitable perfection of their life on earth, but in dependence on their ultimate end, which can only be reached through the profession and practice of the true religion. This is why Pius XII teaches that not even God can give the State the right to be indifferent in religious matters.  In short, tolerance is always the tolerance of an evil, which can be admitted in concrete circumstances, whenever required to obtain a necessary or superior good, and even if it's only a question of removing a situation that makes life in society impossible or harmful.

With great zeal, Gregory XVI describes as an "absurd and erroneous principle", or rather, a "delusion", the freedom of conscience that allows everyone to practice their religion publicly 1. Saint Augustine said that "there is no worse death for the soul than the freedom of error 2. Just because pride and sensuality have succeeded in imbuing contemporary mentality with a spirit of rebellion, striving to shake off every kind of yoke imposed by faith and morality, does not mean that we are going to deny the truth taught by right reason and by the ecclesiastical magisterium in a continuous and invariable manner.

1- Encyclical Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.
2 - Letter 166.


Freedom and Responsibility in the Act of Faith

My dear sons, let us close this chapter with a final consideration that underlines the wisdom with which God's mercy, and consequently, His Church, acts.  God our Lord wants the act of faith, by which man enters the kingdom of Christ, to be free and meritorious. To this end, He gives all men the necessary grace, without which the supernatural act of faith, worthy of eternal life, would be impossible. In view of His benevolence, of His grace, which He refuses to withhold from no-one, Our Lord makes the act of faith obligatory for salvation. Nevertheless, in His infinite mercy, He endures the sinner on this earth, so that he may not die eternally, but "be converted and live" (Ez 33:11).

The corollary of these truths of the Catholic religion is that the act of faith cannot be imposed on man's interior forum of his conscience. Infidelity can be a sin, a serious sin. But it is not lawful to force a man's will not to commit it. It is each individual, aided by grace, who must freely and with horror reject this impiety which consists in not paying attention to divine Revelation. Consequently, no human power can force a person to adhere to the true Faith. The use of violence to impose conversion has always been condemned by the Church.

Hence the Magisterium envisages the possibility, temporary or exceptional, that someone may find himself in invincible ignorance of the true religion. Such an individual deserves respect and attention, as long as his unbelief is only material. He has not deformed his will by linking it to evil in a responsible manner. This aberration, however, does not give him the right to profess his error, since, objectively, he is in error; and error "has no right to existence, propaganda or action 1".

We recall, dear sons, the Catholic doctrine on the kingship of Jesus-Christ here on earth, because the secularism of modern times easily obscures it in the minds of the faithful, and, without a firm conviction of what we should believe, our apostolate loses the zeal essential to its effectiveness. The weakness of love for
the truth among the upright is responsible, in large part, for the progress of apostasy in today's society.

The principle we are expressing to you, dear sons, is universal, even though our apostolate is usually restricted to the environment in which we live and the terrain in which we have the opportunity to act, but it is always the same doctrine that makes every form of apostolate fruitful, from the most modest to the most vast and sublime.

1 - PIE XII, Allocution aux participants du 5e congrès des juristes catholiques italiens, December 6, 1953.


Summary and Pastoral Considerations

Therefore, before turning to the pastoral consequences of the teaching set out here, we shall summarize it, dear sons, so that it may be better fixed in your minds.

1. Our Lord Jesus-Christ, true God and true man, as Mediator between heaven and earth and Redeemer of the human race, was constituted by the eternal Father as King of the universe in the fullest sense of the word. Through the establishment of His kingdom of truth, justice and peace, is realized His mission, ordained for the glory of God and the salvation of souls. Although de jure Jesus is also a temporal king, de facto He has reserved for Himself sovereignty over those things which bind man to God and concern eternal salvation.

2. Since the establishment of this kingdom on earth is the 'raison d'etre' of the Church of Christ, i.e. the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, the kingship of Jesus-Christ inherently requires that political society be constituted in accordance with the one Church of Christ.

3. However, the kingship of Jesus-Christ must not be imposed by force or violence. It is by a free act of the will that man adheres to the faith and enters the kingdom of Christ. This condition of human nature - that we can only enter Christ's kingdom through the exercise of a free act - does not give error or vice any right to a peaceful existence in the state, let alone a right to propaganda and action. For, man being created for  truth and goodness, there is nothing in him that gives him the right to adhere with impunity to error or consent to vice.

4. This condition, though it does not confer a 'right', nevertheless justifies the State in exercising 'tolerance' towards false religious confessions, as long as concrete circumstances require it, in view of a great good to be obtained, or an evil to be avoided. Tolerance of false religions, or of certain behaviors contrary to the rule of morality, is therefore always a 'lesser evil', and for this reason cannot be considered a normal, definitive situation. He would be mistaken who claims to elevate to the rank of principle the mixing of good and evil in the parable of the wheat and the tares. The parable presents a fact, not a right. It exposes the fact of the situation of the good in the world, who, according to the designs of Providence, will always be surrounded by evil people. The latter, explains St. Augustine, exercise the faithful in the practice of virtue and confirm them in the faith. The parable in no way claims to give notice of the right for error or evil to exist, as if, as a matter of principle, the normal situation of the state entailed or required granting all religious beliefs the freedom to exist and propagate.

5. Moreover, the State cannot be dispensed from its duties towards true religion on the pretext that it must concern itself only with earthly realities; for in devoting itself to its specific end, the State must not and cannot forget the subordination of earthly goods to the ultimate, eternal end of the citizens. It will only act properly if it itself submits to the true religion, which is the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman religion, endowed with clearly manifested characteristics. So that, generally speaking, no one can be excused for not knowing it or not living by its commandments.


Our Duties towards the Kingship of Jesus-Christ

Establishing the kingdom of Jesus-Christ in society is an apostolic objective which obliges all the faithful. However, it must always be carried out in an orderly and peaceful manner, in imitation of Jesus-Christ and the Apostles who obeyed and commanded obedience to the constituted public powers, except in cases where the power imposed laws or ordered acts contrary to God's will.

Leo XIII affirms that the first Christians were... '... of exemplary fidelity to princes, and as perfect an obedience to the laws of the State as they were permitted. They displayed a marvellous radiance of holiness on all sides; they strove to be useful to their brethren and to attract others to follow Our Lord, yet they were prepared to give way and die bravely if they could not, without wounding their consciences, retain honours, magistracies and military offices' 1.


Our Conversion

The obligation to work for the establishment of the kingdom of Jesus-Christ, which concerns each of us, dear sons, begins with 'our very own conversion'. Above all, we must let Jesus-Christ reign over our being, by conforming our own will, our actions and our behavior, to the most holy will of God, expressed in His commandments and in the directives of His holy Church, whose spirit we must assimilate above all. Such submission obliges us to shun the solicitations of the world.

This is how the first Christians completely reformed pagan society, converting it and building the city of God, Christian civilization, on its ruins. Let's listen to Leo XIII:
Quote:'In this way, they rapidly introduced Christian institutions not only into domestic homes, but also into the camps, the Curia and even the imperial palace. [...] So when it was permitted to profess publicly the Gospel, the Christian faith appeared in a large number of cities, not still wavering, but strong and already full of vigour 2.

1 - LEON XIII, Immortale Dei.
2 - LEON XIII, Immortale Dei. See Tertullian: "We're only from yesterday, and already we're filling everything that is yours, your cities, your islands, your fortresses, your municipalities, your conciliabules, your camps themselves, the tribes, the decuries, the palace, the senate, the forum". (Apol., 37). (Editor's note)


In the Family

Personal action takes place within families. When the austerity of the Christian life reigns within the family, when the atmosphere of the home is imbued with faith and encourages the practice of virtue, people find it easier to overcome the seductions of impiety and vice that come from the passions, the devil and the spirit of the world.

Dear sons, it is important to stress the 'enormous responsibility of parents' in the Catholic education of their children; for, on their vigilance, on what they have done positively to educate their children, depends the spirit which, later on, will animate all the latter's behaviour. Without decisive action on the part of parents, it is impossible to establish the reign of Jesus-Christ in society. On this subject, let us denounce, dear sons, the harmful influence exerted on the family atmosphere by television, magazines, bad books or frivolous reading.

Be aware, beloved sons, that good families come together in larger social groups, from which civil society is formed. And this is how, through firm but patient action, we can contribute to the renewal of the State, by gradually christianizing it. As the divine Saviour said in the parable of the leaven in the dough (Mt 13:33), it is through the continuous radiance of the good odour of JesusChrist that the fervour of the faithful will reconquer the world, for the service of the King of glory.



In Public Life

This is why, dear sons, the devil, by ambushes of every kind, attacks the integrity of the Christian family, attacking it in its nature as well as in its duties and the ordinary course of its life. You understand, therefore, that our eagerness for Jesus-Christ to be the sovereign Lord of society cannot be confined to particular personal or family actions, however important and necessary they may be. We must 'also act in public life', both positively and to prevent families from being asphyxiated by these disorders of all kinds that are tolerated to satisfy the misunderstood freedom of modern people.

As Leo XIII warns, when he emphasizes this obligation of the faithful, action in public life must be taken in an orderly and serene manner: without provoking strife between classes, without arousing spirits against the established order; but by acting firstly by good example, that absolutely indispensable weapon, and then, by all legal means - writings, manifestos, collective representations, etc. - with the aim to prevent the approval of laws or customs that are contrary to Christian faith and morals, such as divorce, induced abortion under any pretext, the free sale of contraceptives, their use in hospitals and maternity wards, sex education in schools, public licentious behaviour, the dissemination of pornography, the free circulation of films offensive to Jesus-Christ, which offend dogma or corrupt the family, etc.

An identical positive activity is also needed, with a view to achieving a public order inspired by the Christian spirit, which prepares citizens to adhere to the true faith in Jesus-Christ, as proclaimed by His Church, the One that is Catholic, Apostolic and Roman.


Schools: Teaching Religion is not Enough

Whence this apostolate and the rights of parents, dear sons, include organized action 'against the school monopoly' being established in our homeland1 under the pretext of educational efficiency.

This action is essential, first and foremost, because the very real situation for the Brazilian people, will be one of official secular education. So, in a school where the official teaching is secular, it is not possible to give students a Catholic education. This training requires that all disciplines be considered as a harmonious whole, so that, animated by the same spirit, they integrate the spirit of Our Lord Jesus-Christ, Wisdom of God, to whose glory all sciences must be ordered. The late Carlos de Laet2 rightly said that secular teaching is by its very nature seditious. And he gave the example of writing, an apparently indifferent subject, where the teacher necessarily loses his neutrality when he has to explain, for example, why the word God is written with a capital letter.

And it's not by introducing religious education into official establishments that we'll remedy the ills of secularism. In the first place, because it's a condition of simple favor to religious education in these establishments.

1 - In Brazil, the school monopoly is much more recent than in France. (Editor's note)
2 - Carlos DE LAET (1847-1928), Brazilian journalist and essayist, a vigorous polemicist, brilliant in His columns and articles.

What's more, as this teaching is often inserted into a system that does not give it its rightful place, the development of the Catholic mentality is immediately altered. Secondly, as Pius XI observes, religious instruction given in a school where other subjects ignore religion, and even work against it, is absolutely insufficient to give anyone a Catholic formation.

Therefore, if they accept the introduction of religious instruction into the 'curriculum' of school subjects, in order to uphold the principle that education cannot do without religion, Catholic parents must take great care to give their children a religious training outside school, in order to correct the evils to which we alluded above 1.

Above all, they must take a special stand against the school monopoly, so that their rights to educate their children are truly recognized and respected in all their fullness. Let them demand protection and support for private schools. They can even assume control of it, or at least give themselves the opportunity to influence its activities.

It's worth recalling Pius XI's comments to parents about national socialist schools:
Quote:'...Parents who are earnest and conscious of their educative duties, have a primary right to the education of the children God has given them in the spirit of their Faith, and according to its prescriptions. Laws and measures which eliminate, in school questions, the respect of this free will of the parents go against natural law, and are immoral.

...Therefore, we shall never cease frankly to represent to the responsible authorities the iniquity of the pressure brought to bear on you and the duty of respecting the freedom of education. Yet do not forget this: none can free you from the responsibility God has placed on you over your children. None of your oppressors, who pretend to relieve you of your duties can answer for you to the eternal Judge, when He will ask: "Where are those I confided to you?" May every one of you be able to answer: "Of them whom Thou hast given me, I have not lost any one" (John xviii. 9).

1 - Bishop de Castro-Mayer wrote this at a time when it was still possible to make do with intermediate solutions, because the official school system was not entirely corrupt everywhere. Today, as the situation worsens, the only advice is: put your children in traditional schools if you don't want them to go to perdition! (Editor's note)
2 - Encyclical 'Mit brennender Sorge', March 14, 1937.


Slackening of the Faith

As we engage in these considerations with you, dear sons, our hearts ache at the indifference with which many Catholics approach the problem of educating the younger generation. A good many of them confine themselves, at most, to looking for a college that carries the Catholic label. They dispense of discovering more accurate information, and feel they have no responsibility in the matter. Where does such a lack of faith come from?

To a large extent, it stems from the love of ease 1, with which these Catholics have been contaminated by the 'liberalism of modern civilization', made up of the immoderate enjoyment that is the hallmark of the consumer society. But  this lack of faith also stems from a' lack of confidence in grace', which is in some ways more serious.

In fact, many of us feel that God's grace has become insufficient to overcome the wickedness into which the world is plunged today. Although we don't express it clearly, we do in fact judge that the apostasy of society, and consequently of states, has become so profound that it is no longer possible to speak of the social reign of Our Lord. We would have to be content with a 'modus vivendi' in which we seek to save as many souls as possible, while at the same time refraining from fighting, even in the long term, in favor of a Catholic State.

Hence, the accommodation of many, who profess the Catholic faith, with the paganization of society. Naturalism has led them to trust in their own strength and lack confidence in grace. They worry that they have everything to achieve, and, realizing their inability to defeat the monster of secularism, they judge that 'the only possible path is that of concessions'. The reasoning should be entirely different. Feeling their weakness, their inability to overcome the modern spirit, these people should turn to grace, and be assured of its omnipotence against all God's enemies.

On the anniversary of the death of Saint Gregory the Great, Saint Pius X noted that His admirable predecessor had distinguished Himself precisely in that He had ignored the prudence of the flesh...
Quote:'... and in the preaching of the Gospel, and in the other admirable works he accomplished for the relief of human misery. He followed the example of the Apostles, who said on the day they set out to proclaim Christ throughout the world: "We preach Jesus crucified, a scandal to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles" (1 Cor 1:23). But if ever there was a time when the helps of human prudence may have seemed opportune, it is indeed that time: for minds were in no way prepared to welcome this new doctrine, which was so strongly repugnant to passions everywhere in control, and clashed head-on with the brilliant civilization of the Greeks and Romans2.

1 - The Brazilian text uses the term "comodismo", which could be translated as "commodism" if the word didn't already refer to a scientific theory (developed by Henri Poincarao). We're talking here about that form of practical liberalism that seeks ease and compromise with the spirit of the world. (Editor's note)
2 - Encyclical Iucunda sane, March 12, 1904.


Religion within Human limits

Dear sons, this lack of confidence in the efficacy of grace, this overconfidence in our own abilities, was already present in the time of the divine Master. In fact, what else does this attitude of the Saviour's disciples indicate, when they judged His words to be harsh and impossible to follow? "Durus est hic sermo et quis potest eum audire? " (Jn 6:61). What were these disciples asking for, if not a Christian message they could put into practice themselves? What were they refusing, if not a grace so powerful that it would make them overcome their own misery?

Basically, it was a question of finding a compromise between the severity of the Gospel preached by Jesus-Christ and the principles of the world; a religion, definitely, that would "understand" human conditions and "would adapt" to their weaknesses.

However, these disciples did not always have imitators who followed them in all their attitudes. Unwilling to follow the rules laid down by the Savior, they abandoned Him. Over the centuries, not all those who would promulgate their pride and lack of confidence in grace would reproduce (imitate Ed.)their open defection. Many would remain in the bosom of the Church, only to deform it, and create a 'new Church', closer to the times, more accessible to its passions, and for that reason, inauthentic, false. This is how heresies appeared suddenly.


How Heresies are Born

It's a normal part of human psychology that man seeks a reason to legitimize his actions. Because of a lack of confidence in grace and a weakening of his faith, he becomes accustomed to a trivialized and peaceful coexistence with the error and evil present in society, and looks for a principle that endorses his behavior and gives what he does and thinks a semblance of coherence.

This phenomenon, which lies at the root of the heresies of the past, can still be found today in various movements that have arisen within the Church, generous in appearance because they intend to devote themselves to the conversion of those outside Christ's fold. But their generosity is infected with the love of the world 1. To smooth the way, they resort to a less rocky presentation, if we may put it that way, of revealed morality and doctrine, and, consequently, more accessible to minds accustomed to living, to varying degrees, according to the maxims of the world. In reality, such movements rob Revelation of the clarity of its dogmas and, by the same token, falsify it, for in the words of Our Lord, the 'yes' must be 'yes', and the 'no' must be 'no'. What dilutes these clarifications comes from the Evil One (see Mt 5:37).


Immortification

These movements are known precisely for their compromising apostolate, which attenuates traditional severity. They weaken the precepts of morality, avoiding the emphasis on a life that is usually serious and austere, and allowing themselves liberties that offend souls accustomed to the image of the faithful Catholic docilely attached to Sacred Scripture and to Tradition. An image full of confidence, no doubt, but also of a holy and respectful fear of God.

More by their way of proceeding than by clear teachings, these movements we're talking about distill a Christianity in which levity of morals and freedom of speech, commonplace in today's paganized world, are considered absolutely normal and of no great importance. We've already had occasion to warn you, dear sons, against coarse language, social leveling, vulgar manners and irreverence towards Our Lord, all of which can be found in circles imbued with the ideology and spirit of the Cursilhos2. We are told that there are other similar movements suffering from the same defects. These movements would bridge the gap between Christianity and the easy, sensual lifestyle that capitulates to the evil tendencies of nature inherited from original sin. Then appears a new Church, having lost confidence in the omnipotence of grace - which, however, was able to bring down and raise up a St. Paul - the sublime character of Christ's religion to the level of human nature and its deficiencies.


1 - Their generosity is "comodista", inclined to compromise with the world.
2 - The term is a calque of the Spanish word, Cursillos de cristiandad, "Little course in Christianity". A Catholic action movement that emerged in Spain in 1944, it quickly became a vehicle for ecumenism. Bishop de Castro Mayer refers in a note (in the Italian translation of SiSi NoNo in August 2011), to "Nostra Carta Pastoral sobre cursilhos de Cristiandade, 3rd ed., Vera Cruz, Sao Paulo, 1973." (Editor's note)


The Spirit of Independence

A second characteristic of these movements, linked to pride - that other fundamental tendency of fallen nature - is the spirit of independence from Tradition. The coryphae of the movements we're talking about make no secret of their claim to be building a renewed Christianity. They strive to convince their peers that they have at last rediscovered with certainty the true substance of the Christian message, which had been obscured by the excesses of Tradition. In this, they are contumacious1.

They are the only ones who know how to apply the words of the Gospel to today's world. They claim a similar autonomy from the hierarchy. Outwardly very respectful, they seek - as we have often heard said in recent years - ecclesiastical leaders who "understand" them, i.e. who accept their positions. Absolutely convinced that their thinking is authentically Christian, they say nothing to arguments based on Sacred Scripture and Tradition. And so they continue, obstinate in their ideas and their proselytism. As they feel that only by maintaining their links with the Church will they be listened to, they invoke a few ecclesiastical approbations, the existence of which they do not always prove, and the content of which they are carefully cautious to divulge their contents- when it exists. Some, like the so called "Catholic Pentecostals", go further: they believe in a direct, more or less perceptible influence of "the Spirit", without the intervention of the hierarchy.

All these movements, without judging the intentions of their instigators, are in fact inspired by the modernist mentality, whose rules of action were as follows:  to remain in the Church in order to renovate it in depth; and, within the Church, to transcend the limits of the hierarchy, in order to reach the essence of Christianity that exists in the subconscious of every human being. As a tactic, they sought to silence publications and arguments opposed to them, and endeavored to discredit their opponents2.

1 - In Roman law, a "contumax" is an individual who shows an inclination to despise authority. In ecclesiastical law, contumacy refers to the attitude of a sinner who, externally, shows arrogance towards ecclesiastical authority and refuses to amend his ways. (Editor's note)
2 - Antonio FOGAZZARO, Il Santo, and St. Pius X's encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis, September 8, 1907.


The Antidote: Living by Faith

You see, dear sons, that with such a mentality, it is out of the question to think of establishing the kingship of the divine crucified One. His kingship is opposed to that social atmosphere produced by the domination of passions wounded by original sin. This mentality is entirely committed to a compromise that seeks to preserve the faith without separating itself from man's "conquests", by virtue of the autonomy that the deprivation of grace would have indirectly procured him, when sin reduced him to his natural condition.

To guard against the contamination of such a harmful spirit, spread by movements of the type we have described, it is necessary, dear sons, that you make the spirit of faith more alive in yourselves.

Above all, anchor in your minds the exact concept of the faith indispensable to salvation, the faith without which, says St. Paul, "it is impossible to please God" (Heb 11:6). This faith is a supernatural virtue, infused by God, whose object is revealed Truth. The first Vatican Council defined it as follows:
Quote:'This faith, which is the beginning of man's salvation, the Catholic Church professes to be a supernatural virtue by which, forewarned by God and helped by His grace, we believe the things He has revealed to us to be true, not because of their intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself who reveals, who can neither deceive Himself nor us'1.

Thus, the fundamental condition for belonging to Christ's flock is to accept revealed truths in their exact meaning, as proposed to us by the Holy Church. To think otherwise, to reduce faith to an act of trust or mere sentiment, is to fall into heresy. As a result, any movement, association or group of the faithful that claims to be Catholic - and especially if it is destined to the apostolate, to the propagation of the spirit of Jesus-Christ in the social milieu in which it finds itself -this movement, then, must first and foremost have as its aim a firm and scrupulous adherence to revealed doctrine. What's more, these truths, which divine goodness has deigned to manifest to man, must be accepted with humility and gratitude, as expounded by the Holy Church, the only infallible teacher to whom God our Lord has entrusted the deposit of His Revelation.

Without a docile submission of the intelligence to this revealed truth, attentive above all not to distort in any way what God has deigned to make known through His Church, there is no authentic Catholicism. There is only an appearance, which can mislead one's neighbor, and which, as a result, presents the danger of making him deviate towards an equally erroneous conception of the faith.

We repeat: this attitude of submission, fundamental for the Catholic, implies obedience to a double external authority: to the truth proposed by Revelation, and to the Church which transmits it.

Because this requires us to admit our inferiority and limitations, the modern mind rebels against this attitude, in the name of reason and Rights of man. It's this spirit of rebellion that drives - albeit perhaps unconsciously - the movements we've been talking about. The remedy for contamination by this spirit lies in humble and loving obedience to the authentic magisterium, receiving revealed dogma in the sense that the Church has always taught. Without this pure and unreserved faith, we are not immune to the virus of adaptation to the world, which St. Paul condemned.

1 - Vatican I, session 3, Constitution 'Dei Filius', ch. 3 (DS 3008).


Living by Faith

With the same docility, without wrapping them in the sinuosities of our selflove, we must hear and practice the precepts enunciated by the divine Master, so that He may reign in us and we may be effective instruments in spreading His reign in souls.

"If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." (Lk 9:23). This is the golden rule, irreplaceable. Without "let him deny himself", without renouncing our egoism, our pleasures and our desires, in order to do God's will alone, sanctification is illusory, the apostolate practically sterile and exposed to the danger of being led astray in the direction of compromise with the world.

This renunciation requires daily mortification; consequently, every day, we must take up the cross that Our Lord sends us: the cross of the exact fulfillment of our duties of state; the cross of patience towards our neighbor; the cross of the struggle against human respect.

Such a precept, understood according to its objective truth, is incompatible with the maxims of the world. Only a spirit of faith, living in the hope of future realities that will only be revealed in eternity, is capable of accepting it and loyally proposing to live by it. Rightly understood, it shows us how all those movements that aspire to establish a new Church and practice openness to the ways of being and behaving of the modern world, stray dangerously far from the path that leads to God's glory and eternal salvation.


The Spirit of the World

Let us agree, dear sons, that the temptation to seek agreement between the doctrine of salvation and the spirit of the age is tempting. Everywhere we are offered, including the inclination inherent in our sinful nature, a false charity, the fruit of a naturalistic conception of existence.

