<![CDATA[The Catacombs - Church Doctrine & Teaching]]>

<![CDATA[The Catacombs - Church Doctrine & Teaching]]> https://thecatacombs.org/ Mon, 06 Apr 2026 05:58:16 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[Monsignor Gaume, J. [1802-1879]: The Catechism Of Perseverance]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=7934 Thu, 29 Jan 2026 19:26:18 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=7934 The Catechism Of Perseverance:
Or, An Historical, Dogmatical, Moral, Liturgical, Apologetical, Philosophical, and Social Exposition of Religion
From the Beginning of the World Down to Our Own Days
by Monsignor Gaume, J. [1802-1879]

[Image: 19526089.jpg]

Read online or download from here.]]> The Catechism Of Perseverance:
Or, An Historical, Dogmatical, Moral, Liturgical, Apologetical, Philosophical, and Social Exposition of Religion
From the Beginning of the World Down to Our Own Days
by Monsignor Gaume, J. [1802-1879]

[Image: 19526089.jpg]

Read online or download from here.]]> <![CDATA[Heretics Use Ambiguity to Camouflage Error]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=7548 Mon, 13 Oct 2025 11:35:53 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=7548 Heretics Use Ambiguity to Camouflage Error
Pius VI, Bull Auctorem Fidei of August 28, 1794

TIA | October 11, 2025

Ambiguity has been used by Progressivism to escape the condemnations of Modernism and Liberalism made by the Pontifical Magisterium in the last three centuries. With this ploy, the errors of these currents are disguised under obscure formulae in order to gain right of citizenship in the Church. Then, little by little the error comes to light and spreads everywhere.

All of the Vatican II documents were ambiguous, and progressivists used such ambiguities to completely change Catholic doctrine.

It is very useful for our readers to know that this tactic was strongly denounced by Pope Pius VI long ago when, in his Bull Auctorem Fidei, he condemned the errors of the Synod of Pistoia. We reproduce below some excerpts from this important document.

Pope Pius VI

In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in a most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation.

This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual. Such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions, which are published in the common language for everyone’s use. Or again, as if the same faithful, on examining such documents, had the ability to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error.

It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor St. Celestine [8] who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity.

Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied, while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.

In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements that disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.]]> Heretics Use Ambiguity to Camouflage Error
Pius VI, Bull Auctorem Fidei of August 28, 1794

TIA | October 11, 2025

Ambiguity has been used by Progressivism to escape the condemnations of Modernism and Liberalism made by the Pontifical Magisterium in the last three centuries. With this ploy, the errors of these currents are disguised under obscure formulae in order to gain right of citizenship in the Church. Then, little by little the error comes to light and spreads everywhere.

All of the Vatican II documents were ambiguous, and progressivists used such ambiguities to completely change Catholic doctrine.

It is very useful for our readers to know that this tactic was strongly denounced by Pope Pius VI long ago when, in his Bull Auctorem Fidei, he condemned the errors of the Synod of Pistoia. We reproduce below some excerpts from this important document.

Pope Pius VI

In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in a most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation.

This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual. Such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions, which are published in the common language for everyone’s use. Or again, as if the same faithful, on examining such documents, had the ability to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error.

It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor St. Celestine [8] who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity.

Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied, while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.

In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements that disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.]]> <![CDATA[Durandus on the Minor Litanies]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=7190 Tue, 27 May 2025 12:20:22 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=7190 Durandus on the Minor Litanies

Gregory DiPippo/NLM | May 26, 2025

The following excerpts are taken from book VI, chapter 102 of William Durandus’ treatise on the Divine Offices.

On the three days before the feast of the Lord’s Ascension, the Rogations, which are also called the Litanies: the Greek word “litania” in Latin is “supplication”, or “rogation” (from ‘rogare – to ask’), on which the Holy Church asks God… to destroy the counsel of those who wish to live outside Her peace. At the same time, we also beseech God that He may defend us from a sudden death, and from every infirmity, and we ask the Saints, that they may intercede for us before God. …

The Procession of St Gregory the Great, by an anonymous Sienese painter of the mid-16th century. The traditional story recounts that when the procession described below reached the Mausoleum of Hadrian, which is fairly close to St Peter’s Basilica, an angel appeared over it with a drawn sword in his hand, which he then sheathed, symbolizing the end of the plague as in 2 Samuel 24.

Now the Litanies are two, the Greater and the Lesser. The Greater is on the feast of the blessed Mark, and was created by the blessed Gregory (the Great), because of a plague, which caused a swelling of the groin. Paul, a monk of Monte Cassino, the author of “The History of the Lombards”, wrote the story of its institution, saying that in the time of Pope Pelagius (II, 579-90) there was so great a flood in Italy, that the waters rose as high as the upper windows of the temple of Nero in Rome … Then there came forth up the Tiber a multitude of serpents, and one very large dragon among them, whose breath corrupted the air; from this came the plague in the groin, from which men died suddenly all over the place. When nearly the whole population of Rome had been destroyed, Pelagius declared a fast and procession for all, but during it, he himself died, along with seventy others. Gregory I, who is also called the Great, took his place, and commanded that this Litany be observed throughout the world; it is therefore called the Gregorian or Roman Litany. It is also called “Black Crosses”, since, as a sign of mourning for the death of so many men, and as a sign of penance, people wear black clothing, and the crosses and altars are veiled in black.

[Image: 02+Echternach+Sacramentary.jpeg]

A folio of the Echternach Sacramentary, 895AD, with the stational prayers for the Greater Litanies as they were done in Rome; the stations are at the church of San Lorenzo in Lucina, St Valentine (very far up the Tiber), “ad Pontem Olbi”, a corruption of “ad Pontem Milvium – at the Milvian bridge”, “at the Cross”, which was a station set up along the way, and two “in the atrium” of St Peter’s Basilica. (Bibliothèque nationale de France. Département des Manuscrits. Latin 9433; folio 76r.)

The Lesser Litanies, which are also called Rogations and processions, take place on the three days before the Ascension, … they were created in Vienne by the blessed Mamertus, bishop of that city. Because of a plague of wolves and other wild beasts, who were ferociously killing men in Gaul, and because of the dangerous earthquakes which were frequently taking place there, he enjoined a fast of three days on the people, and instituted the Litanies. But when the danger had passed, the fast became a custom of annual observance … This latter is called the Lesser Litany, because it was instituted by a lesser person, that is, by a simple bishop, and in a less important place, Vienne, while the Greater (Litany) is so called because it was instituted in a more important place, namely, Rome, and by a greater person, namely, Gregory the Great, and because of a great and very serious plague. However, the Lesser Litany is older, since it was instituted when Zeno was Emperor (ca. 470 AD), and the Greater in the time of the Emperor Maurice (582-602)

Litanies are also held for many other reasons, wherefore Pope Liberius established that a litany should be held for war, famine, pestilence, and other imminent adversities of this sort, so that we may escape from them by supplications, prayers and fasts. Therefore, because in this time of the year especially wars are wont to break out, and the fruits of the earth, which are still in bud or flower, can easily be corrupted in many different ways, the litanies are held, so that we may ask God to turn these things away from us, and to defend and deliver us from bad weather, and war, and the enemies of the Christian religion, as we also implore the patronage of the Saints …

… we beseech the Saints, because of our poverty, and their glory, and reverence for God. And when we celebrate the Litany because of imminent dangers, in penitential and mournful garb, we represent that last procession of the women who wept after the Lord when He was being led to the Cross, weeping, according to the Lord’s command, for ourselves and our children.

The Litanies also take place in this time, since the Church now asks more confidently, because Christ ascends, Who said, “Ask and ye shall receive.” (In the Gospel of the Sunday before the Ascension, John 16, 23-30.) She fasts at this time and prays, that through the mortification of the flesh, She may have little to do with it, and gain wings for herself through prayer, which is the wing by which the soul flies up to heaven. Thus is She is able to freely follow Christ as He ascends, and opens the way for us, and flies upon the wings of the wind. This is the reason why we join the last litany, the last fast, to the Ascension, so that through prayers and fasts, we may be able to lay aside the weight of the flesh, and follow Christ as He ascends.

Therefore, during the Litanies, there is a procession, and in some churches, (the antiphon) Exsurge, Domine is sung at the beginning. The Gospel canticle “Holy God, holy mighty one, holy immortal one, have mercy on us,” is also to be sung repeatedly by the boys’ choir, for John of Damascus tells the story … that in Constantinople, litanies were held because of some trouble, and a boy was taken up to heaven from the midst of the people, and there taught this chant; and returning to the people, sang it before everyone, and at once the trouble ceased. This chant was approved by the Council of Chalcedon, and therefore it is considered praiseworthy and authoritative …

… in the procession itself, the Cross goes first, and the reliquaries of the Saints, so that by the banner of the Cross, and the prayers of the Saints, demons may be repelled…

A banner is also carried to represent the victory of Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension, since He went up to heaven with great spoils … just as the multitude of the faithful follow the banner in the procession, so also a great gathering of the Saints accompanies Christ as He ascends. Banners are also carried in imitation of that which is said by Isaiah (11, 12), “And he shall set up a standard unto the nations, and shall assemble the fugitives of Israel, and shall gather together the dispersed of Juda from the four quarters of the earth.” The Church took the carrying of banners and crosses from Constantine, who, when in a dream he saw the sign of the Cross, and heard the words ‘By this sign thou shalt conquer’, ordered the Cross to be marked on his war banners. The fact that in the Litanies the cross-bearer takes his cross from the altar reminds us that Simon of Cyrene took it from Christ’s shoulders.

A Rogation procession held in the village of Balatonderics, Hungary in 2017.

In some places, the litany is done in the fields, so that demons may be expelled from the crops, or rather, so that the crops may be preserved by the Lord. … It has also become the custom that a dragon with a long tail, upright and inflated, should go before the Cross and banners on the first two days, but on the last day, looking back, with its tail deflated and lowered, it follows behind. For this dragon symbolizes the devil, who in three periods, that is, before the law, and under the law, and in the time of grace, which these three days symbolize, has deceived men, and even now seeks to deceive them. In the first two periods, he reigned, and as if he were the lord of the world, had a long tail, which shows his power, and inflated, which symbolizes his pride. For this reason, Christ calls him the prince of this world (John 12, 31) and John says in the Apocalypse (12, 4) that the dragon, falling from heaven, drew with him the third part of the stars, which symbolize people. And the Lord says in the Gospel, “I saw Satan falling like a lightning bolt from heaven” (Luke 10, 18), as a figure of which, on two days he goes at the head … But in the time of grace, he is beaten by Christ, and power is given to the Apostles to cast out unclean spirits; therefore, on the third day he follows after the Cross, to show that his power is lost through the spread of the Faith, and his tail is deflated, and hangs down, and is not long, because he does not dare to reign as mightily as he formerly did, but rather seduces men through suggestion, and in a hidden way, those whom he sees to be lazy and remiss in good works, and who follow not the way of life, as if he were looking back like a thief, to see if someone may wander and fall away from the righteousness of the Faith, so that he can draw that person to himself …

A page from an 1882 scholarly edition of the Sarum Processional, by W.G. Henderson, showing the order of the Rogation procession. The rubric above the image mentions both a dragon and a lion carried in the procession, the latter presumably in reference to the words of Apocalypse 5, 5, “Behold the lion from the tribe of Judah hath conquered.”

On the Litanies, all must abstain from servile labor, … and be present for the procession until the end, so that, just as all have sinned, so all may ask for forgiveness, and all raise their hearts to God, with their hands, that is, raise up their zeal for prayer.

But since on the preceding days, a double Alleluia, is sung, why on these days is only one sung? And again, since Alleluia is not said on other fast days, why is it said on this one? To the first question, we answer that ... a double Alleluia is sung on the preceding days because of the double stole which will be given in the general resurrection, namely, that of the soul and of the body. But the liturgy of Easter, which this signifies, is now finished, and therefore, the cause being taken removed, the effect is also removed. To the second, we answer that on the other fast days, Alleluia is not sung because it is a song of joy, and those fasts are held because of sins, wherefore they are called fasts of mourning; but this fast, and that of Pentecost, are matters of rejoicing, because they are not held for sins, but so that the power of the devil, and the plague, may be removed; and therefore, Alleluia is sung on them.]]> Durandus on the Minor Litanies

Gregory DiPippo/NLM | May 26, 2025

The following excerpts are taken from book VI, chapter 102 of William Durandus’ treatise on the Divine Offices.

On the three days before the feast of the Lord’s Ascension, the Rogations, which are also called the Litanies: the Greek word “litania” in Latin is “supplication”, or “rogation” (from ‘rogare – to ask’), on which the Holy Church asks God… to destroy the counsel of those who wish to live outside Her peace. At the same time, we also beseech God that He may defend us from a sudden death, and from every infirmity, and we ask the Saints, that they may intercede for us before God. …

A Rogation procession held in the village of Balatonderics, Hungary in 2017.

On the Litanies, all must abstain from servile labor, … and be present for the procession until the end, so that, just as all have sinned, so all may ask for forgiveness, and all raise their hearts to God, with their hands, that is, raise up their zeal for prayer.

But since on the preceding days, a double Alleluia, is sung, why on these days is only one sung? And again, since Alleluia is not said on other fast days, why is it said on this one? To the first question, we answer that ... a double Alleluia is sung on the preceding days because of the double stole which will be given in the general resurrection, namely, that of the soul and of the body. But the liturgy of Easter, which this signifies, is now finished, and therefore, the cause being taken removed, the effect is also removed. To the second, we answer that on the other fast days, Alleluia is not sung because it is a song of joy, and those fasts are held because of sins, wherefore they are called fasts of mourning; but this fast, and that of Pentecost, are matters of rejoicing, because they are not held for sins, but so that the power of the devil, and the plague, may be removed; and therefore, Alleluia is sung on them.]]> <![CDATA[The Symbolism of the Lamb & the Lion]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=7125 Sat, 03 May 2025 11:35:49 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=7125 The Symbolism of the Lamb & the Lion
Adapted from Dom Gueranger’s The Liturgical Year, vol. 7, Easter Monday

TIA [slightly adapted] | May 2, 2025

To understand Easter we must first understand the mystery of the lamb. In the Early Church we often find on frescos in the Basilicas the Lamb, standing in a green meadow with the four rivers of Paradise flowing from beneath its feet, signifying the Four Gospels that spread the glory of His name to the four corners of the world.

The lamb was seen often in the early Basilicas; later, holding a banner with the Cross

[Image: F051_Lam.jpg]

Later the Lamb of God would hold a cross with a banner, which is more familiar in our days. As we know so well, the Lamb is Christ Who shed His Blood on Calvary and in a bloodless way renews His sacrifice daily on the altar.

Without this sacrificial Lamb, man could not enter into Heaven and eternal happiness. From the very beginning of the world Abel drew down upon himself the mercy of God by offering on his altar the fairest lamb of his flock; then Abel himself became a prefigure of the Divine Lamb when he was cruelly slain by the hand of his brother.

There have been other types of the future Lamb: Abraham who was prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac on an altar to God, but God, pleased with his obedience, accepted a ram in the youth’s place. There was Moses to whom God spoke and revealed the Paschal meal: a lamb without blemish that was to be slain, its blood sprinkled as a protection against the Destroying Angel and its flesh eaten before the flight out of Egypt. Each year this ritual was observed by the Jews and represented the type of a future Lamb who would be the Messiah.

In the age of the Prophets, Isaias made this fervent appeal for the long awaited Messiah: “Send forth, O Lord, the Lamb, the ruler of the earth!”

A medieval manuscript depicting John the Baptist with the ‘Lamb of God’

Then, when the fullness of time came and God sent His Son upon our earth (Is 16:1), this Word made Flesh manifested Himself to men after 30 years of private life in communion with His Holy Mother. When He came to the River Jordan where John was baptizing, the holy Baptist called out without hesitation: “Behold the Lamb of God! Behold Him who taketh away the sin of the world!”

With these words the Precursor proclaimed the new Pasch, for he was announcing the arrival of the true Lamb of God for whom the world had waited four thousand years. The Lamb was fairer than the one offered by Abel, richer in mystery than the one slain by Abraham, and more spotless than the old paschal lamb that was sacrificed each year.

The shedding of this redeeming Blood was needed for our Pasch. Unless we had been marked by it, we could not have escaped the sword of the Destroying Angel. It has made us partake of the purity of the God who so generously shed it for us. The baptismal candidates on Holy Saturday have risen up whiter than snow from the font wherein that Blood was mingled. Poor sinners who had lost the innocence received in their Baptism have regain their treasure, made white in the Blood of the Lamb. (Cf. Apoc. 7:14)

Indeed on this new Pasch we are all invited to a great banquet, where we find our Lamb. He himself is the food of the happy guests. The great Apostle St. Andrew, when confessing the name of Christ before the pagan pro-consul Aegeas, spoke these sublime words: “I daily offer upon the altar the spotless Lamb, of whose Flesh the whole multitude of the faithful eat, the Lamb that is sacrificed remains whole and living.”

A Lamb & also a Lion

But the mystery of the Lamb does not end here. Isaiah besought God to “send the Lamb” who was to be the “ruler of the earth.” The Lamb comes, therefore, not only that he may be sacrificed, not only that he may feed us with His sacred Flesh, but likewise that the may command the heart and be King.

The book ‘sealed with seven seals’ on an altar being opened by the Lamb & the Lion of Judah

This also is our Pasch. The Pasch is the announcement of the Reign of the Lamb. The citizens of Heaven thus proclaim it: ‘Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root of David hath conquered.’ (Apoc 5:5).

But, if He is the Lion, how is He the Lamb? Let us enter into the mystery. Out of love for man, who needed redemption and a heavenly food that would invigorate, Jesus Christ deigned to be as a lamb. But He had, moreover, to triumph over His own and our enemies. He had to reign – for all power was given to Him in Heaven and on Earth (Mt. 28:18). In His triumph and power, He is a lion. Nothing can resist Him. His victory is celebrated on this Paschal Day throughout the whole world.

Listen to the great deacon of Edessa St. Ephrem: “At the twelfth hour, He was taken down from the Cross as a lion that slept.”

“Yea, verily, our Lion slept, for His rest in the sepulcher was more like sleep than death,” as St. Leo remarks.

Was not this the fulfillment of Jacob’s dying prophecy? Speaking of the Messiah to be born of his race, this patriarch said: “Judah is a lion’s whelp. To the prey, my son, thou art gone up! Resting thou has couched as a lion. Who shall rouse him?”

He has roused Himself by His own power. He has risen, a lamb for us, a lion for His enemies, thus uniting in His Person gentleness and power.

This completes the mystery of our Pasch: a Lamb, triumphant, obeyed, adored. Let us pay Him the homage so justly due Him. Let us, then, with the millions of Angels and the four-and-twenty Elders in Heaven, repeat on earth the hymn they are forever singing: “The Lamb that was slain is worthy to receive power, and divinity, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and benediction.” (Apoc 5:12).

Christ: the Lamb but also the Lion of Judah

]]> The Symbolism of the Lamb & the Lion
Adapted from Dom Gueranger’s The Liturgical Year, vol. 7, Easter Monday

TIA [slightly adapted] | May 2, 2025

To understand Easter we must first understand the mystery of the lamb. In the Early Church we often find on frescos in the Basilicas the Lamb, standing in a green meadow with the four rivers of Paradise flowing from beneath its feet, signifying the Four Gospels that spread the glory of His name to the four corners of the world.

The lamb was seen often in the early Basilicas; later, holding a banner with the Cross

[Image: F051_Lam.jpg]

A medieval manuscript depicting John the Baptist with the ‘Lamb of God’

The book ‘sealed with seven seals’ on an altar being opened by the Lamb & the Lion of Judah

Christ: the Lamb but also the Lion of Judah

]]> <![CDATA[Saint Athanasius The True Upholder of Tradition]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6916 Fri, 28 Feb 2025 15:06:10 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6916 Volume I of Michael Davies Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre. It deserves reading every so often for it's timelessness and most certainly, for the corollary to our times post Vatican II [emphasis mine].

Appendix I

Saint Athanasius The True Upholder of Tradition

Quote:What happened over 1600 years ago is repeating itself today, but with two or three differences: Alexandria is the whole Universal Church, the stability of which is being shaken, and what was undertaken at that time by means of physical force and cruelty is now being transferred to a different level. Exile is replaced by banishment into the silence of being ignored; killing, by assassination of character.

Mgr. Rudolf Graber, Bishop of Regensburg,
Athanasius and the Church of Our Times, p. 23.

The object of this appendix is not to explain the nature of the Arian heresy but to prove that a bishop who is faithful to tradition could be repudiated, calumniated, persecuted, and even excommunicated by almost the entire episcopate, the Pope included. Obviously, this would be an abnormal situation. A Catholic can normally presume that the majority of bishops in union with the Pope will teach sound doctrine; he would be imprudent not to conform his belief and behavior to their teaching. But this is not always the case as the present situation of the Church demonstrates. There is hardly a diocese in the English-speaking world where the bishop insures that Catholic children are taught sound doctrine, where Catholic moral and doctrinal teaching are not contradicted with impunity from the pulpit, where liturgical abuses which sometimes amount to sacrilege remain unrebuked. Writing of the time of St. Athanasius, St. Jerome made his celebrated remark: "Ingemit totus orbis et arianum se esse miratus est" - "The whole world groaned and was amazed to finds itself Arian."

