In 1962, a young woman, taken with a divine love for the Son of God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, forsook everything and joined a strict convent, so that every day she might have many and frequent sacrifices to offer God, her Love, as a chaste spouse to a much beloved husband. And all the other catholic nuns in the convent did the same.
Then came a Bishop, who, being in admiration for the art of statuary and the aesthetics of the Renaissance, donated to all the convents in his diocese, a copy of the Statue of St. David, King of Israel, as crafted by Michelangelo.
At first, the Mother Superior of the Convent objected, saying to the Bishop: that kind of art is not appropriate in a convent of consecrated virgins. But the Bishop demurred, and replied, “If you want my favor and blessing, you will not spurn my gifts!” And so the Mother Superior relented, and took the statue.
When the Bishop came the next year to visit the Convent, he asked, “Where is the statue I donated?” The Mother Superior said, “I did not have the money for a pedestal which would properly display the statue, so it is being stored temporarily in the lumbar room (i.e. the storage room).” But the Bishop demurred, and replied, “If you want my favor and blessing, you will not spurn my gifts!” And so the Mother Superior relented, and bought a pedestal and set the statue up.
In the third year, the bishop came to visit the Convent, again, and asked, “Where is the statue I donated?” The Mother Superior said, “I could not think of where such a statue might be placed, worthy of its full artistic effect. So it is for the time being set up in an unused chapel, at the back of the Convent.” But the Bishop demurred, and replied, “If you want my favor and blessing, you will not spurn my gifts!” And so the Mother Superior relented, and moved the Statue to the courtyard.
At this, the nuns of the Convent all objected, saying, that such artwork was not appropriate for the courtyard of a Convent. But the Mother Superior said, “Don’t be puritanical, after all, it is only a statue of St. David!” And so all the nuns relented, and ceased their complaints. Except one faithful virgin, who out of meekness guarded her eyes, and never looked upon the statue again.
In the fourth year, the bishop came to visit the Convent, again, and asked, “Where is the statue I donated? Why have you dishonored it?” The Mother Superior said, “Your Excellency, I have placed it in the most visible part of the Convent, so that all the nuns can see it daily.” But the Bishop demurred, and replied, “If you want my favor and blessing, you will not spurn My gifts!” And so the Mother Superior relented, and moved the Statue to the main Chapel of the Convent.
At this, the nuns of the Convent, though they were fewer in number, all objected, saying, that such artwork was not appropriate for the main chapel of the Convent. But the Mother Superior said, “Don’t be puritanical, after all, it is only a statue of St. David!” And so all the nuns relented, and ceased their complaints. Except one faithful virgin, who out of meekness guarded her eyes, and never walked on that side of the Chapel again.
In the fifth year, the bishop came to visit the Convent, again, and asked, “Where is the statue I donated? Why have you dishonored it?” The Mother Superior said, “Your Excellency, I have placed it in the most visible side-niche of the Chapel, so that all the nuns can see it daily during Mass and Office.” But the Bishop demurred, and replied, “If you want My favor and blessing, you will not spurn My gifts!” And so the Mother Superior relented, and moved the Statue to the main altar of the Chapel.
At this, the nuns of the Convent, though they were much fewer in number, all objected, saying, that such artwork was not appropriate for the main altar of the Chapel Convent. But the Mother Superior said, “Don’t be puritanical, after all, it is only a statue of St. David!” And so all the nuns relented, and ceased their complaints. Except one faithful virgin, who out of meekness guarded her eyes, and never looked up at the main altar again, taking her seat in the last pew furthest from it.
In the sixth year, the bishop came to visit the Convent, again, and asked, “Where is the statue which I donated? Why have you dishonored It?” The Mother Superior said, “Your Excellency, I have placed it above the main altar so that the nuns of our Convent cannot but see it daily during Mass and Office.” But the Bishop demurred, and replied, “If you want My favor and blessing, you will not spurn My gifts!” And so the Mother Superior relented, and required that each nun renew her vows of chastity, while kneeling before it.
At this, the nuns of the Convent, who were now only a few, all objected, saying that such a statue should never be the object of their vow of chastity. But the Mother Superior said, “Don’t be puritanical, after all, it is only a statue of St. David, from whom came Christ Our Lord”. And so all the nuns relented, and remade their vows before it. Except one faithful virgin, who out of meekness guarded her eyes, and made her vows with her back to it.
At this the Mother Superior said, “That will not do, Sister! Either make your vows facing the statue or get out of my Convent!” And so, at that, the one and only faithful nun was kicked out of the Convent.
In the seventh year, the bishop came to visit the Convent, again, and asked, “Where is the Statue which I donated? Why have you dishonored It?” The Mother Superior said, “Your Excellency, I renew my vows monthly at the feet of your statue.” But the Bishop demurred, and replied, “Where have all the nuns of this Convent gone?” And, the Mother Superior replied, “I do not know, they all got the idea in their head that it would be more pleasing to God for them to marry, and so they left the Convent and married men from the village.” “All of them? exclaimed the Bishop in dismay. “Yes, all of them”, said the Mother Superior, “All, that is, except one rigorist, antiquarian, neo-pelagian, who thought looking at the statue of a nude man was against her vow of chastity and virginity! Imagine that”. To which the Bishop said, “Incredible!”
* * *
And Our Lord’s disciples, hearing this, asked Him to explain this parable, and He said, “Just as a consecrated virgin is to My Sacred Heart, so are the Catholic Faithful who eschew error and falsehood, especially in regards to all which I taught them. For I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. And all who come to Me shall find Life. But all who deny Me by their words, deeds or omissions, I too shall deny before the Throne of My Father in Heaven. Let this be a warning to each of you! Let him who has ears to hear, hear!”
* * *
Editor’s Note: This parable is, of course, a fiction, but I would bet that if such a Bishop ever existed, if he would ever encounter such a nun in the street, still wearing her habit, he would demand that she sign an act of reconciliation before that Statue as a prerequisite for being readmitted to full communion.
N.B.: For those who don’t understand what the Statue represents, simply read the documents of Vatican II from beginning to end.
In the present crisis of faith, which has broken out within the Catholic Church, on account of the perfidy of those to whom the preaching of the Gospel has been entrusted, Catholics, who seek true spiritual guidance, can look to the exhortation of Pope Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Letter, Sapientiae Christianae, of January 10, 1890, in particular, where he remonstrates with all of the faithful in such a crisis, saying:
To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe.
To doubt the truth of even 1 revealed doctrine taught by Our Lord, by His Apostles, in Sacred Scripture or in Sacred Tradition, is, let us be frank, a mortal sin meriting eternal damnation, because it breaks the bond of trust which a Catholic ought to have in God His Savior. This, alas, is the sin of so many who are “Catholics” in name.
But another mortal sin, one of omission, is that of those who are “devoid of character”. In our own age, when so many Catholics, even otherwise good or devout ones, sit nightly at the feet of the pulpit of the television, neglecting prayer and meditation and the reading of the writings of the Saints of old, nearly every Catholic is lacking in the virtues necessary to withstand the apostasy of our age, which is being promoted by clergy who long ago accommodated themselves to the toleration of the abominations of impurity and sacrilege in the Church, or who have wedded their souls to false obedience out of self-interest.
The near universal silence of the clergy against speaking against the Kasper thesis has astounded many a Catholic, because they presumed, out of the faith which has come to us from the Apostles, that the clergy are men of character who would speak up: not reading the signs of the times, which clearly indicate that the present apostasy of disbelief and of silence was prepared long ago, when the Modernists pushed for and obtained at the Second Vatican Council, documents which speak ambiguously and even erroneously about our Holy Faith, in every aspect of Her life and religion.