That's why the divine Master never tires of warning His disciples against living according to worldly principles. In His great priestly prayer, after the Last Supper, Jesus asks the Eternal Father, in a special way, to preserve His disciples from the contagion of the world (Jn 17:9-15). And the reason for this request is that the whole world is under the influence of the Evil One (1 Jn 5:19), by the lure of concupiscence, vanity and pride (1 Jn 2:16). In the same vein, St. Paul urges us to flee the temptation to conform to the spirit of the present age (Rom 12:2).

If, aided by confident and fervent prayer, we remain faithful in this vigilance, God our Lord will have mercy on us and grant us the grace not to get caught up in the meshes of an apparent, but false apostolate; that is, an apostolate which, if it does not totally renounce the social reign of Jesus-Christ over the world today, accommodates itself to a half-christianity, conceived in the manner of a union between two antagonistic spirits: 'Christian austerity and the wanderings of modern life. The result of such an alliance can only be the nausea of which the Apocalypse speaks (Apo 3:16), and which provokes the Lord's reprobation.

Dear Sons, in His encyclical 'Immortale Dei', Leo XIII echoes the admonitions of Jesus-Christ, and draws the attention of those who dedicate themselves to the work of spreading the Kingdom of God in society, to the two dangers that threaten them: connivance with false opinions, and a less energetic firmness than that demanded by the truth.

Let us therefore, dear sons, avoid our charity degenerating into an encouragement to error or vice. And let our patience never be an incitement to persevere in evil.



The Prayer

"Sine me nihil potestis facere - Without me, you can do nothing" (Jn 15:5). Union with Jesus-Christ, dear sons, so that He may reign in us, and so that we may be crusaders in the service of His reign, is absolutely necessary.

This union with the Redeemer of mankind, the fruit of grace, is nourished and made more intense by the reception of the sacraments and by the practice of the Christian virtues, especially charity, which brings us to avoid anything in our lives that is displeasing to God our Lord, and which arouses in us a genuine interest in our neighbor, especially in his sanctification.

The indispensable means of maintaining union with Jesus-Christ, zeal for the glory of God and the salvation of souls, and at the same time making our apostolate effective, is prayer, that sovereign means which the divine Savior has bequeathed to us for obtaining all the favors of heaven.

Therefore, dear sons, we urge you always to use this weapon, so effective in establishing the reign of Jesus-Christ on earth, first within yourselves and then in the society in which you live.

"Ask, and you shall receive" (Jn 16:24), said the infallible Word, which can and does accomplish what it promises. If our country isn't as Catholic as it should be, it's partly our fault. If we had asked with faith, with confidence, surely we would have been sanctified and our prayers granted. Well! pray, dear sons, pray with the ardent will to receive what you ask for.

Prayer is so necessary that Jesus himself taught us how to pray. For us, He composed the most beautiful and complete of prayers: the 'Our Father'. It is the prayer we should say every day. In it, we ask precisely for the grace that this reign of God to come to us. Indeed, what else do we implore in the second petition of the Our Father, if not that God's reign may come to us? Thy kingdom come!" (Mt 6:10). So let us fervently say the' Our Father', paying close attention to what we're asking for, and begging with a burning desire to see its fulfillment: "Thy kingdom come!" We may lack all other means of extending the reign of Jesus Christ -- science, health, personal charisma, the ability to captivate crowds,...everything! but we never lack the means of prayer. IT IS the indispensable means. The others, without it, are ineffective; but, through prayer, we are made capable of exercising that apostolate which, according to the designs of Providence, it behooves to us to accomplish. Prayer is within our reach. Let us use it with a burning desire to be heard. God takes great account of the fervor of our desire when we ask Him for grace. So let's pray with all our heart and soul, and we'll obtain it.

Especially if we call upon the intercession of the Mediatrix of all graces, the Queen of heaven and earth, the most holy Mary, Our Lady. Let us confide our aspirations and preoccupations to Her. And She, against all human hope - "in spem contra spem, against all hope, keeping hope" (Rom 4:18) - will make her divine Son reign over the world today, fulfilling the kind and gentle promise She made at Fatima: "In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph!"

With our affectionate blessing in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, we pray the most holy Virgin, Mother of God, to grant our dear cooperators and dear sons, perseverance in the love of Jesus-Christ, for the glory of God and the good of souls.

Given in our episcopal city of Campos, on the eighth day of December one thousand nine hundred and seventy-six, on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Antonio, bishop of Campos.]]> PDF of the English translation]:


Le Sel de la Terre
'MANDEMENT' (A bishop's letter) On the KINGSHIP Our Lord Jesus-Christ
SALT Of The EARTH No. 82, AUTUMN 2012 English Translation


"Love much the intelligence and the comprehension of the truth."
"For it is necessary to understand well in order to believe truly: even as it is still more necessary to believe in order to understand well." - Saint Augustin, Letter to Consentius and Sermon 43.

Mandement on the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus-Christ

by Mgr Antonio de Castro Mayer
by the grace of God and the Holy Apostolic See, bishop of the Diocese of Campos.


We reproduce here, translated into French for the first time, the remarkable pastoral letter addressed by Mgr. de Castro Mayer to his clergy and faithful on December 8, 1976. The theme of this letter is the social kingship of Our Lord Jesus-Christ. As, over the next four years, we commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the ill-fated Second Vatican Council, the need to recall Catholic doctrine on Christ the King is greater than ever. Among the Council's errors, religious freedom ranks first. Religious freedom is the "legal apostasy of society", as Leo XIII put it in E giunto (July 19 1889), it's the secularization of Catholic states, it's the rejection of the social kingship of Our Lord. This is precisely what Monsignor de Castro Mayer proposes to explain here, drawing extensively on the texts of the pontifical magisterium. We admire the profoundly Catholic and supernatural spirit of this 'mandement'. How we'd love to read similar ones today!

N.B.: We encourage our readers to refer to issue no. 37 of Le Sel de la terre, dedicated to Mgr de Castro Mayer.



Dear collaborators and dear Sons,

AT THE CLOSING of the Holy Year of 1925, Pope Pius XI instituted the feast of Our Lord Jesus-Christ the King. He fixed the day as the last Sunday in October, the one before the feast of All Saints. The new calendar moved it to the last Sunday of the liturgical year, at the end of November.

With this new liturgical Feast, dedicated in particular to solemnizing the universal kingship of Our Lord Jesus-Christ, the Pope's aim was to provide an effective remedy for secularism, the plague that is eating away at human society, "the plague of our age", says the Pope.

To justify His expression, and to express His hope in the fruits that the new liturgical solemnity would produce, Pius XI wrote His memorable encyclical Quas primas, dated December 11 of the Holy Year 1925. Fifty years have passed: his teaching remains just as timely, given that the punishments that have befallen mankind, particularly with the long war of 1939-1945, have not turned men away from their impiety. And even those who make profession of religious faith continue to live as if God did not exist.

It is therefore useful, indeed necessary, to repeat to the faithful, again and again, the importance of the feast of Our Lord Jesus-Christ the King, in order to encourage them to practice, in their private lives as well as in their family and social lives, the submission due to the Sovereign of the universe, and so that hope of the fruits that this Feast is destined to produce in souls is not frustrated.

This is the reason for this conversation with you, dear collaborators and beloved sons, through which we hope to encourage one another to zeal for the glory of God and the salvation of souls.


Divine sovereignty

First of all, let us strengthen our faith in the universal kingship of our divine Saviour.

He is truly king of the universe, that is to say He has absolute sovereignty over the whole human race, over all men, even over those outside His sheepfold, the Holy Roman Catholic Church. For, truly, every person is a creature of God. He owes his whole being to Him, both for the unity of his nature, and for each of the parts of which he is composed: body, soul, powers, intelligence, will, sensibility. Even the actions of these powers, and all their organs, are gifts from God. God's sovereignty extends to the goods of fortune, which are the fruits of His ineffable liberality. The simple consideration that no one chooses or can choose the family to which he or she belongs on earth, with its respective social position, is enough to convince us of this fundamental truth of our existence.

It follows that God Our Lord is the sovereign master of all men, both as individuals and as social groups, insofar as, when they are constituted into various communities, they do not lose their condition of creature. This being so, the very existence of civil society obeys the designs of God, who made man's nature social. Consequently, all peoples, all nations, from the most primitive to the most civilized, from the smallest to the greatest powers, all are subject to the divine sovereignty, and therefore obliged to recognize this gentle heavenly domination.


The Kingship of Jesus-Christ

God confided this sovereignty to His only Son, as the Holy Scriptures frequently attests.

Generally speaking, St Paul declares that God "made His Son heir of all things" (Heb 1:2). For his part, Saint John confirms the thought of the Apostle to the Gentiles in many passages of his Gospel. For example, when he reminds us that "the Father judges no one, but that He has given all power to judge to the Son" (Jn 5:22). Now, the prerogative of rendering justice belongs to the king; he who possesses it is endowed with sovereign power.

This universal kingship which the Son inherited from the Father is not to be understood only as the eternal inheritance by which, with the divine nature, He received all the attributes which make Him equal and consubstantial with the first person of the Holy Trinity, in the unity of the divine essence. This universal kingship is attributed especially to Jesus-Christ as man, mediator between heaven and earth. For the mission of the Incarnate Word was precisely to establish the Kingdom of God on earth. Indeed, the expressions in Sacred Scripture relating to the Kingship of Jesus-Christ refer, without the shadow of a doubt, to His human
condition.

He is presented to the world as the Son of David, come to inherit His Father's throne, which extends to the ends of the earth, and which is eternal, without limit of time. It is in these terms that the archangel Gabriel announces the dignity of Mary's Son: "You will bear a son, to whom you will give the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; He will reign forever over the house of Jacob, and His kingdom will have no end" (Lk 1:31-33). It was also as king that the Magi from the East sought Him out to worship Him: "Where is He that is born king of the Jews?" they asked Herod on their arrival in Jerusalem (Mt 2:2). Consequently, the mission that the eternal Father entrusted to His Son in making Him man consisted in establishing a kingdom on earth, the kingdom of heaven. It is through the establishment of this kingdom that the ineffable charity with which, from all eternity, God has loved mankind, mercifully drawing them to Himself, will become a reality:  "Dilexi te, ideo attraxi te miserans - I have loved you, therefore in My mercy I have drawn you" (Jer 31:3).

This is why Jesus devotes His public life to announcing and establishing His kingdom, sometimes referred to as the kingdom of God, sometimes as the kingdom of heaven. In the oriental manner, He uses evocative parables to establish the idea and nature of the kingdom He has come to found. And His miracles seek to convince His people that His kingdom has arrived, that He is in their midst. "Si in digito Dei ejicio daemonia, profecto pervenit in vos Regnum Dei - "But if I by the finger of God cast out devils; doubtless the kingdom of God is come upon you." (Lk 11:20).

The constitution of this kingdom absorbed so much of His activity that the Judaic apostasy profited of the idea to justify the accusation it brought against Him before Pilate's tribunal: "Si hunc dimittis, non es amicus Caesaris - If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend" they cried to the proconsul, "for whoever makes himself king declares himself against Caesar!" (Jn 19:12). And Jesus Christ, by approving the opinion of His enemies, confirms before the Roman procurator that He really is king: "You say well, I am king" (Jn 18:37).


King in the Literal Sense

The royal character of Jesus-Christ's work can no longer be doubted. He is king.

But our faith demands that we understand the scope and meaning of the divine Redeemer's kingship. From the outset, Pius XI excludes the metaphorical sense by which we call king and royal that which is most excellent in a human way of being or acting, as when we speak of the queen of goodness, the king of poets, and so on.  No. Jesus-Christ is not king according to this transposition of meaning. He is king in the true (proper) sense of the word. In the Holy Scriptures, we see Him exercising the royal prerogatives of a sovereign government, dictating laws and threatening punishment to those who transgress them. In His famous "Sermon on the Mount" (Mt 5:4ff.), the Savior can be said to have promulgated the code of His kingdom. As the true sovereign, He demands obedience to His laws on pain of nothing less than eternal damnation. Similarly, in the Last Judgment scene - when the Son of Man comes to judge the living and the dead - where He announces the end of the world:  'The Son of Man will then come with great power and majesty [...], He will separate men as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats [...] and He will say to those on His right, "Come, you blessed of my Father", and to those on His left, "Go, you cursed, to eternal fire" [...].  'And they will go away, these to eternal torment, and the righteous to eternal life' (Mt 25:31ff.).

A sentence that is both very gentle and fearsome. Very sweet for the good, because of the unparalleled excellence of the reward awaiting them. Fearsome and frightening for the wicked, by the extreme punishment to which they are eternally condemned.

Such a consideration is enough to show the capital importance for men to discern where here below, on earth, the kingdom of Jesus-Christ lies, since to be part of it or not decides their eternal fate. We say "here, on earth", because it is in this world that man merits his reward or punishment after death. It is here on earth, then, that men must incorporate themselves into this ineffable kingdom of God, both temporal and eternal, since it is formed in this world to blossom in heaven.


The Catholic Church, Kingdom of God

The same sacred Scriptures that have led us to the knowledge of the Kingship of Jesus-Christ tell us who, in the present world, are the authentic leaders of His Kingdom, as continuators of the divine Master's mission. The authorized guides of Christ's flock are the legitimate successors of the Apostles; indeed, it was on the Apostles that the Savior built His Church, that is to say His kingdom, and it is within her bosom that men make their way to heaven.

In fact, it was to the Apostles that Jesus entrusted His power, and He demanded the same obedience from them as He did from Himself: "Whoever listens to you listens to Me", said the divine Master, "whoever despises you despises Me" (Lk 10:16). In another passage, explaining the power to govern, to direct His society, the Church, He declared to them: "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed also in heaven" (Mt 18:18).

After His resurrection, He clarifies the sovereign power granted to the Apostles, saying that it even includes the forgiveness of sins, God's exclusive prerogative: "Sins will be forgiven to those to whom you forgive them, and they will be retained by those to whom you retain them" (Jn 20:23). Having thus made it clear throughout His life, and by means of various expressions, that He was passing on to His Apostles His power to guide men to heaven, as if to sum up His will, at the moment of leaving this world to return to the bosom of the eternal Father, Jesus entrusts them with the direction of His work; it will continue on earth, for at the end of the world, God must be glorified and souls saved: "All power," He tells His Apostles, "has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go, then, and teach all peoples to observe all the things I have commanded you" (Mt 28:20). There is an obligation to obey the Apostles' orders as if they were legitimate superiors, on pain of losing one's soul: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mk 16:16). Believing, that is to say, accepting and living in accordance with the Apostles' doctrine - that is "believing" in the truest sense of the word, with all one's soul - and consequently behaving as a subject of the kingdom of Jesus-Christ, of the holy Church. For, at the supreme moment when He handed over His powers to the Apostles, Our Lord guaranteed the permanence of His work, of His Church, of His kingdom - three expressions which have the same meaning; and this by declaring that He would remain with the Apostles until the end of the world, in other words, that the Apostles would be the legitimate successors with whom He would remain present, so that they would maintain the integrity of the inheritance received: "I will always be with you until the consummation of the ages" (Mt 28:20).


The Church is Hierarchical

Finally, to ensure that the unity of government necessary for kingdoms to preserve themselves and achieve, in an orderly fashion, the purpose for which they are constituted is not lacking, Jesus instituted the sacred hierarchy which, in the holy Church, instructs, governs and sanctifies the people. He made Peter the indestructible rock of the Church, giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven and gathering in his hands all the power conferred on all the Apostles: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven (Mt 16:18 ff.).

In like manner the Church that possesses the successor of Peter and the successors of the Apostles, She is the Church of Christ. In Her lies the kingdom of Jesus-Christ. And this Church, the only one of its kind in the world, which possesses, in the pope, the successor of Saint Peter, and in the bishops, the successors of the Apostles, is the Catholic Church, apostolic and roman. And insofar as we are part of it, insofar as we live according to its doctrine, that we belong to the kingdom of Christ, that we  ourselves are faithful vassals of the King of glory, and we ourselves are on our way to the kingdom of heaven, eternal beatitude.

Dear sons, look at the other denominations, those that usurp the title of Christian: they all have a later date of birth than the divine Master. Only the Roman Catholic Church can trace Her origins back to the time of Jesus-Christ. From then on, She alone is truly apostolic, coming in direct line from the Apostles. She is the Church of Christ.


A Principally Spiritual Kingship

Jesus is King in the truest sense of the word. He exercises His sovereignty on earth through His Church, His mystical body, a visible and hierarchical society, endowed with all the powers to lead men towards the end for which they w ere created: to give glory to God and save their souls. Thus, to be part of Christ's Church and to live as a docile and obedient subject of the King of kings, Jesus-
Christ, is the condition of eternal happiness.

These considerations make it clear from the outset that the kingdom of Jesus Christ is spiritual - "praecipuo quodam modo, in a very special way", says Pius XI in his encyclical. It is spiritual because it concerns domains related to the spiritual life, which transcends the limits of earthly life, as well as to divine worship and the sanctification of souls.

The Saviour Himself attested to this before Pilate's court. In response to the proconsul's question: "Are you a king?", Jesus answered affirmatively: "You say well, I am king" (Jn 18:37). Shortly before, He had already explained to the Roman magistrate the special nature of His reign: "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My people would have fought so that I would not be handed over to the Jews. But My kingdom is not from here" (Jn 18:36); that is, He does not concern himself with earthly affairs restricted to this world. And in the next verse, Jesus is more explicit, linking His kingdom with the empire of truth: 'For this reason I was born and came into the world, that I might bear witness to the truth. Every one that is of the truth, heareth My voice." (Jn 18:37).

Although all power, even in the civil order, belongs to Jesus according to His humanity by virtue of the hypostatic union, the Savior reassures the rulers of the earth: His reign is not of this world. In the same sense, every year at Epiphany, the Church repeats: "Non eripit mortalia qui regna dat coelestia - He does not seize mortal kingdoms who gives the celestials."


The Two Powers

As we have just seen, the divine Master has foreseen the coexistence of two sovereign powers on earth.

One presides over temporal life, and is embodied in the person of Caesar. This power must be respected, honored and obeyed, for the Lord commands us to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" (Mt 22:21). The reason for this is that this power too is conferred by God our Lord, as the divine Master declared to the representative of the Roman emperor, when He told him: "You would have no power over Me if it had not been given to you from on high" (Jn 19:11). And the Apostle adds: "All power comes from God" (Rom 13:1). Consequently, Christians must accept civil power and submit to it with love, that is, not out of fear of punishment, but as to an authority
delegated by God, for the prince acts as a minister of God. (Rom 13:4).

The other power looks after the interests of the soul, bringing man into relationship with God and leading him to eternal salvation. It deals with religious duties, worship of God and obedience to the divine commandments. This power is the proper power of the reign of Jesus-Christ; it must be respected and obeyed with special reverence, because contempt for it reaches God Himself: "Whoever despises you despises me, and whoever despises Me despises the One who sent Me" (Lk 10:16).

All men are bound to obey these two supreme powers: in temporal affairs, all must obey civil power, even those who share in religious power; in God's affairs, all must obey spiritual power, even civil authorities. However, although sovereign, state authority gives way to religious authority, for "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). Consequently, in the event of conflict, religious duties prevail, provided they concern the eternal destiny of souls.


Relationship between Church and State

Thus, the natural structure of the government of human society, according to historical order - that is, taking into account Revelation and the constitution of the holy Church to preside over spiritual affairs - requires 'mutual collaboration' between these two supreme powers, Church and State. The Church will recognize civil power and lead the faithful to sincere respect for the authority of the State, to which it will provide loyal collaboration in everything that is for the benefit of society and does not run counter to the law of God. For its part, the State will recognize the one Church to which God has entrusted the care of spiritual matters, namely: the divine cult and the salvation of souls. And since man's life on earth must be directed towards eternal salvation, not only must the State not oppose the Church's specific action, but it must also help it, positively, by creating a framework in society that encourages the practice of virtue, piety and faith, and makes it difficult to sin, impiety, and in general, the proliferation of vice.

Leo XIII formulates this thought with precision:
Quote:"For one and all are we destined by our birth and adoption to enjoy, when this frail and fleeting life is ended, a supreme and final good in heaven, and to the attainment of this every endeavour should be directed. Since, then, upon this depends the full and perfect happiness of mankind, the securing of this end should be of all imaginable interests the most urgent. Hence, civil society, established for the common welfare, should not only safeguard the well-being of the community, but have also at heart the interests of its individual members, in such mode as not in any way to hinder, but in every manner to render as easy as may be, the possession of that highest and unchangeable good for which all should seek. Wherefore, for this purpose, care must especially be taken to preserve unharmed and unimpeded the religion whereof the practice is the link connecting man with God.

"Now, it cannot be difficult to find out which is the true religion, if only it be sought with an earnest and unbiased mind; for proofs are abundant and striking. We have, for example, the fulfilment of prophecies, miracles in great numbers, the rapid spread of the faith in the midst of enemies and in face of overwhelming obstacles, the witness of the martyrs, and the like. From all these it is evident that the only true religion is the one established by Jesus-Christ Himself, and which He committed to His Church to protect and to propagate.1."

Dear sons, you see that it is exclusively in a state constituted in accordance with this doctrine that the kingship of Jesus-Christ can be effective and complete. This is why it has been constantly taught by the ecclesiastical magisterium.

1 - Enc. Immortale Dei, #6 Nov. 1, 1885.


The Church Fathers

Thus, St Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 390) declares that imperial magistrates are subject to the authority of bishops as the flesh is to the spirit and earthly things to heavenly things 2; St John Chrysostom (d. 407) expounds the relationship between spiritual and temporal authority by means of the comparison between the sun and the moon 3; St. Ambrose, in his letter to Valentinian against Auxentius, declares that "the emperor is in the Church and not above the Church; for the good emperor helps the Church, he does not refuse it4".

Saint Augustine, in chapter 24 of Book V of The City of God, cites, among the emperor's obligations, that of placing his power at the service of the divine majesty in order to extend its reign. And in a letter to Count Boniface, governor of Africa, commenting on the words of the Psalm: "Serve the Lord in fear", he teaches that kings serve the Lord by forbidding and punishing transgressions of God's commandments. On this point, St. Augustine makes a clear difference between the way kings serve God, and the service proper to each individual: the individual serves God by living in accordance with the faith, whereas the king does so by promulgating laws with the appropriate severity, to command what is right and forbid what is contrary to justice. After giving several examples from the Old
Testament, in which he emphasizes the action of rulers against the works of impiety, the holy doctor concludes: kings serve the Lord as kings, serving Him as only kings can.

In the middle of the 5th century, St. Leo I, pope from 440 to 461, wrote to Emperor Leo of Constantinople to urge him to apply the decrees of the Council of Constantinople against the maneuvers of the Eutychians (monophysite), and reminded him that "royal power was not given to him only for the government of the world, but above all for the defense of the Church1".

2 - Hom. XVII.
3 - Hom. XV on the 2nd  to the Corinthians.
4 - Saint Ambrose, Sermo contra Auxentium, de basilicis tradendis, preached in Milan in 386, when Valentinian II gave the order to grant some churches to the Arians.


Roman Pontiffs and Emperors

It was particularly in its relations with the emperors of Constantinople that the Church had occasion to reaffirm these principles of Catholic doctrine. Thus, in August 484, Pope Saint Felix II pointed out to Emperor Zeno that he must protect the freedom of the Church and that he himself must submit to priestly power in the causes of God, this submission being beneficial even to the State. Saint Gelasius, also pope, had to repeat the same sacred lesson to Emperor Anastasius I. In 494, he sent him this famous document on the subject of the two powers existing on earth, and the harmony that must be maintained between them:  'I beg your piety not to deem it presumptuous of me to exercise the duties received from God: let it not be thought that a Roman prince takes the truth addressed to him as an insult. For, august emperor, there are two supreme powers governing the world: the holy authority of the pontiffs and the royal power.

Between them, the priestly authority is all the greater as the pontiffs must even give an account before the divine tribunal of the deeds of kings. Surely you know, most merciful son, that even though your dignity places you above other men, in spite of everything you must bow your head before those who are entrusted with divine matters [...]

If, in fact, the priests themselves obey your laws in matters of public order, knowing that the empire has been granted to you by divine disposition, and because they do not wish to give the appearance of opposing, even in purely material matters, a judgement which is beyond their jurisdiction, how much more appropriate for you to obey religiously those whose duty it is to administer the divine mysteries 2?