The Catholic world in the West today finds itself in a state of accelerating disintegration but for the most part does not groan and certainly does not seem amazed. Indeed, most of the bishops repeat ad nauseum that things have never been better, that we are living in the most flourishing period of the Church's history. A bishop like the late Mgr. R. J. Dwyer, of Portland, Oregon, who had the courage to speak out and describe the situation in the Church as it really is was looked upon as an eccentric, as a crank, as a trouble-maker. The International Commission for English in the Liturgy (ICEL) received fulsome praise from the bishops of the U. S. A. for the liturgical translations now inflicted upon English-speaking Catholics. Archbishop Dwyer spoke of:

Quote:...the inept, puerile, semi-literate English translation which has been foisted upon us by the ICEL - the International Commission for English in the Liturgy - a body of men possessed of all the worst characteristics of a self-perpetuating bureaucracy, which has done an immeasurable disservice to the entire English-speaking world. The work has been marked by an almost complete lack of literary sense, a crass insensitivity to the poetry of language, and even worse by a most unscholarly freedom in the rendering of the texts, amounting at times, to actual misrepresentation.1 (My emphasis.)

These are strong words. Archbishop Dwyer stood almost alone in denouncing ICEL - but did this make him wrong? It is the truth that matters. Are his criticisms correct or not? If they are then it would not have mattered if every other English-speaking bishop had denounced him. As Appendix II will show, Robert Grosseteste, a thirteenth-century Bishop of Lincoln, was as solitary as Archbishop Dwyer when he made his protest at the iniquitous practice of Pope Innocent IV appointing relations to benefices which they would not so much as visit, simply to provide them with a source of income. The other bishops tolerated the practice, just as most bishops today tolerate unorthodox catechetics and ICEL - but this did not make Bishop Grosseteste wrong.

The Arian Heresy

In his celebrated Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Cardinal Newman wrote:

Quote:Arianism had admitted that Our Lord was both the God of the Evangelical Covenant, and the actual Creator of the Universe; but even this was not enough, because it did not confess Him to be the One, Everlasting, Infinite, Supreme Being, but as one who was made by the Supreme. It was not enough in accordance with that heresy to proclaim Him as having an ineffable origin before all worlds; not enough to place Him high above all creatures as the type of all the works of God's Hands; not enough to make Him the King of all Saints, the Intercessor for man with God, the Object of worship, the Image of the Father; not enough because it was not all, and between all and anything short of all, there was an infinite interval. The highest of creatures is levelled with the lowest in comparison of the One Creator Himself.2

The Council of Nicea (325) defined that the Son is consubstantial (homoousion) with the Father. This meant that, while distinct as a person, the Son shared the same divine and eternal nature with the Father. If the Father was eternal by nature, then the Son must also be eternal. If the Father was eternal and the Son was not then clearly the Son was not equal with the Father. The term homoousion thus became the touchstone of orthodoxy. In her standard history of heresies, M. L. Cozens writes:

Quote:No other word could be found to express the essential union between the Father and the Son, for every other word the Arians accepted, but in an equivocal sense. They would deny that the Son was a creature as other creatures - or in the number of creatures - or made in time, for they considered him a special creation made before time. They would call Him "Only-begotten," meaning "Only directly created" Son of God.3 They would call Him "Lord Creator," "First-born of all creation"; they even accepted "God of God" meaning thereby "made God by God." This word (homoousion) alone they could not say without renouncing their heresy.4

The Council of Nicea had been convoked by the Emperor Constantine, who insisted upon acceptance of its definitions. Arius was excommunicated. But a good number of bishops signed the Creed only as an act of submission to the Emperor, including Eusebius of Caesarea, and Eusebius of Nicomedia. They were, according to Cozens:

Quote:Men of worldly character, they disliked dogmatic precision and wished for some comprehensive formula which men of all opinions could sign while understanding it in widely diverging senses. To these men the precise and exact faith of an Athanasius and the obstinate heresy of Arius and his plain-spoken followers were equally distasteful.

"Respectable, tolerant, broadminded" would be their ideal of religion. They therefore brought forward, instead of the too definite, ineradicable homoousion - of one substance - the vaguer term homoiousion, i. e., of like substance. They sent letters far and wide couched in seemingly orthodox and fervent language, proclaiming their belief in Our Lord's divinity, ascribing to Him every divine prerogative, anathematizing all who said He was created in time:5 in short, saying all the most orthodox could ask, except that they substituted their own homoiousion for the homoousion of Nicea.6

It is possible to interpret the term "of like substance" in an orthodox sense, i. e. exactly like, identical. But it can also be interpreted as meaning like in some respects but not in others, i. e., as not identical. A candle is like a star in that it generates heat and light, but it most certainly is not a star.

But a comparison between a candle and a star could be taken as an example of almost perfect precision of language when set beside a comparison between a being that is created (even before time began) and a being that is uncreated.

A mood soon grew up among many of the bishops and the faithful that too much fuss was being made about the distinction between homoousion and homoiousion. They considered that more harm than good was done by tearing apart the unity of the Church over a single letter, over an iota (the Greek letter "i"). They condemned those who did this, to quote Cozens again, as:

Quote:...over-rigid precisians, more anxious about terminology than about fraternal charity.

Meanwhile these latter, foremost among them Athanasius, at first deacon and disciple of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, and afterwards his successor, refused to modify in any way their attitude. Steadfastly they refused to accept any statement not containing the homoousion or to communicate with those who rejected it.7

Athanasius and his supporters were right. That one letter, that iota, spelled the difference between Christianity as the faith founded and guided by God incarnate, and a faith founded by just another creature. Indeed, if Christ is not God, it would be blasphemous to call ourselves Christians.

St. Athanasius: Defender of the Nicene Faith

The Catholic Encyclopedia is far from exaggerating when it describes the life of St. Athanasius as a "bewildering maze of events." It would not be practical here to outline even the principal incidents of his truly amazing career, the various councils which declared for and against him, his excommunications, his expulsions from and restorations to his see, his relations with a formidable list of emperors, with his brother-bishops, with the Roman Pontiffs. It can also be added that in some cases the dates affixed to events in his life are only approximate. Those given here may not correspond with those found in other studies.

Athanasius was born around the year 296 and died in 373. He became Bishop of Alexandria within five months of the Council of Nicea, at the age of about thirty.

Hardly had the Council Fathers dispersed when intrigues to restore the fortunes of Arius began. Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, was able to gain favor with the Emperor chiefly through the influence which he exerted upon Constantia, sister of Constantine. He eventually prevailed upon the Emperor to recall Arius from exile. Constantine was induced to write to Athanasius ordering him to admit Arius to communion in his own see of Alexandria. He wrote:

Quote:On being informed of my pleasure, give free admission to all who are desirous of entering into communion with the Church. For if I learn of your standing in the way of any who were seeking it, or interdicting them, I will send at once those who shall depose you instead, by my authority, and banish you from your see.8

After various intrigues, Athanasius was eventually banished to Gaul, and Arius returned to Alexandria but fled in the face of the wrath of the populace. He eventually arrived in Constantinople where he was struck dead in so dramatic a manner that no one doubted that, as Athanasius remarked, "there was displayed somewhat more than human judgment."9

The Emperor Constantine died in 337 and the Empire was shared among his three sons. The fortunes of Athanasius are more bewildering than ever during this period. The See of Peter was occupied by Pope St. Julius I from 337 to 352. Pope Julius consistently and courageously upheld the cause of Athanasius and the faith of Nicea. In 350 the entire Empire was united under Constantius following the murder of his brother Constans (another brother having vanished from the scene soon after the death of Constantine). Constantius was an Arian.

The Fall of Pope Liberius

On 17 May 352, Liberius was consecrated as Pope. He immediately found himself involved in the Arian dispute.

Quote:He appealed to Constantius to do justice to Athanasius. The imperial reply was to summon the bishops of Gaul to a council at Arles in 353-354, where, under threat of exile, they agreed to a condemnation of Athanasius. Even Liberius' legate yielded. When the Pope continued to press for a council more widely representative, it was assembled by Constantius at Milan in 355. It was threatened by a violent mob and the Emperor's personal intimidation: "My will," he exclaimed, "is canon law." He prevailed with all save three of the bishops. Athanasius was once more condemned and Arians admitted to communion. Once more papal legates surrendered and Liberius himself was ordered to sign. When he refused to do so, or even to accept the Emperor's offerings, he was seized and carried off to the imperial presence; when he stood firm for Athanasius' rehabilitation, he was exiled to Thrace (355) where he remained for two years. Meanwhile, a Roman deacon, Felix, was intruded into his see. The people refused to recognize the imperial anti-pope. Athanasius himself was driven into hiding and his flock abandoned to the persecution of an Arianizing intruder. When he visited Rome in 357, Constantius was besieged by clamorous demands for Liberius' restoration. Subservient bishops around the court at Sirmium subscribed in turn to doctrinal formulas more or less ambiguous or unorthodox. In 358, a formula drawn up by Basil of Ancyra, declaring that the Son was of like substance with the Father, homoiousion, was officially imposed.10

The opposition to the anti-pope Felix made it imperative for Constantius to restore Liberius to his see. But it was equally imperative that the Pope should condemn Athanasius. The Emperor used a combination of threats and flattery to attain his objective. Then followed the tragic fall of Liberius. It is described in the sternest of terms in Butler's Lives of the Saints:

Quote:About this time Liberius began to sink under the hardships of his exile, and his resolution was shaken by the continual solicitations of Demophilus, the Arian Bishop of Beroea, and of Fortunatian, the temporizing Bishop of Aquileia. He was so far softened, by listening to flatteries and suggestions to which he ought to have stopped his ears with horror, that he yielded to the snare laid for him, to the great scandal of the Church. He subscribed to the condemnation of St. Athanasius and a confession or creed which had been framed by the Arians at Sirmium, though their heresy was not expressed in it; and he wrote to the Arian bishops of the East that he had received the true Catholic faith which many bishops had approved at Sirmium. The fall of so great a prelate and so illustrious a confessor is a terrifying example of human weakness, which no one can call to mind without trembling for himself. St. Peter fell by a presumptuous confidence in his own strength and resolution, that we may learn that everyone stands only by humility.11

According to A Catholic Dictionary of Theology (1971), "This unjust excommunication [of St. Athanasius] was a moral and not a doctrinal fault."12 Signing one of the "creeds" of Sirmium was far more serious (there is some dispute as to which one Liberius signed, probably the first). The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), describes it as "a document reprehensible from the point of view of the faith."13 Some Catholic apologists have attempted to prove that Liberius neither confirmed the excommunication of Athanasius nor subscribed to one of the formulae of Sirmium. But Cardinal Newman has no doubt that the fall of Liberius is an historical fact.14 This is also the case with the two modern works of reference just cited and the celebrated Catholic Dictionary, edited by Addis and Arnold. The last named points out that there is "a fourfold cord of evidence not easily broken," i. e., the testimonies of St. Athanasius, St. Hilary, Sozomen, and St. Jerome. It also notes that "all the accounts are at once independent of and consistent with each other."15

The New Catholic Encyclopedia concludes that:

Quote:Everything points to the fact that he [Liberius] accepted the first formula of Sirmium of 351...it failed gravely in deliberately avoiding the use of the most characteristic expression of the Nicene faith and in particular the homoousion. Thus while it cannot be said that Liberius taught false doctrine, it seems necessary to admit that, through weakness and fear, he did not do justice to the full truth.16

It is quite nonsensical for Protestant polemicists to cite the case of Liberius as an argument against papal infallibility. The excommunication of Athanasius (or of anyone else) is not an act involving infallibility, and the formula he signed contained nothing directly heretical. Nor was it an ex cathedra pronouncement intended to bind the whole Church, and, if it had been, the fact that Liberius acted under duress would have rendered it null and void.

However, despite the pressure to which he was submitted, Liberius' fall reveals a weakness of character when compared with those such as Athanasius, who did remain firm. Cardinal Newman comments:

Quote:His fall, which followed, scandalous as it is in itself, may yet be taken to illustrate the silent firmness of those others of his fellow-sufferers, of whom we hear less, because they bore themselves more consistently.17

This is a judgment with which the New Catholic Encyclopedia concurs:

Quote:Liberius did not have the strength of character of his predecessor Julius I, or of his successor Damasus I. The troubles that erupted upon the latter's election indicate that the Roman Church had been weakened from within as well as from without during the pontificate of Liberius. His name was not inscribed in the Roman Martyrology.18

Tradition Upheld by the Laity

The fall of Pope Liberius needs to be considered within the context of a failure by the vast majority of the episcopate to be faithful to its commission; only then can the full extent of the heroism of St. Athanasius be appreciated (together with a few other heroic bishops such as St. Hilary, who supported him faithfully). Cardinal Newman cites numerous Patristic testimonies to the abysmal state of the Church at that time. In Appendix V to the third edition of his Arians of the Fourth Century, we read:

Quote:A. D. 360. St. Gregory Nazianzen says, about this date: "Surely the pastors have done foolishly; for, excepting a very few, who either on account of their insignificance were passed over, or who by reason of their virtue resisted, and who were to be left as a seed and root for the springing up again and revival of Israel by the influence of the Spirit, all temporized, only differing from each other in this, that some succumbed earlier, and others later; some were foremost champions and leaders in the impiety, and others joined the second rank of the battle, being overcome by fear, or by interest, or by flattery, or, what was the most excusable, by their own ignorance." (Orat. xxi. 24).

Cappadocia. St. Basil says, about the year 372: "Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in faith avoid the places of worship as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitude, with groans and tears to the Lord in heaven." Ep. 92. Four years after he writes: "Matters have come to this pass: the people have left their houses of prayer, and assemble in deserts, - a pitiable sight; women and children, old men, and men otherwise infirm, wretchedly faring in the open air, amid most profuse rains and snow-storms and winds and frosts of winter; and again in summer under a scorching sun. To this they submit, because they will have no part in the wicked Arian leaven." Ep. 242. Again: "Only one offense is now vigorously punished, - an accurate observance of our fathers' traditions. For this cause the pious are driven from their countries, and transported into deserts." Ep. 243.

In this same appendix, the Cardinal also included an extract from an article he had written for the Rambler magazine in July 1859.19 The article dealt with the manner in which, during the Arian crisis, divine tradition had been upheld by the faithful more than by the episcopate. Three phrases in this article had been misinterpreted when first published, and Newman now took the opportunity of clarifying them in the appendix. The gist of these clarifications will be provided in footnotes. Here is Newman's assessment of the manner in which the laity, the Taught Church (Ecclesia docta), upheld the traditional faith rather than what is known today as the Magisterium or the Teaching Church (Ecclesia docens) - that is, the bishops united to the Roman Pontiff:

Quote:It is not a little remarkable, that, though historically speaking, the fourth century is the age of doctors, illustrated, as it is, by the Saints Athanasius, Hilary, the two Gregories, Basil, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine (and all those saints [were] bishops also, except one), nevertheless in that very day the Divine tradition committed to the infallible Church was proclaimed and maintained far more by the faithful than by the episcopate.

Here, of course, I must explain: - in saying this then, undoubtedly I am not denying that the great body of the Bishops were in their internal belief orthodox; nor that there were numbers of clergy who stood by the laity and acted as their centres and guides; nor that the laity actually received the faith in the first instance from the Bishops and clergy: nor that some portions of the laity were ignorant and other portions were at length corrupted by the Arian teachers, who got possession of the sees, and ordained an heretical clergy: - but I mean still, that in that time of immense confusion the divine dogma of Our Lord's divinity was proclaimed, enforced, maintained, and (humanly speaking) preserved, far more by the Ecclesia docta than by the Ecclesia docens; that the body of the Episcopate20 was unfaithful to its commission, while the body of the laity was faithful to its baptism; that at one time the Pope, at other times a patriarchal, metropolitan, or other great sees, at other times general councils21 said what they should not have said, or did what obscured and compromised revealed truth; while, on the other hand, it was the Christian people, who, under Providence, were the ecclesiastical strength of Athanasius, Eusebius of Vercellae, and other great solitary confessors, who would have failed without them....

On the one hand, then, I say, that there was a temporary suspense of the functions of the Ecclesia docens.22 The body of bishops failed in their confession of the faith.

The True Voice of Tradition

What, then, are the lessons we can learn from the fall of Liberius, the triumph of Arianism, the witness of Athanasius, and the fortitude of the body of the faithful? Newman provides us with the answers, recognizing that what has happened once can happen again. In his July 1859 Rambler article, he wrote:

Quote:I see, then, in the Arian history, a palmary example of a state of the Church, during which, in order to know the tradition of the Apostles, we must have recourse to the faithful; for I fairly own, that if I go to writers, since I must adjust the letter of Justin, Clement, and Hippolytus with the Nicene Doctors, I get confused: and what revives me and reinstates me, as far as history goes, is the faith of the people. For I argue that, unless they had been catechized, as St. Hilary says, in the orthodox faith from the time of their baptism, they never could have had that horror, which they show, of the heterodox Arian doctrine. Their voice, then, is the voice of tradition....

It is also historically and doctrinally true, as Newman stressed in Appendix V to The Arians of the Fourth Century, "that a Pope, as a private doctor, and much more Bishops, when not teaching formally, may err, as we find they did err in the fourth century. Pope Liberius might sign a Eusebian formula at Sirmium, and the mass of Bishops at Ariminum or elsewhere, and yet they might in spite of this error, be infallible in their ex cathedra decisions."

Finally, what the history of this period proves is that, during a time of general apostasy, Christians who remain faithful to their traditional faith may have to worship outside the official churches, the churches of priests in communion with their lawfully appointed diocesan bishop, in order not to compromise that traditional faith; and that such Christians may have to look for truly Catholic teaching, leadership, and inspiration not to the bishops of their country as a body, not to the bishops of the world, not even to the Roman Pontiff, but to one heroic confessor whom the other bishops and the Roman Pontiff might have repudiated or even excommunicated. And how would they recognize that this solitary confessor was right and the Roman Pontiff and the body of the episcopate (not teaching infallibly) were wrong? The answer is that they would recognize in the teaching of this confessor what the faithful of the fourth century recognized in the teaching of Athanasius: the one true faith into which they had been baptized, in which they had been catechized, and which their confirmation gave them the obligation of upholding. In no sense whatsoever can such fidelity to tradition be compared with the Protestant practice of private judgment. The fourth-century Catholic traditionalists upheld Athanasius in his defense of the faith that had been handed down; the Protestant uses his private judgment to justify a breach with the traditional faith.

The truth of doctrinal teaching must be judged by its conformity to Tradition and not by the number or authority of those propagating it. Falsehood cannot become truth, no matter how many accept it. Writing in 371, St. Basil lamented the fact that:

Quote:The heresy long ago disseminated by that enemy of truth, Arius, grew to a shameless height and like a bitter root it is bearing its pernicious fruit and already gaining the upper hand since the standard-bearers of the true doctrine have been driven form the churches by defamation and insult and the authority they were vested with has been handed over to such as captivate the hearts of the simple in mind.23

But there will never be a time when the faithful who wholeheartedly wish to remain true to the Faith of their Fathers need have any doubt as to what the faith is. In the year 340 St. Athanasius wrote a letter to his brother bishops throughout the world, exhorting them to rise up and defend the faith against those he did not hesitate to stigmatize as "the evil-doers." What he wrote to them will apply until the end of time when God the Son comes again in glory to judge the living and the dead:

Quote:The Church has not just recently been given order and statutes. They were faithfully and soundly bestowed on it by the Fathers. Nor has the faith only just been established, but it has come to us from the Lord through His disciples. May what has been preserved in the Churches from the beginning to the present day not be abandoned in our time; may what has been entrusted into our keeping not be embezzled by us. Brethren, as custodians of God’s mysteries, let yourselves be roused into action on seeing all this despoiled by others.24

Footnotes

This appendix is available in an expanded version as a separate pamphlet published by The Remnant. It is available from The Angelus Press. Some of the works referred to in the notes have been abbreviated as follows:

AFC J. H. Newman, Arians of the Fourth Century (London, 1876).
CD W. Addis and T. Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary (London, 1925).
CDT J. H. Crehan, ed., A Catholic Dictionary of Theology (London, 1971).
CE The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1913).
HH M. L. Cozens, A Handbook of Heresies (London, 1960), available from The Angelus Press.
NCE New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1967).
PG Migne, Patrologia Graeca.

1. National Catholic Register, 2 March 1975.

2. The Development of Christian Doctrine (London, 1878), p. 143.

3. Arius taught that Christ was the only being directly created by God and that having been created, He then created the rest of the universe on behalf of the Father. The rest of creation is, therefore, created directly by the Son and only indirectly by the Father.

4. HH, p. 34.

5. Arius taught that Christ was created before time began.

6. HH, pp. 35-36

7. HH, p.36.

8. AFC, p. 267.

9. AFC, p. 270.

10. E. John, ed., The Popes (London, 1964), p. 70.

11. A. Butler, The Lives of the Saints (London, 1934), II, p. 10.

12. CDT, III, 110, col. 2.

13. NCE, VIII, 715, col. 1.

14. AFC, p. 464.

15. CD, p. 522, col. 2.

16. NCE, VIII, 715, col. 2.

17. AFC, pp. 319-320.

18. NCE, VIII, 716, col. 2

19. The Rambler, Vol. I, new series, Part II, July 1859, pp. 198-230. This article had been written to refute criticisms of an unsigned article he had contributed to the May 1859 issue of The Rambler, of which he was editor.

20. Where Newman uses the term "body" he means "the great preponderance," the majority.

21. Newman is not referring to any of the recognized Ecumenical ("from the whole world") Councils of the Church, of which there were none in the period he is describing. He is referring to gatherings of bishops large enough to come under the classification of the Latin word generalia.

22. Newman explains that by "a temporary suspense of the functions of the Ecclesia docens" he means "that there was no authoritative utterance of the Church’s infallible voice in matters of fact between the Nicene Council, A. D. 325, and the Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381."

23. "Des heiligen Kirchenlehrers Basilius des Grossen ausgewählte Schriften," in Bibliothek der Kirchenväter (Kosel-Pustet, Munich, 1924), I, 121.