The darkness of our age being so profound and universal, the weak soul is easily overcome by despair. This despair comes easily upon the souls who pray but little, and who have drunk either not at all or only in a shallow manner from the clear springs of authentic Catholic meditation, indicated so clearly by the great Saints of old, like St. Teresa of Avila, whose 500th birthday the Church recalled yesterday, March 28, 2015.
There is a Remedy for this lack of Character
And it is found in a wholesome meditation on the duties which each of us have towards Our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. But not just any remembrance of Him in His Passion, but one which forces us by direct consideration to confront the lack of character, in our selves, which plagues our age, and which Pope Leo XIII laments in such strong words.
Our Lord and Savior said:“You cannot be My disciples, if you do not renounce yourself, take up your cross, and follow Me.”(cf. Luke 14:27; Matthew 16:24) The Faith teaches us that the footsteps of Christ Crucified lead to the glory of His Resurrection. But even with this knowledge it is difficult for us sinners, beguiled by sins and attached to this world, to have the fortitude, the courage and the hope necessary to put these words, so mysterious and decisive, into practice.
The meditations which follow, during this Holy Week of prayer are intended to be a means to heal this spiritual malady, so that we, sinners, can grow in grace and be sanctified in the following of the Crucified. We want to be with Jesus in eternity, and hence we take up our cross so as to arrive at His glory, with the help of mediation on His Passion.
Let us, therefore, dedicate this most holiest of Weeks to such meditations, and put aside, for this week, the vain preoccupation with things, websites, blogs and social communications which distract the soul from its most important duty, conforming itself to the will of God in all things, in all affections, in all thoughts, in all judgements, in all desires, in all hopes, in all beliefs, in all loves.
And to aide in that, the From Rome Blog will now begin a series of meditations, entitled:
Prayers & Meditations for the following of Christ Crucified
O Jesus, my only Savior: Who became Man so that thou might die for me; Who fasted forty days in the desert, neither eating nor drinking, so as to give me the courage to mortify myself; Who walked the roads of the Holy Land to give me an example in the acceptance of the little sufferings of daily life; Who endured the insults, the outrages and the disdain of Thy enemies, to teach me to love my enemies; Who, at last, embraced the Cross to save mankind from the punishment of Hell, indicating thereby, too, the path necessary for my own salvation: come to my aide!
I confess that I am a weak, vicious and vile sinner. I know only how to lament my own sufferings, and recount the blessings others receive.
When I contemplate Thy virtue and Thy zeal to save souls, I recognize that I do not have a heart like Thine, I do not have a spirit like Thine, I do not have the vision like Thine! O, my dear Jesus: seeing that Thou hast said: “He who does not take up his cross and follow Me, cannot be My disciple,” (Luke 14:27), and “If anyone would come after Me, let him renounce himself, take up his cross and follow Me,” (Matthew 16:24), and seeing that I believe that Thou would never command the impossible, I trust that Thou will give me the grace to put these words into practice, if I ask Thee.
O my good Jesus! I want so much to follow Thee! Hence, I beg Thee, o Most Merciful Lord, to grant me the grace, the light and the heart to be Thy true disciple, to carry my cross and follow Thee, today and for the rest of my life.
We adore Thee, o Christ, and we bless Thee, because by means of Thy Holy Cross, Thou hast redeemed the world, with Mary!
To follow Jesus, you need to believe in Jesus!
O Jesus, when the crowd of Jews asked Thee: “Who is this ‘Son of Man’?”, Thou replied: “The Light is still with you for a little while; walk while you have the light, so that you might not be overcome by the darkness, because he who walks in darkness, knows not where he goes. While you have the light, believe in the Light, so that you might become sons of the Light.” (John 12:31-36)
With these words Thou taught us that it is absolutely necessary that we have faith in Thee, and not only a trust that Thou will be kind towards us. If we accept Thee simply as a good preacher, listening but not changing our life, our mind and our heart, it shall be in vain that we have listened to Thee.
Thy words are light for us in this world of darkness. If we harken unto them and put them into practice, we will become sons of the Light; if we do not put them in practice, we shall lose the Light which Thou are. Hence, to begin to follow Thee is not a devotion for the perfect, it is the sole road to my salvation and for the salvation of all.
O Jesus, my Divine and True Teacher, guide me to Thy Kingdom of Light; lead me on high, far from the shadows of this world! Be my Companion along my own road to Calvary, which is the only escape for me from my sins and vices, which threaten so to swallow me up! Save me, O Savior of the World! and grant me to desire as much to be saved, as Thou desire to save me!
O Lord, by the sign of Thy Cross, deliver us from our enemies!
Download in PDF format, the entire booklet of meditations
14. But in this same matter, touching Christian faith, there are other duties whose exact and religious observance, necessary at all times in the interests of eternal salvation, become more especially so in these our days. Amid such reckless and widespread folly of opinion, it is, as We have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping.But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: “Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.”(12) To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful. After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted. Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: “Have confidence; I have overcome the world.”(13) Nor is there any groundfor alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace.
15. The chief elements of this duty consist in professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power.For, as is often said, with the greatest truth, there is nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom as that it should not be known, since it possesses, when loyally received, inherent power to drive away error. So soon as Catholic truth is apprehended by a simple and unprejudiced soul, reason yields assent. Now, faith, as a virtue, is a great boon of divine grace and goodness; nevertheless, the objects themselves to which faith is to be applied are scarcely known in any other way than through the hearing. “How shall they believe Him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? Faith then cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.”(14) Since, then, faith is necessary for salvation, it follows that the word of Christ must tie preached. The office, indeed, of preaching, that is, of teaching, lies by divine right in the province of the pastors, namely, of the bishops whom “the Holy Spirit has placed to rule the Church of God.”(15) It belongs, above all, to the Roman Pontiff, vicar of Jesus Christ, established as head of the universal Church, teacher of all :hat pertains to morals and faith.
16. No one, however, must entertain the notion that private individuals are prevented from taking some active part in this duty of teaching, especially those on whom God has bestowed gifts of mind with the strong wish of rendering themselves useful. These, so often as circumstances demand, may take upon themselves, not, indeed, the office of the pastor, but the task of communicating to others what they have themselves received, becoming, as it were, living echoes of their masters in the faith. Such co-operation on the part of the laity has seemed to the Fathers of the Vatican Council so opportune and fruitful of good that they thought well to invite it. “All faithful Christians, but those chiefly who are in a prominent position, or engaged in teaching, we entreat, by the compassion of Jesus Christ, and enjoin by the authority of the same God and Saviour, that they bring aidto ward off and eliminate these errors from holy Church, and contribute their zealous help in spreading abroad the light of undefiled faith.”(16) Let each one, therefore, bear in mind that he both can and should, so far as may be, preach the Catholic faith by the authority of his example, and by open and constant profession of the obligations it imposes. In respect, consequently, to the duties that bind us to God and the Church, it should be borne earnestly in mind that in propagating Christian truth and warding off errors the zeal of the laity should, as far as possible, be brought actively into play.
_________________
12. Summa theologiae, IIa-IIae, qu. iii, art. 2, ad 2m.
Rome, March 19, 2015: There has never been in the Church, since the time of the Reformation, such a great need for the intercession of St. Joseph, the virginal true spouse of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary and foster father to Our Lord and Savior, the Child Jesus, than today, his feast day.
As Cardinal Burke recently affirmed, the Devil has succeeded in sowing the cockle of error within the Church Herself. This evil seed is the conspiracy of “Team Bergoglio” to overthrow the Catholic Church by means of a most sinister doctrine, the Kasper thesis, which dares to affirm, that in the name of mercy one can abandon the authority of Jesus Christ, the authority of the Apostles and Prophets, the authority of Divine and Apostolic Tradition and ecclesiastical Tradition, to admit to communion every vile impenitent sinner.