Around the year 506, another pope, St. Simacus, reminded Emperor Anastasius of Catholic doctrine. In order to forestall any possible objection from his august correspondent, he wrote to him: "Perhaps you will say: it is written: 'We must be subject to all power'. To this, the Pope replies: "We respect human authorities as long as they do not set their will against God. Moreover, if all power comes from God, all the more does the power that presides over divine affairs issue from it. Be subject to God in us, and we will be
subject to God in you."

Later, it was the turn of St Nicholas I (pope from 858 to 867) to refresh Emperor Michael III's memory of the two supreme powers to which men are subject in the world: in spiritual matters, the empire must be subordinate to the priesthood, while sacred ministers are subordinate to the empire in the temporal order1.


1 - Letter 156, 3.
2. Letter to the emperor Anastase, 494


The Middle Ages

When the new European nations were formed as a consequence of the ruin of the Roman Empire, the Church continued to teach its doctrine on the obligations of the state in religious matters.

As far back as the 7th century, St. Isidore of Seville (d. 636) recognized that kings have full powers in the affairs of the century, but that they cannot neglect their duties towards God, nor their respect for the Church, "quam a Christo tuendam susceperunt - whose custody they have received from Christ 2". The thought of the Archbishop of Seville, along with that of St. Augustine, reappeared in the ecclesiastical masters of later centuries. They used a variety of images to expound the Church's traditional teaching. Following the example of St. Bernard, they speak of two swords: the sword of the spirit wielded by the Church, which concerns matters of the soul, and the temporal sword, intended for the service of the Church. At other times, as in the case of Pope Innocent III, the intimate union between body and soul is used as an example to illustrate the harmony and mutual dependence between the two supreme authorities that guide men towards the fullness of earthly life, subordinated to eternal life.

Or again, in Gracian, the relationship between Church and State is compared to those that exist between the sun and the moon. Just as this satellite of the earth benefits from the light of the sun then also in turn beneficial to the earth, so by the guidance of the Church the State achieves its proper purpose, which is to make its subjects happy.

1. Letter 'Proposueramus quidem, Sept. 28 865 A.D.
2. Sent. III 51

Such is the traditional doctrine that flows from the acts of the ecclesiastical magisterium concerning political relations between the Church and the various sovereigns. Pope Urban II, for example, wrote to Alfonso VI of Spain: "Two dignities, King Alfonso, govern this world in the first place: that of priests and that of kings; however, the priestly dignity, my dear son, so surpasses the royal dignity that, of the kings themselves, we must give account to the King of kings 1."

St. Thomas Aquinas, both in his Summa Theologica and in his treatise on the government of states written for the King of Cyprus 2, sets out and justifies the common teaching of the Church on this question. Starting from the principle that the end of society cannot be opposed to the end of each of its members, and that their ultimate end is the enjoyment of God, he concludes that political government must also ensure that men gathered in society attain heavenly beatitude through a virtuous life.

"However," continues St Thomas, "as guiding or leading to this end does not belong to human government, but to divine government [...] and in order that the spiritual may be distinguished from the temporal, the ministry of this kingdom has not been granted to earthly kings but to priests, and principally to the Sovereign Priest, successor of Peter, vicar of Christ, the Roman Pontiff, to whom all the kings of Christendom must be subject as to Our Lord Jesus-Christ Himself 3."

And in the next chapter, the Angelic Doctor adds:
"[...] It belongs, for this reason, to the office of the king to procure for the multitude a good life [according to virtue], as befits the attainment of heavenly beatitude; that is to say, he must prescribe what leads to this heavenly beatitude, and forbid, as far as possible, what is contrary to it 4. "


1 - PL 151, 289 - In VILLOSLADA, Historia de la Iglesia católica, II, Edad Media,
Madrid, 2nd ed. LAC, p. 409.
2 - De Regimine Principum or De Regno, L. I, c. 14.
3 - ID, ibid.
4 - ID, L. I. c. 15.


Christian Civilization

In this way, the Church, the true educator of humankind, leads society towards that ideal situation where life in society achieves equilibrium and well-being, thanks to natural subordination of all earthly activity to the ultimate end in which lies the perfection of happiness to which reasonable nature aspires. Leo XIII reminds us that this was the condition of society in the Middle Ages.

Indeed, in his encyclical Immortale Dei of November 1 1885, he wrote:
Quote:"There was a time when the philosophy of the Gospel governed the States. [...] At that time, the priesthood and the empire were bound together by a happy concord and the friendly exchange of good offices. Organized in this way, civil society produced fruits beyond all expectations, the memory of which remains, and will remain, consigned as it is to innumerable documents that no artifice of adversaries can corrupt or obscure."

At this time, what Yves de Chartres considered an indispensable law of relations between the Church and civil society was being realized:
Quote:"When the empire and the priesthood live in harmony, the world is well governed," he wrote to Pascal II [pope from 1099 to 1118], "and the Church is flourishing and fruitful. But when discord arises between them, not only do small things not grow, but the great themselves wither miserably 1."


The Apostasy of the "New Law"

Unfortunately, dear sons, modern times mark the rupture of the perfect harmony between priesthood and empire, which Leo XIII praised as the source of so many benefits for human relations.

First, it was the Christian rulers who resented the Pope's autonomy. This led to the dissolution of Western religious unity, culminating in the 18th century in what the aforementioned pontiff qualifies as "new law". In the name of the equality and dignity common to all men, any authority whose origin is not the human will itself is rejected.

"It follows that the State does not believe itself bound by any obligation to God, does not officially profess any religion, [...] that it must attribute to them all equality in law, for the sole purpose of preventing them from disturbing public order 2. "

Dear sons, a minimum of reflection on such a theory shows that in a political and social order conceived in this way, the kingship of Jesus-Christ disappears, and the salvation of souls becomes very difficult. A society founded on these principles does not recognize, purely and simply, the sovereignty of God our Lord. How can it call itself Christian if its legitimate representatives - while individually claiming to be Catholics and piously fulfilling their religious duties- - cannot, as public persons, recognize the will of God expressed in His true Church?

We think, dear sons, that it is hardly necessary to point out that, in such a legal disposition, the salvation and sanctification of souls, far from being encouraged, on the contrary encounter the greatest obstacle: they lack the favorable environment that would be provided by legislation openly concerned with the rights of God.

1 - Letter 238. Quoted by Leo XIII in Immortale Dei.
2 - Leo XIII, Immortale Dei.


The Secular State, the Ideal of the Occult Powers

Furthermore, in his encyclical Humanum genus of April 20, 1884, the same Leo XIII denounced the fact that the secular state, strictly neutral in religious matters, is the means that occult forces consider most apt to annihilate and "destroy the whole religious and social Christian order". To this end, they teach that "among the various forms of religion, there is no reason to prefer one over another; all must be placed on an equal footing". The Pope observes that "this principle is enough to ruin all religions, and particularly the Catholic religion for, being the only true one, it cannot, without suffering the last of the insults and injustices, tolerate that other religions are equal to it 1".

The logical consequence of such a principle is the secularism of the State, "the great error of the present age", which consists in relegating concern for religion to the rank of indifferent things. This is why we said, dear sons, that in a political and social regime conceived in this way, it is impossible for the Church to fulfill the mission it has received to establish the reign of Jesus-Christ on earth.

1 - Leo XIII, Humanum genus, April 20, 1884.


The Inversion of Values

Likewise, dear sons, it's worth noting that in the "new law", the social status of religion is reversed. It has been transformed from a guide and organizer of human acts to one of the many private manifestations of the soul, subject like all others to the limits imposed by public order. According to the traditional magisterium, on the contrary, in line with common sense, the State, whose task it is to provide for the goods of the temporal order, is subordinate in its activities to the ultimate end of citizens, and can do nothing to make it difficult to obtain it; on the contrary, it must encourage knowledge of true religion and the practice of virtue.

In the new conception, it is the Church that is subordinate to the State, since, in its activities, it must abstain from anything that the State deems contrary to public order. How can the Church still provide the world with an image of God's excellence and sovereignty, when it sees its field of action restricted to the simple particular interest, which the State enlarges or reduces according to what seems best to it? With such a conception, it's hard to see how a Communist government could be blamed for, say, condemning a priest for baptizing a child, even if he had done so with the parents' consent.


Objective Public Order

And if anyone, dear sons, were to object that this is not just any public order, understood arbitrarily, but the only true public order - that which is objective and indisputably constitutes the common good, and which therefore excludes abuses of authority - if anyone were to oppose such a sophism, it would be easy for you to reply that, in such a hypothesis, we are already leaving the "new law". It's worth pointing out here that without the acceptance of an objective morality, and without the exact notion of the good that morality gives us, an objective public order is inconceivable, since it becomes impossible to know the common good. And if we disregard (abstract -Ed.) true religion, we can no longer conceive of a just objective morality. Consequently, when we appeal to public order or the common good against abuses of authority, we leave behind the "new law" that recognizes no norm superior to man, declaring once and for all that the human will is the source of all law.

'Common good, objective public order' - these are terms that cannot be understood unless they are linked to the idea of a morality superior to man, serving as a standard for the acts of rational creatures. This objective morality culminates in the human being's obligation to worship God, according to the sovereign will of the Almighty Lord. In other words, it obliges man to profess the
true religion. With great aptness, St. Pius X asserted, against Le Sillon - the secular apostolic movement seeking to bring all religions closer together: "There is no true civilization without moral civilization, and there is no true moral civilization without true religion1" .


1 - Apostolic letter Our Apostolic Charge, August 25, 1910.



Half-truths

The quotation from St. Pius X's apostolic letter on Le Sillon leads us to alert you, my dear sons, to the way in which heterodoxy nestles in our midst. Let us apply to faith a rule of action that is proper for the moral virtues.

There is, in fact, a prudence in action that requires a certain indulgence when dealing with men bearing a fallen nature, and whose purpose is to avoid extinguishing a wick that is still smoking. "If you have to put the iron in the wound, you must first feel it with a light hand", said Saint Gregory the Great 1".

But transposing this prudence to the realm of principles can be catastrophic. "Truth," asserted the same Saint Pius X, "is one and indivisible, eternally the same, and does not submit to the whims of the times 2. This is why truth is uncompromising, and why it inherently perishes when it is shared and attenuated. We cannot, therefore, apply to it the condescension with which moral virtue tolerates a certain adaptation to different situations, nor that patience dictated by prudence summed up by the maxim once enunciated by Cicero:

"Summum jus, summa injuria3 - excessive justice, the height of injustice." For the moral order of actions, without sacrificing the regulatory norms of human behavior, must take account of human deficiencies, in imitation of divine patience, which seems to turn a blind eye to human sins in order to obtain their penance and conversion4.

Truth is not to be found in this realm of 'action'. It belongs to the order of 'being', of what is or is not. It is understandable that a human act should be incomplete; it is inconceivable that a truth should be incomplete, because the true idea corresponds to the being to which it refers. If the idea corresponds to reality, there is truth; in the contrary case, the idea is incomplete. It is simply false.

If, out of condescension towards the human frailty, we transpose the prudential principle of action into the order of being and of the truth, by proposing imprecise terms which are not certain, but which do not appear to be totally false either, thus offering a kind of half-truth, we undermine and destroy the faith in the spirit of the faithful. The perpetrators of such a calamity are those who, when false systems arise, strive to find an arrangement, a compromise with these ideologies, by the intermediary of movements which pretend to be apostolic, but which are sufficiently vague and floating so as not to hurt the susceptibility of those outside the Church's flock. They act as a fifth column among the faithful, the edifice of faith being washed out of them.

1 - Quoted by SAINT PIE X in His encyclical Jucunda sane, March 12, 1904.
2 - Encyclical Jucunda sane.
3 - De Officiis, I, 10.
4 - Book of Wisdom, 11, 23.


Agreement Among All Religions

Such a course of action received its doctrinal justification in a principle we see proclaimed in the 16th century by the famous Erasmus of Rotterdam: "Every man possesses the true theology." At the root of this maxim is the assertion that, in the final analysis, there is a profound religious agreement between all men, despite their doctrinal differences. It is only on this condition that the statement "every man possesses the true theology" makes sense. Consequently, there is no conflict between opposing religions, since they are opposed in appearance only. They are merely different manifestations of the same true theology possessed by every man. If we delve more deeply into a religious thought that at first sight seems different from the others, we find, beyond the divergences, the same identical basis common to all. Consequently, the best way to deal with new religious theories and non-Catholic beliefs is to avoid confrontation, polemics and rigid positions, and to ensure that each member of the faithful keeps an equal distance from the different 'credo', since all men find unity in the true theology they hold. Underneath the different religious denominations, there is agreement, a common ground. In other words, there are no errors as such. There are only divergences.

This mental attitude, generalized by diffusion of the free examination of the Protestant pseudo-reformers, prepared minds for compromise with apostasy when the "new law" arose, born of the rise of liberalism from philosophers of the 18th century.


A Vitally Christian State

You know, dear sons, the position taken on this issue by the men of the 19th-century French newspaper 'L'Avenir': Lamennais, Lacordaire, Montalembert.

Despite official censure by the Church, this position reappeared in the aforementioned Sillon social movement and in the well-known ideas of certain Catholic philosophers, who advocated a 'vitally' Christian society, flourishing within a state officially and legitimately secular.

In the thinking of these authors, society would have evolved: from the sacred State of the Middle Ages, to the modern secular state. A natural, historical evolution, which would even have seen a deepening of the doctrinal. For, in the latter period, the independence of the two powers - spiritual and temporal, religious and civil, Church and State - would have been further strengthened. 

Thanks to a better understanding of the limits of its action and power, the State would henceforth remain entirely aloof from the religious question, contenting itself with giving the Church - as well as the citizens who are members of it and the religious sects already existing or to come - full civil freedom, so that it could carry out its work in individual souls and within families, through action of an exclusively private nature. The state would not be Christian, but neither would it be oppressive. Within the framework of this legal status, the Church would have the freedom to create, through its apostolic action, a 'vitally' Christian society in an autonomous state, which would not exert religious pressure, being absolutely incompetent in this field. Still according to this opinion, such a state would adapt to the actual times, where is manifested, in the bosom of various peoples and even to the utmost interior of a nation, a pluralism of beliefs.

Lastly, such a state would be more attentive to the dignity of man and to divine Revelation, both of which require the free determination of the creature in the choice of its religious 'credo'.

This would be a way of overcoming, at the level of principles and therefore radically, the misunderstandings between Church and State that have arisen throughout history.


Ignorance of Natural Law and of the Catholic Doctrine

The extent to which this way of understanding the state's religious situation is far removed from natural reason and Christian Revelation, and how detrimental it is to the Church's mission of restoring all things in Christ Jesus, that this is evident, beyond the reflections of common sense, by the entire tradition of the ecclesiastical magisterium. This magisterium, far from accepting a modification of patristic doctrine in the light of historical developments on the question of the relationship between State and religion, has endeavoured on the contrary to confirm the teaching of all time, by highlighting the incalculable and inescapable evils that would result from the formal denial of public recognition of God's rights over State and society. 


The Church's True Doctrine on this Subject

The Church has never accepted that, as a matter of principle, the State should be secular or neutral in religious matters. This can easily be seen in the history of the Church since the end of the Middle Ages.

In fact, what we are asserting is contained in the definition of Boniface VIII (pope from 1294 to 1303), declaring that it is necessary for salvation that all creatures submit to the Roman pontiff (Bull Unam Sanctam, November 18, 1302). But it is above all in his unceasing condemnation of 'religious indifferentism' designated as 'the cause of the apostasy of the nations', that one can find this teaching. For religious indifferentism is a necessary consequence of the proposition that the State must be secular as a matter of principle. Yet this religious indifferentism, the logical consequence of the official atheism sought by the secular state, has been denounced by pontiffs, particularly since the French Revolution, as the greatest obstacle to the full realization of the reign of Our Lord Jesus-Christ.



From Pius VI to Gregory XVI

Pius VI, in His first encyclical 'Inscrutabile divinae Sapientiae consilium' of Christmas 1775, Leo XII, in his encyclical 'Ubi primum' of May 5, 1824, Pius VIII (1829-1830), in 'Traditi' (his only encyclical written at the start of his short-lived twenty-month pontificate), all, as Christ's vicars on earth, full of zeal for the glory of God and the salvation of souls, all, unanimously, pointed to 'religious indifferentism as the cause of the evils' afflicting society and hindering the Church's action.

Pius VII, who governed the Church during the extremely difficult period of Napoleon's hegemony (1800-1823), did not fail to censure the equality of cults sought by Bonaparte: 
Quote:"Under the equal protection given to all cults," warned the Pope, "hides and disguises the most dangerous, the most cunning persecution imaginable against the Church of Jesus-Christ, and, by misfortune, the most elaborate [attempt] to throw confusion and even destroy it, if it were possible for the forces and wiles of hell to prevail against it".

Under the Bourbon Restoration, Pius VII deplored the similar position taken by Louis XVIII's Constitutional Charter, also favorable to the freedom of all cults.

Gregory XVI, too, could only repress this "delirium" - as he called religious indifferentism and the freedom of all cults taught within the Church - since this delirium was professed, as we have seen, by influential clergymen and laymen, so blinded that they did not hesitate to present it as a very profitable means to the
cause of religion (encyclical Mirari vos, August 15, 1832).


Quanta cura and the Syllabus

Despite these authoritative explanations and condemnations, dear sons, the avalanche of new ideas swelled and threats against "the cause of the Church, the salvation of souls and the good of human society itself" increased. Pius IX therefore repeated the magisterial teaching of his predecessors in several encyclicals, consistorial addresses and apostolic letters, once again condemning such absurdities of the human mind. The importance of the subject, however, was so great for the Church's mission, that the Pope felt it was his duty as Vicar of Christ to issue a special and more solemn magisterial document, in which he would make clear the absolute opposition between the new naturalistic conceptions of the state, culture and civilization, and Catholic doctrine.

Furthermore, he ordered a catalog to be drawn up, bringing together all these errors in propositions that would express them without distorting their nature, and at the same time show the logical link between them: this act of papal magisterium is known as the 'Syllabus', and Pius IX sent it to the bishops of the entire world with his encyclical 'Quanta Cura' of December 8, 1864.

In it, the Sovereign Pontiff proscribed the thesis of secularism on the part of the State, because it impedes the action that the Church is charged with exercising by divine command:
Quote:These misleading and perverse opinions," writes the Pope, "are all the more detestable in that they aim principally to hinder and overthrow that power of salvation which the Catholic Church, by virtue of the mission and mandate received from Her divine Author, must exercise freely until the consummation of the centuries, no less with regard to individuals than to nations, peoples and their leaders. They seek to destroy this mutual alliance and concord between the Priesthood and the Empire, which has always proved propitious and salutary to Religion and society.

Consequently, Pius IX calls 'shameless impiety' the relentlessness of those who, in accordance with the impious and absurd principle of naturalism, teach that... ' ... the best political regime and the progress of civil life absolutely require that human society be constituted and governed without any more regard for Religion than if it did not exist, or at least without making any difference between true and false religions. And against the doctrine of the Holy Scripture, of the Church and of the Holy Fathers, they assert without hesitation that: the best condition of society is one in which power is not recognized as having the duty of repressing violations of Catholic law by legal penalties, except in the case as required for public tranquility"1.

1 - PIE IX, Quanta cura, December 8, 1864.


Leo XIII and Tradition

Despite the vigilance of Pius IX, dear sons, new ideas continued to spread and endanger the existence of the Church as a society of public right, realizing on earth the kingdom of God for the eternal salvation of mankind. It was therefore necessary for the successor of Pius IX to reassert Catholic teaching against the naturalism and secularism of the State, which were undermining the edifice of the social kingship of Our Lord Jesus-Christ.

Leo XIII struck at the root of the evil, denouncing the founding principle on which the secular state is based, indifferent in spiritual matters and entirely autonomous from any religious denomination: the principle that power comes from the people.

"All power comes from God", teaches the Holy Spirit through the mouth of the Apostle (Rom 13:1); "all power comes from the people", dogmatizes the Revolution and the "new law". This law opposes God and man, as two totally alien persons, autonomous from each other. From man, in his free and sovereign will, asserts the "new law", the State takes root, as in its primary source, so that political society accepts no higher authority than the people, whose will is expressed through universal suffrage.

Here, Leo XIII points to the cause of social apostasy. For such a principle justifies an agnostic and even atheistic state, very conciliatory or neutral in matters of religion. Moreover, it is through this principle that the rebellion of the creature is accomplished, for it is the social expression of the satanic cry "non serviam - I will not serve"; as is also the expression of the unholy ideal suggested by the angel of darkness to our first parents: "You shall be as gods, knowing for yourselves what is good and what is evil" (Gen 3:5).

In order to cut this evil at its root, his encyclical Diuturnum illud of June 21, 1881, Leo XIII dealt at length with the origin of political authority, setting out exactly the doctrine of the Faith, corroborated by reason, diametrically opposed to the teachings of the "new law", the acceptance of which is indispensable to the Church if it is to fulfill its mission on earth. Drawing on St. Paul (Rm 13:1), and St. Peter (1 Pe 2, 13) the Pope reminds us that all power comes from God. Consequently, he who resists power is resisting a divine order, which may lead to his own condemnation, since those who govern act as God's ministers.

This first principle of the good civil order of society implies two indispensable consequences for the public establishment of the Kingdom of God in the State: firstly, civil authorities can do nothing against the law of the Lord. For while they govern as agents of God, their power is limited by the decrees of the One by whose will they exercise power. Secondly, among its most important obligations, by virtue of the same fundamental principle, political power has that of rendering official worship to God, its sovereign Lord. Not just any worship, but the worship willed by God, i.e. the true worship of the Catholic Church.

'This is why, just as no one is allowed to neglect his duties towards God, [...] so political societies cannot without crime behave as if God did not exist in any way, or do without religion as foreign and useless, or admit one indifferently according to their good pleasure. In honoring the Divinity, they must strictly follow the rules and mode according to which God Himself has declared that He wishes to be honored 1'.

The doctrine on the divine origin of political power logically unfolds in two directions that concern the religious attitude of the State, namely: the affirmation of harmony between religious and civil society, between Church and State, and the affirmation of the State's subordination to the Church in the religious and spiritual realm. As you can see, dear sons, we are returning to the doctrine of the early centuries of the Church, in accordance with the principle of St. Vincent de Lerins, a principle that the first Vatican Council canonized: "In the Catholic Church, one must apply oneself with the utmost diligence to professing what has been believed' everywhere, always and by all'.2

At a time when the apostasy of the nations was on the increase, a subject of such great importance demanded particular attention from the Holy See. Leo XIII responded to the expectations of the faithful with several encyclicals, especially 'Immortale Dei', dated November 19, 1885, on the Christian constitution of States. Even today, dear sons, reading these documents from the pontifical magisterium is extremely opportune.

1 - LEON XIII, encyclical Immortale Dei.
2 - Commonitorium, 2, 5, in KIRCH, Enchiridion Fontium historiæ Ecclesiasticae Antiquae, 742.


Tolerance of Evil

In Leo XIII's political teaching, the traditional doctrine on the two powers - spiritual and temporal, Church and State - is presented in a systematic and clear exposition, dispelling any kind of doubt on the matter. It is only natural that later popes should refer to it. This is what St. Pius X did in His encyclical 'Vehementer' of February 11, 1906, prompted by the French government's rupture of diplomatic relations with the Holy See, and also in his apostolic letter 'Our Apostolic Mandate' of August 25, 1910, on the errors of the Sillon, already mentioned. Benedict XV did likewise in his first encyclical Ad Beatissimi, of November 1, 1914. Also Pius XI, in various documents, but especially in the one we commented on above on the kingship of Jesus-Christ [Quas primas, December 11, 1925], where he called on the faithful to unite to triumph over "the plague of our time, secularism". Finally, Pius XII, in his first encyclical 'Summi Pontificatus' of October 20, 1939, took up the argument of 'Quas primas' in order to once again, insistently, recommend the social kingship of Our Lord Jesus-Christ. 

Throughout his long pontificate, Pius XII addressed this subject on a number of occasions. Thus, in his "Address to the Participants of the 5th Congress of Italian Catholic Jurists", on December 6, 1953, he clarified the principle previously established by Leo XIII: "That which does not correspond to truth and the moral norm has objectively no right to existence, propaganda or action." Man, in fact, was created for truth and goodness. And in his effort to attain the knowledge of truth and the practice of the good, he enjoys, because of his social nature, the right to be helped by the ambient framework established in society by the action of the State. Therefore a state which, as a matter of principle, authorizes or promotes the public practice of false religions, or of principles contrary to moral law, would not help, but would actually make it more difficult for its members to perfect their reasonable lives. This, moreover, was the reason
given by Pius XII to justify his doctrinal intolerance: 
Quote:'It is contrary to nature [...] to consider error and evil as indifferent things. God Himself could not give positive authorization to teach or do what is contrary to religious truth or moral good, because it would be in contradiction with His absolute truthfulness and holiness 1.