24. PG XXVII, col. 219.]]> Volume I of Michael Davies Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre. It deserves reading every so often for it's timelessness and most certainly, for the corollary to our times post Vatican II [emphasis mine].

Appendix I

Saint Athanasius The True Upholder of Tradition

Quote:What happened over 1600 years ago is repeating itself today, but with two or three differences: Alexandria is the whole Universal Church, the stability of which is being shaken, and what was undertaken at that time by means of physical force and cruelty is now being transferred to a different level. Exile is replaced by banishment into the silence of being ignored; killing, by assassination of character.

Mgr. Rudolf Graber, Bishop of Regensburg,
Athanasius and the Church of Our Times, p. 23.

Quote:...the inept, puerile, semi-literate English translation which has been foisted upon us by the ICEL - the International Commission for English in the Liturgy - a body of men possessed of all the worst characteristics of a self-perpetuating bureaucracy, which has done an immeasurable disservice to the entire English-speaking world. The work has been marked by an almost complete lack of literary sense, a crass insensitivity to the poetry of language, and even worse by a most unscholarly freedom in the rendering of the texts, amounting at times, to actual misrepresentation.1 (My emphasis.)

Quote:Arianism had admitted that Our Lord was both the God of the Evangelical Covenant, and the actual Creator of the Universe; but even this was not enough, because it did not confess Him to be the One, Everlasting, Infinite, Supreme Being, but as one who was made by the Supreme. It was not enough in accordance with that heresy to proclaim Him as having an ineffable origin before all worlds; not enough to place Him high above all creatures as the type of all the works of God's Hands; not enough to make Him the King of all Saints, the Intercessor for man with God, the Object of worship, the Image of the Father; not enough because it was not all, and between all and anything short of all, there was an infinite interval. The highest of creatures is levelled with the lowest in comparison of the One Creator Himself.2

Quote:No other word could be found to express the essential union between the Father and the Son, for every other word the Arians accepted, but in an equivocal sense. They would deny that the Son was a creature as other creatures - or in the number of creatures - or made in time, for they considered him a special creation made before time. They would call Him "Only-begotten," meaning "Only directly created" Son of God.3 They would call Him "Lord Creator," "First-born of all creation"; they even accepted "God of God" meaning thereby "made God by God." This word (homoousion) alone they could not say without renouncing their heresy.4

Quote:Men of worldly character, they disliked dogmatic precision and wished for some comprehensive formula which men of all opinions could sign while understanding it in widely diverging senses. To these men the precise and exact faith of an Athanasius and the obstinate heresy of Arius and his plain-spoken followers were equally distasteful.

"Respectable, tolerant, broadminded" would be their ideal of religion. They therefore brought forward, instead of the too definite, ineradicable homoousion - of one substance - the vaguer term homoiousion, i. e., of like substance. They sent letters far and wide couched in seemingly orthodox and fervent language, proclaiming their belief in Our Lord's divinity, ascribing to Him every divine prerogative, anathematizing all who said He was created in time:5 in short, saying all the most orthodox could ask, except that they substituted their own homoiousion for the homoousion of Nicea.6

Quote:...over-rigid precisians, more anxious about terminology than about fraternal charity.

Meanwhile these latter, foremost among them Athanasius, at first deacon and disciple of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, and afterwards his successor, refused to modify in any way their attitude. Steadfastly they refused to accept any statement not containing the homoousion or to communicate with those who rejected it.7

Quote:On being informed of my pleasure, give free admission to all who are desirous of entering into communion with the Church. For if I learn of your standing in the way of any who were seeking it, or interdicting them, I will send at once those who shall depose you instead, by my authority, and banish you from your see.8

Quote:He appealed to Constantius to do justice to Athanasius. The imperial reply was to summon the bishops of Gaul to a council at Arles in 353-354, where, under threat of exile, they agreed to a condemnation of Athanasius. Even Liberius' legate yielded. When the Pope continued to press for a council more widely representative, it was assembled by Constantius at Milan in 355. It was threatened by a violent mob and the Emperor's personal intimidation: "My will," he exclaimed, "is canon law." He prevailed with all save three of the bishops. Athanasius was once more condemned and Arians admitted to communion. Once more papal legates surrendered and Liberius himself was ordered to sign. When he refused to do so, or even to accept the Emperor's offerings, he was seized and carried off to the imperial presence; when he stood firm for Athanasius' rehabilitation, he was exiled to Thrace (355) where he remained for two years. Meanwhile, a Roman deacon, Felix, was intruded into his see. The people refused to recognize the imperial anti-pope. Athanasius himself was driven into hiding and his flock abandoned to the persecution of an Arianizing intruder. When he visited Rome in 357, Constantius was besieged by clamorous demands for Liberius' restoration. Subservient bishops around the court at Sirmium subscribed in turn to doctrinal formulas more or less ambiguous or unorthodox. In 358, a formula drawn up by Basil of Ancyra, declaring that the Son was of like substance with the Father, homoiousion, was officially imposed.10

Quote:About this time Liberius began to sink under the hardships of his exile, and his resolution was shaken by the continual solicitations of Demophilus, the Arian Bishop of Beroea, and of Fortunatian, the temporizing Bishop of Aquileia. He was so far softened, by listening to flatteries and suggestions to which he ought to have stopped his ears with horror, that he yielded to the snare laid for him, to the great scandal of the Church. He subscribed to the condemnation of St. Athanasius and a confession or creed which had been framed by the Arians at Sirmium, though their heresy was not expressed in it; and he wrote to the Arian bishops of the East that he had received the true Catholic faith which many bishops had approved at Sirmium. The fall of so great a prelate and so illustrious a confessor is a terrifying example of human weakness, which no one can call to mind without trembling for himself. St. Peter fell by a presumptuous confidence in his own strength and resolution, that we may learn that everyone stands only by humility.11

Quote:Everything points to the fact that he [Liberius] accepted the first formula of Sirmium of 351...it failed gravely in deliberately avoiding the use of the most characteristic expression of the Nicene faith and in particular the homoousion. Thus while it cannot be said that Liberius taught false doctrine, it seems necessary to admit that, through weakness and fear, he did not do justice to the full truth.16

Quote:His fall, which followed, scandalous as it is in itself, may yet be taken to illustrate the silent firmness of those others of his fellow-sufferers, of whom we hear less, because they bore themselves more consistently.17

This is a judgment with which the New Catholic Encyclopedia concurs:

Quote:Liberius did not have the strength of character of his predecessor Julius I, or of his successor Damasus I. The troubles that erupted upon the latter's election indicate that the Roman Church had been weakened from within as well as from without during the pontificate of Liberius. His name was not inscribed in the Roman Martyrology.18

Quote:A. D. 360. St. Gregory Nazianzen says, about this date: "Surely the pastors have done foolishly; for, excepting a very few, who either on account of their insignificance were passed over, or who by reason of their virtue resisted, and who were to be left as a seed and root for the springing up again and revival of Israel by the influence of the Spirit, all temporized, only differing from each other in this, that some succumbed earlier, and others later; some were foremost champions and leaders in the impiety, and others joined the second rank of the battle, being overcome by fear, or by interest, or by flattery, or, what was the most excusable, by their own ignorance." (Orat. xxi. 24).

Cappadocia. St. Basil says, about the year 372: "Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in faith avoid the places of worship as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitude, with groans and tears to the Lord in heaven." Ep. 92. Four years after he writes: "Matters have come to this pass: the people have left their houses of prayer, and assemble in deserts, - a pitiable sight; women and children, old men, and men otherwise infirm, wretchedly faring in the open air, amid most profuse rains and snow-storms and winds and frosts of winter; and again in summer under a scorching sun. To this they submit, because they will have no part in the wicked Arian leaven." Ep. 242. Again: "Only one offense is now vigorously punished, - an accurate observance of our fathers' traditions. For this cause the pious are driven from their countries, and transported into deserts." Ep. 243.

Quote:It is not a little remarkable, that, though historically speaking, the fourth century is the age of doctors, illustrated, as it is, by the Saints Athanasius, Hilary, the two Gregories, Basil, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine (and all those saints [were] bishops also, except one), nevertheless in that very day the Divine tradition committed to the infallible Church was proclaimed and maintained far more by the faithful than by the episcopate.

Here, of course, I must explain: - in saying this then, undoubtedly I am not denying that the great body of the Bishops were in their internal belief orthodox; nor that there were numbers of clergy who stood by the laity and acted as their centres and guides; nor that the laity actually received the faith in the first instance from the Bishops and clergy: nor that some portions of the laity were ignorant and other portions were at length corrupted by the Arian teachers, who got possession of the sees, and ordained an heretical clergy: - but I mean still, that in that time of immense confusion the divine dogma of Our Lord's divinity was proclaimed, enforced, maintained, and (humanly speaking) preserved, far more by the Ecclesia docta than by the Ecclesia docens; that the body of the Episcopate20 was unfaithful to its commission, while the body of the laity was faithful to its baptism; that at one time the Pope, at other times a patriarchal, metropolitan, or other great sees, at other times general councils21 said what they should not have said, or did what obscured and compromised revealed truth; while, on the other hand, it was the Christian people, who, under Providence, were the ecclesiastical strength of Athanasius, Eusebius of Vercellae, and other great solitary confessors, who would have failed without them....

On the one hand, then, I say, that there was a temporary suspense of the functions of the Ecclesia docens.22 The body of bishops failed in their confession of the faith.

Quote:I see, then, in the Arian history, a palmary example of a state of the Church, during which, in order to know the tradition of the Apostles, we must have recourse to the faithful; for I fairly own, that if I go to writers, since I must adjust the letter of Justin, Clement, and Hippolytus with the Nicene Doctors, I get confused: and what revives me and reinstates me, as far as history goes, is the faith of the people. For I argue that, unless they had been catechized, as St. Hilary says, in the orthodox faith from the time of their baptism, they never could have had that horror, which they show, of the heterodox Arian doctrine. Their voice, then, is the voice of tradition....

Quote:The heresy long ago disseminated by that enemy of truth, Arius, grew to a shameless height and like a bitter root it is bearing its pernicious fruit and already gaining the upper hand since the standard-bearers of the true doctrine have been driven form the churches by defamation and insult and the authority they were vested with has been handed over to such as captivate the hearts of the simple in mind.23

Quote:The Church has not just recently been given order and statutes. They were faithfully and soundly bestowed on it by the Fathers. Nor has the faith only just been established, but it has come to us from the Lord through His disciples. May what has been preserved in the Churches from the beginning to the present day not be abandoned in our time; may what has been entrusted into our keeping not be embezzled by us. Brethren, as custodians of God’s mysteries, let yourselves be roused into action on seeing all this despoiled by others.24

Footnotes

This appendix is available in an expanded version as a separate pamphlet published by The Remnant. It is available from The Angelus Press. Some of the works referred to in the notes have been abbreviated as follows:

AFC J. H. Newman, Arians of the Fourth Century (London, 1876).
CD W. Addis and T. Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary (London, 1925).
CDT J. H. Crehan, ed., A Catholic Dictionary of Theology (London, 1971).
CE The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1913).
HH M. L. Cozens, A Handbook of Heresies (London, 1960), available from The Angelus Press.
NCE New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1967).
PG Migne, Patrologia Graeca.

1. National Catholic Register, 2 March 1975.

2. The Development of Christian Doctrine (London, 1878), p. 143.

3. Arius taught that Christ was the only being directly created by God and that having been created, He then created the rest of the universe on behalf of the Father. The rest of creation is, therefore, created directly by the Son and only indirectly by the Father.

4. HH, p. 34.

5. Arius taught that Christ was created before time began.

6. HH, pp. 35-36

7. HH, p.36.

8. AFC, p. 267.

9. AFC, p. 270.

10. E. John, ed., The Popes (London, 1964), p. 70.

11. A. Butler, The Lives of the Saints (London, 1934), II, p. 10.

12. CDT, III, 110, col. 2.

13. NCE, VIII, 715, col. 1.

14. AFC, p. 464.

15. CD, p. 522, col. 2.

16. NCE, VIII, 715, col. 2.

17. AFC, pp. 319-320.

18. NCE, VIII, 716, col. 2

19. The Rambler, Vol. I, new series, Part II, July 1859, pp. 198-230. This article had been written to refute criticisms of an unsigned article he had contributed to the May 1859 issue of The Rambler, of which he was editor.

20. Where Newman uses the term "body" he means "the great preponderance," the majority.

21. Newman is not referring to any of the recognized Ecumenical ("from the whole world") Councils of the Church, of which there were none in the period he is describing. He is referring to gatherings of bishops large enough to come under the classification of the Latin word generalia.

22. Newman explains that by "a temporary suspense of the functions of the Ecclesia docens" he means "that there was no authoritative utterance of the Church’s infallible voice in matters of fact between the Nicene Council, A. D. 325, and the Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381."

23. "Des heiligen Kirchenlehrers Basilius des Grossen ausgewählte Schriften," in Bibliothek der Kirchenväter (Kosel-Pustet, Munich, 1924), I, 121.

24. PG XXVII, col. 219.]]> <![CDATA[Kolbe Center: Pope Pius XI’s understanding of the Catholic Doctrine of Creation]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6842 Sat, 01 Feb 2025 12:31:52 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6842 How Pope Pius XI defended the history of Genesis, special creation of St. Adam
Before becoming Pope Pius XI, Fr. Achille Ratti wrote a theological work supporting Adam’s special creation – an argument he upheld throughout his life, countering growing scientific and theological shifts toward evolution.

Jan 30, 2025
LifeSiteNews [Adapted and reformatted - The Catacombs]

Editor’s note: This article is Part 1 of a four-part study of Pope Pius XI’s understanding of the Catholic doctrine of creation as opposed to the modern scientific proposition of the evolution of mankind.

(Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation) — One of the wonderful things about the Kolbe apostolate has been the way that members of our leadership team have been inspired to research different topics relevant to our mission, resulting in all kinds of fruitful discoveries.

In recent months, researcher Christian Bergsma has brought to our attention a document that highlights the Church leadership’s vigorous defense of the literal historical truth of the first chapters of Genesis well into the 20th century.

In this article we will focus on a treatise[1] written by the Rev. Achille Ratti, the future Pope Pius XI, toward the end of the 19th century. Though he wrote it before becoming pope, Pius XI defended this work during his pontificate, according to his close friend Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini:

Quote:Our Holy Father, Pope Pius XI, in private audiences, from time to time recalled with pleasure this work of his (“which cost him no little labor”), and reconfirmed his conclusions.[2]

Theological arguments for the special creation of Adam

Dr. Kenneth Miller is typical of Catholic intellectuals who teach our young people that the Fathers and Doctors of the patristic era did not read Genesis as history and that this is a recent, “fundamentalist” misinterpretation, stating:

Quote:Great theologians of the early centuries of the Christian era, like Saint Augustine, did not read Genesis as history. It’s only in the last hundred years, mostly in the United States, that you have people coming up with a radically different view.

As the recipient of the Laetare medal at Notre Dame University in 2014, “the oldest and most prestigious honor given to American Catholics,” according to Notre Dame’s president, Michael O. Garvey, one would think that Dr. Miller would be able back up his claims, but St. Augustine himself made clear that he agreed with the rest of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that Genesis is written “from beginning to end in the style of history.”

In keeping with this historical interpretation of Genesis, at the beginning of his treatise, the future Pope Pius XI sets forth his plan to demonstrate the direct and immediate creation of the body of St. Adam, first from theology and then from natural science. He asks:

Quote:What is to be held of the first origin of man as regards the body, according to faith and sound theology?

The answer is this: It is clear from divine revelation that the first parents, not only regarding the soul, but also regarding the body, were formed by God himself, not by simple concurrence, but by direct and immediate action, although not creative.

Explaining the phrase, “although not creative,” Christian Bergsma notes:

Quote:Ratti distinguishes the formation of the body as “not creative” in the strict sense that the body was not called into being out of nothing like the soul was, but rather was formed from the material of mud and the rib. St. Thomas Aquinas defines creation in the unequivocal sense as the original emanation of each thing into being from nothing:

Quote:“‘To create is to make something from nothing’… we must consider not only the emanation of a particular being from a particular agent, but also the emanation of all being from the universal cause, which is God; and this emanation we designate by the name of creation … it is impossible that any being should be presupposed before this emanation. For nothing is the same as no being. Therefore as the generation of a man is from the ‘not-being’ which is ‘not-man,’ so creation, which is the emanation of all being, is from the ‘not-being’ which is ‘nothing.’[3]

However, per Aquinas, the whole man, as a composite of both body and soul, can be said to have been created out of “not-man” in that immediate and simultaneous action, as he was brought from a state of non-being into being in all of his principles:

“Creation does not mean the building up of a composite thing from pre-existing principles; but it means that the ‘composite’ is created so that it is brought into being at the same time with all its principles … for creation is the production of the whole being, and not only matter.”[4]

The literal and obvious sense of Scripture must be believed

Like the Fathers and Doctors before him, the future Pope Pius XI takes as his starting point that the sacred history of Genesis gives a divinely inspired account of the creation of the first human beings in which the literal and obvious sense should be believed unless it would detract from “purity of life or soundness of doctrine.” In the words of St. Augustine:

Quote:In the first place, then, we must show the way to find out whether a phrase is literal or figurative. And the way is certainly as follows: Whatever there is in the Word of God that cannot, when taken literally, be referred either to purity of life or soundness of doctrine, you may set down as figurative.[5]

Using these criteria, Christian Bergsma rightly poses and answers a critical question:

Quote:Is the formation of the body from mud impossible to reconcile with purity of life or sound doctrine? Certainly not. Pope Leo XIII likewise cites “the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine – not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires…[6] Does reason or necessity compel us to believe that an all-powerful God could not create a body from mud? Certainly not! Therefore, we ought to take the words literally.

The age of the universe

Having established that the direct and immediate creation of Adam, body and soul, must be believed as, at a minimum, Catholic doctrine, if not, as some authorities believe, Catholic Faith, Ratti addresses the question of the timing of Adam’s creation:

Quote:It remains to say a few things about the antiquity of human origin. Holy Scripture nowhere expressly presents a complete chronology which extends to the creation of Adam; but what it sparsely reports presents no little difficulty, especially if one considers the discrepancies between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint and Samaritan versions; but the Vulgate version follows the Hebrew text.

Even greater and far more numerous discrepancies occur among the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers. Cardinal Meignan counts one hundred and fifty different calculations, none of which can be called reprobate; in fact, Des Vignoles collected more than two hundred different indications of the time from Adam to Christ, the minimum of which he counts as 3,483 years, the maximum as 6,984. It is true that in all the aforesaid calculations, a common foundation was sought in the Holy Scriptures themselves. For, after certain minor difficulties, it was seen that the following numbers of years could be gathered from inspired books.

From Adam to Noah’s flood:

according to the Vulgate and Hebrew text… 1,656

according to the Samaritan text… … … … 1,306

according to the Septuagint… … … … … … 2,242

From Noah’s flood to Abraham’s birth:

according to the Vulgate… … … … …292 or 293

according to the Samaritan text… … … … … 942

according to the Septuagint… … … … … … 1,183

From Abraham to Christ’s birth:

with hardly a few decades of difference… 2,190

Having said this, it follows that neither Holy Scripture nor Tradition contains a chronology of the human race that is at least completely defined. Here again, it is certainly possible to follow any of the chronologies received here and there in the Church.

This is a remarkable passage – remarkable because we find the future Pope Pius XI defending the common teaching of all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that the Scriptures provide a basis, though not a precise formula, for calculating universal chronology, when Catholic intellectuals were abandoning this teaching in droves in the name of “science.” As Christian Bergsma observes:

Quote:Though they posited various dates for Christ’s birth, all the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers who mentioned the subject taught a recent creation as a matter of faith in Scripture, in opposition to the old-earth mythologies of the pagans (not, as some have said, simply due to their ancient scientific conceptions). The Church teaches:

“In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the Fathers. [7]

Even modernist bible scholar M.J. Lagrange had to admit the substantial sensus fidelium on the young earth within the Church over the centuries, regardless of the differing proposed dates. Lagrange found himself arguing that the ancient Fathers had been right to interpret Genesis 1-11 as teaching a young chronology, because the text indeed does teach it, even though it is not true, and that God intentionally used their errant belief in the historicity Genesis 1-11 to bring them to spiritual truths, as they would not have otherwise been able to grasp them if he had explained them at that time in a manner fitting with what we now “know” through science.

This is heresy, because we are bound to hold that whatever Scripture teaches is inerrant, and that such inerrancy extends not just to spiritual truths but also to statements touching history and the natural world[8]. However, in defending this position Lagrange aptly exposed the ridiculous inconsistency of those “concordists” who try to defend one tenet of Scripture (i.e., the universal flood) by denying that another tenet (i.e., the young chronology) was ever upheld by the Church:

“Then came the turn of the philologists. It seemed to them that there would never have been time enough for the formation of languages had the Deluge swallowed up all mankind … but, in point of fact, the arguments of the scientists were only conclusive if biblical chronology were upheld…And so, when the universality of the Deluge was defended by this [concordist] school, they held that biblical chronology was non-existent. They went so far as to foster the delusion that Catholic opinion had never admitted a chronology, because it did not agree as to its limits: as though the differences of opinion, reached as the result of so much painful effort, did not suppose a common groundwork known to all.“[9] (emphasis added)

By the very admission of this preeminent modernist, to believe that the tradition of the Church on the biblical chronology was either non-existent, insubstantial, or due to mistaken exegesis, is delusional, but to accept an old universe is to believe that Scripture teaches falsehood. Therefore, the best option for a pious Catholic is to believe in the young universe – “young” only in relation to the uniformitarian extrapolations of naturalists, and not in relation to any objective chronology of the world.