The Kasper thesis, is in a word, the theological equivalent of breaking down all boarders in a state. It would be the end of the Catholic Church as a distinctive religious body.
Therefore, I ask my readers, to join with me today in humbly beseeching St. Joseph to intercede for us with Our Lord and His blessed Virgin Spouse, so that he might obtain the graces of fortitude and fidelity for all those Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Seminarians, Religious and Laity to stand firm against the planned apostasy of “Team Bergoglio” and publicly and privately reprove its adherents. And if they do not repent after the second or third correction, to separate from them, casting them out of the Church as the heretics, apostates and rebels to Christ that they are.
Pope Leo XIII’s Prayer to St. Joseph
There are many versions of this prayer, but having studied the original Latin text with great care, and after much consideration and prayer, I corrected the English text, so that the full meaning and rich signification contained in it might show forth more clearly. I will first give my translation in English, then my similarly corrected translation in Italian, which I made with the help of several experts in the Italian tongue.
Prayer to St. Joseph,
patron of the Universal Church
by Pope Leo XIII
To thee, O blessed Joseph, do we fly in our tribulation, and, having implored the help of thy most holy Spouse, we also now confidently implore thy holy patronage. We beseech thee by that charity, which united thee with the Immaculate Virgin, Mother of God, and we humbly pray thee by that fatherly love, with which thou didst embrace the Child Jesus, to look kindly upon the inheritance which Jesus Christ purchased by His Blood, and to come to help us in our necessities with thy virtue and powerful aid.
Defend, O most watchful Guardian of the Holy Family, the chosen offspring of Jesus Christ. Ward off from us, O most loving Father, every contagion of error and corruption. Be propitious to us from Heaven, O our most mighty Protector, in our struggle with the power of darkness; and as once thou didst rescue the Child Jesus from the greatest peril of His life, so now defend the Holy Church of God from the snares of Her enemies and from all adversity. Shield too, each one of us with thy constant protection, so that, supported by thy example and powerful aid, we may be able to live a holy life, die a holy death, and attain everlasting beatitude in Heaven.
Amen.
Preghiera a San Giuseppe
di Papa Leone XIII
A Te, o Beato Giuseppe, stretti dalla tribolazione ricorriamo, e fiduciosi invochiamo il Tuo patrocinio, dopo quello della Tua Santissima Sposa. Deh! per quel sacro vincolo di carità che Ti strinse all’Immacolata Vergine Maria Madre di Dio, e per l’amore paterno che portasti al fanciullo Gesù, riguarda, Te ne preghiamo, con occhio benigno la cara eredità che Gesù Cristo acquistò col Suo Sangue, e con la Tua virtù ed il Tuo soccorso potente sovvieni i nostri bisogni.
Proteggi, o provvido Custode della Santa Famiglia, l’eletta prole di Gesù Cristo. Allontana da noi, o Padre amorosissimo, ogni contagio di errore e di corruzione. Assistici, propizio dal Cielo, nella nostra lotta contro il potere delle tenebre, o nostro fortissimo Protettore; e come un tempo scampasti dalla morte la vita minacciata del Pargoletto Gesù, così ora difendi la Santa Chiesta di Dio dalle ostili insidie e da ogni avversità; e stendi sopra ciascuno di noi il Tuo perenne patrocinio, affinché sostenuti dal Tuo esempio e soccorso potente, possiamo virtuosamente vivere, piamente morire e conseguire l’eterna beatitudine in Cielo.
Rome, March 17, 2015: It was and is the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ that all who come to Him with faith and repentance receive the Mercy and forgiveness of God, and He won these great gifts for all mankind by His most bloody death on the Cross. But He established a prerequisite for every man, woman, or child who would come to Him, to receive these gifts: namely, faith and penance. It was with this exhortation, that He began His public ministry, when He said, “The time is accomplished, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe the gospel.“ (Mk 1:15). For many Christians, who revere the Bible as the source of their faith, these may only be nice sounding words, but for the Catholic Church, which Christ Founded, these words are both an exhortation unto the end of time and the very form and practice of our Holy Religion.+
The Path of true Repentance & Faith which Christ taught
When a man recognizes that he is a sinner, he comes to Christ by confessing his sins and professing His faith in the Lord Jesus, as God and his Redeemer. He accepts Christ’s teaching as a whole, that is entirely and in every respect, and he submits to the authority of Christ which He handed down, in part, to the Apostles and through them to all the Bishops and priests of His Church. To be incorporated into Christ, therefore, a sinner must present himself to a Catholic priest and receive Baptism, making a profession of faith in Christ and His teachings, and repenting of all his sins. He shows publicly that he is sincere in his repentance by removing himself from the public profession of sin, which consists in those forms or lifestyles which are contrary to the Gospel. Thus, drunkards give up drink and remove it from their homes; fornicators give up fornication, adulterers leave their lovers, sodomites give up their sodomy and its lifestyle, etc.
For Catholics, who have fallen away from the practice of the Faith, and have entered into sinful relations, such as marrying one who is already married but separated or divorced, or cohabiting with anyone, the return to the practice of the Faith requires this same repentance and faith, separation from the life of sin and reception of the Sacrament of Confession. Then one can receive the Eucharist. In the Catholic Church, we take the Sacraments seriously, because we believe just as Our Lord taught us, that in the Eucharist there is really, truly and substantially the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Most High and Holy God of Israel, the Eternal Son of God, Jesus Christ, before whom, even in Christ, no one is worthy to come, unless he repent and believe, but by Whose mercy and grace a man is made worthy to receive in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, if he repent of his sins and believe the entirety (not just what he picks and chooses) of the Gospel.
This is the discipline and faith which the Catholic Church has received from Our Lord Himself, through the Apostles, and from the Apostles through the very men they chose for Bishops and priests (presbyters), and through these down through the ages. Our teachings and disciplines have never changed, because they are not ours, but Christs, and our Church, the Catholic Church is not ours, but Christ’s. The Catholic Church, therefore, being the one of which Christ said: And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her. (Matthew 16:18), knows that this Faith which Christ gave her is her victory over the world, the flesh and Satan; to alter that Faith therefore, would be to succumb to the world, the flesh and Satan. This is what we have always believed, this is what Christ and the Apostles have taught, and not only to us, but to all the world.
A HOMILY WHICH CONVICTS THE POPE OF OPEN SCHISM WITH CHRIST
Thus, it was an incredible and shameless act of defiance to Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, when Pope Francis preached this blasphemous sermon, this morning, at Mass. Here is the Italian text of that sermon from Radio Vaticana:
“Un uomo – una donna – che si sente malato nell’anima, triste, che ha fatto tanti sbagli nella vita, a un certo momento sente che le acque si muovono, c’è lo Spirito Santo che muove qualcosa, o sente una parola o… ‘Ah, io vorrei andare!’… E prende coraggio e va. E quante volte oggi nelle comunità cristiane trova le porte chiuse: ‘Ma tu non puoi, no, tu non puoi. Tu hai sbagliato qui e non puoi. Se vuoi venire, vieni alla Messa domenica, ma rimani lì, ma non fare di più’. E quello che fa lo Spirito Santo nel cuore delle persone, i cristiani con psicologia di dottori della legge distruggono”.