Of itself, therefore, the State is under a grave obligation to favor true religion and repress false cults. However, the application of this principle must be nuanced. In other words, it is in the designs of Providence that public power should carefully examine the factual situation of the people, or of all the peoples subject to it, in religious matters.

And, as circumstances require, it may or may not tolerate false or superstitious cults alongside true religion. It can never positively approve the existence and propaganda of such cults. However, the actual conditions in which society finds itself may be such that a legislative act authorizing the existence and even the propaganda of certain false beliefs may constitute an act with a double effect: one bad effect, which is the public authorization of superstition; and another good effect - the appeasement of conflicts that would make it impossible for people to live together, or other analogous goods. In these concrete circumstances, the State can tolerate the existence and practice of false religions, provided this is required by the common good, which remains the norm regulating the rights and duties of the State.

1 - PIE XII, Allocution aux juristes catholiques italiens, December 6, 1953.


Abnormal Situation

Like Leo XIII, Pius XII makes it clear that this is not the ideal situation for the state's relations with religion and divine worship. At no time and in no way do they accept the thesis of the secular state, based solely on the proper purpose of civil society, which would be purely temporal. They are, however, inclined to justify the 'toleration ' of evil, i.e. the religious neutrality of the state when (and uniquely in this case) an imperative social requirement makes it indispensable. In practice, tolerance finds its backing in the way God our Lord Himself acts, who desires man to come to faith through a free determination of his will. This is illustrated by the Gospel parable of the weeds sown by the enemy in the field where the father of the family has sown wheat. Although the presence of tares is an evil, the Lord nevertheless allows it to grow in the midst of the wheat, because the good of uprooting it could turn into a greater evil, or stand in the way of some excellent good. In the parable, this is the danger that the wheat will also be lost.

Saint Thomas Aquinas explains how civil authority can tolerate certain evils in society:
Quote:'Human government derives from divine government, and must take it as its model. Now God, although omnipotent and sovereignly good, nevertheless allows evils to occur in the universe, when He could prevent them, because their suppression would remove great goods and lead to greater evils. Thus, in human government, those rightly tolerate some evils, lest some goods be prevented, or even lest worse evils be incurred 1.

However, it should not be forgotten that toleration relates exclusively to evil things 2.

This is why, in itself, it is never a good. Consequently, 'it cannot claim any rights 3'.


Faith must be Free

In reality, anyone who would base his argument on the freedom that must characterize the act of faith would be going against the whole of the Church's traditional doctrine if he were to deduce from it the right of man to freely and publicly profess the religion he finds best, or a religion that is false because he himself is convinced that it is true. Apostolic Tradition has never taught this.

And, my dear sons, the parable of the tares and the wheat (Mt 13:24-30) cannot be used to support some pseudo right to profess false religions, because, in traditional teaching, there is no interpretation of the parable in this sense.

Saint Augustine, who for some time had been in favor of compromises with heretics, was soon admitted that it was right for them to be repressed. Saint John Chrysostom deems it appropriate any repression of the public activity of heretics, excepting only capital punishment. Saint Thomas Aquinas also considers it natural to prevent heretics from engaging in religious activity.

In fact, when we say that faith must be embraced by a free act of the will, we are in no way giving a right of power to error, since in adherence to error or evil, there is no perfection, either of the intelligence or of the will. On the contrary, there is a deficiency. So man, as a reasonable being, has the right to freely adhere to revealed truth and freely practice virtue, but 'he does not have the right to deform his intelligence by accepting error, or his will by the practice of vice'. Our Lord himself affirms that he who sins is not free, but is enslaved by sin. Saint Thomas Aquinas explains:
Quote:'The condition of a slave arises when a person acts not according to his nature, but under the pressure of another. Now, man, according to his nature, is reasonable. So when he acts in accordance with reason, he acts according to his nature, driven by a proper movement, his own. And this is what freedom is all about. But when he sins, he acts contrary to reason, and it is as if he were moved by another. This is why he who sins is enslaved by sin 4.

1 - II-II, q. 10, a. 11.
2 - Saint Augustine, En. in Ps. 1, 20.
3 - Let's be clear: the "tolerated" have no natural right to be tolerated, but their tolerance can be guaranteed by a civil right. On the other hand, tolerance is for the common good, not for the particular good of the tolerated; it is therefore a matter of general justice, not commutative justice. (Editor's note)
4 - Commentary on St John's Gospel, lectura 4, c. 8; see also Leo XIII's encyclical Libertas praestantissimum, June 20, 1888.

If the state were not obliged to protect true religion exclusively, it would be fundamentally failing in its purpose. This purpose is clearly to provide citizens with the means to achieve a suitable perfection of their life on earth, but in dependence on their ultimate end, which can only be reached through the profession and practice of the true religion. This is why Pius XII teaches that not even God can give the State the right to be indifferent in religious matters.  In short, tolerance is always the tolerance of an evil, which can be admitted in concrete circumstances, whenever required to obtain a necessary or superior good, and even if it's only a question of removing a situation that makes life in society impossible or harmful.

With great zeal, Gregory XVI describes as an "absurd and erroneous principle", or rather, a "delusion", the freedom of conscience that allows everyone to practice their religion publicly 1. Saint Augustine said that "there is no worse death for the soul than the freedom of error 2. Just because pride and sensuality have succeeded in imbuing contemporary mentality with a spirit of rebellion, striving to shake off every kind of yoke imposed by faith and morality, does not mean that we are going to deny the truth taught by right reason and by the ecclesiastical magisterium in a continuous and invariable manner.

1- Encyclical Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.
2 - Letter 166.


Freedom and Responsibility in the Act of Faith

My dear sons, let us close this chapter with a final consideration that underlines the wisdom with which God's mercy, and consequently, His Church, acts.  God our Lord wants the act of faith, by which man enters the kingdom of Christ, to be free and meritorious. To this end, He gives all men the necessary grace, without which the supernatural act of faith, worthy of eternal life, would be impossible. In view of His benevolence, of His grace, which He refuses to withhold from no-one, Our Lord makes the act of faith obligatory for salvation. Nevertheless, in His infinite mercy, He endures the sinner on this earth, so that he may not die eternally, but "be converted and live" (Ez 33:11).

The corollary of these truths of the Catholic religion is that the act of faith cannot be imposed on man's interior forum of his conscience. Infidelity can be a sin, a serious sin. But it is not lawful to force a man's will not to commit it. It is each individual, aided by grace, who must freely and with horror reject this impiety which consists in not paying attention to divine Revelation. Consequently, no human power can force a person to adhere to the true Faith. The use of violence to impose conversion has always been condemned by the Church.

Hence the Magisterium envisages the possibility, temporary or exceptional, that someone may find himself in invincible ignorance of the true religion. Such an individual deserves respect and attention, as long as his unbelief is only material. He has not deformed his will by linking it to evil in a responsible manner. This aberration, however, does not give him the right to profess his error, since, objectively, he is in error; and error "has no right to existence, propaganda or action 1".

We recall, dear sons, the Catholic doctrine on the kingship of Jesus-Christ here on earth, because the secularism of modern times easily obscures it in the minds of the faithful, and, without a firm conviction of what we should believe, our apostolate loses the zeal essential to its effectiveness. The weakness of love for
the truth among the upright is responsible, in large part, for the progress of apostasy in today's society.

The principle we are expressing to you, dear sons, is universal, even though our apostolate is usually restricted to the environment in which we live and the terrain in which we have the opportunity to act, but it is always the same doctrine that makes every form of apostolate fruitful, from the most modest to the most vast and sublime.

1 - PIE XII, Allocution aux participants du 5e congrès des juristes catholiques italiens, December 6, 1953.


Summary and Pastoral Considerations

Therefore, before turning to the pastoral consequences of the teaching set out here, we shall summarize it, dear sons, so that it may be better fixed in your minds.

1. Our Lord Jesus-Christ, true God and true man, as Mediator between heaven and earth and Redeemer of the human race, was constituted by the eternal Father as King of the universe in the fullest sense of the word. Through the establishment of His kingdom of truth, justice and peace, is realized His mission, ordained for the glory of God and the salvation of souls. Although de jure Jesus is also a temporal king, de facto He has reserved for Himself sovereignty over those things which bind man to God and concern eternal salvation.

2. Since the establishment of this kingdom on earth is the 'raison d'etre' of the Church of Christ, i.e. the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, the kingship of Jesus-Christ inherently requires that political society be constituted in accordance with the one Church of Christ.

3. However, the kingship of Jesus-Christ must not be imposed by force or violence. It is by a free act of the will that man adheres to the faith and enters the kingdom of Christ. This condition of human nature - that we can only enter Christ's kingdom through the exercise of a free act - does not give error or vice any right to a peaceful existence in the state, let alone a right to propaganda and action. For, man being created for  truth and goodness, there is nothing in him that gives him the right to adhere with impunity to error or consent to vice.

4. This condition, though it does not confer a 'right', nevertheless justifies the State in exercising 'tolerance' towards false religious confessions, as long as concrete circumstances require it, in view of a great good to be obtained, or an evil to be avoided. Tolerance of false religions, or of certain behaviors contrary to the rule of morality, is therefore always a 'lesser evil', and for this reason cannot be considered a normal, definitive situation. He would be mistaken who claims to elevate to the rank of principle the mixing of good and evil in the parable of the wheat and the tares. The parable presents a fact, not a right. It exposes the fact of the situation of the good in the world, who, according to the designs of Providence, will always be surrounded by evil people. The latter, explains St. Augustine, exercise the faithful in the practice of virtue and confirm them in the faith. The parable in no way claims to give notice of the right for error or evil to exist, as if, as a matter of principle, the normal situation of the state entailed or required granting all religious beliefs the freedom to exist and propagate.

5. Moreover, the State cannot be dispensed from its duties towards true religion on the pretext that it must concern itself only with earthly realities; for in devoting itself to its specific end, the State must not and cannot forget the subordination of earthly goods to the ultimate, eternal end of the citizens. It will only act properly if it itself submits to the true religion, which is the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman religion, endowed with clearly manifested characteristics. So that, generally speaking, no one can be excused for not knowing it or not living by its commandments.


Our Duties towards the Kingship of Jesus-Christ

Establishing the kingdom of Jesus-Christ in society is an apostolic objective which obliges all the faithful. However, it must always be carried out in an orderly and peaceful manner, in imitation of Jesus-Christ and the Apostles who obeyed and commanded obedience to the constituted public powers, except in cases where the power imposed laws or ordered acts contrary to God's will.

Leo XIII affirms that the first Christians were... '... of exemplary fidelity to princes, and as perfect an obedience to the laws of the State as they were permitted. They displayed a marvellous radiance of holiness on all sides; they strove to be useful to their brethren and to attract others to follow Our Lord, yet they were prepared to give way and die bravely if they could not, without wounding their consciences, retain honours, magistracies and military offices' 1.


Our Conversion

The obligation to work for the establishment of the kingdom of Jesus-Christ, which concerns each of us, dear sons, begins with 'our very own conversion'. Above all, we must let Jesus-Christ reign over our being, by conforming our own will, our actions and our behavior, to the most holy will of God, expressed in His commandments and in the directives of His holy Church, whose spirit we must assimilate above all. Such submission obliges us to shun the solicitations of the world.

This is how the first Christians completely reformed pagan society, converting it and building the city of God, Christian civilization, on its ruins. Let's listen to Leo XIII:
Quote:'In this way, they rapidly introduced Christian institutions not only into domestic homes, but also into the camps, the Curia and even the imperial palace. [...] So when it was permitted to profess publicly the Gospel, the Christian faith appeared in a large number of cities, not still wavering, but strong and already full of vigour 2.

1 - LEON XIII, Immortale Dei.
2 - LEON XIII, Immortale Dei. See Tertullian: "We're only from yesterday, and already we're filling everything that is yours, your cities, your islands, your fortresses, your municipalities, your conciliabules, your camps themselves, the tribes, the decuries, the palace, the senate, the forum". (Apol., 37). (Editor's note)


In the Family

Personal action takes place within families. When the austerity of the Christian life reigns within the family, when the atmosphere of the home is imbued with faith and encourages the practice of virtue, people find it easier to overcome the seductions of impiety and vice that come from the passions, the devil and the spirit of the world.

Dear sons, it is important to stress the 'enormous responsibility of parents' in the Catholic education of their children; for, on their vigilance, on what they have done positively to educate their children, depends the spirit which, later on, will animate all the latter's behaviour. Without decisive action on the part of parents, it is impossible to establish the reign of Jesus-Christ in society. On this subject, let us denounce, dear sons, the harmful influence exerted on the family atmosphere by television, magazines, bad books or frivolous reading.

Be aware, beloved sons, that good families come together in larger social groups, from which civil society is formed. And this is how, through firm but patient action, we can contribute to the renewal of the State, by gradually christianizing it. As the divine Saviour said in the parable of the leaven in the dough (Mt 13:33), it is through the continuous radiance of the good odour of JesusChrist that the fervour of the faithful will reconquer the world, for the service of the King of glory.



In Public Life

This is why, dear sons, the devil, by ambushes of every kind, attacks the integrity of the Christian family, attacking it in its nature as well as in its duties and the ordinary course of its life. You understand, therefore, that our eagerness for Jesus-Christ to be the sovereign Lord of society cannot be confined to particular personal or family actions, however important and necessary they may be. We must 'also act in public life', both positively and to prevent families from being asphyxiated by these disorders of all kinds that are tolerated to satisfy the misunderstood freedom of modern people.

As Leo XIII warns, when he emphasizes this obligation of the faithful, action in public life must be taken in an orderly and serene manner: without provoking strife between classes, without arousing spirits against the established order; but by acting firstly by good example, that absolutely indispensable weapon, and then, by all legal means - writings, manifestos, collective representations, etc. - with the aim to prevent the approval of laws or customs that are contrary to Christian faith and morals, such as divorce, induced abortion under any pretext, the free sale of contraceptives, their use in hospitals and maternity wards, sex education in schools, public licentious behaviour, the dissemination of pornography, the free circulation of films offensive to Jesus-Christ, which offend dogma or corrupt the family, etc.

An identical positive activity is also needed, with a view to achieving a public order inspired by the Christian spirit, which prepares citizens to adhere to the true faith in Jesus-Christ, as proclaimed by His Church, the One that is Catholic, Apostolic and Roman.


Schools: Teaching Religion is not Enough

Whence this apostolate and the rights of parents, dear sons, include organized action 'against the school monopoly' being established in our homeland1 under the pretext of educational efficiency.

This action is essential, first and foremost, because the very real situation for the Brazilian people, will be one of official secular education. So, in a school where the official teaching is secular, it is not possible to give students a Catholic education. This training requires that all disciplines be considered as a harmonious whole, so that, animated by the same spirit, they integrate the spirit of Our Lord Jesus-Christ, Wisdom of God, to whose glory all sciences must be ordered. The late Carlos de Laet2 rightly said that secular teaching is by its very nature seditious. And he gave the example of writing, an apparently indifferent subject, where the teacher necessarily loses his neutrality when he has to explain, for example, why the word God is written with a capital letter.

And it's not by introducing religious education into official establishments that we'll remedy the ills of secularism. In the first place, because it's a condition of simple favor to religious education in these establishments.

1 - In Brazil, the school monopoly is much more recent than in France. (Editor's note)
2 - Carlos DE LAET (1847-1928), Brazilian journalist and essayist, a vigorous polemicist, brilliant in His columns and articles.

What's more, as this teaching is often inserted into a system that does not give it its rightful place, the development of the Catholic mentality is immediately altered. Secondly, as Pius XI observes, religious instruction given in a school where other subjects ignore religion, and even work against it, is absolutely insufficient to give anyone a Catholic formation.

Therefore, if they accept the introduction of religious instruction into the 'curriculum' of school subjects, in order to uphold the principle that education cannot do without religion, Catholic parents must take great care to give their children a religious training outside school, in order to correct the evils to which we alluded above 1.

Above all, they must take a special stand against the school monopoly, so that their rights to educate their children are truly recognized and respected in all their fullness. Let them demand protection and support for private schools. They can even assume control of it, or at least give themselves the opportunity to influence its activities.

It's worth recalling Pius XI's comments to parents about national socialist schools:
Quote:'...Parents who are earnest and conscious of their educative duties, have a primary right to the education of the children God has given them in the spirit of their Faith, and according to its prescriptions. Laws and measures which eliminate, in school questions, the respect of this free will of the parents go against natural law, and are immoral.

...Therefore, we shall never cease frankly to represent to the responsible authorities the iniquity of the pressure brought to bear on you and the duty of respecting the freedom of education. Yet do not forget this: none can free you from the responsibility God has placed on you over your children. None of your oppressors, who pretend to relieve you of your duties can answer for you to the eternal Judge, when He will ask: "Where are those I confided to you?" May every one of you be able to answer: "Of them whom Thou hast given me, I have not lost any one" (John xviii. 9).

1 - Bishop de Castro-Mayer wrote this at a time when it was still possible to make do with intermediate solutions, because the official school system was not entirely corrupt everywhere. Today, as the situation worsens, the only advice is: put your children in traditional schools if you don't want them to go to perdition! (Editor's note)
2 - Encyclical 'Mit brennender Sorge', March 14, 1937.


Slackening of the Faith

As we engage in these considerations with you, dear sons, our hearts ache at the indifference with which many Catholics approach the problem of educating the younger generation. A good many of them confine themselves, at most, to looking for a college that carries the Catholic label. They dispense of discovering more accurate information, and feel they have no responsibility in the matter. Where does such a lack of faith come from?

To a large extent, it stems from the love of ease 1, with which these Catholics have been contaminated by the 'liberalism of modern civilization', made up of the immoderate enjoyment that is the hallmark of the consumer society. But  this lack of faith also stems from a' lack of confidence in grace', which is in some ways more serious.

In fact, many of us feel that God's grace has become insufficient to overcome the wickedness into which the world is plunged today. Although we don't express it clearly, we do in fact judge that the apostasy of society, and consequently of states, has become so profound that it is no longer possible to speak of the social reign of Our Lord. We would have to be content with a 'modus vivendi' in which we seek to save as many souls as possible, while at the same time refraining from fighting, even in the long term, in favor of a Catholic State.

Hence, the accommodation of many, who profess the Catholic faith, with the paganization of society. Naturalism has led them to trust in their own strength and lack confidence in grace. They worry that they have everything to achieve, and, realizing their inability to defeat the monster of secularism, they judge that 'the only possible path is that of concessions'. The reasoning should be entirely different. Feeling their weakness, their inability to overcome the modern spirit, these people should turn to grace, and be assured of its omnipotence against all God's enemies.

On the anniversary of the death of Saint Gregory the Great, Saint Pius X noted that His admirable predecessor had distinguished Himself precisely in that He had ignored the prudence of the flesh...
Quote:'... and in the preaching of the Gospel, and in the other admirable works he accomplished for the relief of human misery. He followed the example of the Apostles, who said on the day they set out to proclaim Christ throughout the world: "We preach Jesus crucified, a scandal to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles" (1 Cor 1:23). But if ever there was a time when the helps of human prudence may have seemed opportune, it is indeed that time: for minds were in no way prepared to welcome this new doctrine, which was so strongly repugnant to passions everywhere in control, and clashed head-on with the brilliant civilization of the Greeks and Romans2.

1 - The Brazilian text uses the term "comodismo", which could be translated as "commodism" if the word didn't already refer to a scientific theory (developed by Henri Poincarao). We're talking here about that form of practical liberalism that seeks ease and compromise with the spirit of the world. (Editor's note)
2 - Encyclical Iucunda sane, March 12, 1904.


Religion within Human limits

Dear sons, this lack of confidence in the efficacy of grace, this overconfidence in our own abilities, was already present in the time of the divine Master. In fact, what else does this attitude of the Saviour's disciples indicate, when they judged His words to be harsh and impossible to follow? "Durus est hic sermo et quis potest eum audire? " (Jn 6:61). What were these disciples asking for, if not a Christian message they could put into practice themselves? What were they refusing, if not a grace so powerful that it would make them overcome their own misery?

Basically, it was a question of finding a compromise between the severity of the Gospel preached by Jesus-Christ and the principles of the world; a religion, definitely, that would "understand" human conditions and "would adapt" to their weaknesses.

However, these disciples did not always have imitators who followed them in all their attitudes. Unwilling to follow the rules laid down by the Savior, they abandoned Him. Over the centuries, not all those who would promulgate their pride and lack of confidence in grace would reproduce (imitate Ed.)their open defection. Many would remain in the bosom of the Church, only to deform it, and create a 'new Church', closer to the times, more accessible to its passions, and for that reason, inauthentic, false. This is how heresies appeared suddenly.


How Heresies are Born

It's a normal part of human psychology that man seeks a reason to legitimize his actions. Because of a lack of confidence in grace and a weakening of his faith, he becomes accustomed to a trivialized and peaceful coexistence with the error and evil present in society, and looks for a principle that endorses his behavior and gives what he does and thinks a semblance of coherence.

This phenomenon, which lies at the root of the heresies of the past, can still be found today in various movements that have arisen within the Church, generous in appearance because they intend to devote themselves to the conversion of those outside Christ's fold. But their generosity is infected with the love of the world 1. To smooth the way, they resort to a less rocky presentation, if we may put it that way, of revealed morality and doctrine, and, consequently, more accessible to minds accustomed to living, to varying degrees, according to the maxims of the world. In reality, such movements rob Revelation of the clarity of its dogmas and, by the same token, falsify it, for in the words of Our Lord, the 'yes' must be 'yes', and the 'no' must be 'no'. What dilutes these clarifications comes from the Evil One (see Mt 5:37).


Immortification

These movements are known precisely for their compromising apostolate, which attenuates traditional severity. They weaken the precepts of morality, avoiding the emphasis on a life that is usually serious and austere, and allowing themselves liberties that offend souls accustomed to the image of the faithful Catholic docilely attached to Sacred Scripture and to Tradition. An image full of confidence, no doubt, but also of a holy and respectful fear of God.

More by their way of proceeding than by clear teachings, these movements we're talking about distill a Christianity in which levity of morals and freedom of speech, commonplace in today's paganized world, are considered absolutely normal and of no great importance. We've already had occasion to warn you, dear sons, against coarse language, social leveling, vulgar manners and irreverence towards Our Lord, all of which can be found in circles imbued with the ideology and spirit of the Cursilhos2. We are told that there are other similar movements suffering from the same defects. These movements would bridge the gap between Christianity and the easy, sensual lifestyle that capitulates to the evil tendencies of nature inherited from original sin. Then appears a new Church, having lost confidence in the omnipotence of grace - which, however, was able to bring down and raise up a St. Paul - the sublime character of Christ's religion to the level of human nature and its deficiencies.


1 - Their generosity is "comodista", inclined to compromise with the world.
2 - The term is a calque of the Spanish word, Cursillos de cristiandad, "Little course in Christianity". A Catholic action movement that emerged in Spain in 1944, it quickly became a vehicle for ecumenism. Bishop de Castro Mayer refers in a note (in the Italian translation of SiSi NoNo in August 2011), to "Nostra Carta Pastoral sobre cursilhos de Cristiandade, 3rd ed., Vera Cruz, Sao Paulo, 1973." (Editor's note)


The Spirit of Independence

A second characteristic of these movements, linked to pride - that other fundamental tendency of fallen nature - is the spirit of independence from Tradition. The coryphae of the movements we're talking about make no secret of their claim to be building a renewed Christianity. They strive to convince their peers that they have at last rediscovered with certainty the true substance of the Christian message, which had been obscured by the excesses of Tradition. In this, they are contumacious1.

They are the only ones who know how to apply the words of the Gospel to today's world. They claim a similar autonomy from the hierarchy. Outwardly very respectful, they seek - as we have often heard said in recent years - ecclesiastical leaders who "understand" them, i.e. who accept their positions. Absolutely convinced that their thinking is authentically Christian, they say nothing to arguments based on Sacred Scripture and Tradition. And so they continue, obstinate in their ideas and their proselytism. As they feel that only by maintaining their links with the Church will they be listened to, they invoke a few ecclesiastical approbations, the existence of which they do not always prove, and the content of which they are carefully cautious to divulge their contents- when it exists. Some, like the so called "Catholic Pentecostals", go further: they believe in a direct, more or less perceptible influence of "the Spirit", without the intervention of the hierarchy.