Quote:Our Holy Father, Pope Pius XI, in private audiences, from time to time recalled with pleasure this work of his (“which cost him no little labor”), and reconfirmed his conclusions.[2]

Quote:Great theologians of the early centuries of the Christian era, like Saint Augustine, did not read Genesis as history. It’s only in the last hundred years, mostly in the United States, that you have people coming up with a radically different view.

Quote:What is to be held of the first origin of man as regards the body, according to faith and sound theology?

The answer is this: It is clear from divine revelation that the first parents, not only regarding the soul, but also regarding the body, were formed by God himself, not by simple concurrence, but by direct and immediate action, although not creative.

Explaining the phrase, “although not creative,” Christian Bergsma notes:

Quote:Ratti distinguishes the formation of the body as “not creative” in the strict sense that the body was not called into being out of nothing like the soul was, but rather was formed from the material of mud and the rib. St. Thomas Aquinas defines creation in the unequivocal sense as the original emanation of each thing into being from nothing:

Quote:“‘To create is to make something from nothing’… we must consider not only the emanation of a particular being from a particular agent, but also the emanation of all being from the universal cause, which is God; and this emanation we designate by the name of creation … it is impossible that any being should be presupposed before this emanation. For nothing is the same as no being. Therefore as the generation of a man is from the ‘not-being’ which is ‘not-man,’ so creation, which is the emanation of all being, is from the ‘not-being’ which is ‘nothing.’[3]

However, per Aquinas, the whole man, as a composite of both body and soul, can be said to have been created out of “not-man” in that immediate and simultaneous action, as he was brought from a state of non-being into being in all of his principles:

“Creation does not mean the building up of a composite thing from pre-existing principles; but it means that the ‘composite’ is created so that it is brought into being at the same time with all its principles … for creation is the production of the whole being, and not only matter.”[4]

Quote:In the first place, then, we must show the way to find out whether a phrase is literal or figurative. And the way is certainly as follows: Whatever there is in the Word of God that cannot, when taken literally, be referred either to purity of life or soundness of doctrine, you may set down as figurative.[5]

Using these criteria, Christian Bergsma rightly poses and answers a critical question:

Quote:Is the formation of the body from mud impossible to reconcile with purity of life or sound doctrine? Certainly not. Pope Leo XIII likewise cites “the rule so wisely laid down by St. Augustine – not to depart from the literal and obvious sense, except only where reason makes it untenable or necessity requires…[6] Does reason or necessity compel us to believe that an all-powerful God could not create a body from mud? Certainly not! Therefore, we ought to take the words literally.

Quote:It remains to say a few things about the antiquity of human origin. Holy Scripture nowhere expressly presents a complete chronology which extends to the creation of Adam; but what it sparsely reports presents no little difficulty, especially if one considers the discrepancies between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint and Samaritan versions; but the Vulgate version follows the Hebrew text.

Even greater and far more numerous discrepancies occur among the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers. Cardinal Meignan counts one hundred and fifty different calculations, none of which can be called reprobate; in fact, Des Vignoles collected more than two hundred different indications of the time from Adam to Christ, the minimum of which he counts as 3,483 years, the maximum as 6,984. It is true that in all the aforesaid calculations, a common foundation was sought in the Holy Scriptures themselves. For, after certain minor difficulties, it was seen that the following numbers of years could be gathered from inspired books.

From Adam to Noah’s flood:

according to the Vulgate and Hebrew text… 1,656

according to the Samaritan text… … … … 1,306

according to the Septuagint… … … … … … 2,242

From Noah’s flood to Abraham’s birth:

according to the Vulgate… … … … …292 or 293

according to the Samaritan text… … … … … 942

according to the Septuagint… … … … … … 1,183

From Abraham to Christ’s birth:

with hardly a few decades of difference… 2,190

Having said this, it follows that neither Holy Scripture nor Tradition contains a chronology of the human race that is at least completely defined. Here again, it is certainly possible to follow any of the chronologies received here and there in the Church.

Quote:Though they posited various dates for Christ’s birth, all the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers who mentioned the subject taught a recent creation as a matter of faith in Scripture, in opposition to the old-earth mythologies of the pagans (not, as some have said, simply due to their ancient scientific conceptions). The Church teaches:

“In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the Fathers. [7]

Even modernist bible scholar M.J. Lagrange had to admit the substantial sensus fidelium on the young earth within the Church over the centuries, regardless of the differing proposed dates. Lagrange found himself arguing that the ancient Fathers had been right to interpret Genesis 1-11 as teaching a young chronology, because the text indeed does teach it, even though it is not true, and that God intentionally used their errant belief in the historicity Genesis 1-11 to bring them to spiritual truths, as they would not have otherwise been able to grasp them if he had explained them at that time in a manner fitting with what we now “know” through science.

This is heresy, because we are bound to hold that whatever Scripture teaches is inerrant, and that such inerrancy extends not just to spiritual truths but also to statements touching history and the natural world[8]. However, in defending this position Lagrange aptly exposed the ridiculous inconsistency of those “concordists” who try to defend one tenet of Scripture (i.e., the universal flood) by denying that another tenet (i.e., the young chronology) was ever upheld by the Church:

“Then came the turn of the philologists. It seemed to them that there would never have been time enough for the formation of languages had the Deluge swallowed up all mankind … but, in point of fact, the arguments of the scientists were only conclusive if biblical chronology were upheld…And so, when the universality of the Deluge was defended by this [concordist] school, they held that biblical chronology was non-existent. They went so far as to foster the delusion that Catholic opinion had never admitted a chronology, because it did not agree as to its limits: as though the differences of opinion, reached as the result of so much painful effort, did not suppose a common groundwork known to all.“[9] (emphasis added)

By the very admission of this preeminent modernist, to believe that the tradition of the Church on the biblical chronology was either non-existent, insubstantial, or due to mistaken exegesis, is delusional, but to accept an old universe is to believe that Scripture teaches falsehood. Therefore, the best option for a pious Catholic is to believe in the young universe – “young” only in relation to the uniformitarian extrapolations of naturalists, and not in relation to any objective chronology of the world.

Part 2 of the series on Pope Pius XI’s study of creation can be found below.

Reprinted with permission from the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation.

References
↑1 De hominis Origine Quoad Corpus, in Msgr. Frederick Sala, Institutiones positive-scholasticæ Theologiæ Dogmaticæ Tomus II: De Deo Uno et Trino – De Deo Creatore (1899), pgs. 197-211. For the original Latin see here. For English and Latin side-by-side, see here.
↑2 Ruffini, The Theory of Evolution Judged by Reason and Faith, trans. Francis O’Hanlon (Joseph F. Wagner, Inc.: New York, 1959), 135–37.
↑3 [St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part 1, q. 45. art. 1.]
↑4 Ibid, Part 1, q. 45, art. 4.
↑5 St. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book 3, Ch. 10.
↑6 Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, 15.
↑7 Vatican Council I, ch. 2 On Revelation, 9.
↑8 Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, 19-26.
↑9 Lagrange, Historical Criticism and the Old Testament (1905), Lecture IV, pgs. 134-135).]]> <![CDATA[Dom Guéranger on these Latter Days]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6822 Sun, 26 Jan 2025 12:11:15 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6822 Dom Guéranger on these Latter Days
The Liturgical Year, Vol. XI, pp. 426-429

Taken from here. January 25, 2025
Dom Prosper Guéranger, in his commentary on the Epistle of the 20th Sunday after Pentecost, offers a profound description of these times, when there is “an almost universal falling off” from infinite and unchangeable truth. These words can well be applied to our times, where the apostasy has reached the highest cupola of the Church and the sons of darkness seem to be victorious.

We know, however, that after God lets fall a great chastisement on mankind and on the Church representatives responsible for that great apostasy, Our Lady will intervene and we will see a time of peace and holiness, the Reign of Mary promised at Fatima and Ecuador.

Dom Guéranger:

It is then [in the Latter Days] more than at all previous times that the Faithful will have to remember the injunction given to us by the Apostle in today’s Epistle; that is, they will have to comport themselves with that circumspection which he enjoins, taking every possible care to keep their understanding, no less than their heart, pure in those evil days.

Supernatural light will, in those days, not only have to stand the attacks of the children of darkness, who will put forward their false doctrines; it will, moreover, be minimized and falsified by the very children of the light yielding on the question of principles; it will be endangered by the hesitations and trimmings and human prudence of those who are called far-seeing men.

Many will practically ignore the master truth, that the Church never can be overwhelmed by any created power. If they do remember that Our Lord has promised Himself to uphold His Church even to the end of the world, they will still have the impertinence to believe that they do a great service to the good cause by making certain politically clever concessions, which, if they were tried in the balance of the sanctuary, would be found under weight!

Those future worldly-wise people will quite forget that Our Lord will have no need for helping Him to keep His promise of crooked schemes, however shrewd those may be; they will entirely overlook this most elementary consideration - that the cooperation, which Jesus deigns to accept, at the hands of His servants in the defense of the rights of His Church never could consist in the garbling, or in the disguisement of those grant truths which constitute the power and beauty of the Bride.

Is it possible that they will forget the Apostle’s maxim, which he lays down in his Epistle to the Romans - that the conforming oneself to this world - the attempting an impossible adaptation of the Gospel to a world that is un-christianized is not the means for proving what is the good, and acceptable, and the perfect will of God. So that it will be a thing of great and rare merit, in many an occurrence of those unhappy times, to merely understand what is the will of God, as our Epistle expresses it.

Look to yourselves, would St. John say to those men, that ye lose not the things which ye have wrought; make yourselves sure of the full reward, which is only given to the persevering thoroughness of doctrine and faith!]]> Dom Guéranger on these Latter Days
The Liturgical Year, Vol. XI, pp. 426-429

Taken from here. January 25, 2025
Dom Prosper Guéranger, in his commentary on the Epistle of the 20th Sunday after Pentecost, offers a profound description of these times, when there is “an almost universal falling off” from infinite and unchangeable truth. These words can well be applied to our times, where the apostasy has reached the highest cupola of the Church and the sons of darkness seem to be victorious.

We know, however, that after God lets fall a great chastisement on mankind and on the Church representatives responsible for that great apostasy, Our Lady will intervene and we will see a time of peace and holiness, the Reign of Mary promised at Fatima and Ecuador.

Dom Guéranger:

It is then [in the Latter Days] more than at all previous times that the Faithful will have to remember the injunction given to us by the Apostle in today’s Epistle; that is, they will have to comport themselves with that circumspection which he enjoins, taking every possible care to keep their understanding, no less than their heart, pure in those evil days.

Supernatural light will, in those days, not only have to stand the attacks of the children of darkness, who will put forward their false doctrines; it will, moreover, be minimized and falsified by the very children of the light yielding on the question of principles; it will be endangered by the hesitations and trimmings and human prudence of those who are called far-seeing men.

Many will practically ignore the master truth, that the Church never can be overwhelmed by any created power. If they do remember that Our Lord has promised Himself to uphold His Church even to the end of the world, they will still have the impertinence to believe that they do a great service to the good cause by making certain politically clever concessions, which, if they were tried in the balance of the sanctuary, would be found under weight!

Those future worldly-wise people will quite forget that Our Lord will have no need for helping Him to keep His promise of crooked schemes, however shrewd those may be; they will entirely overlook this most elementary consideration - that the cooperation, which Jesus deigns to accept, at the hands of His servants in the defense of the rights of His Church never could consist in the garbling, or in the disguisement of those grant truths which constitute the power and beauty of the Bride.

Is it possible that they will forget the Apostle’s maxim, which he lays down in his Epistle to the Romans - that the conforming oneself to this world - the attempting an impossible adaptation of the Gospel to a world that is un-christianized is not the means for proving what is the good, and acceptable, and the perfect will of God. So that it will be a thing of great and rare merit, in many an occurrence of those unhappy times, to merely understand what is the will of God, as our Epistle expresses it.

Look to yourselves, would St. John say to those men, that ye lose not the things which ye have wrought; make yourselves sure of the full reward, which is only given to the persevering thoroughness of doctrine and faith!]]> <![CDATA[Fr. Coleridge [1884]: The Parable of the Cockle amid the Wheat]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6610 Sun, 10 Nov 2024 12:38:25 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6610 The Parable of the Cockle amid the Wheat
From The Training of the Apostles Vol. III
Fr Henry James Coleridge, 1884, Ch. IX, pp 148-159
St. Matt. xiii. 24–28, 36–53
Story of the Gospels, § 59-62
Sung at the Fifth Sunday after Epiphany and in one of the “spare” Sundays before Advent.
[Taken from here and here.]

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...9x945.jpeg]

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...9x945.jpeg]

The second sowing parable

Of the series of parables of which we are now speaking, there are two only which have been explained for us at length by our Lord Himself. These are the two first in order, and, as we may fairly conclude, those which He thus explained may have been considered by Him as of the very highest importance.

Taken together, and with the rest, they present a very complete view of the conditions under which the Gospel teaching has to be carried on in the world, and they explain the principles of the Divine government in that teaching in a manner which it would have been difficult to ascertain so clearly if we had not this distinct interpretation of the figures by our Lord Himself. It is well, therefore, to subjoin at once this parable, with its explanation, to the Parable of the Sower, and the interpretation of that parable given by our Lord.

Quote:‘Another parable He proposed to them, saying, The Kingdom of Heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seed in his field. But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat, and went his way. And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle.

‘And the servants of the good man of the house coming said to him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it cockle? And he said to them, an enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him, Wilt thou that we go and gather it up?

‘And he said, No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.’

Explained to the disciples

This parable, then, was delivered to the multitudes, as well as to the disciples, and afterwards explained to the latter alone.

Quote:‘Then having sent away the multitudes, He came to the house, and His disciples came to Him, saying, Expound to us the parable of the cockle of the field.

‘Who made answer, and said to them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of Man. And the field is the world, and the good seed are the children of the Kingdom, and the cockle are the children of the wicked one. And the enemy that soweth them is the devil. But the harvest is the end of the world, and the reapers are the angels. Even as cockle therefore is gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the world.

‘The Son of Man shall send His angels, and they shall gather out of His Kingdom all scandals and them that work iniquity, and shall cast them into the furnace, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the just shine as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.’

In the Parable of the Sower, our Lord had described Himself as content with a good deal of failure in the beneficent work which He had undertaken for mankind.

He had intimated that He knew that much of the good seed which He came to sow would be wasted, and He had described the various manners in which that waste would be brought about. In some cases the seed was to be snatched away by the devil, as the seed by the pathside is snatched up by the birds.

In other cases, the seed was to fall as it were on stony ground, and wither away, the hearts in which it had been sown being too shallow and weak to give it strength enough to withstand temptation and trial.

In other cases the souls in which the seed was sown would be engrossed by worldly cares and ambitions, by the love of riches and other temporal things, unsatisfying in themselves and unable to supply the soul with true happiness, but still attractive and deceitful enough to occupy the mind and heart to the exclusion of the true goods.

In these cases the good seed would be stifled and made unfruitful. On the other hand, He was to find His reward and the recompense of His labours in the good seed which would spring up and return Him thirty for one, or sixty for one, or even a hundred for one.

The action of the evil one

Here, then, our Lord had said but little of the action of the evil one on the world.

It is true He had given a most important lesson as to that action, for He had pointed out that the utter forgetfulness and inattention with which so many careless persons come to lose their opportunities, and to be as if they had never heard the good word, were due, not simply to their own recklessness, but to the direct action of the devil, taking the seed out of their hearts, whether by direct action on their memories, or by filling their minds with other thoughts and affections which were sufficient to exclude the thoughts of faith and religion and the work of grace.

But for the remainder of the mishaps which were to prevent the fruitfulness of the seed, our Lord said nothing which could hint at the positive activity of the spirit of evil in the field which was sown by the word of God. There remained, therefore, these two great features in the description to be added by a new parable.

The first of these was the further action of the evil one which our Lord would permit, according to the general laws on which the universe is now governed, and the second was the manner in which God acts with regard to this action of His enemy. These two great features, then, form the special subject of this second parable.

Transfer of the image

In the Parable of the Sower, it will have been remarked that there is a transition from one point to another, in the use of the image, from the seed sown, to the persons in whose souls the seed is sown with so many diversities of issue, as to fruitfulness or the reverse.

The seed is the word of God, and yet the seed sown or dropped by the wayside are the heedless hearers, the seed sown among the thorns or on the stony ground are those who fail in this or that way to profit by the grace of God. So in the parable now before us, the seed is said to be the children of the kingdom and the children of the wicked one respectively, while the Son of Man sows the first and the evil one sows the other.

This transfer of the image is necessary in this second parable, for in this there is question of the manner in which God will treat those who are occasions of evil and scandal in His Kingdom. The parable deals with persons rather than with things.

But for the strict interpretation of the parable according to the lines of theological truth, we must remember the language of the Parable of the Sower, in which the seed is in the first instance the word of God, and in the second instance the persons in whom the word of God is sown.

The devil has no power to create evil, and our Lord in His dealings with the world gives or offers graces to all. He does not create good souls, and leave evil souls to be created by His enemy.

The parable speaks of the result of the action of our Lord on the one hand and of the action of Satan on the other, as being good and evil men, but in the truth to which the parable corresponds the evil are not purely and originally evil, nor so absolutely corrupted as to be beyond hope of recovery, and the good are not so good as to be preserved from the possibility of becoming evil, although wheat cannot become cockle nor cockle wheat. What is permitted to the devil is to ape and imitate, as well as to thwart as far as lies in his power, the action of God.

Phenomenon represented by the cockle

Our Lord looked forward prophetically to the history of the Church—nor had He far to look, when He knew already that among His own chosen disciples there was one who would turn out a true child of the wicked one—and He saw that which would always be the marvel of His saints and the special cross of His dearest friends, that the field in which the Gospel seed was to be sown would, when the time came for the fruits of the sowing to become manifest to the outward eye, be found to be full of a growth which certainly was not of the Gospel.

This is a phenomenon for which no account was furnished, as has been said, in the former parable, and our Lord represents it as a matter of surprise and complaint to the servants of the good master of the field. Who these servants are we are not distinctly told by our Lord, but the fact that the angels are said in the end of the parable to be the reapers is hardly sufficient to make us conclude that the angels are not also these good and zealous friends of their Master, Who would fain purge His field at once of the weeds which had so suddenly appeared.

The unfolding of the Divine plan of the government of the world, and especially of the Church, is spoken of in Scripture as the great study of the angels, who have not by nature the knowledge of the future, and to whom the beautiful wisdom of God reveals itself gradually in the course of events.

Angels and saints

And besides the angels, God has always among His servants on earth many who spend their days and nights in the prayerful contemplation of the progress of events in the world and in the Church, and to such also, far more even than to the angels, the phenomena of human history, and especially of that part of it which concerns the fortunes of the Catholic Church, are the subject and occasion of continual amazement and wondering surprise.

The angels, no doubt, would willingly, if it were the will of God, exert their wonderful power in the destruction and removal at once of all scandals in the Church. And the chosen saints and servants of God yet upon earth, must burn with zeal at the sight of so much evil and so much mischief, and would gladly call down fire from Heaven, as Elias did, and as the two Apostles, the sons of Zebedee, would have done on an occasion mentioned in the Gospel history itself.

For the desolation and ruin produced in the fair field of the Church by the evils of which our Lord speaks, are certainly enough to make the hearts of the friends of God boil over with indignation, and with desire for redress.

Satan using men

It is remarkable that in the parable itself the answer which our Lord puts into the mouth of the good householder is not simply, as might be supposed from the common version, ‘an enemy hath done this,’ but ‘a man who is an enemy hath done this.’

And when our Lord comes to explain the figure which He has used, He says simply the enemy is the devil. It may be that we are meant to understand, even from the language used by our Lord, that though the arch enemy and the principal agent in the attempted ruin of the fair harvest is the devil, still he acts mainly through the instrumentality of men.

Heresy, and oversowing what has already been sown

Another truth which may be conveyed by this language is, that the evil agencies are always posterior in date to the good agencies. The devil sows over the ground which has already been sown by the Son of Man, he follows the lines and works over the work of God.

The Fathers are very fond of understanding this parable, in a particular manner, of heresies, rather than of other evils, which proceed, like heresies, from the evil spirit and his subordinates, and according to this interpretation, it is very easy to see the force of this remark about the manner in which the evil one acts in spoiling the work of God.

For all heresies are perversions of the truth, they require the truth of the Catholic doctrine as their foundation, they have no originality in themselves, and the devil their author has no creative power, he can but mar and distort and pull to pieces.

But it is not necessary to confine the meaning of this great parable, in which the agency of the devil is described, to that single department of his work which issues in the production of heresies, and what is so plainly true of his procedure in this one part of his work, is also true of his work in other ways. He is essentially a copyist, a mimic of God, as if his insane thought that he would be as God was always repeating and forcing itself upon him, as the poor animals who ape man in his ways, are never quiet or happy, while they see him do anything, without attempting themselves to mimic him.

The intense malignity of the character of Satan must not make us forget this feature in the same character—the feature of the most insane and foolish vanity, a feature very remarkable in those who have sold themselves to do his work in the world.

One of the surest tests of the heretical spirit is the unwillingness to acknowledge mistakes and misrepresentations, when they are pointed out, and this unwillingness is founded on personal vanity.

It may safely be said that a writer on the side of heresy or schism who shows any eagerness to acknowledge and correct the errors in statement into which he has fallen, is already half converted.

And yet the want of this simple honesty is one of the commonest characteristics of heretical controversialists, and it shows most clearly the spirit by which they are guided.