La Chiesa è casa di Gesù
“A me fa dispiacere questo”, afferma subito dopo Francesco. Che ribadisce: la Chiesa ha sempre le porte aperte:
“E’ la casa di Gesù e Gesù accoglie. Ma non solo accoglie, va a trovare la gente come è andato a trovare questo. E se la gente è ferita, cosa fa Gesù? La rimprovera perché è ferita? No, viene e la porta sulle spalle. E questa si chiama misericordia. E quando Dio rimprovera il suo popolo – ‘Misericordia voglio, non sacrificio!’ – parla di questo”.
The link above contains the full audio of the homily.
Here is our unofficial English translation, of the citation we just made:
“A man, a woman, who feels bad at heart, sad, who has made so many mistakes in life, at a certain moment feels the waters move, it is the Holy Spirit who moves something, or he hears a word, o, “Ah, I would want to go!” … and he gets the courage and goes. And how many times, today, in the christian community he finds the doors shut: “But you cannot, no, you cannot. You have made a mistake here and you cannot. If you want to come, come to Mass on Sunday, but remain there, don’t do anything else.” And that which the Holy Spirit is working in the heart of these persons, Christians with the mentality of doctors of the law, destroy”.
The Church is the House of Jesus “This displeases me,” Francis affirms immediately afterwards. He repeats: the Church always has her doors open:
“She is the house of Jesus and Jesus is there welcoming. But not only welcoming, he goes to find the people just as he went and found this one. And if the people are wounded, what does Jesus do? Does he reprove them because they are wounded? No, he comes and carries them on his shoulders. And this is called, “mercy”. And when God reproves His people — “I want mercy, not sacrifice!” — He is speaking of this”.
Analysis
The context of the Pope’s talk is about receiving communion. And anyone with the simplest Catholic education can understand that what the pope is doing is denouncing the discipline of reserving the Eucharist for those not in mortal sin, which discipline comes from the Apostles and is universal in all the local Churches which they founded (Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, etc.).
Notice, that there is not 1 word about how the sinner is guilty of a moral offense: in the pope’s mind, the sinner is just 1 who made “mistakes”, and thus has no need to repent, to change his life, and to remove scandal, or to go to confession, before receiving the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar. NO! Its the faithful Catholics, who remind him that unless he do this, he cannot receive the Eucharist, but can attend Mass, to pray for the grace of conversion: it is they who have the “mentality” of the pharisees, it is they who destroy the working of the Holy Spirit in these sinners — a most blasphemous and unjust assertion!
Not to mention, an interpretation contrary to 2000 years of faith.
But no, Francis will have none of this! He wants the “doors open” to all, without regard to the necessity of first believing (faith) and converting (penance).
In a word, the Pope just attacked Apostolic Tradition as it regards the discipline of refusing Communion to those in grave sin. That is heresy! And such a sin is condemned by the Second Ecumenical Council of Nicea, held in 787 A. D., in its 4th anathema:
If anyone should despise any written or unwritten ecclesiastical tradition, let him be anathema!
The Pope’s homily is also a formal violation of the teaching of the Council of Trent, Session 13, canon XI (bold facing added):
CANON XI: If any one saith, that faith alone is a sufficient preparation for receiving the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; let him be anathema. And for fear lest so great a sacrament may be received unworthily, and so unto death and condemnation, this holy Synod ordains and declares, that sacramental confession, when a confessor may be had, is of necessity to be made beforehand, by those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, howsoever contrite they may think themselves. But if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated.
Thus, this homily of the Pope can serve as formal, canonical evidence of his heresy. If the College of Cardinals, whose duty now is to rebuke him, remain silent and allow him to issue no retraction, they are also guilty of a grave sin against fraternal and filial charity. If he persists, after 2 or 3 corrections, then they are obliged gravely before God to depose him from the papacy, as a heretic and schismatic.
The pope’s reinterpretation of Scripture, this morning, is nothing short of a sacrilege: the imputation to a text from Scripture which is entirely at odds with its signification and proper meaning, and this, to foster the approval of sin, the condoning of sin by false mercy.
For it is mercy to preach repentance to sinners, as Our Lord commanded St. Peter and the Apostles, when He ascended into Heaven. It is false mercy to preach acceptance of sinners without repentance and faith, since that leaves them in the state of sin in which they merit eternal damnation and temporal punishments.
Pope Francis evidently thinks that he is God
And that the infallible and indefectible Church of God, which is the Catholic Church alone, is wrong. And that she has been wrong for 2000 years,* to require both faith and penance of any sinner, before allowing them to receive Jesus Christ in the Sacrament.
What the pope is doing is committing the sins of heresy, blasphemy and sacrilege of scripture all at once.
This is NOT HUMILITY, this is DIABOLIC PRIDE. It is also an act of schism with Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
To say that what God said in the Old Testament, “It is mercy I desire and not sacrifice” (Hosea 6:6; cf. Mt. 9:16), applies to abandoning the requirements of faith and penance, which God’s Only Begotten Son established as the prerequisites of Christian worship, when He said, “The time is accomplished, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe the gospel.“ (Mk 1:15),° is a plain and simple and direct denial of the authority of God the Son, and a usurpation by himself of the prerogatives of the Messiah, the Christ, to establish the limits of the faith!
Such a sin is a work of the Antichrist.
____________________
+ The original article did not contain these first 4 paragraphs, since those who read this blog are devout Catholics. But due to the publicity this article has drawn, the editor has added them to explain the context of what follows even to non-Catholics and show why what the Pope did at mass, on Tuesday, was and is such a scandal.
* For citations from the new Catechism, see the comments below.
° St. Peter the Apostle, shows that this is to be understood of the Sacraments, when he preached on Pentecost day, saying: But “Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 2:38), where he shows the necessity of penance and faith prior to receiving the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation. Since, the Christian Faith, is not a Pharisaical religion of external observances, but a spiritual one, the spiritual requirements for 1 sacrament are the spiritual requirements for all the sacraments. Thus faith and penance (repentance) is required most of all for the Eucharist, which is the supreme Sacrament of communion with God.
THE SIN OF SCHISM ACCORDING TO THE TEACHING OF OUR LORD
Rome, March 17, 2015: On the Feast of the great Roman Saint, it will be very useful to consider more profoundly the teaching of Our Lord, which St. Patrick exemplified in his life, and this in specific regard to the sin of Schism.
Every sin, being a moral failure, is not something essentially positive, but rather negative. That is, a sin is not the presence so much of evil, but the absence of a moral good habit or act which should have been, but was not.
For example, the sin of lying consists in saying what is not in conformity to the truth, while asserting that it is. The moral lack in the sin of lying is the assertion that the falsehood is true. Thus, if one were to say, “1+1=3 is true”, he lies; but if one were to say, “1+1=3 is false”, he tells the truth.
The same applies to the sin of Schism. Schism is the sin of separation between members of the Church. It consists in the willful deliberate refusal of communion with another member of Christ’s One True Mystical Body.
We speak of the Church after the metaphor of a human body, following the teaching of St. Paul the Apostle, who was first to use this metaphor explicitly, though the teaching itself comes from Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who when He appeared in glory to the Apostle on the road to Damascus, said, “Saul, Saul, why doest thou persecute Me?” (Acts 9:4)
In saying these words, Our Lord identified the Christians persecuted by Saul, the Jew, with Himself in the most intimate manner possible. Let’s be clear, however: Our Lord was using a Hebraic metaphor, a “poetic exaggeration”, we might say in modern English, because there is a real and ontological distinction between God and Christians, and between Christ and His followers. St. Paul, being a Jew and trained in the traditions of scriptural exposition which were common among the Pharisees of that age, understood this and thus spoke of the Church as “Christ’s Body”, comparing Our Lord to its head and believers to its members. He does this in the 12th chapter of his First Letter to the Corinthians, where he says, “Now you are the body of Christ, and members of member”.