All these movements, without judging the intentions of their instigators, are in fact inspired by the modernist mentality, whose rules of action were as follows:  to remain in the Church in order to renovate it in depth; and, within the Church, to transcend the limits of the hierarchy, in order to reach the essence of Christianity that exists in the subconscious of every human being. As a tactic, they sought to silence publications and arguments opposed to them, and endeavored to discredit their opponents2.

1 - In Roman law, a "contumax" is an individual who shows an inclination to despise authority. In ecclesiastical law, contumacy refers to the attitude of a sinner who, externally, shows arrogance towards ecclesiastical authority and refuses to amend his ways. (Editor's note)
2 - Antonio FOGAZZARO, Il Santo, and St. Pius X's encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis, September 8, 1907.


The Antidote: Living by Faith

You see, dear sons, that with such a mentality, it is out of the question to think of establishing the kingship of the divine crucified One. His kingship is opposed to that social atmosphere produced by the domination of passions wounded by original sin. This mentality is entirely committed to a compromise that seeks to preserve the faith without separating itself from man's "conquests", by virtue of the autonomy that the deprivation of grace would have indirectly procured him, when sin reduced him to his natural condition.

To guard against the contamination of such a harmful spirit, spread by movements of the type we have described, it is necessary, dear sons, that you make the spirit of faith more alive in yourselves.

Above all, anchor in your minds the exact concept of the faith indispensable to salvation, the faith without which, says St. Paul, "it is impossible to please God" (Heb 11:6). This faith is a supernatural virtue, infused by God, whose object is revealed Truth. The first Vatican Council defined it as follows:
Quote:'This faith, which is the beginning of man's salvation, the Catholic Church professes to be a supernatural virtue by which, forewarned by God and helped by His grace, we believe the things He has revealed to us to be true, not because of their intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself who reveals, who can neither deceive Himself nor us'1.

Thus, the fundamental condition for belonging to Christ's flock is to accept revealed truths in their exact meaning, as proposed to us by the Holy Church. To think otherwise, to reduce faith to an act of trust or mere sentiment, is to fall into heresy. As a result, any movement, association or group of the faithful that claims to be Catholic - and especially if it is destined to the apostolate, to the propagation of the spirit of Jesus-Christ in the social milieu in which it finds itself -this movement, then, must first and foremost have as its aim a firm and scrupulous adherence to revealed doctrine. What's more, these truths, which divine goodness has deigned to manifest to man, must be accepted with humility and gratitude, as expounded by the Holy Church, the only infallible teacher to whom God our Lord has entrusted the deposit of His Revelation.

Without a docile submission of the intelligence to this revealed truth, attentive above all not to distort in any way what God has deigned to make known through His Church, there is no authentic Catholicism. There is only an appearance, which can mislead one's neighbor, and which, as a result, presents the danger of making him deviate towards an equally erroneous conception of the faith.

We repeat: this attitude of submission, fundamental for the Catholic, implies obedience to a double external authority: to the truth proposed by Revelation, and to the Church which transmits it.

Because this requires us to admit our inferiority and limitations, the modern mind rebels against this attitude, in the name of reason and Rights of man. It's this spirit of rebellion that drives - albeit perhaps unconsciously - the movements we've been talking about. The remedy for contamination by this spirit lies in humble and loving obedience to the authentic magisterium, receiving revealed dogma in the sense that the Church has always taught. Without this pure and unreserved faith, we are not immune to the virus of adaptation to the world, which St. Paul condemned.

1 - Vatican I, session 3, Constitution 'Dei Filius', ch. 3 (DS 3008).


Living by Faith

With the same docility, without wrapping them in the sinuosities of our selflove, we must hear and practice the precepts enunciated by the divine Master, so that He may reign in us and we may be effective instruments in spreading His reign in souls.

"If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me." (Lk 9:23). This is the golden rule, irreplaceable. Without "let him deny himself", without renouncing our egoism, our pleasures and our desires, in order to do God's will alone, sanctification is illusory, the apostolate practically sterile and exposed to the danger of being led astray in the direction of compromise with the world.

This renunciation requires daily mortification; consequently, every day, we must take up the cross that Our Lord sends us: the cross of the exact fulfillment of our duties of state; the cross of patience towards our neighbor; the cross of the struggle against human respect.

Such a precept, understood according to its objective truth, is incompatible with the maxims of the world. Only a spirit of faith, living in the hope of future realities that will only be revealed in eternity, is capable of accepting it and loyally proposing to live by it. Rightly understood, it shows us how all those movements that aspire to establish a new Church and practice openness to the ways of being and behaving of the modern world, stray dangerously far from the path that leads to God's glory and eternal salvation.


The Spirit of the World

Let us agree, dear sons, that the temptation to seek agreement between the doctrine of salvation and the spirit of the age is tempting. Everywhere we are offered, including the inclination inherent in our sinful nature, a false charity, the fruit of a naturalistic conception of existence.

That's why the divine Master never tires of warning His disciples against living according to worldly principles. In His great priestly prayer, after the Last Supper, Jesus asks the Eternal Father, in a special way, to preserve His disciples from the contagion of the world (Jn 17:9-15). And the reason for this request is that the whole world is under the influence of the Evil One (1 Jn 5:19), by the lure of concupiscence, vanity and pride (1 Jn 2:16). In the same vein, St. Paul urges us to flee the temptation to conform to the spirit of the present age (Rom 12:2).

If, aided by confident and fervent prayer, we remain faithful in this vigilance, God our Lord will have mercy on us and grant us the grace not to get caught up in the meshes of an apparent, but false apostolate; that is, an apostolate which, if it does not totally renounce the social reign of Jesus-Christ over the world today, accommodates itself to a half-christianity, conceived in the manner of a union between two antagonistic spirits: 'Christian austerity and the wanderings of modern life. The result of such an alliance can only be the nausea of which the Apocalypse speaks (Apo 3:16), and which provokes the Lord's reprobation.

Dear Sons, in His encyclical 'Immortale Dei', Leo XIII echoes the admonitions of Jesus-Christ, and draws the attention of those who dedicate themselves to the work of spreading the Kingdom of God in society, to the two dangers that threaten them: connivance with false opinions, and a less energetic firmness than that demanded by the truth.

Let us therefore, dear sons, avoid our charity degenerating into an encouragement to error or vice. And let our patience never be an incitement to persevere in evil.



The Prayer

"Sine me nihil potestis facere - Without me, you can do nothing" (Jn 15:5). Union with Jesus-Christ, dear sons, so that He may reign in us, and so that we may be crusaders in the service of His reign, is absolutely necessary.

This union with the Redeemer of mankind, the fruit of grace, is nourished and made more intense by the reception of the sacraments and by the practice of the Christian virtues, especially charity, which brings us to avoid anything in our lives that is displeasing to God our Lord, and which arouses in us a genuine interest in our neighbor, especially in his sanctification.

The indispensable means of maintaining union with Jesus-Christ, zeal for the glory of God and the salvation of souls, and at the same time making our apostolate effective, is prayer, that sovereign means which the divine Savior has bequeathed to us for obtaining all the favors of heaven.

Therefore, dear sons, we urge you always to use this weapon, so effective in establishing the reign of Jesus-Christ on earth, first within yourselves and then in the society in which you live.

"Ask, and you shall receive" (Jn 16:24), said the infallible Word, which can and does accomplish what it promises. If our country isn't as Catholic as it should be, it's partly our fault. If we had asked with faith, with confidence, surely we would have been sanctified and our prayers granted. Well! pray, dear sons, pray with the ardent will to receive what you ask for.

Prayer is so necessary that Jesus himself taught us how to pray. For us, He composed the most beautiful and complete of prayers: the 'Our Father'. It is the prayer we should say every day. In it, we ask precisely for the grace that this reign of God to come to us. Indeed, what else do we implore in the second petition of the Our Father, if not that God's reign may come to us? Thy kingdom come!" (Mt 6:10). So let us fervently say the' Our Father', paying close attention to what we're asking for, and begging with a burning desire to see its fulfillment: "Thy kingdom come!" We may lack all other means of extending the reign of Jesus Christ -- science, health, personal charisma, the ability to captivate crowds,...everything! but we never lack the means of prayer. IT IS the indispensable means. The others, without it, are ineffective; but, through prayer, we are made capable of exercising that apostolate which, according to the designs of Providence, it behooves to us to accomplish. Prayer is within our reach. Let us use it with a burning desire to be heard. God takes great account of the fervor of our desire when we ask Him for grace. So let's pray with all our heart and soul, and we'll obtain it.

Especially if we call upon the intercession of the Mediatrix of all graces, the Queen of heaven and earth, the most holy Mary, Our Lady. Let us confide our aspirations and preoccupations to Her. And She, against all human hope - "in spem contra spem, against all hope, keeping hope" (Rom 4:18) - will make her divine Son reign over the world today, fulfilling the kind and gentle promise She made at Fatima: "In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph!"

With our affectionate blessing in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, we pray the most holy Virgin, Mother of God, to grant our dear cooperators and dear sons, perseverance in the love of Jesus-Christ, for the glory of God and the good of souls.

Given in our episcopal city of Campos, on the eighth day of December one thousand nine hundred and seventy-six, on the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Antonio, bishop of Campos.]]> <![CDATA[Fr. Hesse: The New Mass is the Smoke of Satan that has entered the Church - It is Intrinsically Evil]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=4021 Wed, 27 Jul 2022 10:50:58 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=4021 Fundamental Problems with the New Mass - Fr. Hesse



Fr. Hesse explains why the New Mass is illicit, citing Quo Primum and the Council of Trent to prove this point.

From this talk: A Conversation with Fr. Hesse #1 https://archive.org/details/FatherHes...

Timestamp: 39:22-44:39]]> Fundamental Problems with the New Mass - Fr. Hesse



Fr. Hesse explains why the New Mass is illicit, citing Quo Primum and the Council of Trent to prove this point.

From this talk: A Conversation with Fr. Hesse #1 https://archive.org/details/FatherHes...

Timestamp: 39:22-44:39]]> <![CDATA[Padre Pio - Rare Footage]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=4019 Wed, 27 Jul 2022 10:35:56 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=4019 Padre Pio - Rare Footage
This was filmed at Our Lady of Grace Capuchin Friary which is located in the Gargano Mountains at San Giovanni Rotondo. At times there is an atmosphere of playfulness redolent of the Fioretti of St Francis. At the end, they are obviously teasing him about the camera and he hits the cameraman with his cincture. We see him in the refectory and in the Church, and there are scenes of his brothers dealing with the massive postbag which he generated. Starting at 4'23" there is some footage of Padre Pio as celebrant at Tridentine Latin Mass.

VIDEO
]]> Padre Pio - Rare Footage
This was filmed at Our Lady of Grace Capuchin Friary which is located in the Gargano Mountains at San Giovanni Rotondo. At times there is an atmosphere of playfulness redolent of the Fioretti of St Francis. At the end, they are obviously teasing him about the camera and he hits the cameraman with his cincture. We see him in the refectory and in the Church, and there are scenes of his brothers dealing with the massive postbag which he generated. Starting at 4'23" there is some footage of Padre Pio as celebrant at Tridentine Latin Mass.

VIDEO
]]> <![CDATA[Fr. Hesse: Cardinal Stickler says Protestants 'created' the New Mass]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=3996 Wed, 20 Jul 2022 10:35:30 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=3996 ]]> ]]> <![CDATA[Fr. Denis Fahey - A Short Biography]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=3658 Wed, 20 Apr 2022 12:28:38 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=3658 Short Biographies: Father Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp.
Taken from the SSPX Asia site

Part I
Tipperary Priest Was Vatican Authority on Activities of Secret Societies
(Excerpts from the “Tipperary Star” of May 8th 1954)

Father Fahey’s name will forever be associated with the Cause of the Kingship of Christ.  The writings of the great Cardinal Pie (1815-1880), Bishop of Poitiers, had a profound influence on his life and work.  These writings so warmly commended by Blessed Pius X, had helped him see “the history of the world in its true perspective, that is, in relation to Our Lord”. Following in the footsteps of the great French Cardinal, Father Fahey appealed to Catholics to arouse themselves from apathy and indifference and not to acquiesce in the dethronement of Christ the King.

He insisted that, “The world must conform to Our Lord, not He to it”.


Divine Plan for Order

“In his characteristic forthright manner he set down in clear and unmistakable terms the Divine Plan for Order in the world, as outlined in the Papal Encyclicals.  This is the Six Point Programme - The Catholic Plan for Social Order - which is printed in each issue of Fiat. It is the Plan advocated by Maria Duce, an organisation of Catholics which was founded through the inspiration of Father Fahey, and of which he was a member.  “To that Divine Plan for Order”, wrote Father Fahey, “there neither is nor can be any man-made alternative.  Man has not even got the right to propose an alternative.

His duty is simply to try to grasp what God has instituted and bow down his head in humble acceptance.

Thus alone can he fully acknowledge God’s Rights”.  On this Divine Plan for Order, Father Fahey never compromised.  It was God’s Plan; he would not whittle it down.  “It is the duty”, he urged, “of those who believe in and love Our Lord not to whittle down His programme but to preach the integral truth and to urge the world to the one course befitting creatures- humble submission to order.

In laying bare the sound doctrine of the Kingship of Christ, he had of necessity, like Saint Thomas Aquinas, to contradict many of the erroneous but accepted ideas of his age. The awful consequences of disorder in political, social and economic life could only be remedied he stressed, by the return to the full doctrine and practice of Membership of Christ, that is, by the implementation of the Six Point Programme of Order to which reference has already been made.

Like a double-edge sword his keen intellect, with clean cuts severed truth from error.

In all his work he strove to follow the example of his Divine Master.  To guide him in his castigation of error, he recalled the words of Blessed Pius X that, “though Jesus was kind to those who had gone astray and to sinners, He did not respect their erroneous convictions, however sincere they appeared to be”.  His defence for truth and his unmasking of errors was forever consistent with the injunction of Pope Pius XI: “The first and obvious duty the priest owes to the world about him, is service to the truth, the unmasking of and refutation of error in whatever from of disguise it conceals itself”.  Because he was faithful to his priestly office, he unmasked the enemies of Christ the King and emphasised the teaching of Cardinal Pie that the Will of God is not done on earth, as it is in Heaven, if organised societies here below do not acknowledge their duties to God through Our Lord Jesus Christ.


“MAGNIFICENT SERVICE FOR MANKIND”

“Naturalism”, Father Fahey pointed out, “is in practice the same thing as opposition to the Mystical Body of Christ, the Catholic Church instituted by Our Divine Lord Jesus Christ as the visible expression as well as the divinely-accredited exponent of the Divine Plan for Order in the world.  Naturalism must therefore, be opposed by every Catholic worthy of the name”.

He was acknowledged as a world-wide authority on the activities of secret societies.

His brilliance as a linguist facilitated him in his study of the original sources of documentation which he presented to his readers.

“The modern connotation of the term “anti-Semitism” did not deter Father Fahey from exposing the awful activities of the Jewish Nation in its calculated campaign to impose its will on God.  The initiation and use by the international Jewish Money Power of the modern scourge of Atheistic Communism was lucidly explained by him.  He strove to do all in his power “to set forth the opposition of every form of Naturalism, including Jewish Naturalism, to the supernatural reign of Christ the King.”  In addition, as he wrote in The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation, for over forty years I have been offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass every year on the Feasts of the Resurrection, Corpus Christi, Saints Peter and Paul, and the Assumption of Our Blessed Mother for the acceptance by the Jewish Nation of the Divine Plan for Order”.


“JEWS’ BITTER OPPOSITION”

The bitter opposition of the Jewish Nation to God’s Plan for Order deeply grieved Father Fahey.  He prayed that they would cease to wound the Sacred Heart of Jesus and His Blessed Mother.  “A day will come”, he wrote, “when the Jewish Nation will cease to oppose order and will turn in sorrow and repentance to Him whom they rejected before Pilate.

That will be a glorious triumph for the Immaculate Heart of Our Blessed Mother.

Until that day dawns, however, their naturalistic opposition to the one true Supernatural Order of the world must be exposed and combatted”.

He was a great priest and a true patriot.

His roots were deep in the traditional allegiance to Faith and Fatherland.  He saw that the true resurgence of Ireland could never be accomplished on the false principals of Nationalism that stemmed from the French Revolution.  The true national spirit must be revived, the spirit that spurred on to victory the great Eoghan Ruadh O’Neill, when with “Sancta Maria” on their lips, his soldiers “charged for the old land”.

Through his books Father Fahey will continue to exhort and guide every Irishman and every soldier of Christ the King, wherever he be, to strive ever harder for the Universal Rights of Christ the King.  For our own part, we pledge ourselves to be ever faithful to the heritage he has bequeathed to us.  We will always remember his words: “It would be easier for Our Divine Lord and His Blessed Mother to do all They want without us, but as They have decided otherwise, we must just keep on and be grateful for being made to work and suffer”.



Part II
Appreciation by Rev. F. Comerford, C.S.Sp.
(from the ‘Tipperary Star’ of May 29th 1954)


In the Golden Vale

To really say one knew Father Fahey, one should have met him in his home setting.  Into the green, fertile land around the Golden Vale in the heart of Tipperary he fitted as into a natural background.  He invited me to visit him there one sunny July evening some ten years ago.  He had been saving hay that morning and had just finished his breviary when I arrived.

He greeted me with a warmth of affection that I shall never forget.

I felt not without a touch of pride that I was more then a student now.  I was a friend. He showed me around the modest farm, pointed out the spit in the local river where he took his early morning dip, made me partake finally of a delightful tea under the thatched roof where he was born.  And all the while he regaled me with a host of historical anecdotes, sad and humorous alike, evoked perhaps by a passer-by, an old times whom he knew in the “bad days”, or by the now broken walls that surrounded the once-spacious demesne of a little-loved hand-lord.

Ten years is not a short span, yet time has not dimmed the memory of those golden moments spent in Kilmore with Father Fahey.  He was a man stepped in his country’s history, full of its lore and with a knowledge and love of the Irish language that few command.

Rarely indeed has Ireland had a more sincere and genuine patriot of only the truth were told.

The locals spoke of “Father Denis” with an affection and respect not untinged with legitimate pride.  His sermons on the Sundays of his brief annual sojourn in his native parish were eagerly looked forward to.  He knew his audience - none better.  That is why perhaps one of his listeners could pay him a tribute and make an important distinction at the same time.  “He’s a Tipperary man, is Father Denis, and hurling is in his blood.  He never delays us on the Sunday of the Munster Final and thinks nothing of cycling the 25 odd miles to be present himself”.  He laughed heartily when I recounted this comment.

Few knew Father Fahey, knew him as a friend knows a friend with that understanding and insight that is quick to appreciate greatness even amid the more sombre setting of what is merely human.


Teacher of Philosophy

It was a a teacher of Philosophy that most of us first encountered Father Fahey.  His fame had of course preceded him and he was something of a fable before ever we met him.  He was not a teacher in the Quintilian sense that he succeeded in making his matter, logic and metaphysics, palatable to the untrained mind.  He did not possess, as the “born teacher” does, the art of putting his ideas across with clarity, at least in English.  English is not the language of philosophy and Father Fahey was often cumbersome in his efforts to cloth in the English idiom those philosophical concepts that are so happily couched in Latin as in their native setting.

Hence his books make dry and difficult reading for the average reader.  It is a tribute to him nonetheless that his books have been so widely read and appreciated in spite of this initial handicap.

He was however a teacher in the higher sense that his mere presence exercised over all who were unbiassed a strange charm and fascination.  He radiated a very real quality, difficult to describe and impossible to define, and which many would call holiness.  We felt we were in the presence of one who was great because he was good, good with the goodness of God.  He had a rare sense of humour which found expression often at his own expense but never at the expense of others.

He was wont to get quite a large mail from England and  America, a large proportion of it from non-Catholics, writers in various social fields, who sought his advice and criticism.

One day holding up a sheaf of such correspondence he remarked in his high-pitch voice: “They said Father Fahey had a bee in his bonnet, but now they are all coming looking for the honey!!”  In Church History class he was most interesting.  He gave the minimum time to early and long-dead heresies and was much more concerned with the history of the Church in the making, of “the Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World”.  He was labelled “anti-semite” by those who never tried to understand his careful distinction, who could lay claim neither to his erudition and competency in the subject in question nor to his spontaneous abhorrence of anything that offended against Truth or Charity.

Because he did not approve of Article 44 of the Constitution of Eire (1937) he was termed “unpatriotic” by many to whom the traditional Catholic teaching on the relations which should exist between Church and State was a closed book.  Pointing out that such a disapproval flows from the principles of Catholic Social teaching as inevitably as water from a fountain, he said, one day with a humorous twinkle in his eye: “The Popes posit the major premise: Article 44 provides the minor premise - and they all jump on me because I draw the conclusion!  “The humour in the situation was the humour of the logician.  As an Irish priest, however, he felt very keenly the infidelity to Christ contained in Article 44.  It haunted his waking hours and disturbed his brief moments of repose.

The thought that his beloved Ireland, which had so loyally withstood through tortured centuries every effort to destroy her Faith in Christ, should fail in her official document publicly to acknowledge His Kingship, - that thought, that fact blighted in his eyes all the beauties of nature, robbed the bird’s song of their sweetness and the countryside at large of it colour.

Few, perhaps, took such a serious view of the situation.  But then, they were few indeed who were qualified as he to assess the problem at its true worth.  For him it was a tragedy.  Only on the day of judgement will we know how tragic it was for Ireland.

For Father Fahey was at home on the heights.  He saw “the vision splendid” and sought to interpret that vision to others.  Small wonder then that those whom he helped as Confessor and Director regarded him with something akin to veneration.  His principles as a rule were beyond the pale of contest.  Few would dare quarrel with them.

As a student he was too thorough and painstaking to tolerate the superficial in thought, or expression.  Indeed he weight his works with an almost excessive care.  Hence it is not surprising that in the social field, where many challenged his conclusions, nobody to my knowledge has disproved a thesis of his.  The walls of his syllogisms never cracked under the clamour that rose around them.  What the Popes taught Father Fahey certainly preached.  He took such pains, however, to search out the “ultimate causes” and rear his edifice on foolproof foundations that too few journeymen who accompanied him, so to speak, in the initial stages of this building process had the intellectual patience to see the job through. His teaching was too deep for small minds, who not infrequently hastened to condemn what they failed to understand like the fox in the fable.  It was Tertulian who said long ago:  “This boon alone Truth sometimes craves - that it be not condemned unheard”.  How rarely that boon is conceded to Truth Father Fahey knew from bitter experience.  He trod the lonely road all those must travel who would serve the Truth without compromise.  Whole chapters could be written and will, please God, be written some day about Father Fahey and his teaching.  Here, however, I can afford but the most cursory commentary.


AHEAD OF HIS TIME

Though it is a pity that so many knew Father Fahey only through his writings, it is also true that apart from his writings he cannot be understood.

What came to be called his ‘doctrine’ was part of his very being.

He had a message for society - profound, coherent and significant, more so perhaps than that of any writer of his age.  A life-long student of St. Thomas, he had made a profound study of Papal Teaching and in several noted instances anticipated Papal pronouncements on current problems.  Thus those only, whose minds were steeped like his in Papal Teaching and formed in the school of St. Thomas Aquinas, were competent to judge his works, and invariably the judgement was favourable. “It is probable” writes a well-known Dominican Thomist “that only in another generation will the full import of all Dr. Fahey has been doing for a quarter of a century now be rightly appreciated”.  That one who was by common consent a generation ahead of his time should be misunderstood, misrepresented and even maligned was inevitable.


Promise to St. Peter

On one occasion, when a well-meaning but very regrettable ‘personal attack’ was made on him he wrote his Apologia pro vita mea - a closely reasoned vindication of the stand he had taken as writer and teacher, showing that his defense of the fundamental decencies of life, his teaching, on Masonry, International Jewry and the more prosaic  matters such as Money and Artificial  Manures was but a re-echo of Papal Teaching and had its roots deep in the philosophy of St. Thomas. In the course of that Apologia  he gives us an interesting and revealing “flash-back” on his student-days at Rome during the Pontificate of the saintly Pius X.

“When in Rome I began to realise more fully the real significance of the history of the world, as the account of the acceptance and rejection of Our Lord’s Programme for Order.  I used to ask permission to remain at the Confession of St. Peter, while the other scholastics went round the basilica.

“I spent the time there going over the history of the world, and I repeatedly promised St. Peter that if I ever got the chance, I would teach the truth about his Master in the way he and his successors, the Roman Pontiffs, wanted it done.

That is what I have striven to do and am doing” (Apologia).