The sleep of the servants of God

Another point may here be noticed. As God in His dealings with mankind acts according to His own infinite wisdom and knowledge of human nature, and so of all that it requires and of all that is adapted to influence it, and to supply its wants and cravings, the plan which He has followed in His Kingdom must of necessity cover the whole ground and penetrate every department of humanity.

It is the plan of the enemy, therefore, to proceed on his own work of mischief wherever God has extended His own beneficent operations, and thus the work of the evil one is aptly described as the sowing of bad seed over the good seed which God has sown.

This is said in the parable to have been done while men slept, and if this particular also is to have its counterpart in the truth, we must understand that our Lord refers to the necessity of the utmost vigilance on the part of those who are responsible for the good estate of the field sown by Him, and to the truth that the beginning of the activity of the evil influences is to be traced, more or less, to the want of watchfulness on the part of the rulers of the Church.

This, however, may perhaps be pressing the figure too far, for nothing is said in the explanation of the parable by our Lord of this want of vigilance. It may be that He means us to understand that there is always a great deal going on in the unseen world around us, and with direct reference to ourselves and to the welfare or ruin of our souls, of which we can have no more perception than men can have of what goes on in the hours in which they are naturally wrapt up in sleep.

Satan befouling everything

These few words, then, of our Lord, ‘an enemy hath done this,’ contain the whole of what He tells us here of the ever-active and most malicious exertions of the evil one and his emissaries for the purpose of destroying the good work which God has begun in the world.

As the enemy passes over the field in which the footsteps of the sower of the good seed have gone before him, and leaves no part of that field unvisited and, as far as lies in him, unspoiled by the seeds of evil, such we must suppose our Lord means us to consider is the activity of the enemy in scattering his evil influences wherever our Lord has left behind Him the principles of good.

Alas! it is but too true that there is no part of the field to which Satan is forbidden to penetrate. Nothing is too sacred for him to befoul. It is natural enough to expect his work in those regions of society which are more especially under his influence, which we call, by pre-eminence, ‘the world,’ the mass of those who worship temporal goods and aims, and regulate their conduct by the maxims of time and not by those of eternity.

But the work of the enemy is not only here. It is to be found in the sanctuary itself.

The hierarchy, religious life, the home

The Church of God is provided by the care of its Founder with an admirably organized hierarchy, a complete army of selected souls, vowed especially to the service of the altar, to the life of prayer, to the ministration of the sacraments, to the government of the general body, to the defence of the true doctrine, and to the preaching of the Word of God.

It is Satan’s chiefest joy and greatest triumph when he can sow seeds of evil in the sanctuary and around the altar of God, and though he has never been allowed for long together, or to any overwhelming extent, to corrupt the ruling body and fill the sees of Christendom with prelates who might be described as legitimate successors rather of Annas and Caiaphas, than of the Twelve Apostles, still he has not been altogether without his successes in this most vital assault on the good work of God. Incalculable as have been the services to the Church of God of the great majority of her chief rulers, her history would be different indeed from what it is if the world had never been able to intrude its own children into their ranks.

Pride, vanity, worldliness, personal ambition, jealousy, avarice, nepotism, an indolent and a luxurious life—if such scandals as these had never been in the sanctuary of the Church, she might not at this moment have to lament the falling away of so many fair kingdoms which once owned her gentle sway. As a matter of fact, the greater number of heresies and schisms in the Church have had their origin in the clerical order itself, and in many cases they have arisen among ecclesiastics of the highest rank.

If Satan has been allowed to see the evil shoots manifest themselves in the very highest orders of the hierarchy, it is not wonderful that in other parts of the field of the good householder the same miserable enjoyment should not have been denied to him. The enclosed garden of religious life, the cultivated retreat in which evangelical counsels are made the rule of daily practice under the sanction of vows, this also has been invaded by the malignity of the evil one, and the souls most immediately consecrated to God have sometimes been the occasions of the greatest triumphs to His enemy.

As the ecclesiastical state has its own peculiar temptations, such as those which have been enumerated, so also are there found, among the religious communities, the seeds of evil particularly fatal in their case.

So again it has been in that other garden of beauty and fruitfulness in virtue, the holy domestic life of the Christian family, formed on the model of the holy home at Nazareth, and the cares of a household and the lawful worldly callings to which the members of such families are naturally devoted have been the occasion of a thousand seductions and of a thousand instances of forgetfulness of God.

Not a calling, not a profession, not a pursuit, from the most laborious scientific investigations to the simplest relaxations and recreations, into which some evil seed has not been cast, as it were, to occupy the ground. The whole of society may be looked on as a field sown by the hand of God and intended to return to Him the fair fruit of obedience to His law and glorification of His bounties and benefits to man.

And yet every department has its evil traditions and examples and principles asserted against those of God and of our Lord, nor can there be any truer picture either of the natural society of man or of the supernatural kingdom of the Church, than that which our Lord here gives, the picture of a field covered with two growths of seed side by side, the one good, the other evil.

‘An enemy hath done this’

This, then, is the chief part, so to say, of the parable, the declaration on the part of our Lord as to what was to be expected in the field in which the evangelical labourers were to spend their work—a picture true indeed of the history of the world before He came and before the foundation of the Gospel kingdom, but far more true prophetically, as a forecast, for the benefit and warning of the Apostles and those who were to come after them in their work for God.

For the true picture of the state of the world before the times of redemption might perhaps have more properly been said to be that of a field in which there was but, here and there, a faint trace of the Divine culture, a few shoots of good wheat among a forest of shoots of cockle.

But it was all the more surprising, after the work of our Lord and after the establishment of His Church, that even in that chosen field so carefully cultivated and fenced round, there were still to be these many shoots of the evil seed in every department and in every corner.

Our Lord knew what was in man, as it is said of Him by St. John. He did not need the experience, even of His own reception at the hands of the chosen nation, to show Him what was to be expected by His Church at the hands of the world.

But He knew also what was in Satan, and He knew how intense would be the fresh activity into which the enemy of God and man would be roused by his defeat and by the destruction of his kingdom and power in the world. He knew how he would fasten on all the weak points in man, and work all the lower influences of his nature against his own good, all the more zealously because he would see, in the new creation of the Church, a world capable of giving far more glory to God than that former natural world which he had been allowed to deface and to turn into a dominion of his own. And the whole process of the efforts of Satan in the Church and their issue is summed up in these few words of our Lord, ‘an enemy hath done this.’

Evil and the Kingdom of God

The enemy of God and man will not be excluded from making his malignant attempts on the fair field of the Church, as he was not prevented from assailing the beautiful and innocent creation of God when man was first made.

The evil which sin has introduced into man remains in the Kingdom of God as long as the time of probation lasts, that is, the conflict of the flesh and the spirit is to go on even in regenerate man, although immense forces of grace have been supplied to him for his easy victory in the conflict. And so neither is the activity of the evil spirits fettered or put an end to, though men are wonderfully stronger for resistance against these deadly enemies than they were before the coming of our Lord.

As a consequence of these two truths, the field of the world in which the good seed has been sown is to be still what it always was, a field in which good and evil grow up side by side, nor is there to be any part of it in which the work of the evil one is not to be rewarded by a kind of miserable success of its own.

How will God deal with it?

But then, the question rises up—it must certainly have risen up in the minds of the angels as they watched the progress of the Gospel Kingdom—how will God deal with the evil shoots which have covered so large a space on this field which He has sown and is to be continually sowing?

When evil sprang up in Heaven, God did not tolerate it. The evil shoots were uprooted at once and cast away. Even in the history of His dealings with man, the principle of swift vengeance and extermination has not unfrequently been followed.

Once the whole race of man was destroyed, except eight persons, and there had been other instances of summary chastisements, only less signal than that.

What is to be the law of God’s action in the government of His Church, or of the world into which He has sent forth His Church?

From Fr Henry James Coleridge, The Training of the Apostles Vol. III]]> The Parable of the Cockle amid the Wheat
From The Training of the Apostles Vol. III
Fr Henry James Coleridge, 1884, Ch. IX, pp 148-159
St. Matt. xiii. 24–28, 36–53
Story of the Gospels, § 59-62
Sung at the Fifth Sunday after Epiphany and in one of the “spare” Sundays before Advent.
[Taken from here and here.]

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...9x945.jpeg]

Quote:‘Another parable He proposed to them, saying, The Kingdom of Heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seed in his field. But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat, and went his way. And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle.

‘And the servants of the good man of the house coming said to him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it cockle? And he said to them, an enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him, Wilt thou that we go and gather it up?

‘And he said, No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.’

Explained to the disciples

This parable, then, was delivered to the multitudes, as well as to the disciples, and afterwards explained to the latter alone.

Quote:‘Then having sent away the multitudes, He came to the house, and His disciples came to Him, saying, Expound to us the parable of the cockle of the field.

‘Who made answer, and said to them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of Man. And the field is the world, and the good seed are the children of the Kingdom, and the cockle are the children of the wicked one. And the enemy that soweth them is the devil. But the harvest is the end of the world, and the reapers are the angels. Even as cockle therefore is gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the world.

‘The Son of Man shall send His angels, and they shall gather out of His Kingdom all scandals and them that work iniquity, and shall cast them into the furnace, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the just shine as the sun in the Kingdom of their Father. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.’

In the Parable of the Sower, our Lord had described Himself as content with a good deal of failure in the beneficent work which He had undertaken for mankind.

He had intimated that He knew that much of the good seed which He came to sow would be wasted, and He had described the various manners in which that waste would be brought about. In some cases the seed was to be snatched away by the devil, as the seed by the pathside is snatched up by the birds.

In other cases, the seed was to fall as it were on stony ground, and wither away, the hearts in which it had been sown being too shallow and weak to give it strength enough to withstand temptation and trial.

In other cases the souls in which the seed was sown would be engrossed by worldly cares and ambitions, by the love of riches and other temporal things, unsatisfying in themselves and unable to supply the soul with true happiness, but still attractive and deceitful enough to occupy the mind and heart to the exclusion of the true goods.

In these cases the good seed would be stifled and made unfruitful. On the other hand, He was to find His reward and the recompense of His labours in the good seed which would spring up and return Him thirty for one, or sixty for one, or even a hundred for one.

The action of the evil one

Here, then, our Lord had said but little of the action of the evil one on the world.

It is true He had given a most important lesson as to that action, for He had pointed out that the utter forgetfulness and inattention with which so many careless persons come to lose their opportunities, and to be as if they had never heard the good word, were due, not simply to their own recklessness, but to the direct action of the devil, taking the seed out of their hearts, whether by direct action on their memories, or by filling their minds with other thoughts and affections which were sufficient to exclude the thoughts of faith and religion and the work of grace.

But for the remainder of the mishaps which were to prevent the fruitfulness of the seed, our Lord said nothing which could hint at the positive activity of the spirit of evil in the field which was sown by the word of God. There remained, therefore, these two great features in the description to be added by a new parable.

The first of these was the further action of the evil one which our Lord would permit, according to the general laws on which the universe is now governed, and the second was the manner in which God acts with regard to this action of His enemy. These two great features, then, form the special subject of this second parable.

Transfer of the image

In the Parable of the Sower, it will have been remarked that there is a transition from one point to another, in the use of the image, from the seed sown, to the persons in whose souls the seed is sown with so many diversities of issue, as to fruitfulness or the reverse.

The seed is the word of God, and yet the seed sown or dropped by the wayside are the heedless hearers, the seed sown among the thorns or on the stony ground are those who fail in this or that way to profit by the grace of God. So in the parable now before us, the seed is said to be the children of the kingdom and the children of the wicked one respectively, while the Son of Man sows the first and the evil one sows the other.

This transfer of the image is necessary in this second parable, for in this there is question of the manner in which God will treat those who are occasions of evil and scandal in His Kingdom. The parable deals with persons rather than with things.

But for the strict interpretation of the parable according to the lines of theological truth, we must remember the language of the Parable of the Sower, in which the seed is in the first instance the word of God, and in the second instance the persons in whom the word of God is sown.

The devil has no power to create evil, and our Lord in His dealings with the world gives or offers graces to all. He does not create good souls, and leave evil souls to be created by His enemy.

The parable speaks of the result of the action of our Lord on the one hand and of the action of Satan on the other, as being good and evil men, but in the truth to which the parable corresponds the evil are not purely and originally evil, nor so absolutely corrupted as to be beyond hope of recovery, and the good are not so good as to be preserved from the possibility of becoming evil, although wheat cannot become cockle nor cockle wheat. What is permitted to the devil is to ape and imitate, as well as to thwart as far as lies in his power, the action of God.

Phenomenon represented by the cockle

Our Lord looked forward prophetically to the history of the Church—nor had He far to look, when He knew already that among His own chosen disciples there was one who would turn out a true child of the wicked one—and He saw that which would always be the marvel of His saints and the special cross of His dearest friends, that the field in which the Gospel seed was to be sown would, when the time came for the fruits of the sowing to become manifest to the outward eye, be found to be full of a growth which certainly was not of the Gospel.

This is a phenomenon for which no account was furnished, as has been said, in the former parable, and our Lord represents it as a matter of surprise and complaint to the servants of the good master of the field. Who these servants are we are not distinctly told by our Lord, but the fact that the angels are said in the end of the parable to be the reapers is hardly sufficient to make us conclude that the angels are not also these good and zealous friends of their Master, Who would fain purge His field at once of the weeds which had so suddenly appeared.

The unfolding of the Divine plan of the government of the world, and especially of the Church, is spoken of in Scripture as the great study of the angels, who have not by nature the knowledge of the future, and to whom the beautiful wisdom of God reveals itself gradually in the course of events.

Angels and saints

And besides the angels, God has always among His servants on earth many who spend their days and nights in the prayerful contemplation of the progress of events in the world and in the Church, and to such also, far more even than to the angels, the phenomena of human history, and especially of that part of it which concerns the fortunes of the Catholic Church, are the subject and occasion of continual amazement and wondering surprise.

The angels, no doubt, would willingly, if it were the will of God, exert their wonderful power in the destruction and removal at once of all scandals in the Church. And the chosen saints and servants of God yet upon earth, must burn with zeal at the sight of so much evil and so much mischief, and would gladly call down fire from Heaven, as Elias did, and as the two Apostles, the sons of Zebedee, would have done on an occasion mentioned in the Gospel history itself.

For the desolation and ruin produced in the fair field of the Church by the evils of which our Lord speaks, are certainly enough to make the hearts of the friends of God boil over with indignation, and with desire for redress.

Satan using men

It is remarkable that in the parable itself the answer which our Lord puts into the mouth of the good householder is not simply, as might be supposed from the common version, ‘an enemy hath done this,’ but ‘a man who is an enemy hath done this.’

And when our Lord comes to explain the figure which He has used, He says simply the enemy is the devil. It may be that we are meant to understand, even from the language used by our Lord, that though the arch enemy and the principal agent in the attempted ruin of the fair harvest is the devil, still he acts mainly through the instrumentality of men.

Heresy, and oversowing what has already been sown

Another truth which may be conveyed by this language is, that the evil agencies are always posterior in date to the good agencies. The devil sows over the ground which has already been sown by the Son of Man, he follows the lines and works over the work of God.

The Fathers are very fond of understanding this parable, in a particular manner, of heresies, rather than of other evils, which proceed, like heresies, from the evil spirit and his subordinates, and according to this interpretation, it is very easy to see the force of this remark about the manner in which the evil one acts in spoiling the work of God.

For all heresies are perversions of the truth, they require the truth of the Catholic doctrine as their foundation, they have no originality in themselves, and the devil their author has no creative power, he can but mar and distort and pull to pieces.

But it is not necessary to confine the meaning of this great parable, in which the agency of the devil is described, to that single department of his work which issues in the production of heresies, and what is so plainly true of his procedure in this one part of his work, is also true of his work in other ways. He is essentially a copyist, a mimic of God, as if his insane thought that he would be as God was always repeating and forcing itself upon him, as the poor animals who ape man in his ways, are never quiet or happy, while they see him do anything, without attempting themselves to mimic him.

The intense malignity of the character of Satan must not make us forget this feature in the same character—the feature of the most insane and foolish vanity, a feature very remarkable in those who have sold themselves to do his work in the world.

One of the surest tests of the heretical spirit is the unwillingness to acknowledge mistakes and misrepresentations, when they are pointed out, and this unwillingness is founded on personal vanity.

It may safely be said that a writer on the side of heresy or schism who shows any eagerness to acknowledge and correct the errors in statement into which he has fallen, is already half converted.

And yet the want of this simple honesty is one of the commonest characteristics of heretical controversialists, and it shows most clearly the spirit by which they are guided.

The sleep of the servants of God

Another point may here be noticed. As God in His dealings with mankind acts according to His own infinite wisdom and knowledge of human nature, and so of all that it requires and of all that is adapted to influence it, and to supply its wants and cravings, the plan which He has followed in His Kingdom must of necessity cover the whole ground and penetrate every department of humanity.

It is the plan of the enemy, therefore, to proceed on his own work of mischief wherever God has extended His own beneficent operations, and thus the work of the evil one is aptly described as the sowing of bad seed over the good seed which God has sown.

This is said in the parable to have been done while men slept, and if this particular also is to have its counterpart in the truth, we must understand that our Lord refers to the necessity of the utmost vigilance on the part of those who are responsible for the good estate of the field sown by Him, and to the truth that the beginning of the activity of the evil influences is to be traced, more or less, to the want of watchfulness on the part of the rulers of the Church.

This, however, may perhaps be pressing the figure too far, for nothing is said in the explanation of the parable by our Lord of this want of vigilance. It may be that He means us to understand that there is always a great deal going on in the unseen world around us, and with direct reference to ourselves and to the welfare or ruin of our souls, of which we can have no more perception than men can have of what goes on in the hours in which they are naturally wrapt up in sleep.

Satan befouling everything

These few words, then, of our Lord, ‘an enemy hath done this,’ contain the whole of what He tells us here of the ever-active and most malicious exertions of the evil one and his emissaries for the purpose of destroying the good work which God has begun in the world.

As the enemy passes over the field in which the footsteps of the sower of the good seed have gone before him, and leaves no part of that field unvisited and, as far as lies in him, unspoiled by the seeds of evil, such we must suppose our Lord means us to consider is the activity of the enemy in scattering his evil influences wherever our Lord has left behind Him the principles of good.

Alas! it is but too true that there is no part of the field to which Satan is forbidden to penetrate. Nothing is too sacred for him to befoul. It is natural enough to expect his work in those regions of society which are more especially under his influence, which we call, by pre-eminence, ‘the world,’ the mass of those who worship temporal goods and aims, and regulate their conduct by the maxims of time and not by those of eternity.

But the work of the enemy is not only here. It is to be found in the sanctuary itself.

The hierarchy, religious life, the home

The Church of God is provided by the care of its Founder with an admirably organized hierarchy, a complete army of selected souls, vowed especially to the service of the altar, to the life of prayer, to the ministration of the sacraments, to the government of the general body, to the defence of the true doctrine, and to the preaching of the Word of God.

It is Satan’s chiefest joy and greatest triumph when he can sow seeds of evil in the sanctuary and around the altar of God, and though he has never been allowed for long together, or to any overwhelming extent, to corrupt the ruling body and fill the sees of Christendom with prelates who might be described as legitimate successors rather of Annas and Caiaphas, than of the Twelve Apostles, still he has not been altogether without his successes in this most vital assault on the good work of God. Incalculable as have been the services to the Church of God of the great majority of her chief rulers, her history would be different indeed from what it is if the world had never been able to intrude its own children into their ranks.

Pride, vanity, worldliness, personal ambition, jealousy, avarice, nepotism, an indolent and a luxurious life—if such scandals as these had never been in the sanctuary of the Church, she might not at this moment have to lament the falling away of so many fair kingdoms which once owned her gentle sway. As a matter of fact, the greater number of heresies and schisms in the Church have had their origin in the clerical order itself, and in many cases they have arisen among ecclesiastics of the highest rank.

If Satan has been allowed to see the evil shoots manifest themselves in the very highest orders of the hierarchy, it is not wonderful that in other parts of the field of the good householder the same miserable enjoyment should not have been denied to him. The enclosed garden of religious life, the cultivated retreat in which evangelical counsels are made the rule of daily practice under the sanction of vows, this also has been invaded by the malignity of the evil one, and the souls most immediately consecrated to God have sometimes been the occasions of the greatest triumphs to His enemy.

As the ecclesiastical state has its own peculiar temptations, such as those which have been enumerated, so also are there found, among the religious communities, the seeds of evil particularly fatal in their case.

So again it has been in that other garden of beauty and fruitfulness in virtue, the holy domestic life of the Christian family, formed on the model of the holy home at Nazareth, and the cares of a household and the lawful worldly callings to which the members of such families are naturally devoted have been the occasion of a thousand seductions and of a thousand instances of forgetfulness of God.

Not a calling, not a profession, not a pursuit, from the most laborious scientific investigations to the simplest relaxations and recreations, into which some evil seed has not been cast, as it were, to occupy the ground. The whole of society may be looked on as a field sown by the hand of God and intended to return to Him the fair fruit of obedience to His law and glorification of His bounties and benefits to man.

And yet every department has its evil traditions and examples and principles asserted against those of God and of our Lord, nor can there be any truer picture either of the natural society of man or of the supernatural kingdom of the Church, than that which our Lord here gives, the picture of a field covered with two growths of seed side by side, the one good, the other evil.

‘An enemy hath done this’

This, then, is the chief part, so to say, of the parable, the declaration on the part of our Lord as to what was to be expected in the field in which the evangelical labourers were to spend their work—a picture true indeed of the history of the world before He came and before the foundation of the Gospel kingdom, but far more true prophetically, as a forecast, for the benefit and warning of the Apostles and those who were to come after them in their work for God.

For the true picture of the state of the world before the times of redemption might perhaps have more properly been said to be that of a field in which there was but, here and there, a faint trace of the Divine culture, a few shoots of good wheat among a forest of shoots of cockle.