St. Paul and St. Thomas on the sin of Schism
It was St. Paul, ever faithful to Our Lord and every mindful of His words and teaching, who first spoke of the sin of schism explicitly, in reference to the Church, conceived as a body. His words are significant:
That there might be no schism in the body; but the members might be mutually careful one for another. (1 Cor. 12:25)
That is, the Apostle notes that the sin of division in the Church is caused by a lack of care of one member for another. St. Thomas Aquinas will explicate this teaching of St. Paul and point out that the sin of schism is formally a sin against the supernatural charity which 1 Christian should have for another. In his Summa Theologica, IIa IIa, q. 39, the Angelic Doctor, responding to the Question, “Whether the Sin of Schism is a special sin?”, responds (bold facing our own):
I answer that, As Isidore says (Etym. viii, 3), schism takes its name “from being a scission of minds,” and scission is opposed to unity. Wherefore the sin of schism is one that is directly and essentially opposed to unity. For in the moral, as in the physical order, the species is not constituted by that which is accidental. Now, in the moral order, the essential is that which is intended, and that which results beside the intention, is, as it were, accidental. Hence the sin of schism is, properly speaking, a special sin, for the reason that the schismatic intends to sever himself from that unity which is the effect of charity: because charity unites not only one person to another with the bond of spiritual love, but also the whole Church in unity of spirit.
Our Lord’s teaching on the sin of Schism
Our Lord’s teaching, however, is much more comprehensive and profound than the explications given by St. Paul or St. Thomas Aquinas. In Our Lord’s mind, His believers are to Him as the sheep of a flock are to its shepherd. He speaks of this explicitly when He says,
31Then Jesus said to them: All you shall be scandalized in me this night. For it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be dispersed.32But after I shall be risen again, I will go before you into Galilee. 33And Peter answering, said to him: Although all shall be scandalized in thee, I will never be scandalized. 34Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, that in this night before the cock crow, thou wilt deny me thrice. 35Peter saith to him: Yea, though I should die with thee, I will not deny thee. And in like manner said all the disciples. (Mt. 26:31-35)
That these words of Our Lord speak of many things, no one can deny, since Our Lord in speaking spoke to teach us all that we needed for our salvation unto the end of time, He speaks in such a manner that many truths are contained in a few words. The simple sense of Our Lord’s words here regard the necessary unity and dependence of His believers on His leadership in all matters, but specifically in religious ones.
But since Our Lord Himself is, as He says, the Principle of Unity in the Church, then it follows that whenever there is a violation of that unity, the sin involves in some manner an attack on that Principle, and thus an attack on Himself. Thus every sin of schism is a sin which consists in or results from an attack on His Authority as King, Messiah, or High Priest.
Our Lord’s teaching is more comprehensive
For this reason, Our Lord’s teaching, as we should expect, is must richer than that of St. Paul or St. Thomas Aquinas, even though the latter two Saints give us an authentic understanding of what Our Lord is teaching us about the gravity of the sin of schism. With St. Paul as our guide, we understand that the Church is identified as a body with Our Lord as her Head. Thus the sin of schism, which in visible matters involves different members of the Church, can be understood as a whole in a single sin against the Person of Our Lord. St. Thomas shows that this sin consists chiefly in a failure to love as Our Lord wants and as is required by the unity of the Church. And indeed, love for self, is what keeps every member of a human body working for the life of each member and the unity of the whole body.
The species of this sin
Thus the causes of schism are far more than just the immediate reasons for the division which arises. The sin of schism is also something which comprises much more than a separation of the faithful from the Pope. A great number of authors, especially in Canon Law, have focused on this latter species of the sin of schism, to the near exclusion of the others. For this reason, it will be useful to enumerate all the species of this sin.
Now, just as a human body can be separated by placing a division between any two members, so the sin of schism in the Church can occur by any separation between any two or more members in the Church. Thus, St. Paul speaks of the many sins of division in the Church at Corinth (cf. 1 Corinthians).
Therefore, the sin of schism can occur when
a Christian separates Himself from the legitimate authority which Christ gave to His Apostles, Sts. Peter and the Eleven, — which they handed down, respectively, to the Pope and to the Bishops — to rule in His stead until He returns in glory.
a Christian separates Himself from another christian, who believes all which Christ taught.
a Christian, who has received authority to govern some portion of the flock (Bishop) or the whole (the Pope), separates himself from a Christian who is faithful to Christ.
I have added, “who is faithful to Christ” and “who believes all which Christ taught” and “legitimate” to indicate that there are some just bounds which define when a division is sinful or not. Obviously, as St. John the Apostle teaches, a Christian who does not believe rightly, after the 2nd or 3rd admonition to repent — and who does not repent — is to be avoided. This is the source of the Catholic teaching on excommunicatiovitandorum, that is excommunication of shunning. Such is not a sin but a work of charity, aimed at calling the one not rightly believing to repentance. And such is not a sin of schism, because it is commanded by the Apostle St. John to preserve true charity.
Some Historical examples of the Sin of Schism
Not all schisms in the Church are the same, therefore. Some never enter into the historical record: these involve individuals, who either had a private disagreement (like a priest and bishop who refused meeting one another over a personal disagreement which had nothing to do with the faith, or some matter which did not touch upon doctrine, such as the choice of flowers for a specific feast day). Others are noted in history books.
Of these the more famous ones are the great Schism which arose in 1048 between the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople, to which many other Bishops in the East, over time, adhered. This is called the Schism between East & West, or the Greek Schism.
Another was the division which arose in the Church following the election of Pope Urban VI in 1378, when on account of the dislike in which some Cardinals held him, they separated from him and elected Count Robert of Geneva as Pope Clement VII. This schism did not involve the sin of separation for all who sided with Pope Clement VII, since many did not know or have the ability to know of the facts of the disputed election, many adhered to one side or another on the basis of whom they had already given their personal trust to. Thus many Catholic nations were in schism with many others, but not in their own hearts against the authority of the Pope, per se.
There have been many other historically important schisms, as can be read of in history books: the Acacian Schism, the Luciferian Schism in Sardinia & Iberia, the Donatist schism in North Africa etc..
Causes of Schism
The causes of Schism are thus many. A Schism can arise by refusal of the legitimate authority of the Roman Pontiff, totally, or in regard to some specific binding or non binding decision. It can arise by some unjust persecution or refusal of communion by the Pope regarding some individual or groups of individuals, e. g., those who celebrate in the Slavonic rather than in the Latin rite (this happened to Sts. Cyril and Methodius). It can arise because the Pope refuses to uphold the faith, dignity or unity of the Church, as when St. Bernard of Clairvaux and the Bishops of Burgundy threatened the Pope with excommunication for not punishing the usurpation of the right of investiture for Bishops.
Not every Schism, therefore, is a sin for both sides involved. Nor is the sin always a sin of subjects toward superiors.
“Strike the Shepherd and the flock will scatter”: Thus, when a superior by his action or inaction attacks or denies or obstructs the teaching or will of Our Lord for his Church, subjects who have the right to uphold these and demand these from their superior can legitimately threaten or withdraw subjection from their superior, to protect themselves from his sin or heresy.
A superior can refuse communion with a subject, for similar sins, such as heresy or disobedience.
Individuals can refuse communion with other individuals for the same reason.
In all such cases, the one who deviates from the faith of the Church, the teachings of Christ or the disciplines which He has established directly or through the Apostles or the Church throughout the ages, are the ones guilty of the sin of Schism.