There is something touchingly inspiring and pathetic in those words.  In retrospect we may say that his tryst with St. Peter was not in vain.  Rarely indeed was a promise more faithfully fulfilled.  From his study of St. Thomas and of the Papal Encyclicals he acquired a grasp of the doctrine of the Redemption that as at once coherent and dynamic.  In an age when the bulk of spiritual literature as tinged if not tainted with Protestant individualism, and long before “Mystici Corporis” appeared, Father Fahey inculcated the doctrine of our solidarity in the Mystical Body and preached a very positive Christianity that was most satisfying to the mind and to the will most stimulating.  His power to synthesize where others were content to analyse, to keep the whole panorama of the Divine Plan in view when others were satisfied to take the vision piecemeal -that was his great achievement.  From that vision - of the Divine Life intended by God to pervade all society and bring man in all his activities, under the salutary sway of Christ, priest and King - as from a fountain flowed all his endeavours and to that source they returned.


THE DIVINE PLAN

Though his writings where at first sight so varied, ranging from a treatise on Mental Prayer to a book on Money, yet there is continuity and consistency throughout.  He disapproved of Art. 44 because it could not be reconciled with the traditional teaching of the Sovereign Pontiffs on the Social Rights of Christ the King.  Freemasonry he opposed because it stood for organised and insidious opposition to the influence of the Mystical Body in society.  He exposed and deplored the machinations of International Finance as a perversion of God’s order.  Money in the hands of a small avaricious but powerful minority instead of being the servant of man, its flow regulated to ensure prosperous family life, was his master, imposing on millions iniquitous conditions hostile to the life of Grace.  He knew the supernatural was built on the natural, hence his attempts to draw public attention to the triumph of the philosophy of quantity over quality in domestic and agricultural life to the detriment of the health of soul and man alike.  To him the “machine-made, water-sodden lump of carbo-hydrates - cum- peroxide” which we call “Bakery Bread” was an abomination.  Likewise the disruption of agricultural life by the false economy of our day, the over emphasis on mechanised farming and the indiscriminate use of inorganic fertilizers called forth his strongest disapproval.  To the promoters of Liberalism through the Press and of licence through the Screen, Father Fahey was a formidable and unrelenting foe.  It is not generally known that with the prominent pioneers re-acting against disorder in all these domains, many of them non-Catholics - Father Fahey was  persona grata.


HE KNEW THAT IDEAS DETERMINE HISTORY

At first sight it would seem that Father Fahey was always in ‘opposition’, always sounding the negative note, condemning this, deploring that.  A closer study of the man and his teaching reveals the logic of that opposition, the tremendously positive thing which was his unswerving loyalty to Christ.  Perhaps his greatest handicap, humanly speaking, was his wisdom.  He knew too much.  “He was a great observer and looked quite through the deeds of men”.  He realised that ideas determine the course of history.  To what was false in the different social philosophies he was keenly alive.  In consequence he penetrated effortlessly behind the smoke-screen of political propaganda and beheld Satan marshaling his minions for yet another attack on the Divine life of Grace.  Small wonder then that one who was as fearless in propagating truth and unmasking error as he was consistent, profound and Papal in his teaching, should have disturbed the complacency and incurred the displeasure of many.  Among them were Catholics not a few of whom might reasonably have been expected to second his efforts and befriend the cause he had espoused.  Like the officious Roman soldiers who would beat St. Paul because he caused a tumult - though St. Paul had been put trumpeting the truth - so, too, many self-appointed patrons of ‘charity’, ‘tolerance’, and ‘liberty’, - (terms they never define) - have lashed this brave priest with their tongues less because his teaching was too profound for them to grasp than because his conclusions were too unpalatable for them to accept.


HYERSENSITIVE

And now before we complete this brief pen-portrait of a great Irishman and a great priest, there are some shadows to be filled in which serve but to throw the main colours into bolder relief and heighten their effect.  To those great qualities of soul which we have so briefly considered we must add a few words about certain handicaps under which he laboured.  It is generally admitted that he was hypersensitive where his work and the opposition it aroused were concerned.  To ideas that ran counter to the teaching of Christ and His Vicars on earth Father Fahey was opposed with a fiery zeal of a Crusader.  Such opposition hurt him personally even to the extent of making him physically ill.  So fully was his mind attuned (by long years of study and meditation) to that of Christ, so closely was his heart identified with the Sacred Heart of Christ the King, that any opposition to the interests of Christ caused him intense pain.  Where ideas were concerned he was certainly very sensitive, much as a trained musician is sensitive to and shudders at the slightest discordant note.  He was abnormal - some thought.  But, perhaps had we studied as profoundly as he, (I’ll not forget the day he said to me apropos a recent attack “I have been studying the problem for forty years and it is just possible I may be right after all”), had we lived our Christian life as whole-heartedly as he, a life of utterly unselfish devotion to Christ, had we seen, finally, in all its commanding beauty the vision which inspired him, had such been our privilege, perhaps we would have come to understand that our way of looking at things was abnormal, not his.


SUFFERED FOR YEARS FROM MIGRAINE

Some thought him un-sociable because he disliked meeting people and avoided social gatherings, especially in his later years.  It was not generally known that he suffered over a long period of years from migraine, a continual headache which made his work as teacher and writer very difficult.  He knew from experience that social gatherings such as plays, concerts, etc. aggravated his complaint and rendered him unfit for the labours of the morrow - hence his abstention.  The last letter I received from him two weeks before his death was written he told me against a back-ground of laughter and applause.  One of the post-Christmas concerts was in progress in the Theologians’ study, but he was enjoying it from afar - at his desk.


TREBLY GREAT

To sum up now all we have written so far we may say that Father Fahey was a great professor, a great patriot and a great priest.  He will I feel be greater in death than in life.  The cause for which he strove so laboriously, or better, the crusade be preached so fervently, will not fail.  He has sown the seed with a generous hand and already a promising harvest is assured.  Not only do we on the missions, who were his pupils, thank God for that privilege, but throughout Ireland and in far off America there are groups of laymen to whom Father Fahey has opened up the vista of life full and satisfying, a life lived in Christ and for the promotion of the when news of his death reached America a Solemn Requiem Mass was offered in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, New York, at the request and in the presence of a host of his friends.  A tombstone doubtless will be raised to his memory in Kimmage but we are his epitaph, his monument, we on whose souls the shining example and profound teaching of this learned and saintly priest have traced the likeness of Christ; we are his glory and his crown.

As I pen these lines in the troubled Kikuyu Reserve a Dublin Opinion lies un-opened on my desk.  It arrived this afternoon addressed to me in a familiar hand.  But this monthly packet of laughter is wrapped in pathos, the pathos of the hands that folded it, of the fingers that addressed it - for the last time.

For those friendly hands are stilled forever, folded now in the cold silence of the tomb.  Father Fahey is dead.  That he should die in the Lord was but the normal outcome of such a life.  The details of his last illness bore out that premonition.

Towards the end of 1953 he felt that the end was near.

When on his way to class on 16th January, the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Refuge of Sinners, he collapsed.  After an operation the following day he seemed at first to rally but it soon became evident that his was the end.  He lingered for some days perfectly conscious.  a remarkable peace invested his last hours impressing all who watched by his bedside.  Death came on 21st January.

Some who knew Father Fahey but slightly will evince surprise that he should have given the Dublin Opinion even a second thought, still less considered it a worth-while addition to a missionary’s mail.  Yet the very nature of that token is full of meaning.  He realized what a tonic a laugh can be and knew that the missionary at times would find a Dublin Opinion more refreshing than a theological review.  There is a delicacy in such Charity that is as rare as it is beautiful.



Specially recommended:

“The Mystical Body of Christ and the Reorganization of Society”

“The kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation”

“The kingship of Christ and Organized Naturalism”]]> Short Biographies: Father Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp.
Taken from the SSPX Asia site

Part I
Tipperary Priest Was Vatican Authority on Activities of Secret Societies
(Excerpts from the “Tipperary Star” of May 8th 1954)

Father Fahey’s name will forever be associated with the Cause of the Kingship of Christ.  The writings of the great Cardinal Pie (1815-1880), Bishop of Poitiers, had a profound influence on his life and work.  These writings so warmly commended by Blessed Pius X, had helped him see “the history of the world in its true perspective, that is, in relation to Our Lord”. Following in the footsteps of the great French Cardinal, Father Fahey appealed to Catholics to arouse themselves from apathy and indifference and not to acquiesce in the dethronement of Christ the King.

He insisted that, “The world must conform to Our Lord, not He to it”.


Divine Plan for Order

“In his characteristic forthright manner he set down in clear and unmistakable terms the Divine Plan for Order in the world, as outlined in the Papal Encyclicals.  This is the Six Point Programme - The Catholic Plan for Social Order - which is printed in each issue of Fiat. It is the Plan advocated by Maria Duce, an organisation of Catholics which was founded through the inspiration of Father Fahey, and of which he was a member.  “To that Divine Plan for Order”, wrote Father Fahey, “there neither is nor can be any man-made alternative.  Man has not even got the right to propose an alternative.

His duty is simply to try to grasp what God has instituted and bow down his head in humble acceptance.

Thus alone can he fully acknowledge God’s Rights”.  On this Divine Plan for Order, Father Fahey never compromised.  It was God’s Plan; he would not whittle it down.  “It is the duty”, he urged, “of those who believe in and love Our Lord not to whittle down His programme but to preach the integral truth and to urge the world to the one course befitting creatures- humble submission to order.

In laying bare the sound doctrine of the Kingship of Christ, he had of necessity, like Saint Thomas Aquinas, to contradict many of the erroneous but accepted ideas of his age. The awful consequences of disorder in political, social and economic life could only be remedied he stressed, by the return to the full doctrine and practice of Membership of Christ, that is, by the implementation of the Six Point Programme of Order to which reference has already been made.

Like a double-edge sword his keen intellect, with clean cuts severed truth from error.

In all his work he strove to follow the example of his Divine Master.  To guide him in his castigation of error, he recalled the words of Blessed Pius X that, “though Jesus was kind to those who had gone astray and to sinners, He did not respect their erroneous convictions, however sincere they appeared to be”.  His defence for truth and his unmasking of errors was forever consistent with the injunction of Pope Pius XI: “The first and obvious duty the priest owes to the world about him, is service to the truth, the unmasking of and refutation of error in whatever from of disguise it conceals itself”.  Because he was faithful to his priestly office, he unmasked the enemies of Christ the King and emphasised the teaching of Cardinal Pie that the Will of God is not done on earth, as it is in Heaven, if organised societies here below do not acknowledge their duties to God through Our Lord Jesus Christ.


“MAGNIFICENT SERVICE FOR MANKIND”

“Naturalism”, Father Fahey pointed out, “is in practice the same thing as opposition to the Mystical Body of Christ, the Catholic Church instituted by Our Divine Lord Jesus Christ as the visible expression as well as the divinely-accredited exponent of the Divine Plan for Order in the world.  Naturalism must therefore, be opposed by every Catholic worthy of the name”.

He was acknowledged as a world-wide authority on the activities of secret societies.

His brilliance as a linguist facilitated him in his study of the original sources of documentation which he presented to his readers.

“The modern connotation of the term “anti-Semitism” did not deter Father Fahey from exposing the awful activities of the Jewish Nation in its calculated campaign to impose its will on God.  The initiation and use by the international Jewish Money Power of the modern scourge of Atheistic Communism was lucidly explained by him.  He strove to do all in his power “to set forth the opposition of every form of Naturalism, including Jewish Naturalism, to the supernatural reign of Christ the King.”  In addition, as he wrote in The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation, for over forty years I have been offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass every year on the Feasts of the Resurrection, Corpus Christi, Saints Peter and Paul, and the Assumption of Our Blessed Mother for the acceptance by the Jewish Nation of the Divine Plan for Order”.


“JEWS’ BITTER OPPOSITION”

The bitter opposition of the Jewish Nation to God’s Plan for Order deeply grieved Father Fahey.  He prayed that they would cease to wound the Sacred Heart of Jesus and His Blessed Mother.  “A day will come”, he wrote, “when the Jewish Nation will cease to oppose order and will turn in sorrow and repentance to Him whom they rejected before Pilate.

That will be a glorious triumph for the Immaculate Heart of Our Blessed Mother.

Until that day dawns, however, their naturalistic opposition to the one true Supernatural Order of the world must be exposed and combatted”.

He was a great priest and a true patriot.

His roots were deep in the traditional allegiance to Faith and Fatherland.  He saw that the true resurgence of Ireland could never be accomplished on the false principals of Nationalism that stemmed from the French Revolution.  The true national spirit must be revived, the spirit that spurred on to victory the great Eoghan Ruadh O’Neill, when with “Sancta Maria” on their lips, his soldiers “charged for the old land”.

Through his books Father Fahey will continue to exhort and guide every Irishman and every soldier of Christ the King, wherever he be, to strive ever harder for the Universal Rights of Christ the King.  For our own part, we pledge ourselves to be ever faithful to the heritage he has bequeathed to us.  We will always remember his words: “It would be easier for Our Divine Lord and His Blessed Mother to do all They want without us, but as They have decided otherwise, we must just keep on and be grateful for being made to work and suffer”.



Part II
Appreciation by Rev. F. Comerford, C.S.Sp.
(from the ‘Tipperary Star’ of May 29th 1954)


In the Golden Vale

To really say one knew Father Fahey, one should have met him in his home setting.  Into the green, fertile land around the Golden Vale in the heart of Tipperary he fitted as into a natural background.  He invited me to visit him there one sunny July evening some ten years ago.  He had been saving hay that morning and had just finished his breviary when I arrived.

He greeted me with a warmth of affection that I shall never forget.

I felt not without a touch of pride that I was more then a student now.  I was a friend. He showed me around the modest farm, pointed out the spit in the local river where he took his early morning dip, made me partake finally of a delightful tea under the thatched roof where he was born.  And all the while he regaled me with a host of historical anecdotes, sad and humorous alike, evoked perhaps by a passer-by, an old times whom he knew in the “bad days”, or by the now broken walls that surrounded the once-spacious demesne of a little-loved hand-lord.

Ten years is not a short span, yet time has not dimmed the memory of those golden moments spent in Kilmore with Father Fahey.  He was a man stepped in his country’s history, full of its lore and with a knowledge and love of the Irish language that few command.

Rarely indeed has Ireland had a more sincere and genuine patriot of only the truth were told.

The locals spoke of “Father Denis” with an affection and respect not untinged with legitimate pride.  His sermons on the Sundays of his brief annual sojourn in his native parish were eagerly looked forward to.  He knew his audience - none better.  That is why perhaps one of his listeners could pay him a tribute and make an important distinction at the same time.  “He’s a Tipperary man, is Father Denis, and hurling is in his blood.  He never delays us on the Sunday of the Munster Final and thinks nothing of cycling the 25 odd miles to be present himself”.  He laughed heartily when I recounted this comment.

Few knew Father Fahey, knew him as a friend knows a friend with that understanding and insight that is quick to appreciate greatness even amid the more sombre setting of what is merely human.


Teacher of Philosophy

It was a a teacher of Philosophy that most of us first encountered Father Fahey.  His fame had of course preceded him and he was something of a fable before ever we met him.  He was not a teacher in the Quintilian sense that he succeeded in making his matter, logic and metaphysics, palatable to the untrained mind.  He did not possess, as the “born teacher” does, the art of putting his ideas across with clarity, at least in English.  English is not the language of philosophy and Father Fahey was often cumbersome in his efforts to cloth in the English idiom those philosophical concepts that are so happily couched in Latin as in their native setting.

Hence his books make dry and difficult reading for the average reader.  It is a tribute to him nonetheless that his books have been so widely read and appreciated in spite of this initial handicap.

He was however a teacher in the higher sense that his mere presence exercised over all who were unbiassed a strange charm and fascination.  He radiated a very real quality, difficult to describe and impossible to define, and which many would call holiness.  We felt we were in the presence of one who was great because he was good, good with the goodness of God.  He had a rare sense of humour which found expression often at his own expense but never at the expense of others.

He was wont to get quite a large mail from England and  America, a large proportion of it from non-Catholics, writers in various social fields, who sought his advice and criticism.

One day holding up a sheaf of such correspondence he remarked in his high-pitch voice: “They said Father Fahey had a bee in his bonnet, but now they are all coming looking for the honey!!”  In Church History class he was most interesting.  He gave the minimum time to early and long-dead heresies and was much more concerned with the history of the Church in the making, of “the Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World”.  He was labelled “anti-semite” by those who never tried to understand his careful distinction, who could lay claim neither to his erudition and competency in the subject in question nor to his spontaneous abhorrence of anything that offended against Truth or Charity.

Because he did not approve of Article 44 of the Constitution of Eire (1937) he was termed “unpatriotic” by many to whom the traditional Catholic teaching on the relations which should exist between Church and State was a closed book.  Pointing out that such a disapproval flows from the principles of Catholic Social teaching as inevitably as water from a fountain, he said, one day with a humorous twinkle in his eye: “The Popes posit the major premise: Article 44 provides the minor premise - and they all jump on me because I draw the conclusion!  “The humour in the situation was the humour of the logician.  As an Irish priest, however, he felt very keenly the infidelity to Christ contained in Article 44.  It haunted his waking hours and disturbed his brief moments of repose.

The thought that his beloved Ireland, which had so loyally withstood through tortured centuries every effort to destroy her Faith in Christ, should fail in her official document publicly to acknowledge His Kingship, - that thought, that fact blighted in his eyes all the beauties of nature, robbed the bird’s song of their sweetness and the countryside at large of it colour.

Few, perhaps, took such a serious view of the situation.  But then, they were few indeed who were qualified as he to assess the problem at its true worth.  For him it was a tragedy.  Only on the day of judgement will we know how tragic it was for Ireland.

For Father Fahey was at home on the heights.  He saw “the vision splendid” and sought to interpret that vision to others.  Small wonder then that those whom he helped as Confessor and Director regarded him with something akin to veneration.  His principles as a rule were beyond the pale of contest.  Few would dare quarrel with them.

As a student he was too thorough and painstaking to tolerate the superficial in thought, or expression.  Indeed he weight his works with an almost excessive care.  Hence it is not surprising that in the social field, where many challenged his conclusions, nobody to my knowledge has disproved a thesis of his.  The walls of his syllogisms never cracked under the clamour that rose around them.  What the Popes taught Father Fahey certainly preached.  He took such pains, however, to search out the “ultimate causes” and rear his edifice on foolproof foundations that too few journeymen who accompanied him, so to speak, in the initial stages of this building process had the intellectual patience to see the job through. His teaching was too deep for small minds, who not infrequently hastened to condemn what they failed to understand like the fox in the fable.  It was Tertulian who said long ago:  “This boon alone Truth sometimes craves - that it be not condemned unheard”.  How rarely that boon is conceded to Truth Father Fahey knew from bitter experience.  He trod the lonely road all those must travel who would serve the Truth without compromise.  Whole chapters could be written and will, please God, be written some day about Father Fahey and his teaching.  Here, however, I can afford but the most cursory commentary.


AHEAD OF HIS TIME

Though it is a pity that so many knew Father Fahey only through his writings, it is also true that apart from his writings he cannot be understood.

What came to be called his ‘doctrine’ was part of his very being.

He had a message for society - profound, coherent and significant, more so perhaps than that of any writer of his age.  A life-long student of St. Thomas, he had made a profound study of Papal Teaching and in several noted instances anticipated Papal pronouncements on current problems.  Thus those only, whose minds were steeped like his in Papal Teaching and formed in the school of St. Thomas Aquinas, were competent to judge his works, and invariably the judgement was favourable. “It is probable” writes a well-known Dominican Thomist “that only in another generation will the full import of all Dr. Fahey has been doing for a quarter of a century now be rightly appreciated”.  That one who was by common consent a generation ahead of his time should be misunderstood, misrepresented and even maligned was inevitable.


Promise to St. Peter

On one occasion, when a well-meaning but very regrettable ‘personal attack’ was made on him he wrote his Apologia pro vita mea - a closely reasoned vindication of the stand he had taken as writer and teacher, showing that his defense of the fundamental decencies of life, his teaching, on Masonry, International Jewry and the more prosaic  matters such as Money and Artificial  Manures was but a re-echo of Papal Teaching and had its roots deep in the philosophy of St. Thomas. In the course of that Apologia  he gives us an interesting and revealing “flash-back” on his student-days at Rome during the Pontificate of the saintly Pius X.

“When in Rome I began to realise more fully the real significance of the history of the world, as the account of the acceptance and rejection of Our Lord’s Programme for Order.  I used to ask permission to remain at the Confession of St. Peter, while the other scholastics went round the basilica.

“I spent the time there going over the history of the world, and I repeatedly promised St. Peter that if I ever got the chance, I would teach the truth about his Master in the way he and his successors, the Roman Pontiffs, wanted it done.

That is what I have striven to do and am doing” (Apologia).

There is something touchingly inspiring and pathetic in those words.  In retrospect we may say that his tryst with St. Peter was not in vain.  Rarely indeed was a promise more faithfully fulfilled.  From his study of St. Thomas and of the Papal Encyclicals he acquired a grasp of the doctrine of the Redemption that as at once coherent and dynamic.  In an age when the bulk of spiritual literature as tinged if not tainted with Protestant individualism, and long before “Mystici Corporis” appeared, Father Fahey inculcated the doctrine of our solidarity in the Mystical Body and preached a very positive Christianity that was most satisfying to the mind and to the will most stimulating.  His power to synthesize where others were content to analyse, to keep the whole panorama of the Divine Plan in view when others were satisfied to take the vision piecemeal -that was his great achievement.  From that vision - of the Divine Life intended by God to pervade all society and bring man in all his activities, under the salutary sway of Christ, priest and King - as from a fountain flowed all his endeavours and to that source they returned.


THE DIVINE PLAN

Though his writings where at first sight so varied, ranging from a treatise on Mental Prayer to a book on Money, yet there is continuity and consistency throughout.  He disapproved of Art. 44 because it could not be reconciled with the traditional teaching of the Sovereign Pontiffs on the Social Rights of Christ the King.  Freemasonry he opposed because it stood for organised and insidious opposition to the influence of the Mystical Body in society.  He exposed and deplored the machinations of International Finance as a perversion of God’s order.  Money in the hands of a small avaricious but powerful minority instead of being the servant of man, its flow regulated to ensure prosperous family life, was his master, imposing on millions iniquitous conditions hostile to the life of Grace.  He knew the supernatural was built on the natural, hence his attempts to draw public attention to the triumph of the philosophy of quantity over quality in domestic and agricultural life to the detriment of the health of soul and man alike.  To him the “machine-made, water-sodden lump of carbo-hydrates - cum- peroxide” which we call “Bakery Bread” was an abomination.  Likewise the disruption of agricultural life by the false economy of our day, the over emphasis on mechanised farming and the indiscriminate use of inorganic fertilizers called forth his strongest disapproval.  To the promoters of Liberalism through the Press and of licence through the Screen, Father Fahey was a formidable and unrelenting foe.  It is not generally known that with the prominent pioneers re-acting against disorder in all these domains, many of them non-Catholics - Father Fahey was  persona grata.


HE KNEW THAT IDEAS DETERMINE HISTORY

At first sight it would seem that Father Fahey was always in ‘opposition’, always sounding the negative note, condemning this, deploring that.  A closer study of the man and his teaching reveals the logic of that opposition, the tremendously positive thing which was his unswerving loyalty to Christ.  Perhaps his greatest handicap, humanly speaking, was his wisdom.  He knew too much.  “He was a great observer and looked quite through the deeds of men”.  He realised that ideas determine the course of history.  To what was false in the different social philosophies he was keenly alive.  In consequence he penetrated effortlessly behind the smoke-screen of political propaganda and beheld Satan marshaling his minions for yet another attack on the Divine life of Grace.  Small wonder then that one who was as fearless in propagating truth and unmasking error as he was consistent, profound and Papal in his teaching, should have disturbed the complacency and incurred the displeasure of many.  Among them were Catholics not a few of whom might reasonably have been expected to second his efforts and befriend the cause he had espoused.  Like the officious Roman soldiers who would beat St. Paul because he caused a tumult - though St. Paul had been put trumpeting the truth - so, too, many self-appointed patrons of ‘charity’, ‘tolerance’, and ‘liberty’, - (terms they never define) - have lashed this brave priest with their tongues less because his teaching was too profound for them to grasp than because his conclusions were too unpalatable for them to accept.