But it was all the more surprising, after the work of our Lord and after the establishment of His Church, that even in that chosen field so carefully cultivated and fenced round, there were still to be these many shoots of the evil seed in every department and in every corner.

Our Lord knew what was in man, as it is said of Him by St. John. He did not need the experience, even of His own reception at the hands of the chosen nation, to show Him what was to be expected by His Church at the hands of the world.

But He knew also what was in Satan, and He knew how intense would be the fresh activity into which the enemy of God and man would be roused by his defeat and by the destruction of his kingdom and power in the world. He knew how he would fasten on all the weak points in man, and work all the lower influences of his nature against his own good, all the more zealously because he would see, in the new creation of the Church, a world capable of giving far more glory to God than that former natural world which he had been allowed to deface and to turn into a dominion of his own. And the whole process of the efforts of Satan in the Church and their issue is summed up in these few words of our Lord, ‘an enemy hath done this.’

Evil and the Kingdom of God

The enemy of God and man will not be excluded from making his malignant attempts on the fair field of the Church, as he was not prevented from assailing the beautiful and innocent creation of God when man was first made.

The evil which sin has introduced into man remains in the Kingdom of God as long as the time of probation lasts, that is, the conflict of the flesh and the spirit is to go on even in regenerate man, although immense forces of grace have been supplied to him for his easy victory in the conflict. And so neither is the activity of the evil spirits fettered or put an end to, though men are wonderfully stronger for resistance against these deadly enemies than they were before the coming of our Lord.

As a consequence of these two truths, the field of the world in which the good seed has been sown is to be still what it always was, a field in which good and evil grow up side by side, nor is there to be any part of it in which the work of the evil one is not to be rewarded by a kind of miserable success of its own.

How will God deal with it?

But then, the question rises up—it must certainly have risen up in the minds of the angels as they watched the progress of the Gospel Kingdom—how will God deal with the evil shoots which have covered so large a space on this field which He has sown and is to be continually sowing?

When evil sprang up in Heaven, God did not tolerate it. The evil shoots were uprooted at once and cast away. Even in the history of His dealings with man, the principle of swift vengeance and extermination has not unfrequently been followed.

Once the whole race of man was destroyed, except eight persons, and there had been other instances of summary chastisements, only less signal than that.

What is to be the law of God’s action in the government of His Church, or of the world into which He has sent forth His Church?

From Fr Henry James Coleridge, The Training of the Apostles Vol. III]]> <![CDATA['Legal apostasy of society'—Pope Leo XIII's devastating letter on religious liberty]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6553 Thu, 24 Oct 2024 10:59:23 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6553 'Legal apostasy of society'—Pope Leo XIII's devastating letter on religious liberty
What would Leo XIII have made of Vatican II’s declaration of religious liberty?

And what would he have made of those who say that it is compatible with his teaching?

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...4x1094.png]

WM Review | Oct 23, 2024

Editors’ Notes

“Christ is King” has become a popular slogan, but it’s not always clear that people understand its meaning, context or implications.

By 1889, the Emperor of Brazil Pedro II was declining. He was weary of his reign and doubted that the Brazilian monarchy would continue after his death.

In June 1889, the Cabinet tried to preserve the Empire by proposing a raft of liberalising reforms—including “liberty of worship” and “liberty of education.” Pope Leo XIII wrote the letter É giunto to Pedro II against these measures, explaining their opposition to the Catholic religion, and the grave dangers which they posed.

In fact, two particular measures were primary ways in which Christ’s kingship was denied throughout the nations of the world—and a primary reason for Pius XI’s establishment of the feast of Christ the King in 1925.

The measures were indeed blocked by the conservative General Chamber, but this was not enough to save the monarchy. In December 1889, a few months later, the First Brazilian Republic was declared, Pedro II was deposed and exiled, and the monarchy was abolished.

It should not be understood that the failure of these proposals is what cause the collapse of the Brazilian monarchy. There were many other factors: for example, the recent abolition of slavery without compensation to slaveholders caused unrest amongst the latter, whilst the hostility caused by the long continuation of slavery itself did not vanish with abolition. There were various restrictions on military officers which also led to dissatisfaction there.

This letter has not, to our knowledge, been translated into English before. This is lamentable as it contains many powerful explanations of the Catholic doctrine of Church-state relations.

For example, Leo XIII tells us that…

“Liberty of worship” and “liberty of education” are deceitful names for ideas that “proclaim the legal apostasy of society from its Divine Author”

These ideas were completely untenable for any Catholic, as well as being irrational in themselves (for the reasons discussed below)

They are detrimental even for the temporal good of society, let alone the eternal good of souls.

Although Leo XIII doesn’t use the term “religious liberty” in this letter, this concept sums up the liberty of worship and of education, and it is used as such by Leo and other popes up to Vatican II.

But what would Leo XIII have made of Vatican II’s declaration of religious liberty?

And what would he have made of those who try to defend it as compatible with his teaching and with Catholic tradition?

To ask such questions is to answer them.

Pope Leo XIII
Letter È Giunto
On liberty of worship and of education in Brazil
To Pedro II, Emperor of Brazil
1889. Available in Italian at Vatican.va
Translated with headings and some line breaks added by The WM Review

Your Majesty,

It has come to Our attention that in the programme of the new Brazilian Ministry, there are some projects that touch upon the most vital interests of religion and break the thread of the glorious traditions of your Empire. These would, if brought to completion, have the effect of…

Disturbing the peace of consciences
Weakening the religious sentiment among your Catholic populations
Preparing a future full of dangers for the Catholic Church as well as for civil society.

We refer to the “liberty of worship” and “liberty of teaching,” and the provisions associated which, though not openly stated in the government’s public declaration, leave no doubt as to their nature and quality.

It is not Our intention here to elaborate on all the arguments that stand against the introduction of the aforementioned projects. Speaking to Your Majesty, whose cultured and elevated spirit is well known, it will suffice to mention a few of the principal points.

“Liberty of Worship”

This “liberty of worship,” considered in relation to society, is based on a notion that the State—even in a Catholic nation—is not bound to profess or favour any particular religion; rather, that it should be indifferent to all, treating them as legally equal.

This “liberty” does not concern itself, therefore, with that de facto tolerance which, under certain circumstances, may be granted to dissident cults; rather, it is concerned with granting these cults the same rights that belong to the one true religion—which God established in the world, marking it with clear and distinct signs, so that all could recognise and embrace it.

Such “liberty,” therefore, places on the same level…

Truth and error
Faith and heresy
The Church of Jesus Christ and any other human institution

It establishes a deplorable and disastrous separation between human society and God who is its author; it leads to the sad consequence of the State’s indifference in matters of religion, or—what amounts to the same thing—its atheism.

The state’s duties to God

Yet no one can reasonably deny that civil society, no less than the individual, has duties towards God its Creator, its supreme Legislator, and its most provident Benefactor.

To break all bonds of subjection and respect to the Supreme Being, to refuse to honour His sovereign power and dominion, and to disregard the benefits society receives from Him is something condemned not only by faith, but also by reason and the general sentiment of even the ancient pagans. Even they based their public institutions and civil and military enterprises on the worship of the divinity, from whom they believed their prosperity and greatness were derived.

The harm done by this “liberty of worship”

But it would be superfluous to insist on these reflections. On other occasions, in public documents addressed to the Catholic world, We have demonstrated how erroneous is the doctrine of those who, under the seductive name of “liberty of worship,” proclaim the legal apostasy of society from its Divine Author.

What is of interest here, however, is that such “liberty” is the source of incalculable harm to both governments and peoples. Indeed, while religion commands citizens to obey legitimate authority as a divine ministry—prohibiting all seditious movements that might disturb public peace and order—it is all too evident that the State, by declaring itself indifferent to religion and demonstrating its disregard for it, deprives itself of the most powerful moral force, and separates itself from the true and natural principle from which all respect, loyalty, and love of the people are generated.

Furthermore, by neglecting its most holy duties towards God, the State not only forfeits this most effective means of ensuring the obedience and veneration of its citizens, but also undermines the religious sentiment in which the people find strength, resignation, and comfort to endure the hardships and miseries of life. This sets a pernicious example, made all the worse by the elevated status from which it originates.

Here, it will not be necessary to point out to Your Majesty that, especially in the present age when the need for the salutary influence of religion is felt more than ever, and given the ever-increasing moral and social disorders that are unsettling society, it cannot but be extremely dangerous and harmful to the public good to introduce into a Catholic country a system that can have no other result than to weaken or destroy in the population the only moral restraint capable of keeping them within the bounds of their duties.

Those nations which have embarked on this path of “renewal” have had, or still have, cause to lament…

The progressive increase of crimes, discord, and revolts,
The instability of power
All the moral and material ruins that are accumulating upon them.

Therefore, wise and impartial men, after long experience, have had to acknowledge that a people who lose their religious spirit are a people on the path to decline; and that, consequently, the only means of recalling them to salvation lies in the beneficent action of religion, which…

Alone effectively ensures respect for laws and constituted authorities
Alone awakens and stirs within man his conscience, that admirable power which reigns in the depths of the soul, presides over all his actions, approves or condemns them according to the norms of eternal justice, and provides the will with the strength and energy to do good.

And what would he have made of those who say that it is compatible with his teaching?

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...4x1094.png]

Disturbing the peace of consciences
Weakening the religious sentiment among your Catholic populations
Preparing a future full of dangers for the Catholic Church as well as for civil society.

Truth and error
Faith and heresy
The Church of Jesus Christ and any other human institution

The progressive increase of crimes, discord, and revolts,
The instability of power
All the moral and material ruins that are accumulating upon them.

Alone effectively ensures respect for laws and constituted authorities
Alone awakens and stirs within man his conscience, that admirable power which reigns in the depths of the soul, presides over all his actions, approves or condemns them according to the norms of eternal justice, and provides the will with the strength and energy to do good.

"Liberty of teaching"

But no less fraught with dire consequences in the social sphere is the so-called “liberty of teaching.”

Indeed, this grants broad licence to schools to disseminate theories and doctrines of every kind, even those most opposed to both natural and revealed truths.

Under the false pretext of “science”—whose true progress has not only never been hindered by faith, but has always been greatly advanced by it—those fundamental principles on which morality, justice, and religion rest are undermined or openly attacked.

As a result, the educational system deviates from its noble purpose, which is not only to produce knowledgeable individuals for society, but also honest ones—those who, by fulfilling their duties towards others, towards the family, and towards the State, help to secure the general well-being.

Instead of curbing the seeds of passions that breed selfishness, pride, and greed in the hearts of young people, and instead of encouraging the growth of sentiments and virtues that distinguish a good son, a good father, and a good citizen, the system becomes an instrument of corruption, leading the inexperienced youth down the path of doubt, error, and disbelief, and sowing within them the seeds of all pernicious tendencies.

These effects are all the more inevitable because, on the one hand, every monstrosity of opinion is given free rein; while on the other, once the principle of “free teaching” is established, the Church’s freedom and legitimate influence over the education of youth are hindered in countless ways.

Conclusion and appeal to the Emperor’s conscience

These few reflections, we are certain, will suffice to show Your Majesty the grievous evils that could arise from the proposed reforms in a country that has, until now, carefully preserved the precious inheritance of faith, and whose inhabitants remain so faithful to the holy traditions of their forefathers.

We do not wish to examine what other supplementary provisions might be alluded to in the Ministry's programme: the wording in which they are hinted at is vague and general, and could conceal further harmful innovations, among which might be the most pernicious of all (the so-called “civil marriage”) and other similar measures. However, we prefer to believe that the men whom Your Majesty’s sovereign trust has called to share in the responsibility of government will, in their political wisdom, understand how beneficial it is for a people to preserve intact the precious advantages of religious peace.

Above all, we trust that Your Majesty, in Your profound insight and constant attachment to the Catholic religion, of which We recently received a fresh and shining testimony through the wise and generous abolition of slavery within Your Empire, will never allow the foundations of a legislation that serves the true interests of the people and the sovereign authority that governs them to be altered, or an era of religious and social discord and unrest to be opened.

By averting such a disaster from Your Empire, Your Majesty will contribute effectively to its prosperity and will call down upon Yourself, upon Your August Family, and upon the Brazilian nation the blessings of heaven.

With this firm conviction, We wholeheartedly bestow upon Your Majesty and the entire Imperial Family Our Apostolic blessing.

From the Vatican, 19 July 1889.]]> <![CDATA[Outlines of New Testament History [1898]]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6550 Wed, 23 Oct 2024 13:41:03 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6550 OUTLINES OF NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY

BY REV. FRANCIS E. GIGOT, D.D., Mooney Professor of the Sacred Scriptures in St. Joseph’s Seminary Dunwoodie, New York.

SECOND AND REVISED EDITION

NEW YORK, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO. BENZIGER BROTHERS, PRINTERS TO THE PUBLISHERS OF HOLY APOSTOLIC SEE

Nihil Obstat. J. B. HOGAN, S.S., D.D., Censor Deputatus.

Imprimatur. † MICHAEL AUGUSTINE, Archbishop of New York. NEW YORK, July 20, 1898.

1898, BY BENZIGER BROTHERS.

PREFACE
THE present is a companion volume to the “Outlines of Jewish History” published some months ago. It deals with the historical data supplied by the inspired writings of the New Testament, in exactly the same manner as the preceding work did with the various events recorded in the sacred books of the Old Testament. In both volumes the writer has pursued the same purpose and followed the same methods.

Both works have been prepared for the special use of theological students, not, however, without the hope that they may prove serviceable to a much larger number of readers, such as teachers of Bible history in Sunday-schools, colleges, academies, and the like. In neither volume has it been the aim of the writer to supply a substitute for the Bible itself, but rather a help towards a more careful perusal of the inspired record. With this purpose in view, he has set forth such results of modern investigation as may render the sacred narrative more intelligible and attractive. Many of the difficulties which are daily being raised on historical grounds are also touched upon, and the biblical student is supplied with constant references to further sources of information.

Like the historical writings of the New Testament, the present volume contains two distinct, though very closely connected parts. The first part, gathered from the four narratives of our canonical gospels, describes the life and times of Our Lord; the second, based mainly on the book of the Acts, presents a brief sketch of the labors of Peter, Paul, James, and John, the leading apostles of Christ. The first part, under the title of “The Gospel History,” takes up the sacred narrative at the point where it was left in the “Outlines of Jewish History,” and deals with the three-and-thirty years of Our Lord’s mortal life; the second, entitled “The Apostolic History,” narrates the principal events connected with the planting and early spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire down to the year 98 A.D.

As an additional help to the student, two maps—one of Palestine in the Time of Our Lord, the other of the Roman Empire in the Apostolic Times—have been especially prepared, and will be found at the end of the volume, together with a Chronological Table established on the now commonly admitted fact that the birth of Our Lord took place some years before what is called the Christian era.

July 16, 1898.]]> OUTLINES OF NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY

BY REV. FRANCIS E. GIGOT, D.D., Mooney Professor of the Sacred Scriptures in St. Joseph’s Seminary Dunwoodie, New York.

SECOND AND REVISED EDITION

NEW YORK, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO. BENZIGER BROTHERS, PRINTERS TO THE PUBLISHERS OF HOLY APOSTOLIC SEE

Nihil Obstat. J. B. HOGAN, S.S., D.D., Censor Deputatus.

Imprimatur. † MICHAEL AUGUSTINE, Archbishop of New York. NEW YORK, July 20, 1898.

1898, BY BENZIGER BROTHERS.

PREFACE
THE present is a companion volume to the “Outlines of Jewish History” published some months ago. It deals with the historical data supplied by the inspired writings of the New Testament, in exactly the same manner as the preceding work did with the various events recorded in the sacred books of the Old Testament. In both volumes the writer has pursued the same purpose and followed the same methods.

Both works have been prepared for the special use of theological students, not, however, without the hope that they may prove serviceable to a much larger number of readers, such as teachers of Bible history in Sunday-schools, colleges, academies, and the like. In neither volume has it been the aim of the writer to supply a substitute for the Bible itself, but rather a help towards a more careful perusal of the inspired record. With this purpose in view, he has set forth such results of modern investigation as may render the sacred narrative more intelligible and attractive. Many of the difficulties which are daily being raised on historical grounds are also touched upon, and the biblical student is supplied with constant references to further sources of information.

Like the historical writings of the New Testament, the present volume contains two distinct, though very closely connected parts. The first part, gathered from the four narratives of our canonical gospels, describes the life and times of Our Lord; the second, based mainly on the book of the Acts, presents a brief sketch of the labors of Peter, Paul, James, and John, the leading apostles of Christ. The first part, under the title of “The Gospel History,” takes up the sacred narrative at the point where it was left in the “Outlines of Jewish History,” and deals with the three-and-thirty years of Our Lord’s mortal life; the second, entitled “The Apostolic History,” narrates the principal events connected with the planting and early spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire down to the year 98 A.D.

As an additional help to the student, two maps—one of Palestine in the Time of Our Lord, the other of the Roman Empire in the Apostolic Times—have been especially prepared, and will be found at the end of the volume, together with a Chronological Table established on the now commonly admitted fact that the birth of Our Lord took place some years before what is called the Christian era.

July 16, 1898.]]> <![CDATA[Audio: Dom Marmion - Christ, the Ideal of the Monk]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6313 Sat, 20 Jul 2024 10:54:29 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6313 NB: Video #1 seems to be missing from this 30-video playlist

]]> NB: Video #1 seems to be missing from this 30-video playlist

]]> <![CDATA[Dom Guéranger: Who Are the Infidels & the Heretics?]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6108 Sun, 28 Apr 2024 09:08:57 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6108 Who Are the Infidels & the Heretics?
Dom Guéranger , The Liturgical Year, Vol 8, Paschal Time, Book II, Monday of the Fourth Week.

TIA | April 27, 2024

The great French Benedictine Abbot Dom Prosper Guéranger provides us a simple definition of infidel and heretic, words sadly missing from our Catholic vocabulary today, and often misunderstood. The infidel is the man who does not know the Catholic Faith. The heretic is one who deviates, even in the slightest matter, from the teaching of the Magisterium. It seems to us very important to know and understand that both are placed outside the Catholic Church and salvation, even should they be in the highest cubicles of the Church.

Dom Prosper Guéranger

O holy Word of God! O holy Revelation! Through thee are we admitted into divine Mysteries, which human Reason could never reach. We love thee, and are resolved to be submissive to thee. It is thou that givest rise to the grand virtue, without which it is impossible to please God (Heb 6: 6); the virtue which commences the work of man's salvation, and without which this work could neither be continued nor finished. This virtue is Faith.

It makes our reason bow down to the Word of God. There comes from its divine obscurity a light far more glorious than are all the conclusions of reason, how great soever may be their evidence. This virtue is to be the bond of union in the new society, which Our Lord is now organising. To become a member of this society, man must begin by believing; that he may continue to be a member. He must never, not even for one moment, waver in his faith.

We shall soon be hearing Our Lord saying these words: He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be condemned. (Mk 16:16) The more clearly to express the necessity of Faith, the members of the Church are to be called by the beautiful name of the Faithful: they who do not believe, are to be called Infidels.

Faith, then, being the first link of the supernatural union between man and God, it follows that this union ceases when Faith is broken, that is, denied; and that he, who after having once been thus united to God breaks the link by rejecting the word of God, and substituting error in its place, commits one of the greatest of crimes. Such a one will be called a Heretic, that is, one who separates himself; and the Faithful will tremble at his apostacy.

Even were his rebellion to the Revealed Word to fall upon only one article, still he commits enormous blasphemy; for he either separates himself from God as being a deceiver, or he implies that his own created, weak, and limited reason is superior to eternal and infinite Truth.

As time goes on, Heresies will rise up, each attacking some dogma or other; so that scarcely one truth will be left unassailed... and that time is our own…]]> <![CDATA[THE EXORCISM OF NICOLA AUBREY By Father Michael Muller, C.SS.R.]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6100 Thu, 25 Apr 2024 09:39:35 +0000 ThyWillBeDone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6100
THE EXORCISM OF NICOLA AUBREY

By Father Michael Muller, C.SS.R.

It is indeed a remarkable fact that, as the devil made use of Luther, an apostate monk, to abolish the Mass and deny the Real Presence; in like manner, God made use of His arch-enemy, the devil, to prove the Real Presence. He repeatedly forced him publicly to profess his firm belief in it, to confound the heretics for their disbelief, and acknowledge himself vanquished by Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

For this purpose, God allowed a certain Mme. Nicola Aubrey, an innocent person, to become possessed by Beelzebub and twenty-nine other evil spirits. The possession took place on the eighth of November, 1565, and lasted until the eighth of February, 1566.

Her parents took her to Father de Motta, a pious priest of Vervins, in order that he might expel the demon by exorcisms of the Church.

Father de Motta tried several times to expel the evil spirit by applying the sacred relics of the holy cross, but he could not succeed; Satan would not depart. At last, inspired by the Holy Ghost, he resolved to expel the devil by means of the sacrament of Our Lord's Body and Blood. Whilst Nicola was lying in a state of unnatural lethargy, Father de Motta placed the Blessed Sacrament upon her lips, and instantly the infernal spell was broken;

Nicola was restored to consciousness, and received Holy Communion with every mark of devotion. As soon as Nicola had received the sacred Body of Our Lord, her face became bright and beautiful as the face of an angel, and all who saw her were filled with joy and wonder, and they blessed God from their inmost hearts. With the permission of God, Satan returned and again took possession of Nicola.

As the strange circumstances of Nicola's possession became known everywhere, several Calvinist preachers came with their followers, to "expose this popish cheat," as they said. On their entrance, the devil saluted them mockingly, called them by name, and told them that they had come in obedience to him.