In our own days, when there are many cases of Bishops persecuting priests for their fidelity to the Magisterium, to right morals, or to the Liturgy, we have cases of the sin of schism which are committed by Bishops. Pope Paul VI’s insistence that no one celebrate the Ancient Roman Rite gave rise to the many injustices which he imposed upon the Society of St. Pius X and their founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.* Bishop Fellay’s disagreement with and treatment of Bishop Richard Williamson gave rise to the division in the that same Society, which is the preambulary cause to the ordination of a new bishop this Thursday in Brazil, by Bishop Williamson (so that the faithful who attend their chapels might receive the sacraments and have priests to serve their needs).
In other cases, where presumptuous men usurp the authority of local bishops, because they love power and are proud, the sin of schism is their own.
Each case has to be examined. But all Catholics, especially those not involved in the dispute, should remain faithful to Christ and united to Him and urge the erring side(s) to reconciliation.
_____________________
* I say “injustices”, because if one were only to review the many heresies and aberrations in the Neo-Catecumenical Movement, one’s head would spin at the consideration of why they have such high approval from Popes John Paul II and Francis, while the Archbishop was punished for believing, doing and praying as Catholic bishops did for 2000 years (as is his duty) and providing for the faithful who desire to continue to do this, until the end of time (as is their right by Baptism).
Rome, March 16, 2015: In the war against Freemasonry and Modernism, Catholics who in the present hour come to the grace to realize that they are in the midst of battle are necessarily greatly disadvantaged in the material things necessary for the fight.
This is especially true since Freemasonry has been working since 1717 A. D. to overthrow the Church, and thus has laid a deep foundation and organized a great number of institutions and persons against the Church for a long time, and not only outside of the Church but within Her. And not only these, but also a plethora of errors which have, by now, seeped into many a book, mind, and institution of formation.
For this reason, in the fight against the Kasper Agenda, which is actively and formally being promoted by Pope Francis with the maximum artistic effect to conceal this very thing, it is of the utmost importance that Catholics join in collaborative efforts to fight back.
Consider for a moment, that Pope Francis is using the entire structure of the Church, Her hierarchical constitution, by which She rules all the Cardinals, Bishops, Priests and Deacons, all the institutes of Religious life, all the parishes and chapels.
Thus, inasmuch as he promotes Kasper’s agenda of false mercy, especially now through the Synod on the Family and the Year of Mercy, every artifice and method of coercion can be brought upon millions of souls by the simple dictate of “Team Bergoglio” players and members.
For this reason unless Catholics band together in a world-wide network, we can easily be overcome, despite all our good wishes, desires, resolutions, or works, written or active.
As an anthroplogist (I hold a B. A. from the University of Florida, Gainesville), I note how silly the world has become, even in matters of the greatest importance. For example, if there arises a case of a man who walks to work, it is sufficient that it come to be known in 1 news report, and suddenly there is a crowd-funding campaign and $200,000 is donated to the man to buy a car to go to work in. (I imagine that he does not need a Lamborghini, but what car costs so much?). On the other hand, let there be 100 reports on the wickedness and danger of the Kasper agenda, and other than talk about it, Catholics do nothing.
For the “Year of True Conversion” (Y4Tc) initiative, there is the need of a network of several thousand of bloggers, websites, Catholic organizations on every continent, to promote the true reception of God’s Mercy. One blogger cannot organize that, EVERYONE must participate in making it known, on their blog, their website, their twitter page (pin it to the top), their facebook page, their pages on Tumblr or Pininterest or any other social media. Clergy too need to preach about it and NOT be shy about its true intention.
In the fight against the Kapser Agenda, there is the association Veri Catholici, which now comprises some 400 members.
Other than these, there are no organization devoted to such specific purposes, but they need not be. All organizations and institutions can oppose the Kasper Agenda in their own way, but they must oppose it, if they are to act as Catholics. To be quiet now, is to tacitly succumb. If you don’t declare your side publicly now, it will be too late to recruit an army when the battle starts.
Indeed, the fundamental problem today in the Church arises from the cowardice of too many clergy to speak out and take initiatives to oppose the errors. Part of the problem is that all the courageous men have been weeded out of seminary and expelled long ago, and what is left is mostly the excessively prudent, the habitually timid and those so self-interested in not being persecuted or criticized, that they are more like dumb watch dogs, than those ambassadors of the Most High who realize that the best way to return to His Court, is covered with the wounds and trophies of battle.
Catholics also have to resolve to work together. This is especially true of those organizations which have built up their own networks for a specific purpose and would normally not involve themselves in other interests. The Catholic Faith is attacked in Her very essence and structure by the Kasper agenda. It will not be rare to find a Cardinal or Bishop or Priest, for example, who will speak well against some aspect of the agenda, but be too scared to speak against the whole. If such a behavior predominates, the Church will fall and disappear in most nations.
On this matter, I will speak with the utmost sincerity and clarity: Where the Kasper agenda is opposed in its entirety, the Catholic Faith and Church will endure, where it is opposed only partly, it will fall.
This is because, the entire structure of the Church will be used against the opponents of the Kasper agenda; and if you only oppose it in something, all the other aspects of it will be used to drag you away with it into perdition.
Thus, Catholics need most of all to recruit Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Religious and writers and leaders to openly oppose the entire agenda and to do so with courage and boldness.
No 1 organization can do this, because 1 organization will be easily and quickly attacked, blacklisted and marked out for disapproval. No, EVERYONE needs to participate in fighting back.
This is especially true of the older organizations, which will, according to the tendencies of fallen human nature, be apt to hold back participating in this fight, because they are piqued by the thought of collaborating with new comers-on-the-block, or because they prefer to grow their own organizations rather than risk disapproval or obstacles to their own smaller interests.
Thus, to oppose the Kasper agenda requires among those who fight it, a true Conversion and true Catholic charity, which works together with all fellow Catholics, for the good of the Church, unto the supreme self-sacrifice.
And let’s not be shy or ignorant about what Christ wills for us: the conversion or expulsion of the Modernists from the Church. The proponents of the Kasper agenda, either need to repent of it totally, or get out of the Church; and if they do not do 1 or the other, the Catholic Bishops need to excommunicate them and separate from them.
Y4Tc = A CALL TO TURN THE YEAR OF FAKE MERCY ON ITS HEAD
Rome, March 14, 2015: Yesterday, Pope Francis announced a special year of “mercy” to “celebrate” and commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the close of the Second Vatican Council, which took place on Dec. 8, 1965. Which “Year of Mercy”, will be celebrated from Dec. 8, 2015, to Nov. 20, 2016.
Francis announced the Holy Year saying: “Dear Brothers and Sisters, I have often reflected upon how the Church can make its mission as a witness of mercy more apparent. It is a journey that begins with spiritual conversion. For this reason I have decided to proclaim an Extraordinary Jubilee which focuses on God’s mercy. It will be a Holy Year of Mercy. We wish to experience this inspired by the Word of the Lord: “Be merciful, just as your father is merciful” (cfr. Luke 6:36). This Holy Year will begin on the next Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception and will conclude on 20 November 2016, Sunday of Our Lord Jesus Christ King of the universe and the living face of the Father’s mercy.”
“I entrust the organisation of this Jubilee to the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelisation, so that it may bring it to life as a new leg of the Church’s journey on its mission to bring the Gospel of mercy to every person. I am certain that this Jubilee will give the whole Church the joy of rediscovering the mercy of God and making it grow. All of us are called to be merciful and offer consolation to every man and woman of our time. We entrust it henceforth to the Mother of Mercy, that she may cast her gaze upon us and watch over our journey.”