HYERSENSITIVE

And now before we complete this brief pen-portrait of a great Irishman and a great priest, there are some shadows to be filled in which serve but to throw the main colours into bolder relief and heighten their effect.  To those great qualities of soul which we have so briefly considered we must add a few words about certain handicaps under which he laboured.  It is generally admitted that he was hypersensitive where his work and the opposition it aroused were concerned.  To ideas that ran counter to the teaching of Christ and His Vicars on earth Father Fahey was opposed with a fiery zeal of a Crusader.  Such opposition hurt him personally even to the extent of making him physically ill.  So fully was his mind attuned (by long years of study and meditation) to that of Christ, so closely was his heart identified with the Sacred Heart of Christ the King, that any opposition to the interests of Christ caused him intense pain.  Where ideas were concerned he was certainly very sensitive, much as a trained musician is sensitive to and shudders at the slightest discordant note.  He was abnormal - some thought.  But, perhaps had we studied as profoundly as he, (I’ll not forget the day he said to me apropos a recent attack “I have been studying the problem for forty years and it is just possible I may be right after all”), had we lived our Christian life as whole-heartedly as he, a life of utterly unselfish devotion to Christ, had we seen, finally, in all its commanding beauty the vision which inspired him, had such been our privilege, perhaps we would have come to understand that our way of looking at things was abnormal, not his.


SUFFERED FOR YEARS FROM MIGRAINE

Some thought him un-sociable because he disliked meeting people and avoided social gatherings, especially in his later years.  It was not generally known that he suffered over a long period of years from migraine, a continual headache which made his work as teacher and writer very difficult.  He knew from experience that social gatherings such as plays, concerts, etc. aggravated his complaint and rendered him unfit for the labours of the morrow - hence his abstention.  The last letter I received from him two weeks before his death was written he told me against a back-ground of laughter and applause.  One of the post-Christmas concerts was in progress in the Theologians’ study, but he was enjoying it from afar - at his desk.


TREBLY GREAT

To sum up now all we have written so far we may say that Father Fahey was a great professor, a great patriot and a great priest.  He will I feel be greater in death than in life.  The cause for which he strove so laboriously, or better, the crusade be preached so fervently, will not fail.  He has sown the seed with a generous hand and already a promising harvest is assured.  Not only do we on the missions, who were his pupils, thank God for that privilege, but throughout Ireland and in far off America there are groups of laymen to whom Father Fahey has opened up the vista of life full and satisfying, a life lived in Christ and for the promotion of the when news of his death reached America a Solemn Requiem Mass was offered in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, New York, at the request and in the presence of a host of his friends.  A tombstone doubtless will be raised to his memory in Kimmage but we are his epitaph, his monument, we on whose souls the shining example and profound teaching of this learned and saintly priest have traced the likeness of Christ; we are his glory and his crown.

As I pen these lines in the troubled Kikuyu Reserve a Dublin Opinion lies un-opened on my desk.  It arrived this afternoon addressed to me in a familiar hand.  But this monthly packet of laughter is wrapped in pathos, the pathos of the hands that folded it, of the fingers that addressed it - for the last time.

For those friendly hands are stilled forever, folded now in the cold silence of the tomb.  Father Fahey is dead.  That he should die in the Lord was but the normal outcome of such a life.  The details of his last illness bore out that premonition.

Towards the end of 1953 he felt that the end was near.

When on his way to class on 16th January, the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Refuge of Sinners, he collapsed.  After an operation the following day he seemed at first to rally but it soon became evident that his was the end.  He lingered for some days perfectly conscious.  a remarkable peace invested his last hours impressing all who watched by his bedside.  Death came on 21st January.

Some who knew Father Fahey but slightly will evince surprise that he should have given the Dublin Opinion even a second thought, still less considered it a worth-while addition to a missionary’s mail.  Yet the very nature of that token is full of meaning.  He realized what a tonic a laugh can be and knew that the missionary at times would find a Dublin Opinion more refreshing than a theological review.  There is a delicacy in such Charity that is as rare as it is beautiful.



Specially recommended:

“The Mystical Body of Christ and the Reorganization of Society”

“The kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation”

“The kingship of Christ and Organized Naturalism”]]> <![CDATA[Fr. Rafael Arizaga to his Oblates, Friends, and Benefactors: On the upcoming Consecration]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=3555 Fri, 25 Mar 2022 15:44:56 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=3555
I am writing to warn you about the false consecration that Pope Francis will carry out with many bishops of the world. It will use a formula of "consecration" that has as its purpose the "false peace”, using as a means to obtain it, a "consecration" of the Church, of humanity, and especially of Russia and Ukraine.

To begin with, the formula is ambiguous, it uses at the same level and without distinction, human peace and Divine Peace; human unity merges with Divine unity. The aforementioned consecration for "human unity" mixes this with the true consecration that will not be done, which is what the Blessed Virgin of Fatima has been asking to be done for 93 years, a consecration that implies asking for the separation of Russia from the rest of the world, to deliver it to Divine unity…so that Russia may belong to the Immaculate Heart of Mary! So that through Her it will belong to God, and not to purely human unity! (UN) that Jesus Christ never promised or sought.

This consecration is modernist, blasphemous, lying, hypocritical, and ambiguous. This formula implies that the Blessed Virgin Mary agrees to work for a false ecumenism of religious freedom. It implies that the Blessed Virgin Mary seeks Masonic peace. It implies that the Blessed Virgin Mary identifies with the Pachamama by also applying to Mary Most Holy the title that is applied in Chile to the Pachamama by the Mapuas, from being "Land of Heaven" to "Mother Earth”.

Pope Francis seeks with this "consecration" to align Russia and Ukraine with the "new world order" that seeks "peace", "the dreams of peace of the peoples and the hopes of the young" (Goal of the UN).

In other words, it seeks to consecrate Russia and Ukraine to the service of the new ideologies and the new Abrahamic religion. In the formula is included the word "fraternity" with a Masonic sense, attributing with blasphemy to the Blessed Virgin, Queen, the mission of "showing the peoples the path of fraternity". It is the same "peace" and "fraternity" of the UN to which Francis has asked us to submit on several occasions.

This “consecration”, being humanistic and ecumenical, necessarily seeks to consecrate us NOT to the Living God, but to the universal "god", "to the god of the world", to the god of the new world order, to Satan. In short, this event will be a diabolical prodigy with appearances of a miracle seeking to "deceive even the elect.”

In view of such great enthusiasm, I call on all of you and all Catholics not to join this "consecration." What we can do in reparation and obedience to the Blessed Virgin and to Our Most Holy Redeemer is to offer fasting, penance, prayer, and mortification this same March 25 in reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary for this unspeakable outrage towards their beloved and most sacred Hearts.

Let us make this offer as requested by the Blessed Virgin Mary to the children in Fatima:

"O my Jesus, it is for love of Thee, for the conversion of sinners and in reparation for the offenses committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary."

Whatever we do in the day offer it to console the Heart of Mary and repeat throughout the day this ejaculation: "Immaculate Heart of Mary, be the salvation of my soul." It is the prayer that Jacinta made all the time.

May the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces, forgive such an offense, and may she convert our hearts and have mercy on us in the great and imminent punishment announced by the apostasy and prevarication of Catholics who did not want to listen to or obey our Mother of Heaven.



With my Blessing,

Rev. Father Rafael OSB

U.I.O.G.D.

“That in all things God be Glorified."


Posted from the Spanish original here: https://benedictinos.blog/2022/03/25/bla...francisco/]]>
I am writing to warn you about the false consecration that Pope Francis will carry out with many bishops of the world. It will use a formula of "consecration" that has as its purpose the "false peace”, using as a means to obtain it, a "consecration" of the Church, of humanity, and especially of Russia and Ukraine.

To begin with, the formula is ambiguous, it uses at the same level and without distinction, human peace and Divine Peace; human unity merges with Divine unity. The aforementioned consecration for "human unity" mixes this with the true consecration that will not be done, which is what the Blessed Virgin of Fatima has been asking to be done for 93 years, a consecration that implies asking for the separation of Russia from the rest of the world, to deliver it to Divine unity…so that Russia may belong to the Immaculate Heart of Mary! So that through Her it will belong to God, and not to purely human unity! (UN) that Jesus Christ never promised or sought.

This consecration is modernist, blasphemous, lying, hypocritical, and ambiguous. This formula implies that the Blessed Virgin Mary agrees to work for a false ecumenism of religious freedom. It implies that the Blessed Virgin Mary seeks Masonic peace. It implies that the Blessed Virgin Mary identifies with the Pachamama by also applying to Mary Most Holy the title that is applied in Chile to the Pachamama by the Mapuas, from being "Land of Heaven" to "Mother Earth”.

Pope Francis seeks with this "consecration" to align Russia and Ukraine with the "new world order" that seeks "peace", "the dreams of peace of the peoples and the hopes of the young" (Goal of the UN).

In other words, it seeks to consecrate Russia and Ukraine to the service of the new ideologies and the new Abrahamic religion. In the formula is included the word "fraternity" with a Masonic sense, attributing with blasphemy to the Blessed Virgin, Queen, the mission of "showing the peoples the path of fraternity". It is the same "peace" and "fraternity" of the UN to which Francis has asked us to submit on several occasions.

This “consecration”, being humanistic and ecumenical, necessarily seeks to consecrate us NOT to the Living God, but to the universal "god", "to the god of the world", to the god of the new world order, to Satan. In short, this event will be a diabolical prodigy with appearances of a miracle seeking to "deceive even the elect.”

In view of such great enthusiasm, I call on all of you and all Catholics not to join this "consecration." What we can do in reparation and obedience to the Blessed Virgin and to Our Most Holy Redeemer is to offer fasting, penance, prayer, and mortification this same March 25 in reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary for this unspeakable outrage towards their beloved and most sacred Hearts.

Let us make this offer as requested by the Blessed Virgin Mary to the children in Fatima:

"O my Jesus, it is for love of Thee, for the conversion of sinners and in reparation for the offenses committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary."

Whatever we do in the day offer it to console the Heart of Mary and repeat throughout the day this ejaculation: "Immaculate Heart of Mary, be the salvation of my soul." It is the prayer that Jacinta made all the time.

May the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mediatrix of All Graces, forgive such an offense, and may she convert our hearts and have mercy on us in the great and imminent punishment announced by the apostasy and prevarication of Catholics who did not want to listen to or obey our Mother of Heaven.



With my Blessing,

Rev. Father Rafael OSB

U.I.O.G.D.

“That in all things God be Glorified."


Posted from the Spanish original here: https://benedictinos.blog/2022/03/25/bla...francisco/]]> <![CDATA[Fr. Helmuts Libietis: Consecration Prayer of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary [2022]]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=3553 Fri, 25 Mar 2022 10:04:49 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=3553 CONSECRATION OF RUSSIA TO THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY
by Fr. Helmuts Libietis [March 24, 2022]

O most Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, today we belatedly come to you, lamenting our past neglect and indifference in consecrating Russia to your Immaculate Heart, in accordance with your requests made at Fatima, Portugal (1917); Pontevedra, Spain (1925), and Tuy, Spain (1929). 


THE CONSECRATION OF RUSSIA

O Immaculate Heart of Mary, at Fatima in 1917, during the First World War, you showed the three children a vision of Hell and said: “You have seen Hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end―but if people do not cease offending God, a worse war will break out! … Know that God is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father.”

You further said that, at some future date, you would come to formally ask for the consecration of Russia to your Immaculate Heart―in order to convert that nation and prevent it from spreading its errors throughout the world; provoking wars; annihilating nations; and persecuting the Church: “To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace―if not, Russia will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.”

Then, at Tuy (1929) you finally stated: “The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father to make, in union with all the bishops of the world, the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means!”

Sadly, popes, clergy and laity have been either reticent or indifferent in fulfilling your commands. We have not fulfilled the consecration in accordance with your demands―namely, that Russia be specifically consecrated to your Immaculate Heart, and also in union with all the bishops of the world. Nor have we sufficiently spread and established, throughout the world, devotion to your Immaculate Heart.

We wish to make amends for this neglect and so, today, in union with all the bishops of the world [and anyone else who is participating in this act], we unequivocally, unambiguously and unreservedly consecrate Russia―both as a nation, together with all its individual persons―to your Immaculate Heart! We beg you to obtain from God, mercy for that nation and its people, and also the grace of conversion, so that Russia may return to unity of the One True Flock of Christ, from which it is separated by schism since 1054―as Jesus said: “What man of you, that has an hundred sheep, and if he shall lose one of them, does he not leave the ninety-nine and go after that which was lost, until he find it?” (Luke 15:4) … “Other sheep I have, that are not of this fold―them also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd” (John 10:16), so “that they may be one, as We, Father, also are one” (John 17:22) and that there may be “One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism” (Ephesians 4:5).

O most Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, Refuge of Sinners, kindly accept this belated consecration and obtain the grace of conversion for Russia and its people! Forgive them their sins! Save them from Hell! Lead them to penance, lest they perish! Bring them back to the One True Fold of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church!


THE CONVERSION OF SINNERS

O most Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, the Church teaches that the greatest and most serious sins are those against God and the Faith. Pope Pius XI wrote that Russia “is Bolshevistic and atheistic Communism, which aims at upsetting the social order and at undermining the very foundations of Christian civilization. In the face of such a threat, the Catholic Church could not and does not remain silent ... for it knows that its proper and social mission is to defend truth, justice and all those eternal values which Communism ignores or attacks” (Encyclical: Divini Redemptoris, 1937).

Our Lady of Fatima, you warned that Russia “will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church.” You also revealed, to Sister Lucia of Fatima, that Communism would take over the entire world! Those “errors of Russia”, which are the “errors of Atheistic Communism” are “errors of sin”―and today the whole world labors under those “errors of sin”―awaiting a total Communist takeover. That fatal error of sinfulness, justly and rightly, deserves Divine retribution, punishment and chastisement: “The wages of sin is death! … Sin hath reigned to death! … All have sinned, and do need the glory [mercy and grace] of God!” (Romans 6:23; 5:21; 3:23) ... “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us! If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us!” (1 John 1:8-10).

At Pontevedra in Spain (December 10, 1925), you appeared with the Child Jesus to Sr. Lucia. Jesus said: “Have compassion on the Heart of your Most Holy Mother, covered with thorns, with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment―and there is no one to make an act of reparation to remove them!” You then revealed your Immaculate Heart and said: “Look at my Heart surrounded with thorns, with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude!”

At Tuy in Spain (June 13, 1929) you further said to Sr. Lucia: “So numerous are the souls which the justice of God condemns for sins committed against me, that I come to ask for reparation. Sacrifice yourself for this intention and pray!”

Later (May 30, 1930), your Son, Jesus, revealed to Sr. Lucia what the chief sins against you were:

● Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception.
● Blasphemies against your perpetual Virginity.
● Blasphemies against your divine Maternity, while refusing at the same time to recognize you as the Mother of men.
● The blasphemies of those who publicly seek to place in the hearts of children indifference or scorn, or even hatred towards you.
● The offenses of those who outrage you directly in your holy images.

Jesus then added: “Move My mercy to forgive souls who have had the misfortune to offend her! Seek, unceasingly, through your prayers and sacrifices, to move My mercy with regard to these poor souls!”

O most Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, at Fatima (1917) you said: “Are you willing to offer yourselves to God and bear all the sufferings He wills to send you, as an act of reparation for the conversion of sinners? … Then you are going to have much to suffer! … Sacrifice yourselves for sinners, and say many times, especially when you make some sacrifice: ‘O Jesus, it is for love of You, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary!’” O most holy Mother of God―we offer ourselves to God through thy Immaculate Heart and are willing to bear uncomplainingly all the sufferings God will send us as an act of reparation for our own personal sins, the sins and blasphemies of others, and for the conversion of all sinners―not only in Russia, but in the whole world.

You also said at Fatima: “You have seen Hell where the souls of poor sinners go! To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved!” Grant us the grace to be truly devoted to your Immaculate Heart and to spread that devotion to your Immaculate Heart throughout the world―beginning with those persons who surround us in our daily life―thereby hoping to make some reparation for the many blasphemies committed against your Immaculate Heart.

Grant us also the grace of being truly devoted to your Holy Rosary, for at Fatima you ceaselessly asked for the Rosary to be prayed: “Pray the Rosary every day to obtain peace for the world and the end of the war!” (May 1917) … “Pray the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war!” … (June 1917) … “Continue to pray the Rosary every day in honor of Our Lady of the Rosary, in order to obtain peace for the world and the end of the war, because only she can help you! … If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted!” (July 1917) … “Continue to pray the Rosary every day! … Pray, pray very much!” (August 1917) … “Continue to pray the Rosary in order to obtain the end of the war!” (September 1917) … “I am the Lady of the Rosary. Continue always to pray the Rosary every day!” (October 1917). Above all, obtain for us the grace to not merely “say” the Rosary, but to “pray” the Rosary―to meditate it, learn from it and put into practice what it contains. It is said that you will one day save the world through the Rosary and the Scapular! Hasten that hour! Hasten the hour of the Triumph of your Immaculate Heart―that you promised would take place! Hasten the hour of the conversion of Russia! Immaculate Heart of Mary―pray for us!]]> CONSECRATION OF RUSSIA TO THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY
by Fr. Helmuts Libietis [March 24, 2022]

O most Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, today we belatedly come to you, lamenting our past neglect and indifference in consecrating Russia to your Immaculate Heart, in accordance with your requests made at Fatima, Portugal (1917); Pontevedra, Spain (1925), and Tuy, Spain (1929). 


THE CONSECRATION OF RUSSIA

O Immaculate Heart of Mary, at Fatima in 1917, during the First World War, you showed the three children a vision of Hell and said: “You have seen Hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end―but if people do not cease offending God, a worse war will break out! … Know that God is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father.”

You further said that, at some future date, you would come to formally ask for the consecration of Russia to your Immaculate Heart―in order to convert that nation and prevent it from spreading its errors throughout the world; provoking wars; annihilating nations; and persecuting the Church: “To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace―if not, Russia will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.”

Then, at Tuy (1929) you finally stated: “The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father to make, in union with all the bishops of the world, the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means!”

Sadly, popes, clergy and laity have been either reticent or indifferent in fulfilling your commands. We have not fulfilled the consecration in accordance with your demands―namely, that Russia be specifically consecrated to your Immaculate Heart, and also in union with all the bishops of the world. Nor have we sufficiently spread and established, throughout the world, devotion to your Immaculate Heart.

We wish to make amends for this neglect and so, today, in union with all the bishops of the world [and anyone else who is participating in this act], we unequivocally, unambiguously and unreservedly consecrate Russia―both as a nation, together with all its individual persons―to your Immaculate Heart! We beg you to obtain from God, mercy for that nation and its people, and also the grace of conversion, so that Russia may return to unity of the One True Flock of Christ, from which it is separated by schism since 1054―as Jesus said: “What man of you, that has an hundred sheep, and if he shall lose one of them, does he not leave the ninety-nine and go after that which was lost, until he find it?” (Luke 15:4) … “Other sheep I have, that are not of this fold―them also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd” (John 10:16), so “that they may be one, as We, Father, also are one” (John 17:22) and that there may be “One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism” (Ephesians 4:5).

O most Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, Refuge of Sinners, kindly accept this belated consecration and obtain the grace of conversion for Russia and its people! Forgive them their sins! Save them from Hell! Lead them to penance, lest they perish! Bring them back to the One True Fold of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church!


THE CONVERSION OF SINNERS

O most Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, the Church teaches that the greatest and most serious sins are those against God and the Faith. Pope Pius XI wrote that Russia “is Bolshevistic and atheistic Communism, which aims at upsetting the social order and at undermining the very foundations of Christian civilization. In the face of such a threat, the Catholic Church could not and does not remain silent ... for it knows that its proper and social mission is to defend truth, justice and all those eternal values which Communism ignores or attacks” (Encyclical: Divini Redemptoris, 1937).

Our Lady of Fatima, you warned that Russia “will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church.” You also revealed, to Sister Lucia of Fatima, that Communism would take over the entire world! Those “errors of Russia”, which are the “errors of Atheistic Communism” are “errors of sin”―and today the whole world labors under those “errors of sin”―awaiting a total Communist takeover. That fatal error of sinfulness, justly and rightly, deserves Divine retribution, punishment and chastisement: “The wages of sin is death! … Sin hath reigned to death! … All have sinned, and do need the glory [mercy and grace] of God!” (Romans 6:23; 5:21; 3:23) ... “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us! If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us!” (1 John 1:8-10).

At Pontevedra in Spain (December 10, 1925), you appeared with the Child Jesus to Sr. Lucia. Jesus said: “Have compassion on the Heart of your Most Holy Mother, covered with thorns, with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment―and there is no one to make an act of reparation to remove them!” You then revealed your Immaculate Heart and said: “Look at my Heart surrounded with thorns, with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude!”

At Tuy in Spain (June 13, 1929) you further said to Sr. Lucia: “So numerous are the souls which the justice of God condemns for sins committed against me, that I come to ask for reparation. Sacrifice yourself for this intention and pray!”

Later (May 30, 1930), your Son, Jesus, revealed to Sr. Lucia what the chief sins against you were:

● Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception.
● Blasphemies against your perpetual Virginity.
● Blasphemies against your divine Maternity, while refusing at the same time to recognize you as the Mother of men.
● The blasphemies of those who publicly seek to place in the hearts of children indifference or scorn, or even hatred towards you.
● The offenses of those who outrage you directly in your holy images.

Jesus then added: “Move My mercy to forgive souls who have had the misfortune to offend her! Seek, unceasingly, through your prayers and sacrifices, to move My mercy with regard to these poor souls!”

O most Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, at Fatima (1917) you said: “Are you willing to offer yourselves to God and bear all the sufferings He wills to send you, as an act of reparation for the conversion of sinners? … Then you are going to have much to suffer! … Sacrifice yourselves for sinners, and say many times, especially when you make some sacrifice: ‘O Jesus, it is for love of You, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary!’” O most holy Mother of God―we offer ourselves to God through thy Immaculate Heart and are willing to bear uncomplainingly all the sufferings God will send us as an act of reparation for our own personal sins, the sins and blasphemies of others, and for the conversion of all sinners―not only in Russia, but in the whole world.

You also said at Fatima: “You have seen Hell where the souls of poor sinners go! To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved!” Grant us the grace to be truly devoted to your Immaculate Heart and to spread that devotion to your Immaculate Heart throughout the world―beginning with those persons who surround us in our daily life―thereby hoping to make some reparation for the many blasphemies committed against your Immaculate Heart.

Grant us also the grace of being truly devoted to your Holy Rosary, for at Fatima you ceaselessly asked for the Rosary to be prayed: “Pray the Rosary every day to obtain peace for the world and the end of the war!” (May 1917) … “Pray the Rosary every day, to bring peace to the world and the end of the war!” … (June 1917) … “Continue to pray the Rosary every day in honor of Our Lady of the Rosary, in order to obtain peace for the world and the end of the war, because only she can help you! … If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted!” (July 1917) … “Continue to pray the Rosary every day! … Pray, pray very much!” (August 1917) … “Continue to pray the Rosary in order to obtain the end of the war!” (September 1917) … “I am the Lady of the Rosary. Continue always to pray the Rosary every day!” (October 1917). Above all, obtain for us the grace to not merely “say” the Rosary, but to “pray” the Rosary―to meditate it, learn from it and put into practice what it contains. It is said that you will one day save the world through the Rosary and the Scapular! Hasten that hour! Hasten the hour of the Triumph of your Immaculate Heart―that you promised would take place! Hasten the hour of the conversion of Russia! Immaculate Heart of Mary―pray for us!]]> <![CDATA[Fr. John O'Connor [1979]: Biblical Signs of the End of the World]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=3032 Sat, 04 Dec 2021 20:17:15 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=3032 ]]> ]]> <![CDATA[Fr. Hector Bolduc: Mexico and the Church - Today is Tomorrow June 1981]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=2964 Mon, 22 Nov 2021 13:23:58 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=2964 June 1981 Angelus:


Mexico and the Church: Today & Tomorrow

by Father Hector L. Bolduc

TO APPRECIATE THE SITUATION in Mexico one must be familiar with the section of the Constitution which deals with religion and religious affairs. Section 11 of Article 27, as well as Article 130, are reprinted at the end of this article for the benefit of the reader. One must keep in mind that the only religion prevalent in Mexico, a nation which is 95% Catholic, is Catholicism. Therefore the laws directed at suppressing religion were directed exclusively against the Roman Catholic Church.