One of the preachers took his Protestant prayer book, and began to read it with a very solemn face. The devil laughed at him, and putting on a most comical look, he said: "Ho! Ho! My good friend; do you intend to expel me with your prayers and hymns? Do you think that they will cause me any pain? Don't you know that they are mine? I helped to compose them!"

"I will expel thee in the name of God," said the preacher, solemnly.

"You!" said the devil mockingly. "You will not expel me either in the name of God, or in the name of the devil. Did you ever hear of one devil driving out another?"

"I am not a devil," said the preacher, angrily, "I am a servant of Christ."

"A servant of Christ, indeed!" said Satan, with a sneer. "What! I tell you, you are worse than I am. I believe, and you do not want to believe.

Do you suppose that you can expel me from the body of this miserable wretch? Ha! Go first and expel all the devils that are in your own heart!"

The preacher took his leave, somewhat discomfited. On going away, he said, turning up the whites of his eyes, "O Lord, I pray thee, assist this poor creature!"

"And I pray Lucifer," cried the evil spirit, "that he may never leave you, but may always keep you firmly in his power, as he does now. Go about your business, now. You are all mine, and I am your master."

On the arrival of the priest, several of the Protestants went away ï¿½ they had seen and heard more than they wanted. Others, however, remained; and great was their terror when they saw how the devil writhed and howled in agony, as soon as the Blessed Sacrament was brought near him. At last the evil spirit departed, leaving Nicola in a state of unnatural trance. While she was in this state, several of the preachers tried to open her eyes, but they found it impossible to do so. The priest then placed the Blessed Sacrament on Nicola's lips, and instantly she was restored to consciousness.

Rev. Father de Motta then turned to the astonished preachers, and said: "Go now, ye preachers of the new Gospel; go and relate everywhere what you have seen and heard. Do not deny any longer that Our Lord Jesus Christ is really and truly present in the Blessed Sacrament of the altar. Go now, and let not human respect hinder you from confessing the truth."

During the exorcisms of the following days, the devil was forced to confess that he was not to be expelled at Vervins, and that he had with him twenty-nine devils, among whom were three powerful demons: Cerberus, Astaroth, and Legio. On the third of January, 1566, the bishop arrived at Vervins, and began the exorcism in the church, in the presence of an immense multitude. null

"I command thee, in the name and by power of the real presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, to depart instantly," said the bishop to Satan in a solemn voice.

Satan was, at last, expelled the second time by means of the Blessed Sacrament. On leaving, he paralyzed the left arm and right foot of Nicola, and also made her left arm longer than her right; and no power on earth could cure this strange infirmity, until some weeks after, when the devil was at last completely and irrevocably expelled. Nicola was now taken to the celebrated pilgrimage of Our Lady at Liesse, especially since the devil seemed to fear that place so much.

Next day Father de Motta began the exorcism in the church of Our Lady at Liesse, in the presence of an immense multitude. He took the Blessed Sacrament in his hand, and, showing it to the demon, he said: "I command thee, in the name of the living God, the great Emmanuel Whom thou seest here present, and in Whom thou believest."

"Ah, yes!" shrieked the demon, "I believe in Him." And the devil howled again as he made this confession, for it was wrung from him by the power of Almighty God.

"I command thee, then, in His Name," said the priest, "to quit this body instantly."

At these words, and especially at the sight of the Blessed Sacrament, the devil suffered the most frightful torture. At one moment the body of Nicola was rolled up like a ball; then again she became fearfully swollen. At one time her face was unnaturally lengthened, then excessively widened, and sometimes it was as red as scarlet. Her eyes, at times, protruded horribly, and then again sunk deeply into her skull. Her tongue hung down to her chin; it was sometimes black, sometimes red, and sometimes spotted like a toad. The priest still continued to urge and torture Satan. "Accursed spirit!" he cried, "I command thee, in the Name and by the real presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ here in the Blessed Sacrament, to depart instantly from the body of this poor creature.

"Ah, yes!" cried Satan, howling wildly, "twenty-six of my companions shall leave this instant, for they are forced to do so."

The people in the church now began to pray with great fervor. Suddenly Nicola's limbs began to crack, as if every bone in her body were breaking; a pestilential vapor came forth from her mouth, and twenty-six devils departed from her, never more to return. Nicola then fell into an unnatural swoon, from which she was aroused only by the Blessed Sacrament. On recovering her senses, and receiving holy communion, Nicola's face shone like the face of an angel. The priest still continued to urge the demon, and used every means to expel him.

"I will not leave, unless commanded by the bishop of Leon," answered the demon, angrily.

Nicola was now taken to Pierrepont, where one of the demons, name Legio, was expelled by means of the Blessed Sacrament. Next morning Nicola was brought to the church. Scarcely had she quitted the house, when the devil again took possession of her.

The bishop who was requested to exorcise Nicola, prepared himself for this terrible task by prayer and fasting, and other works of penance. On arrival of Nicola in the Church, the exorcism began. "How many are you in this body?" asked the bishop.

"There are three of us," answered the evil spirit.

"What are your names?"

"Beelzebub, Cerberus, and Astaroth."

"What has become of the others?" asked the bishop.

"They have been expelled," answered Satan.

"Who expelled them?"

"Ha!" cried the devil, gnashing his teeth, "it was He whom you hold in your hand, there on the paten." The devil meant our dear Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

The bishop then held the Blessed Sacrament near the face of Nicola. The demon writhed and howled in agony. "Ah, yes! I will go, I will go!" he shrieked, "but I shall return."

Suddenly Nicola became stiff and motionless as marble. The bishop then touched her lips with the Blessed Sacrament, and in an instant she was fully restored to consciousness. She received holy communion, and her countenance now shone with a wondrous, supernatural beauty. Next day Nicola was brought again to the Church, and the exorcism began as usual.

The bishop took the Blessed Sacrament in his hand, held it near the face of Nicola, and said:

"I command thee in the name of the living God, and by the real presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ here in the sacrament of the altar, to depart instantly from the body of this creature of God, and never more to return."

"No! No!" shrieked the devil, "I will not go. My hour is not yet come."

"I command thee to depart. Go forth, impure, accursed spirit! Go forth!" and the bishop held the Blessed Sacrament close to Nicola's face.

"Stop! stop!", shrieked Satan; "let me go! I will depart ï¿½ but I shall return." And instantly Nicola fell into the most frightful convulsions. A black smoke was seen issuing from her mouth, and she fell again into a swoon.

During her stay in Leon, Nicola was carefully examined by Catholic and Protestant physicians. Her left arm, which had been paralyzed by the devil, was found entirely without feeling. The doctors cut into the arm with a sharp knife; they burnt it with fire; they drove pins and needles under the nails of the fingers; but Nicola felt not pain; her arm was utterly insensible. Once, while Nicola was lying in a state of unnatural lethargy, the doctors gave her some bread soaked in wine (it was what the Protestants call their communion, or Lord's Supper); they rubbed her limbs briskly; they threw water in her face; they pierced her tongue until the blood flowed; they tried every possible means to arouse her, but in vain! Nicola remained cold and motionless as marble. At last, the priest touched the lips of Nicola with the Blessed Sacrament, and instantly she was restored to consciousness, and began to praise God.

The miracle was so clear, so palpable, that one of the doctors, who was a bigoted Calvinist, immediately renounced his errors, and became a Catholic. Several times, also, the Protestants touched Nicola's face with a host which was not consecrated, and which, consequently, was only bread, but Satan was not the least tormented by this. He only ridiculed their efforts.

On the twenty-seventh of January, the bishop, after having walked in solemn procession with the clergy and the faithful, began the exorcism in church, in the presence of a vast multitude of Protestants and Catholics. The bishop now held the Blessed Sacrament close to the face of Nicola. Suddenly a wild, unearthly yell rings through the air -- a black, heavy smoke issues from the mouth of Nicola. The demon Astaroth is expelled forever. During the exorcism which took place on the first of February, the bishop said:

"O accursed spirit! Since neither prayer, nor the holy gospels, neither the exorcisms of the Church, nor the holy relics, can compel thee to depart, I will now show thee thy Lord and Master, and by His power I command thee."

During the exorcism, which took place after Mass, the bishop held the Blessed Sacrament in his hand, and said: "O accursed spirit, arch-enemy of the ever-blessed God! I command thee, by the precious blood of Jesus Christ here present, to depart from this poor woman!

Depart accursed, into the everlasting flames of hell!"

At these words, and especially at the sight of the Blessed Sacrament, the demon was so fearfully tormented, and the appearance of Nicola was so hideous and revolting, that the people turned away their eyes in horror. At last a heavy sigh was heard, and a cloud of black smoke issued from the mouth of Nicola. Cerberus was expelled. Again Nicola fell into a death-like swoon, and again she was brought to consciousness only by means of the Blessed Sacrament. During the exorcism which took place on the seventh day of February, the bishop said to Satan:

"Tell me. Why hast thou taken possession of this honest and virtuous Catholic woman?"

"I have done so by permission of God. I have taken possession of her on account of the sins of the people. I have done it to show my Calvinists that there are devils who can take possession of man whenever God permits it. I know they do not want to believe this, but I will show them that I am the devil. I have taken possession of this creature in order to convert them, or to harden them in their sins; and, by the Sacred Blood, I will perform my task."

This answer filled all who heard it with horror. "Yes," answered the bishop, solemnly, "God desires to unite all men in the only holy faith. As there is but one God, so there can be but one true religion. A religion like that which the Protestants have invented, is but a hollow mockery. It must fall. The religion established by Our Lord Jesus Christ is the only true one; it alone shall last forever. It is destined to unite all men within its sacred embrace, so that there shall be but one sheepfold and one shepherd. This divine Shepherd is Our Lord Jesus Christ, the invisible head of the holy Roman Catholic Church, whose visible head is our holy Father the Pope, successor of St. Peter."

The devil was silent ï¿½ he was put to shame before the entire multitude. He was expelled once more by means of the Blessed Sacrament. In the afternoon of the same day the devil began to cry: "Ah! Ha! You think that you can expel me in this way. You have not the proper attendance of a bishop. Where are the dean and the archdean? Where are the royal judges? Where is the chief magistrate, who was frightened out of his wits that night, in the prison? Where is the procurator of the king? Where are his attorneys and counselors? Where is the clerk of the court?" (The devil mentioned each of these by name.) "I will not depart until all are assembled. Were I to depart now, what proof could you give to the king of all that has happened? Do you think that people will believe you so easily? No! No! There are many who would make objections. The testimony of these common country-people here will have but little weight. It is a torment to me that I must tell you what you have to do. I am forced to do it. Ha! Cursed be the hour in which I first took possession of this vile wretch.

"I find little pleasure in thy prating," answered the bishop. "There are witnesses enough here. Those whom you have mentioned are not necessary. Depart! then; give glory to God. Depart ï¿½ go to the flames of hell!"

"Yes, I shall depart, but not today. I know full well that I must depart. My sentence is passed; I am compelled to leave."

"I care not for thy jabbering," said the bishop, "I shall expel thee by the power of God: by the Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ."

"Yes, I must yield to you," shrieked the demon wildly. "It tortures me that I must give you this honor."

The bishop now took the Blessed Sacrament in his hand, and held it close to the face of the possessed woman. At last, Satan was compelled to flee once more. The next morning, after the procession was ended, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was offered up as usual. During the consecration, the possessed woman was twice raised over six feet into the air, and then fell back heavily upon the platform. As the bishop, just before the Pater Noster, took the Sacred Host once more in his hand, and raised it with the chalice, the possessed woman was again whisked into the air, carrying with her the keepers, fifteen in number, at least six feet above the platform; and, after a while, she fell heavily back on the ground.

At this sight, all present were filled with amazement and terror. A German Protestant named Voske fell on his knees; he burst into tears; he was converted. "Ah!" cried he, "I now believe firmly that the devil really possesses this poor creature. I believe that it is really the body and blood of Jesus Christ which expels him. I believe firmly. I will no longer remain a Protestant." After Mass, the exorcism began as usual.

"Now, at last," said the bishop, "thou must depart. Away with thee, evil spirit!"

"Yes," said Satan, "it is true that I must depart, but not yet. I will not go before the hour is come in which I first took possession of this wretched creature."

At last the bishop took the Sacred Host in his hand, and said: "In the name of the adorable Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ï¿½ in the name of the sacred body of Jesus Christ here present ï¿½ I command thee, wicked spirit, to depart."

"Yes, yes, it is true!" shrieked the demon wildly; "It is true. It is the body of God. I must confess it, for I am forced to do so. Ha! It tortures me that I must confess this, but I must. I speak the truth only when I am forced to do it. The truth is not from me. It comes from my Lord and Master. I have entered this body by the permission of God."

The bishop now held the Blessed Sacrament close to the face of the possessed woman. The demon writhed in fearful agony. He tried in every way to escape from the presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. At length a black smoke was seen issuing from the mouth of Nicola. She fell into a swoon, and was restored to consciousness only by means of the Blessed Sacrament. The eighth of February, the day appointed by God on which Satan was to leave Nicola forever, arrived at last. After the solemn procession, the bishop began the last exorcism.

"I shall not ask thee any longer," said the bishop to Satan, "when thou intendest to leave, I will expel thee instantly by the power of the living God, and by the precious Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, His beloved Son, here present in the Sacrament of the Altar."

"Ha, yes!" shrieked the demon. "I confess that the Son of God is here really and truly present. He is my Lord and Master. It tortures me to confess it, but I am forced to do so." Then he repeated several times, with a wild, unearthly howl: "Yes, it is true. I must confess it. I am forced to leave, by the power of God's body here present. I must ï¿½ I must depart. It torments me that I must go so soon, and that I must confess this truth. But this truth is not from me; it comes from my Lord and Master, who has sent me hither, and who commands and compels me to confess the truth publicly."

The bishop then took the Blessed Sacrament in his hand, and, holding it on high, he said, with a solemn voice: "O thou wicked, unclean spirit, Beelzebub! Thou arch-enemy of the eternal God! Behold, here present, the precious Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, thy Lord and Master! I adjure thee, in the name and by the power of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, true God and true man, who is here present; I command thee to depart instantly and forever from this creature of God. Depart to the deepest depth of hell, there to be tormented forever. Go forth, unclean spirit, go forth ï¿½ behold here thy Lord and Master!"

At these solemn words, and at the sight of our sacramental Lord, the poor possessed woman writhed fearfully. Her limbs cracked as if every bone in her body were breaking. The fifteen strong men who held her, could scarcely keep her back. They staggered from side to side; they were covered with perspiration. Satan tried to escape from the presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. The mouth of Nicola was wide open, her tongue hung down below her chin, her face was shockingly swollen and distorted. Her color changed from yellow to green, and became even gray and blue, so that she no longer looked like a human being; it was rather the face of a hideous, incarnate demon. All present trembled with terror, especially when they heard the wild cry of the demon, which sounded like the loud roar of a wild bull. They fell on their knees, and with tears in their eyes, began to cry out: "Jesus, have mercy!"

The bishop continued to urge Satan. At last the evil spirit departed, and Nicola fell back senseless into the arms of her keepers. She still, however, remained shockingly distorted. In this state she was shown to the judges, and to all the people present; she was rolled up like a ball. The bishop now fell on his knees, in order to give her the Blessed Sacrament as usual. But see! Suddenly the demon returns, wild with rage, endeavors to seize the hand of the bishop, and even tries to grasp the Blessed Sacrament itself. The bishop starts back; Nicola is carried into the air and the bishop rises from his knees, trembling with terror and pale as death.

The good bishop takes courage again; he pursues the demon, holding the Blessed Sacrament in his hand, till at length the demon, overcome by the power of Our Lord's sacred body, goes forth amidst smoke, and lightning, and thunder. Thus was the demon at length expelled forever, on Friday afternoon, at three o'clock, the same day and hour on which Our Lord triumphed over hell by His ever-blessed death.

Nicola was now completely cured; she could move her left arm with the greatest ease. She fell on her knees and thanked God, as well as the good bishop, for all he had done for her. The people wept for joy, and sang hymns of praise and thanksgiving in honor of our dear Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. On all sides were heard the exclamations:

"Oh, what a great miracle! Oh, thank God that I witnessed it! Who is there now that can doubt of the real presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar!" Many a Protestant also said: "I believe now in the presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament; I have seen with my eyes! I will remain a Calvinist no longer. Accursed be those who have hitherto kept me in error! Oh, now I can understand what a good thing is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass!"

A solemn Te Deum was intoned; the organ pealed forth and the bells rung forth a merry chime. The whole city was filled with joy.

This great triumph of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament over Satan occurred in the presence of more than 150,000 people, in the presence of the ecclesiastical and civil authorities of the city, of Protestants and Catholics alike. I have published a lengthy account of this extraordinary affair in a little volume entitled "Triumph of the Blessed Sacrament." These facts are well authenticated by the accounts published in various languages ï¿½ French, Italian, Spanish, and German, as I have shown on pages 13, 14, and 15 of the above-mentioned little volume.

null

The above was taken from Chapter 5 of the book The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by Fr. Michael Muller, C.Ss.R. (Imprimatur: Archbishop McClosky, New York - 1874); published by TAN Books.

www.olrl.org/stories/

Home

https://www.olrl.org/stories/exorcism.shtml]]>
THE EXORCISM OF NICOLA AUBREY

By Father Michael Muller, C.SS.R.

It is indeed a remarkable fact that, as the devil made use of Luther, an apostate monk, to abolish the Mass and deny the Real Presence; in like manner, God made use of His arch-enemy, the devil, to prove the Real Presence. He repeatedly forced him publicly to profess his firm belief in it, to confound the heretics for their disbelief, and acknowledge himself vanquished by Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

For this purpose, God allowed a certain Mme. Nicola Aubrey, an innocent person, to become possessed by Beelzebub and twenty-nine other evil spirits. The possession took place on the eighth of November, 1565, and lasted until the eighth of February, 1566.

Her parents took her to Father de Motta, a pious priest of Vervins, in order that he might expel the demon by exorcisms of the Church.

Father de Motta tried several times to expel the evil spirit by applying the sacred relics of the holy cross, but he could not succeed; Satan would not depart. At last, inspired by the Holy Ghost, he resolved to expel the devil by means of the sacrament of Our Lord's Body and Blood. Whilst Nicola was lying in a state of unnatural lethargy, Father de Motta placed the Blessed Sacrament upon her lips, and instantly the infernal spell was broken;

Nicola was restored to consciousness, and received Holy Communion with every mark of devotion. As soon as Nicola had received the sacred Body of Our Lord, her face became bright and beautiful as the face of an angel, and all who saw her were filled with joy and wonder, and they blessed God from their inmost hearts. With the permission of God, Satan returned and again took possession of Nicola.

As the strange circumstances of Nicola's possession became known everywhere, several Calvinist preachers came with their followers, to "expose this popish cheat," as they said. On their entrance, the devil saluted them mockingly, called them by name, and told them that they had come in obedience to him.

One of the preachers took his Protestant prayer book, and began to read it with a very solemn face. The devil laughed at him, and putting on a most comical look, he said: "Ho! Ho! My good friend; do you intend to expel me with your prayers and hymns? Do you think that they will cause me any pain? Don't you know that they are mine? I helped to compose them!"

"I will expel thee in the name of God," said the preacher, solemnly.

"You!" said the devil mockingly. "You will not expel me either in the name of God, or in the name of the devil. Did you ever hear of one devil driving out another?"

"I am not a devil," said the preacher, angrily, "I am a servant of Christ."

"A servant of Christ, indeed!" said Satan, with a sneer. "What! I tell you, you are worse than I am. I believe, and you do not want to believe.

Do you suppose that you can expel me from the body of this miserable wretch? Ha! Go first and expel all the devils that are in your own heart!"

The preacher took his leave, somewhat discomfited. On going away, he said, turning up the whites of his eyes, "O Lord, I pray thee, assist this poor creature!"

"And I pray Lucifer," cried the evil spirit, "that he may never leave you, but may always keep you firmly in his power, as he does now. Go about your business, now. You are all mine, and I am your master."

On the arrival of the priest, several of the Protestants went away ï¿½ they had seen and heard more than they wanted. Others, however, remained; and great was their terror when they saw how the devil writhed and howled in agony, as soon as the Blessed Sacrament was brought near him. At last the evil spirit departed, leaving Nicola in a state of unnatural trance. While she was in this state, several of the preachers tried to open her eyes, but they found it impossible to do so. The priest then placed the Blessed Sacrament on Nicola's lips, and instantly she was restored to consciousness.

Rev. Father de Motta then turned to the astonished preachers, and said: "Go now, ye preachers of the new Gospel; go and relate everywhere what you have seen and heard. Do not deny any longer that Our Lord Jesus Christ is really and truly present in the Blessed Sacrament of the altar. Go now, and let not human respect hinder you from confessing the truth."

During the exorcisms of the following days, the devil was forced to confess that he was not to be expelled at Vervins, and that he had with him twenty-nine devils, among whom were three powerful demons: Cerberus, Astaroth, and Legio. On the third of January, 1566, the bishop arrived at Vervins, and began the exorcism in the church, in the presence of an immense multitude. null

"I command thee, in the name and by power of the real presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, to depart instantly," said the bishop to Satan in a solemn voice.

Satan was, at last, expelled the second time by means of the Blessed Sacrament. On leaving, he paralyzed the left arm and right foot of Nicola, and also made her left arm longer than her right; and no power on earth could cure this strange infirmity, until some weeks after, when the devil was at last completely and irrevocably expelled. Nicola was now taken to the celebrated pilgrimage of Our Lady at Liesse, especially since the devil seemed to fear that place so much.