Let’s be honest, Pope Francis has no idea what God’s Mercy is about
It is a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit to laud, with a sacred act, that which attacked in every way the blessings which the Church had received by Her own fidelity to the Holy Spirit’s gift of piety to Her through the course of 1933 years…
It is a sacrilege of the very notion for which the Jubilee years were established, to turn a year which should be marked by the quest of the forgiveness of one’s own sins through penance and prayer and alms-giving, into a political event equivalent to patting one’s self on the back for having destroyed everything holy in the Church.
Mercy, as any Christian knows, has nothing to do with ignoring or excusing sin, as Pope Francis has made absolutely clear he’s about. Its about confessing one’s sin, in the humble recognition that God, not man nor the Pope, defines what is right and wrong, and man must accept or be thrust down into the everlasting fires of Hell!
True Mercy consists in this, that God deigns to forgive man his sins when and only when man agrees to recognize them as such, repent of them completely and perfectly, and amend his life by conforming it to the rules and laws and obligations which God has set, as He has revealed them in Scripture and Tradition.
Let’s be more honest, the “Fruits” of Vatican II are all rotten and putrefying
For those who have not lobotomized themselves with loyalty to a political ideology, which requires only the consistent parroting of the same ideology: one has only to look at the statistics which measure Catholic life, to know that Vatican II’s effect has been entirely rotten.
There is no need to prove the point, other bloggers have collected impressive amounts of evidence, as can be seen in this post, by Joao, “Catholic Church statistics (Vatican II is a disaster!)”, published on January 14, 2014.
One could also measure the theological meltdown by a simple comparison between the contents of homilies, newspapers, magazines and other publications, which are run by the hierarchy today, and those run by the same hierarchy yesterday.
Simply do a google search, or go to a “Catholic” bookstore.
I won’t mention the 10,000’s of boys who have been sexually abused by 1,000’s of homosexual predators among the Cardinals, Bishops, Priests and Religious who support Vatican II’s reforms — though we shouldn’t pretend that this moral disaster is only confined to that group.
Thus, there is no reason to celebrate the anniversary of Vatican II. Rather, on the contrary, we should lament it!
A Year for True Conversion (Y4Tc)
On which account, I believe it would redound to the honor and glory of the Divine Majesty of the Most Holy Trinity, that Catholics everywhere, recognizing that it is a special grace of the Holy Spirit to have been preserved in mind and soul from the massive delusion which has swept the Church since Pope John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council, and considering it the gravest act of truth and love to call one’s fellow brothers and one’s fathers to repentance, before the wrath of God falls upon them, or the Faith of the Church be entirely extinguished in them…
To call for a YEAR FOR TRUE CONVERSION (with the official Acronym: Y4Tc).
To participate meritoriously in this authentic year of grace, a Catholic will pledge himself in thought, word and deed to calling for the repentance of all those addicted to the Second Vatican Council as the new Gospel of the Church.
By reminding them,
that it is God, not men, Who is the Author of Creation and of Man, and of all natural institutions which are consequent to these.
that is is God, not men, Who is the Author of the Catholic Faith and Founder of the Catholic Religion, such that no man, not even the pope or bishops united with him, has any power to alter or change that which God has established;
that is is God, not men, Who is the Author of all authentic spiritual renewal of each and every individual and of the entire Church, and that no man, not even the pope with all the bishops united with him, can set up another path for spiritual renewal, than that which He has always worked.
Hence, during the “Year of Mercy” decreed by Pope Francis, from December 8, 2015 to November 20, 2015, Catholics adhering to the YEAR OF TRUE CONVERSION will pray and work for the conversion of all who are addicted to the Second Vatican Council by reminding them that the Deposit of Faith is Scripture AND Tradition, as interpreted and taught by the Perennial UNCHANGING Magisterium of the Church, and that it is
a MORTAL SIN of IDOLATRY to regard any other authority as the basis of the Catholic Faith.
a MORTAL SIN OF SACRILEGE to despise or contemn any ecclesiastical tradition, whether written or not, which the Church has received from Christ, from the Apostles or Prophets, from the Fathers or Doctors of the Church, from the Saints, or from the pre-Vatican II Magisterium or Popes.
a MORTAL SIN OF IMPIETY to propose new and novel forms or meanings for any Catholic liturgy, ritual, word, practice, devotion, for the purpose of mixing the spirit of the world, of the flesh, or of the devil, into Catholic life and belief.
The purpose of this Year of True Conversion will be to obtain the explicit and verbal recognition of these truths and the abandonment of that sacrilegious impiety known as the Aggiornamento, which has sought to adapt faith to life, in such wise, as to make of life the rule of faith.
I leave it to the artistic creativity of Catholics everywhere to create whatever signs or logos to show their adhesion to this year of grace.
Thus, let this year, be a year of intense spiritual warfare against the impiety of Modernism and of the Modernists. In this way, we can work the greatest and most necessary act of fraternal charity possible, for the greatest number of souls, today, and unto the end of time! — And such is, a true work of Mercy, a true work in collaboration with the Holy Spirit!
I encourage and ask one and all to place and consecrate this Year of True Conversion to the Holy Spirit, under the patronage of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, that He and She might work through all for the true reconciliation of God and men and the only authentic renewal possible for the Catholic Church.
Rome, March 13, 2015: Two years ago, this afternoon, the College of Cardinals elected Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Roman Pontiff.
A Failure in Law
I will omit, here, a long repetition of that which I have blogged about for 3 1/2 months, namely, that there are very grave and probative reasons and facts regarding the validity of that election, and this for 3 reasons:
Cardinal Bergoglio was elected on the 5th ballot in the afternoon, in violation of the Papal Law, Universi Dominici Gregis, which allows only 4 ballots per day. The facts were the subject of Antontio Socci’s bestselling book, Non è Francesco, and the crucial arguments were discussed here. The facts have never been denied, the reasonings in law for the validity, require a rewriting of 2 sections of the papal law; the reasonings against the validity require no change in the law. That makes the argument against the validity more probable both in law and in testimony.
Cardinal Bergoglio’s candidacy was promoted by a violation of UGD 81, which forbids any and all agreements among Cardinal electors as to whom they are going to vote for, such as any campaigning or promises of votes which is consequent upon canvassing for votes. The facts were presented by various sources, but summarized and brought to clear relief by Dr. Austen Ivereigh, in his book, The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope, specifically in chapter 9 of the same, where he names the conspirators, “Team Bergoglio”. The blog you are reading, From Rome, has made it the point to cover this story from the beginning; you can read all about it in our Chronology of Reports on “Team Bergoglio”. The consequences of the violation are the invalidation of the election, and this in virtue of the Code of Canon law. See the discussion here. Note that today Vatican Radio reports that Pope has himself confirmed that he was elected by a 2/3 majority (here), which puts validity in gravest doubt.
Cardinal Bergoglio before his nomination to Cardinal, and after, was notorious for giving communion to those in public sin and for instructing others to do the same. The allegations are confirmed by Sandro Magister. The consequence is that in virtue of the Papal Law, Cum ex apostolatus officio, of Pope Paul IV, he could not validly be elected Roman Pontiff. This argument is explained in the petition to the College of Cardinals. The validity in law of the Papal Law of Paul IV, has been discussed here and here.
A Failure in Prudence
But, moreso, the election of Cardinal Bergoglio by the College was a supreme failure of human prudence. Because, it is not prudent to elect quickly and without reflection someone who merely claims to be in favor of solving problems. One must look to his life and deeds, and that requires reflection. It is obvious to everyone in the Church, that if you spoke with Jorge Mario Bergoglio for 15 minutes, you could easily detect that he is not suitable for the office — that is, if you have any supernatural prudence at all, a prudence founded on an immaculate faith and resolute virtue.