Mexico's Catholics had fought valiantly against the forces of Freemasonry. It is certain that they could have eventually won the fight had they not been duped into laying down their arms. It is true that the actual facts were more complicated; however, it was the ill advice given to Pope Pius XI, prompting him to request that the Catholics lay down their arms, which culminated in the disaster. Pope Pius XI had been made to believe, by advisors already neutralized, that the Masons wanted peace and would respond with kindness to the Church if she cooperated in ending the bloodbath which was raging from one end of Mexico to the other. No sooner had the Catholics acceded to the Pope's request and surrendered their arms, when all the leaders of the opposition, both military and civilian, were rounded up and liquidated in true Masonic-Marxist fashion. With their leaders gone, their spirit broken by what they considered treason from Rome, Mexicans settled down to enslavement and persecution from which they have never recovered.

The saddest circumstances surrounding the plight of Mexican Catholics is that the world is virtually ignorant of these facts. While the free world laments the conditions of Catholics and other Christians behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains, the situation in Mexico is as serious and far more dangerous simply because it is unknown and ignored. Perhaps it is time to coin a new phrase: the Tortilla Curtain. It is also the largest most important implementation of a Freemasonic government in the world. Through it one can easily see how identical Freemasonry and Communism are, coming as it were from a common root and being in reality one and the same. It is a well-known and clearly documented fact that the government of the United States of America worked diligently for the destruction of Catholicism in Mexico and assisted in the establishment of Freemasonry as the leading power. The attempt to kill Catholicism in Mexico failed largely because the people have such a deep-rooted faith in Our Lady of Guadalupe, the Patroness of Mexico and Mother of all the Americas.

Where torture, imprisonment, death and desecration have failed, indifferentism, compromise, infiltration and ecumenism have succeeded. When one refers to the Red Bishops of Mexico, they are not referring to the color of their blood. Some, like Mendez Arceo, are self-proclaimed Marxists. Holding high office in the Mexican Church, they are of course favored and supported by the government. They receive plenty of publicity and, as their statements are usually of an anti-Catholic nature, the government allows them free reign. The Mexican Bishops and the government of Mexico differ only in that, while the government seeks to bring the nation and its people under complete Marxist domination gradually and with as little disruption as possible, the bishops, having been well indoctrinated with the party line, want immediate action through armed revolution. They have placed all of the Churches' resources toward the accomplishment of that goal. Open fighting has already broken out in several parts of Mexico. It appears that Mexico will once more experience bloodshed and, as of old, it is the Catholic Faith which is at stake.

Unfortunately there is little or no opposition to the Marxists, be they in the government or in the Church. As in America, traditional Catholic groups there are small and for the most part the pawns of politically oriented groups. They act as front groups for the politically motivated opportunist groups, and like some in our own country, call themselves traditional, but are used for the selfish ends of their masters. This is especially true of one of the groups called TRENTO, which has done more to neutralize and compromise Catholics than the Novus Ordo. This group in fact works openly with the Freemasonic government in opposing champions of the faith like Archbishop Lefebvre. During the Archbishop's recent visit, they openly and publicly attacked him, cooperating fully with the government, using the government controlled news media which were placed at their disposal by their comrades in high places. The group is highly organized and generously financed by what some call "Rockefeller money." They hire and control priests by controlling the purse strings, and any priest who does not spout their political line is cast out in the street. The fact that the priest celebrates the Latin Tridentine Mass has no bearing on the matter. They have a paranoia about "Jews" and, while the Zionist threat is real and cannot be minimized, these individuals utilize this stigma by branding anyone who does not agree with them as a "Jew."

A letter being circulated in the U. S. by the leaders of TRENTO, bitterly attacking Archbishop Lefebvre, clearly admits this group's cooperation with the Marxists and Masons to smear Archbishop Lefebvre and to have him expelled from the country. The letter signed by Anacleto Gonzales Flores, carries the following quotations (remember that all papers in Mexico are Masonic-controlled):

Quote:At Morelos newspapers, someone took the name of peasant leaders of Trento, inviting Archbishop Lefebvre to visit the traditionalist churches of Trento. They and we published at paid space our rejection to Archbishop Lefebvre, both in Excelsior, the most important daily in Mexico City, and at Cuernavaca newspapers. [Editor's comment: Excelsior is a well known pro-Communist, anti-Catholic publication. All Cuernavaca papers are Masonic and boast of their anti-Catholic position.]

On Saturday, Trento priest Adolfo Zamora and a group of laymen appeared for one hour on TV. [Trento priest Adolfo Zamora bitterly attacked Archbishop Lefebvre and all traditional Catholics.]

These are the news. Regarding sending article from Gloria Riestra to Fr. Bolduc, better wait until we see what The Angelus prints. Enclosed Xerox of newspaper publications, for your own use. Not for translating. [What does the writer fear of having the truth made known to the public? Does he not want traditional Catholics to know of Trento's alignment with Mexico's Communist government? Trento was more than willing to sponsor the visit of Archbishop Lefebvre if the Archbishop would agree to embrace their heresies, say what they wanted him to say, visit who they wanted him to, etc. If Trento, despite its bad record, is well intended, it had better start manifesting these intentions in a positive manner and use its forces to oppose the enemies of the Church instead of constantly attacking those who defend true Catholic positions. This is, in fact, a veiled bribe. In clearer words, Mr. Gonzales is saying: If the Angelus Press does not expose us, we will keep a low profile and continue our duplicity rather than risk losing the support of the thousands of followers of Archbishop Lefebvre who don't really know what we are up to. Talk about the works of darkness!]


THERE ARE SOME BRAVE PRIESTS who act independently and who, through great sacrifice, bring the Mass and Sacraments to the people. All receive constant persecution from TRENTO.

The Independent University of Guadalajara shows much promise and has accomplished much. They are by far the most effective and the most efficient. It is unfortunate that some of their members have fallen into the "sede vacante" trap. When freedom comes to Mexico, the Independent University of Guadalajara will play an important role. A second great failing is the fact that the True Mass and Sacraments are not available to the students at the campus. The University publishes a newspaper called Ocho Columnas—Eight Columns, which has a wide circulation and which takes a strong stand against Liberalism, Communism and the progressives. They also publish good traditional Catholic catechisms and catechetical material. Mr. Antonio Leano Alvarez del Castilo is a man deeply rooted in the Faith who maintains a private chapel at his home where the Latin Tridentine Mass is celebrated. His position can, in many ways, be likened to that of the late Generalissimo Francisco Franco of Spain.

The TRENTO group, realizing that they had at last blown their cover, and allowed the world to see their anti-Catholic, anti-Lefebvre sentiments, lost no time in sending emissaries to Europe in an attempt to smooth things over with the Archbishop, who quickly surmised that they were talking out of both sides of their mouths. The action of TRENTO confirmed the information confided to me by Father A. Saenz when I ministered to him during his last illness, shortly before his death. The fears he expressed to me then proved well founded.

The greatest hope in Mexico and the only organization working positively for the salvation of souls and in defense of the True Mass and Sacraments is the Society of St. Pius X. Only the Society has the capability of supplying priests for Mexico and it already has a number of seminarians studying at Switzerland, America and in Argentina. Other groups are too busy playing politics for their own financial gain to bother with vocations, the Mass or the Church. Furthermore, it is to their advantage to keep the people without priests and dependent on them (TRENTO). How well they have learned from the Red-masters.

As the Society continues to increase its influence in Mexico, the people will be given a choice between following the politically-oriented pseudo-Catholic movements, or of aligning themselves with those whose only interest is in the salvation of souls. Our priests will be all the advertisement we need—their faith and their actions will speak for themselves. If the true Catholic Church in Mexico is going to enjoy a brighter future, it is because Archbishop Lefebvre produced the spark which lit the lamp.


* * *


THE MEXICAN CONSTITUTION

Section II of Article 27

"II. The religious institutions known as churches irrespective of creed, may in no case acquire, hold or administer real property or hold mortgages thereon; property so held at present, either directly or through third parties, shall revert to the Nation, any person whatsoever being authorized to denounce property so held. Strong presumptive proof shall suffice to declare the denouncement well-founded. Places of public worship are the property of the Nation, as represented by the Federal Government, who shall determine which of them may continue to be devoted to their present purposes. Bishoprics, rectories, seminaries, orphan asylums and schools belonging to religious orders, convents and any other buildings constructed or intended for the administration, propagation or teaching of any religious creed shall at once become, by inherent right, the property of the Nation, to be used exclusively for the public services of the Federal or State Governments, within their respective jurisdiction. All places of worship erected hereafter shall be the property of the Nation."


Article 130

"The Federal authorities shall have power to exercise in matters of religious worship and outward ecclesiastical forms such intervention as may be determined by law. All other authorities shall act as auxiliaries to the Federal authorities.

Congress is not empowered to enact any law establishing or forbidding any religion whatsoever.

Marriage is a civil contract. Marriage and all other acts relating to the civil status of individuals shall appertain exclusively to the civil authorities, in the manner set forth by the law, and they shall have the force and validity which said laws give to them.

A simple promise to tell the truth and to comply with the obligations contracted shall subject the promisor, in the event of non-fulfilment, to the penalties established therefor by law.

The law recognizes no legal capacity to the religious institutions known as churches.

Ministers of religious creeds shall be considered as persons exercising a profession, who shall be directly subject to the laws enacted in regard thereto.

The State Legislatures shall solely be empowered to determine the maximum number of ministers of religious creeds, according to the needs of each locality.

Only a Mexican by birth may be a minister of any religious creed in Mexico.

Ministers of religious creeds may not, either in public or private meetings, or in acts of worship, or religious propaganda, criticize the fundamental laws of the country, the authorities in particular, or the Government in general; they shall have no vote, nor be eligible for office, nor shall they be entitled to assemble for political purposes.

Permission must be obtained from the Ministry of the Interior prior to engaging new places of worship for public use; the opinion of the respective State Governor shall previously be heard on the subject. Every place of worship shall have a person in charge of its care and maintenance, who shall be legally responsible for the faithful performance of the laws on religious observances within same, and for all the objects used for the purposes of worship.

The person in charge of each place of public worship, together with ten residents of the town, shall promptly notify the Municipal authorities as to the person responsible for the same. The outgoing Minister shall in every instance give notice of any change, for which purpose he shall be accompanied by the incoming minister and ten other residents of the town. The Municipal authorities shall be responsible for the exact compliance with this provision, under penalty of dismissal and fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos for each breach; and, subject to the same penalty, they shall keep a register of the places of worship and of the person in charge thereof. The Municipal authorities shall give notice to the Ministry of the Interior, through the Governor of the State, of any permit given for opening a new place of worship for public use, as well as of any change in the persons in charge of it. Collections of personal property may be made inside the place of worship.

Under no condition shall studies be made in institutions devoted to the professional training of ministers of religious creeds be given credits or granted any other dispensation or privilege whereby said studies shall be accredited in official institutions. Any authority who violates this provision shall be liable for criminal prosecution, and all such dispensation or privilege shall be null and void; and the professional degree toward the obtaining of which this provision has been violated shall be wholly and entirely invalidated.

No periodical publication which, by reason of its program, its title or merely its general tendencies, is of a religious nature, may comment upon political affairs of the nation or publish any information regarding the acts of the authorities of the country or of private individuals, insofar as they are directly connected with public affairs.

Political associations whose name contains any word of indication relating to any religious belief are strictly forbidden. No meetings of a political nature may be held within places of worship.

No minister of any religious creed may inherit, either on his own behalf, or by means of a trustee or otherwise any real property occupied by any association of religious propaganda or used for religious or charitable purposes. Ministers of religious creeds are incapable legally of inheriting by will from ministers of the same religious creed or from any private individual to whom they are not related by blood within the fourth degree.

All real and personal property belonging to the clergy or to religious institutions shall be governed, insofar as their acquisition by private parties is concerned, by the provisions of Article 27 hereof.

No trial by jury shall ever be granted for the violation of any of the foregoing provisions."]]> June 1981 Angelus:


Mexico and the Church: Today & Tomorrow

by Father Hector L. Bolduc

TO APPRECIATE THE SITUATION in Mexico one must be familiar with the section of the Constitution which deals with religion and religious affairs. Section 11 of Article 27, as well as Article 130, are reprinted at the end of this article for the benefit of the reader. One must keep in mind that the only religion prevalent in Mexico, a nation which is 95% Catholic, is Catholicism. Therefore the laws directed at suppressing religion were directed exclusively against the Roman Catholic Church.

Mexico's Catholics had fought valiantly against the forces of Freemasonry. It is certain that they could have eventually won the fight had they not been duped into laying down their arms. It is true that the actual facts were more complicated; however, it was the ill advice given to Pope Pius XI, prompting him to request that the Catholics lay down their arms, which culminated in the disaster. Pope Pius XI had been made to believe, by advisors already neutralized, that the Masons wanted peace and would respond with kindness to the Church if she cooperated in ending the bloodbath which was raging from one end of Mexico to the other. No sooner had the Catholics acceded to the Pope's request and surrendered their arms, when all the leaders of the opposition, both military and civilian, were rounded up and liquidated in true Masonic-Marxist fashion. With their leaders gone, their spirit broken by what they considered treason from Rome, Mexicans settled down to enslavement and persecution from which they have never recovered.

The saddest circumstances surrounding the plight of Mexican Catholics is that the world is virtually ignorant of these facts. While the free world laments the conditions of Catholics and other Christians behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains, the situation in Mexico is as serious and far more dangerous simply because it is unknown and ignored. Perhaps it is time to coin a new phrase: the Tortilla Curtain. It is also the largest most important implementation of a Freemasonic government in the world. Through it one can easily see how identical Freemasonry and Communism are, coming as it were from a common root and being in reality one and the same. It is a well-known and clearly documented fact that the government of the United States of America worked diligently for the destruction of Catholicism in Mexico and assisted in the establishment of Freemasonry as the leading power. The attempt to kill Catholicism in Mexico failed largely because the people have such a deep-rooted faith in Our Lady of Guadalupe, the Patroness of Mexico and Mother of all the Americas.

Where torture, imprisonment, death and desecration have failed, indifferentism, compromise, infiltration and ecumenism have succeeded. When one refers to the Red Bishops of Mexico, they are not referring to the color of their blood. Some, like Mendez Arceo, are self-proclaimed Marxists. Holding high office in the Mexican Church, they are of course favored and supported by the government. They receive plenty of publicity and, as their statements are usually of an anti-Catholic nature, the government allows them free reign. The Mexican Bishops and the government of Mexico differ only in that, while the government seeks to bring the nation and its people under complete Marxist domination gradually and with as little disruption as possible, the bishops, having been well indoctrinated with the party line, want immediate action through armed revolution. They have placed all of the Churches' resources toward the accomplishment of that goal. Open fighting has already broken out in several parts of Mexico. It appears that Mexico will once more experience bloodshed and, as of old, it is the Catholic Faith which is at stake.

Unfortunately there is little or no opposition to the Marxists, be they in the government or in the Church. As in America, traditional Catholic groups there are small and for the most part the pawns of politically oriented groups. They act as front groups for the politically motivated opportunist groups, and like some in our own country, call themselves traditional, but are used for the selfish ends of their masters. This is especially true of one of the groups called TRENTO, which has done more to neutralize and compromise Catholics than the Novus Ordo. This group in fact works openly with the Freemasonic government in opposing champions of the faith like Archbishop Lefebvre. During the Archbishop's recent visit, they openly and publicly attacked him, cooperating fully with the government, using the government controlled news media which were placed at their disposal by their comrades in high places. The group is highly organized and generously financed by what some call "Rockefeller money." They hire and control priests by controlling the purse strings, and any priest who does not spout their political line is cast out in the street. The fact that the priest celebrates the Latin Tridentine Mass has no bearing on the matter. They have a paranoia about "Jews" and, while the Zionist threat is real and cannot be minimized, these individuals utilize this stigma by branding anyone who does not agree with them as a "Jew."

A letter being circulated in the U. S. by the leaders of TRENTO, bitterly attacking Archbishop Lefebvre, clearly admits this group's cooperation with the Marxists and Masons to smear Archbishop Lefebvre and to have him expelled from the country. The letter signed by Anacleto Gonzales Flores, carries the following quotations (remember that all papers in Mexico are Masonic-controlled):

Quote:At Morelos newspapers, someone took the name of peasant leaders of Trento, inviting Archbishop Lefebvre to visit the traditionalist churches of Trento. They and we published at paid space our rejection to Archbishop Lefebvre, both in Excelsior, the most important daily in Mexico City, and at Cuernavaca newspapers. [Editor's comment: Excelsior is a well known pro-Communist, anti-Catholic publication. All Cuernavaca papers are Masonic and boast of their anti-Catholic position.]

On Saturday, Trento priest Adolfo Zamora and a group of laymen appeared for one hour on TV. [Trento priest Adolfo Zamora bitterly attacked Archbishop Lefebvre and all traditional Catholics.]

These are the news. Regarding sending article from Gloria Riestra to Fr. Bolduc, better wait until we see what The Angelus prints. Enclosed Xerox of newspaper publications, for your own use. Not for translating. [What does the writer fear of having the truth made known to the public? Does he not want traditional Catholics to know of Trento's alignment with Mexico's Communist government? Trento was more than willing to sponsor the visit of Archbishop Lefebvre if the Archbishop would agree to embrace their heresies, say what they wanted him to say, visit who they wanted him to, etc. If Trento, despite its bad record, is well intended, it had better start manifesting these intentions in a positive manner and use its forces to oppose the enemies of the Church instead of constantly attacking those who defend true Catholic positions. This is, in fact, a veiled bribe. In clearer words, Mr. Gonzales is saying: If the Angelus Press does not expose us, we will keep a low profile and continue our duplicity rather than risk losing the support of the thousands of followers of Archbishop Lefebvre who don't really know what we are up to. Talk about the works of darkness!]


THERE ARE SOME BRAVE PRIESTS who act independently and who, through great sacrifice, bring the Mass and Sacraments to the people. All receive constant persecution from TRENTO.

The Independent University of Guadalajara shows much promise and has accomplished much. They are by far the most effective and the most efficient. It is unfortunate that some of their members have fallen into the "sede vacante" trap. When freedom comes to Mexico, the Independent University of Guadalajara will play an important role. A second great failing is the fact that the True Mass and Sacraments are not available to the students at the campus. The University publishes a newspaper called Ocho Columnas—Eight Columns, which has a wide circulation and which takes a strong stand against Liberalism, Communism and the progressives. They also publish good traditional Catholic catechisms and catechetical material. Mr. Antonio Leano Alvarez del Castilo is a man deeply rooted in the Faith who maintains a private chapel at his home where the Latin Tridentine Mass is celebrated. His position can, in many ways, be likened to that of the late Generalissimo Francisco Franco of Spain.

The TRENTO group, realizing that they had at last blown their cover, and allowed the world to see their anti-Catholic, anti-Lefebvre sentiments, lost no time in sending emissaries to Europe in an attempt to smooth things over with the Archbishop, who quickly surmised that they were talking out of both sides of their mouths. The action of TRENTO confirmed the information confided to me by Father A. Saenz when I ministered to him during his last illness, shortly before his death. The fears he expressed to me then proved well founded.

The greatest hope in Mexico and the only organization working positively for the salvation of souls and in defense of the True Mass and Sacraments is the Society of St. Pius X. Only the Society has the capability of supplying priests for Mexico and it already has a number of seminarians studying at Switzerland, America and in Argentina. Other groups are too busy playing politics for their own financial gain to bother with vocations, the Mass or the Church. Furthermore, it is to their advantage to keep the people without priests and dependent on them (TRENTO). How well they have learned from the Red-masters.

As the Society continues to increase its influence in Mexico, the people will be given a choice between following the politically-oriented pseudo-Catholic movements, or of aligning themselves with those whose only interest is in the salvation of souls. Our priests will be all the advertisement we need—their faith and their actions will speak for themselves. If the true Catholic Church in Mexico is going to enjoy a brighter future, it is because Archbishop Lefebvre produced the spark which lit the lamp.


* * *


THE MEXICAN CONSTITUTION

Section II of Article 27

"II. The religious institutions known as churches irrespective of creed, may in no case acquire, hold or administer real property or hold mortgages thereon; property so held at present, either directly or through third parties, shall revert to the Nation, any person whatsoever being authorized to denounce property so held. Strong presumptive proof shall suffice to declare the denouncement well-founded. Places of public worship are the property of the Nation, as represented by the Federal Government, who shall determine which of them may continue to be devoted to their present purposes. Bishoprics, rectories, seminaries, orphan asylums and schools belonging to religious orders, convents and any other buildings constructed or intended for the administration, propagation or teaching of any religious creed shall at once become, by inherent right, the property of the Nation, to be used exclusively for the public services of the Federal or State Governments, within their respective jurisdiction. All places of worship erected hereafter shall be the property of the Nation."


Article 130

"The Federal authorities shall have power to exercise in matters of religious worship and outward ecclesiastical forms such intervention as may be determined by law. All other authorities shall act as auxiliaries to the Federal authorities.

Congress is not empowered to enact any law establishing or forbidding any religion whatsoever.

Marriage is a civil contract. Marriage and all other acts relating to the civil status of individuals shall appertain exclusively to the civil authorities, in the manner set forth by the law, and they shall have the force and validity which said laws give to them.

A simple promise to tell the truth and to comply with the obligations contracted shall subject the promisor, in the event of non-fulfilment, to the penalties established therefor by law.

The law recognizes no legal capacity to the religious institutions known as churches.

Ministers of religious creeds shall be considered as persons exercising a profession, who shall be directly subject to the laws enacted in regard thereto.

The State Legislatures shall solely be empowered to determine the maximum number of ministers of religious creeds, according to the needs of each locality.

Only a Mexican by birth may be a minister of any religious creed in Mexico.

Ministers of religious creeds may not, either in public or private meetings, or in acts of worship, or religious propaganda, criticize the fundamental laws of the country, the authorities in particular, or the Government in general; they shall have no vote, nor be eligible for office, nor shall they be entitled to assemble for political purposes.

Permission must be obtained from the Ministry of the Interior prior to engaging new places of worship for public use; the opinion of the respective State Governor shall previously be heard on the subject. Every place of worship shall have a person in charge of its care and maintenance, who shall be legally responsible for the faithful performance of the laws on religious observances within same, and for all the objects used for the purposes of worship.

The person in charge of each place of public worship, together with ten residents of the town, shall promptly notify the Municipal authorities as to the person responsible for the same. The outgoing Minister shall in every instance give notice of any change, for which purpose he shall be accompanied by the incoming minister and ten other residents of the town. The Municipal authorities shall be responsible for the exact compliance with this provision, under penalty of dismissal and fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos for each breach; and, subject to the same penalty, they shall keep a register of the places of worship and of the person in charge thereof. The Municipal authorities shall give notice to the Ministry of the Interior, through the Governor of the State, of any permit given for opening a new place of worship for public use, as well as of any change in the persons in charge of it. Collections of personal property may be made inside the place of worship.

Under no condition shall studies be made in institutions devoted to the professional training of ministers of religious creeds be given credits or granted any other dispensation or privilege whereby said studies shall be accredited in official institutions. Any authority who violates this provision shall be liable for criminal prosecution, and all such dispensation or privilege shall be null and void; and the professional degree toward the obtaining of which this provision has been violated shall be wholly and entirely invalidated.

No periodical publication which, by reason of its program, its title or merely its general tendencies, is of a religious nature, may comment upon political affairs of the nation or publish any information regarding the acts of the authorities of the country or of private individuals, insofar as they are directly connected with public affairs.

Political associations whose name contains any word of indication relating to any religious belief are strictly forbidden. No meetings of a political nature may be held within places of worship.

No minister of any religious creed may inherit, either on his own behalf, or by means of a trustee or otherwise any real property occupied by any association of religious propaganda or used for religious or charitable purposes. Ministers of religious creeds are incapable legally of inheriting by will from ministers of the same religious creed or from any private individual to whom they are not related by blood within the fourth degree.

All real and personal property belonging to the clergy or to religious institutions shall be governed, insofar as their acquisition by private parties is concerned, by the provisions of Article 27 hereof.

No trial by jury shall ever be granted for the violation of any of the foregoing provisions."]]> <![CDATA[Fr. Rafael Arizaga: Seventh Sunday after Pentecost]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=2095 Tue, 13 Jul 2021 10:56:28 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=2095 Seventh Sunday after Pentecost - July 11, 2021
]]> Seventh Sunday after Pentecost - July 11, 2021
]]> <![CDATA[Fr. Rafael Arizaga: Sixth Sunday after Pentecost - July 4, 2021]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=2043 Mon, 05 Jul 2021 09:55:34 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=2043 Fr. Rafael Arizaga: Sixth Sunday after Pentecost - July 4, 2021
“Peace of Christ in The Reign of Christ" (KS)

]]> Fr. Rafael Arizaga: Sixth Sunday after Pentecost - July 4, 2021
“Peace of Christ in The Reign of Christ" (KS)

]]>