Next day Father de Motta began the exorcism in the church of Our Lady at Liesse, in the presence of an immense multitude. He took the Blessed Sacrament in his hand, and, showing it to the demon, he said: "I command thee, in the name of the living God, the great Emmanuel Whom thou seest here present, and in Whom thou believest."

"Ah, yes!" shrieked the demon, "I believe in Him." And the devil howled again as he made this confession, for it was wrung from him by the power of Almighty God.

"I command thee, then, in His Name," said the priest, "to quit this body instantly."

At these words, and especially at the sight of the Blessed Sacrament, the devil suffered the most frightful torture. At one moment the body of Nicola was rolled up like a ball; then again she became fearfully swollen. At one time her face was unnaturally lengthened, then excessively widened, and sometimes it was as red as scarlet. Her eyes, at times, protruded horribly, and then again sunk deeply into her skull. Her tongue hung down to her chin; it was sometimes black, sometimes red, and sometimes spotted like a toad. The priest still continued to urge and torture Satan. "Accursed spirit!" he cried, "I command thee, in the Name and by the real presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ here in the Blessed Sacrament, to depart instantly from the body of this poor creature.

"Ah, yes!" cried Satan, howling wildly, "twenty-six of my companions shall leave this instant, for they are forced to do so."

The people in the church now began to pray with great fervor. Suddenly Nicola's limbs began to crack, as if every bone in her body were breaking; a pestilential vapor came forth from her mouth, and twenty-six devils departed from her, never more to return. Nicola then fell into an unnatural swoon, from which she was aroused only by the Blessed Sacrament. On recovering her senses, and receiving holy communion, Nicola's face shone like the face of an angel. The priest still continued to urge the demon, and used every means to expel him.

"I will not leave, unless commanded by the bishop of Leon," answered the demon, angrily.

Nicola was now taken to Pierrepont, where one of the demons, name Legio, was expelled by means of the Blessed Sacrament. Next morning Nicola was brought to the church. Scarcely had she quitted the house, when the devil again took possession of her.

The bishop who was requested to exorcise Nicola, prepared himself for this terrible task by prayer and fasting, and other works of penance. On arrival of Nicola in the Church, the exorcism began. "How many are you in this body?" asked the bishop.

"There are three of us," answered the evil spirit.

"What are your names?"

"Beelzebub, Cerberus, and Astaroth."

"What has become of the others?" asked the bishop.

"They have been expelled," answered Satan.

"Who expelled them?"

"Ha!" cried the devil, gnashing his teeth, "it was He whom you hold in your hand, there on the paten." The devil meant our dear Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

The bishop then held the Blessed Sacrament near the face of Nicola. The demon writhed and howled in agony. "Ah, yes! I will go, I will go!" he shrieked, "but I shall return."

Suddenly Nicola became stiff and motionless as marble. The bishop then touched her lips with the Blessed Sacrament, and in an instant she was fully restored to consciousness. She received holy communion, and her countenance now shone with a wondrous, supernatural beauty. Next day Nicola was brought again to the Church, and the exorcism began as usual.

The bishop took the Blessed Sacrament in his hand, held it near the face of Nicola, and said:

"I command thee in the name of the living God, and by the real presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ here in the sacrament of the altar, to depart instantly from the body of this creature of God, and never more to return."

"No! No!" shrieked the devil, "I will not go. My hour is not yet come."

"I command thee to depart. Go forth, impure, accursed spirit! Go forth!" and the bishop held the Blessed Sacrament close to Nicola's face.

"Stop! stop!", shrieked Satan; "let me go! I will depart ï¿½ but I shall return." And instantly Nicola fell into the most frightful convulsions. A black smoke was seen issuing from her mouth, and she fell again into a swoon.

During her stay in Leon, Nicola was carefully examined by Catholic and Protestant physicians. Her left arm, which had been paralyzed by the devil, was found entirely without feeling. The doctors cut into the arm with a sharp knife; they burnt it with fire; they drove pins and needles under the nails of the fingers; but Nicola felt not pain; her arm was utterly insensible. Once, while Nicola was lying in a state of unnatural lethargy, the doctors gave her some bread soaked in wine (it was what the Protestants call their communion, or Lord's Supper); they rubbed her limbs briskly; they threw water in her face; they pierced her tongue until the blood flowed; they tried every possible means to arouse her, but in vain! Nicola remained cold and motionless as marble. At last, the priest touched the lips of Nicola with the Blessed Sacrament, and instantly she was restored to consciousness, and began to praise God.

The miracle was so clear, so palpable, that one of the doctors, who was a bigoted Calvinist, immediately renounced his errors, and became a Catholic. Several times, also, the Protestants touched Nicola's face with a host which was not consecrated, and which, consequently, was only bread, but Satan was not the least tormented by this. He only ridiculed their efforts.

On the twenty-seventh of January, the bishop, after having walked in solemn procession with the clergy and the faithful, began the exorcism in church, in the presence of a vast multitude of Protestants and Catholics. The bishop now held the Blessed Sacrament close to the face of Nicola. Suddenly a wild, unearthly yell rings through the air -- a black, heavy smoke issues from the mouth of Nicola. The demon Astaroth is expelled forever. During the exorcism which took place on the first of February, the bishop said:

"O accursed spirit! Since neither prayer, nor the holy gospels, neither the exorcisms of the Church, nor the holy relics, can compel thee to depart, I will now show thee thy Lord and Master, and by His power I command thee."

During the exorcism, which took place after Mass, the bishop held the Blessed Sacrament in his hand, and said: "O accursed spirit, arch-enemy of the ever-blessed God! I command thee, by the precious blood of Jesus Christ here present, to depart from this poor woman!

Depart accursed, into the everlasting flames of hell!"

At these words, and especially at the sight of the Blessed Sacrament, the demon was so fearfully tormented, and the appearance of Nicola was so hideous and revolting, that the people turned away their eyes in horror. At last a heavy sigh was heard, and a cloud of black smoke issued from the mouth of Nicola. Cerberus was expelled. Again Nicola fell into a death-like swoon, and again she was brought to consciousness only by means of the Blessed Sacrament. During the exorcism which took place on the seventh day of February, the bishop said to Satan:

"Tell me. Why hast thou taken possession of this honest and virtuous Catholic woman?"

"I have done so by permission of God. I have taken possession of her on account of the sins of the people. I have done it to show my Calvinists that there are devils who can take possession of man whenever God permits it. I know they do not want to believe this, but I will show them that I am the devil. I have taken possession of this creature in order to convert them, or to harden them in their sins; and, by the Sacred Blood, I will perform my task."

This answer filled all who heard it with horror. "Yes," answered the bishop, solemnly, "God desires to unite all men in the only holy faith. As there is but one God, so there can be but one true religion. A religion like that which the Protestants have invented, is but a hollow mockery. It must fall. The religion established by Our Lord Jesus Christ is the only true one; it alone shall last forever. It is destined to unite all men within its sacred embrace, so that there shall be but one sheepfold and one shepherd. This divine Shepherd is Our Lord Jesus Christ, the invisible head of the holy Roman Catholic Church, whose visible head is our holy Father the Pope, successor of St. Peter."

The devil was silent ï¿½ he was put to shame before the entire multitude. He was expelled once more by means of the Blessed Sacrament. In the afternoon of the same day the devil began to cry: "Ah! Ha! You think that you can expel me in this way. You have not the proper attendance of a bishop. Where are the dean and the archdean? Where are the royal judges? Where is the chief magistrate, who was frightened out of his wits that night, in the prison? Where is the procurator of the king? Where are his attorneys and counselors? Where is the clerk of the court?" (The devil mentioned each of these by name.) "I will not depart until all are assembled. Were I to depart now, what proof could you give to the king of all that has happened? Do you think that people will believe you so easily? No! No! There are many who would make objections. The testimony of these common country-people here will have but little weight. It is a torment to me that I must tell you what you have to do. I am forced to do it. Ha! Cursed be the hour in which I first took possession of this vile wretch.

"I find little pleasure in thy prating," answered the bishop. "There are witnesses enough here. Those whom you have mentioned are not necessary. Depart! then; give glory to God. Depart ï¿½ go to the flames of hell!"

"Yes, I shall depart, but not today. I know full well that I must depart. My sentence is passed; I am compelled to leave."

"I care not for thy jabbering," said the bishop, "I shall expel thee by the power of God: by the Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ."

"Yes, I must yield to you," shrieked the demon wildly. "It tortures me that I must give you this honor."

The bishop now took the Blessed Sacrament in his hand, and held it close to the face of the possessed woman. At last, Satan was compelled to flee once more. The next morning, after the procession was ended, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was offered up as usual. During the consecration, the possessed woman was twice raised over six feet into the air, and then fell back heavily upon the platform. As the bishop, just before the Pater Noster, took the Sacred Host once more in his hand, and raised it with the chalice, the possessed woman was again whisked into the air, carrying with her the keepers, fifteen in number, at least six feet above the platform; and, after a while, she fell heavily back on the ground.

At this sight, all present were filled with amazement and terror. A German Protestant named Voske fell on his knees; he burst into tears; he was converted. "Ah!" cried he, "I now believe firmly that the devil really possesses this poor creature. I believe that it is really the body and blood of Jesus Christ which expels him. I believe firmly. I will no longer remain a Protestant." After Mass, the exorcism began as usual.

"Now, at last," said the bishop, "thou must depart. Away with thee, evil spirit!"

"Yes," said Satan, "it is true that I must depart, but not yet. I will not go before the hour is come in which I first took possession of this wretched creature."

At last the bishop took the Sacred Host in his hand, and said: "In the name of the adorable Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ï¿½ in the name of the sacred body of Jesus Christ here present ï¿½ I command thee, wicked spirit, to depart."

"Yes, yes, it is true!" shrieked the demon wildly; "It is true. It is the body of God. I must confess it, for I am forced to do so. Ha! It tortures me that I must confess this, but I must. I speak the truth only when I am forced to do it. The truth is not from me. It comes from my Lord and Master. I have entered this body by the permission of God."

The bishop now held the Blessed Sacrament close to the face of the possessed woman. The demon writhed in fearful agony. He tried in every way to escape from the presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. At length a black smoke was seen issuing from the mouth of Nicola. She fell into a swoon, and was restored to consciousness only by means of the Blessed Sacrament. The eighth of February, the day appointed by God on which Satan was to leave Nicola forever, arrived at last. After the solemn procession, the bishop began the last exorcism.

"I shall not ask thee any longer," said the bishop to Satan, "when thou intendest to leave, I will expel thee instantly by the power of the living God, and by the precious Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, His beloved Son, here present in the Sacrament of the Altar."

"Ha, yes!" shrieked the demon. "I confess that the Son of God is here really and truly present. He is my Lord and Master. It tortures me to confess it, but I am forced to do so." Then he repeated several times, with a wild, unearthly howl: "Yes, it is true. I must confess it. I am forced to leave, by the power of God's body here present. I must ï¿½ I must depart. It torments me that I must go so soon, and that I must confess this truth. But this truth is not from me; it comes from my Lord and Master, who has sent me hither, and who commands and compels me to confess the truth publicly."

The bishop then took the Blessed Sacrament in his hand, and, holding it on high, he said, with a solemn voice: "O thou wicked, unclean spirit, Beelzebub! Thou arch-enemy of the eternal God! Behold, here present, the precious Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, thy Lord and Master! I adjure thee, in the name and by the power of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, true God and true man, who is here present; I command thee to depart instantly and forever from this creature of God. Depart to the deepest depth of hell, there to be tormented forever. Go forth, unclean spirit, go forth ï¿½ behold here thy Lord and Master!"

At these solemn words, and at the sight of our sacramental Lord, the poor possessed woman writhed fearfully. Her limbs cracked as if every bone in her body were breaking. The fifteen strong men who held her, could scarcely keep her back. They staggered from side to side; they were covered with perspiration. Satan tried to escape from the presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. The mouth of Nicola was wide open, her tongue hung down below her chin, her face was shockingly swollen and distorted. Her color changed from yellow to green, and became even gray and blue, so that she no longer looked like a human being; it was rather the face of a hideous, incarnate demon. All present trembled with terror, especially when they heard the wild cry of the demon, which sounded like the loud roar of a wild bull. They fell on their knees, and with tears in their eyes, began to cry out: "Jesus, have mercy!"

The bishop continued to urge Satan. At last the evil spirit departed, and Nicola fell back senseless into the arms of her keepers. She still, however, remained shockingly distorted. In this state she was shown to the judges, and to all the people present; she was rolled up like a ball. The bishop now fell on his knees, in order to give her the Blessed Sacrament as usual. But see! Suddenly the demon returns, wild with rage, endeavors to seize the hand of the bishop, and even tries to grasp the Blessed Sacrament itself. The bishop starts back; Nicola is carried into the air and the bishop rises from his knees, trembling with terror and pale as death.

The good bishop takes courage again; he pursues the demon, holding the Blessed Sacrament in his hand, till at length the demon, overcome by the power of Our Lord's sacred body, goes forth amidst smoke, and lightning, and thunder. Thus was the demon at length expelled forever, on Friday afternoon, at three o'clock, the same day and hour on which Our Lord triumphed over hell by His ever-blessed death.

Nicola was now completely cured; she could move her left arm with the greatest ease. She fell on her knees and thanked God, as well as the good bishop, for all he had done for her. The people wept for joy, and sang hymns of praise and thanksgiving in honor of our dear Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. On all sides were heard the exclamations:

"Oh, what a great miracle! Oh, thank God that I witnessed it! Who is there now that can doubt of the real presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar!" Many a Protestant also said: "I believe now in the presence of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament; I have seen with my eyes! I will remain a Calvinist no longer. Accursed be those who have hitherto kept me in error! Oh, now I can understand what a good thing is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass!"

A solemn Te Deum was intoned; the organ pealed forth and the bells rung forth a merry chime. The whole city was filled with joy.

This great triumph of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament over Satan occurred in the presence of more than 150,000 people, in the presence of the ecclesiastical and civil authorities of the city, of Protestants and Catholics alike. I have published a lengthy account of this extraordinary affair in a little volume entitled "Triumph of the Blessed Sacrament." These facts are well authenticated by the accounts published in various languages ï¿½ French, Italian, Spanish, and German, as I have shown on pages 13, 14, and 15 of the above-mentioned little volume.

null

The above was taken from Chapter 5 of the book The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by Fr. Michael Muller, C.Ss.R. (Imprimatur: Archbishop McClosky, New York - 1874); published by TAN Books.

www.olrl.org/stories/

Home

https://www.olrl.org/stories/exorcism.shtml]]> <![CDATA[Pius IX Condemns the Modern Italian State]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5829 Sun, 07 Jan 2024 10:54:40 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5829 Pius IX Condemns the Modern Italian State

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3...ipo=images]

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3...ipo=images]

Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Cum Catholica Ecclesia, March 26, 1860

TIA [slightly adapted - emphasis TIA]| January 6, 2024

Today when in the laws of almost every nation the stench of the Masonic tolerance is present, it is salutary to read the words with which Pope Pius IX condemned the founders of the Italian State who invaded and usurped the Pontifical Territories. These words have an exorcist power to expel this bad tolerance and help true Catholic militancy be restored in our souls.

Pope Pius IX

Since we are aware, not without the deepest displeasure of Our soul, that other requests would not find acceptance among those who, having clogged their ears like deaf aspids, have not yet allowed themselves to be moved by Our admonitions and Our complaints, and, on the other hand, feeling most profoundly what the cause of the Church, of this Apostolic See and of the entire Catholic world, attacked with such violence by these perverse men, requires of Us, We feel the duty to avoid what, by remaining without speaking, could be understood as a failure to fulfill the grave task of Our Office.

The situation has been made unsustainable to the point of inducing Us, following in the footsteps of Our Predecessors, to employ Our supreme power, entrusted to Us by God, not only to loosen but also to bind, resorting to a dutiful severity towards the guilty, which also serves as a healthy example for others.

Therefore, after having invoked the light of the Divine Spirit with public and private prayers and after having heard the opinion of a selected Congregation of Our Venerable Brother Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, with the authority of Almighty God, of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and Our own, we declare again that all those who have taken part in the rebellion, usurpation, occupation and criminal invasion of the aforementioned provinces of Our Papal States, and similar matters of which We have complained in Our Allocutions of June 20 and September 26 of last year, as well as those who took part in any of these enterprises – their executors, accomplices, supporters, advisors, followers or anyone else who favored the realization of what was described above – whether having personally taken part in it or by way of any pretext or other means, have incurred Major Excommunication and other ecclesiastical censures and penalties imposed by the Sacred Canons, the Apostolic Constitutions and the Decrees of the General Councils and particularly of the Council of Trent [sess. 22, chap. 11, De reform .]. And, if this be necessary, We strike them again with Excommunication and Anathema.

We further declare that they have simultaneously incurred the loss of all privileges, graces and indults granted, under any title, by Us or by the Roman Pontiffs Our Predecessors. We desire that they not be absolved and freed from these penalties except by Us or by the Roman Pontiff in office (except in the case of danger of death, but in case of convalescence they fall again under the same penalties). They will also be unable and incapable of obtaining the benefit of absolution until they have publicly retracted, revoked, canceled and eliminated everything that in any way they have promoted in this matter; until they have entirely and effectively returned everything to the original situation, to the Church, to Us and the Holy See and have repaired their crime by a proportional penance.]]> Pius IX Condemns the Modern Italian State

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3...ipo=images]

Pius IX, Apostolic Letter Cum Catholica Ecclesia, March 26, 1860

TIA [slightly adapted - emphasis TIA]| January 6, 2024

Pope Pius IX

Since we are aware, not without the deepest displeasure of Our soul, that other requests would not find acceptance among those who, having clogged their ears like deaf aspids, have not yet allowed themselves to be moved by Our admonitions and Our complaints, and, on the other hand, feeling most profoundly what the cause of the Church, of this Apostolic See and of the entire Catholic world, attacked with such violence by these perverse men, requires of Us, We feel the duty to avoid what, by remaining without speaking, could be understood as a failure to fulfill the grave task of Our Office.

The situation has been made unsustainable to the point of inducing Us, following in the footsteps of Our Predecessors, to employ Our supreme power, entrusted to Us by God, not only to loosen but also to bind, resorting to a dutiful severity towards the guilty, which also serves as a healthy example for others.

Therefore, after having invoked the light of the Divine Spirit with public and private prayers and after having heard the opinion of a selected Congregation of Our Venerable Brother Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, with the authority of Almighty God, of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and Our own, we declare again that all those who have taken part in the rebellion, usurpation, occupation and criminal invasion of the aforementioned provinces of Our Papal States, and similar matters of which We have complained in Our Allocutions of June 20 and September 26 of last year, as well as those who took part in any of these enterprises – their executors, accomplices, supporters, advisors, followers or anyone else who favored the realization of what was described above – whether having personally taken part in it or by way of any pretext or other means, have incurred Major Excommunication and other ecclesiastical censures and penalties imposed by the Sacred Canons, the Apostolic Constitutions and the Decrees of the General Councils and particularly of the Council of Trent [sess. 22, chap. 11, De reform .]. And, if this be necessary, We strike them again with Excommunication and Anathema.

We further declare that they have simultaneously incurred the loss of all privileges, graces and indults granted, under any title, by Us or by the Roman Pontiffs Our Predecessors. We desire that they not be absolved and freed from these penalties except by Us or by the Roman Pontiff in office (except in the case of danger of death, but in case of convalescence they fall again under the same penalties). They will also be unable and incapable of obtaining the benefit of absolution until they have publicly retracted, revoked, canceled and eliminated everything that in any way they have promoted in this matter; until they have entirely and effectively returned everything to the original situation, to the Church, to Us and the Holy See and have repaired their crime by a proportional penance.]]> <![CDATA[The Papal-Coronation Oath]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5820 Fri, 05 Jan 2024 09:44:37 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5820 The Papal-Coronation Oath
Taken from here.

[Image: secondtry-e1704054118630.jpg]

The following is the Coronation-Oath made by most or all Pope-Elects from at least 678 AD until the 1960s (when it was eradicated.) Notice what old-school Popes used to call down upon themselves, should they divert from Jesus Christ’s teaching as given to the Apostles:

“I vow to change nothing of the received Tradition, and nothing thereof I have found before me guarded by my God-pleasing predecessors, to encroach upon, to alter, or to permit any innovation therein;

“To the contrary: with glowing affection as her truly faithful student and successor, to safeguard reverently the passed-on good, with my whole strength and utmost effort; To cleanse all that is in contradiction to the canonical order, should such appear; to guard the Holy Canons and Decrees of our Popes as if they were the divine ordinance of Heaven, because I am conscious of Thee, whose place I take through the Grace of God, whose Vicarship I possess with Thy support, being subject to severest accounting before Thy Divine Tribunal over all that I shall confess;

“I swear to God Almighty and the Savior Jesus Christ that I will keep whatever has been revealed through Christ and His Successors and whatever the first councils and my predecessors have defined and declared.

“I will keep without sacrifice to itself the discipline and the rite of the Church. I will put outside the Church whoever dares to go against this oath, may it be somebody else or I.

“If I should undertake to act in anything of contrary sense, or should permit that it will be executed, Thou willst not be merciful to me on the dreadful Day of Divine Justice.

“Accordingly, without exclusion, We subject to severest excommunication anyone — be it Ourselves or be it another — who would dare to undertake anything new in contradiction to this constituted evangelic Tradition and the purity of the orthodox Faith and the Christian religion, or would seek to change anything by his opposing efforts, or would agree with those who undertake such a blasphemous venture.”

[The papal coronation oath was not said by Popes John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, or Francis. This Oath was said by every pope since the year 678, beginning with Pope Saint Agatho. - The Catacombs]]]> The Papal-Coronation Oath
Taken from here.

[Image: secondtry-e1704054118630.jpg]