I pity the man whom the Church’s Cardinals and Bishops regard as the Pope: it was a horrible sin against fraternal charity to promote to the office of Pope, a man whose entire career, from all accounts, has been obsessed with having and holding on to power. If any of the Cardinals had any question, in conclave, they could have certainly spoken to Cardinal Sandri, who was well acquainted with Cardinal Bergoglio’s failings.
I really do not see how the College of Cardinals was so possessed to elect such a man. But I feared that they had lost all sense, when during the general congregations for the Conclave, on March 7, the Cardinal Dean read out a message of condolence for the death of the dictator of Venezuela.*
It seems, from the continued silence of the College to so many scandals which have occurred on account of their choice, that that sense, after March 13, 2013, has not yet returned.
________________________
* Disturbing, too, was the fact that the first twitter user to recognize the newly elected Cardinal by face, that afternoon, was a male-prostitute.
Rome, March 11, 2015: The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has announced in January that it will hear a case regarding a dispute in which the question of the “right” of individuals to obtain marriage licenses, regardless of their gender, arises.
The US media and indeed many commentators have been presenting the news in an exceedingly erroneous manner: they are saying that the decision is already certain or that the Court will use its judgement wisely, but none dare to touch upon the truth of the matter, namely that,
The Court hath no power over Marriage
It is a truth of nature and of Divine Law, that no court has authority over the institution of Marriage. This truth is taught implicitly by Pope Leo XIII, in his Encyclical, Libertas, n. 10, when he writes (bold-facing added):
10. From this it is manifest that the eternal law of God is the sole standard and rule of human liberty, not only in each individual man, but also in the community and civil society which men constitute when united. Therefore, the true liberty of human society does not consist in every man doing what he pleases, for this would simply end in turmoil and confusion, and bring on the overthrow of the State; but rather in this, that through the injunctions of the civil law all may more easily conform to the prescriptions of the eternal law. Likewise, the liberty of those who are in authority does not consist in the power to lay unreasonable and capricious commands upon their subjects, which would equally be criminal and would lead to the ruin of the commonwealth; but the binding force of human laws is in this, that they are to be regarded as applications of the eternal law, and incapable of sanctioning anything which is not contained in the eternal law, as in the principle of all law. Thus, St. Augustine most wisely says: “I think that you can see, at the same time, that there is nothing just and lawful in that temporal law, unless what men have gathered from this eternal law.”(5) If, then, by anyone in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law, as being no rule of justice, but certain to lead men away from that good which is the very end of civil society.
Thus, because marriage, which is an institution of nature, takes precedence to the state in both time and causation. Hence, just as no state can exist unless there first be marriage, since every state is a society of men, and there cannot be a state without marriage.
Again, because God made made unto His image and likeness and He made them male and female, He also established that with the union of 1 man and 1 woman, their bond of fidelity remain unbroken throughout life. This truth is evidenced in the rational nature of man as much as in the physical nature of man. For, the proper development of the individual requires that he have 1 father and 1 mother, that his father be a male and that his mother be a woman; and that the two of them give him undivided and stable commitments in being his father and his mother, in unity, harmony and love.
And just as the violation of any of these characteristics of a marriage breaks down the family, so, just as the family is the fundamental building block of human society, the violation of any of these breaks down the state or impedes it all together.
Thus no court of men has any power over marriage, since “to have power over” means to have the authority over an institution. Since man does not have authority over institutions which have not arisen from human authority, courts of men must look to the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, the Creator, to know beforehand the unpassible limits and constraints which He has placed upon marriage.
Hence, a court which attacks marriage, attacks the state. And,
A Court which attacks the State is at war with the people
Hence it is a high crime and act of treason, for any human court to rule against the nature or duties of the institution of marriage. Such a court cannot define anything, but can only rule validly in law when it accepts AND recognizes the institution of marriage for what it is, as arising from the very nature of man as God his creator has established him in body and soul.
A court which attacks marriage, in attacking the state, is at war with the people. The citizens of any such state have thus the natural right and divine duty to arrest such judges and imprison them. Their crime is a capital one and citizens can lawfully by natural right put such justices to trial for a capital crime, even if there are no existing laws for such such a penalty, because such a penalty for such a crime is derived immediately from the Natural Law which requires no human positive law to be enacted.
Thus, when such a court attempts such a crime, the bond of allegiance of the people is without a doubt severed toward such a court, and its decisions can and ought to be rejected. Any human government or state which attempts to impose such a judgement upon the people, itself enters into a state of war with its citizens. Henceforth, they can lawfully omit all allegiance to such a state, whether as regards the payment of taxes, the levy of troops, the enforcement or obedience of laws, but only if and to the extent that they seek to establish anew a more just order and a state or government or laws which are more harmonious with the natural law and divine right.
These words might sound extreme, but they are no lest extreme than the crime committed by such a court in such an affair of men.
A CALL FOR VIOLENCE TO PROMOTE THE GREATER REVOLUTION
Rome, March 9, 2015: Students of theology at Rome, who are catholic, have long experience in “reading” what their professors are saying. This is because the current climate of Modernism, and the persecution of Catholic seminarians which is attendant upon keeping it in power, makes a woeful variety of the forms of dishonestly flourish under its pallid “sun” of error.
Modernism, as Catholics know and recognize, is the error which says there is nothing religious but what comes from the sentiments of the human heart. It is a species of atheism, of the kind apt to be found in those who pretend to be religious. It is a very apt and useful error for the ecclesiastical parasite, the priest-careerist or the hierarchical climber, because it absolves from all conscience and morality and thus enables any compromise necessary to ascend to ever greater depths of moral depravity and power.
In classes at the Pontifical faculties at Rome, the Modernist is easily recognized by his inability to speak sincerely and straightforwardly, his use of metaphors, indirect symbols, passing remarks, to key to his audience the “secret” meaning of his lecture, and allow it to be understood correctly. Few modernists omit this method, because it is so useful and successful; it leaves them in a strong position from where they can with difficulty be accused of being heretics, and one in which those who espouse heresy, can understand what they should be understanding in a certain sort of coded language or discourse.
The talk at Ognissanti is a perfect example of this method, but since this method is rarely recognized for what it is, let us unpack it for those Catholics who have the blessing never to have been “initiated” into it by attending a Pontifical university or seminary class.
First, the very occasion of the talk provides the context. The Modernists who pushed to dump the original schema for Vatican II and who controlled the entire implementation of the texts of the Council into which they wrote nearly all their own errors, find no greater occasion to rejoice but the anniversaries of their revolution. The 50th anniversary of the first mass in the vernacular, as was celebrated on Saturday March 7th, is just such an occasion.
It would be enough for the Pope to celebrate the occasion, even though he scrupulously avoided using the actual ritual Pope Paul VI used on that day, 50 years ago: no, no! such a liturgy, that of 1965, is much too much like the Traditional Latin Mass, of the “preconciliar era”. To have used that liturgy, would have been to confirm what Pope Benedict XVI often spoke about, the necessity to reconcile the 2 liturgies. But since “reconciliation” presupposes equality, and since Modernists deny the legitimate spiritual equality of the Old Rite — they actually deny the totality of the legitimate spiritual quality of that rite — there could be no question about using the liturgy of 1965. That would send the “wrong” message, in their minds, to their followers.
Thus, the significance of the day of March 7 and the use of the Novus Ordo for the 50th anniversary.
Significant too, is the Cardinal of whom this church is assigned among the Sacred College: Cardinal Walter Kasper, chief theologian of “Team Bergoglio” and papally authorized proponent of the Kasper thesis, which holds that it is mercy to abandon 2000 years of Christian teaching which bars public and impenitent sinners from reception of the sacraments.
All of these 3 circumstances already say all which the Modernists need to say. Their con-catenation means that unless their agenda is explicitly denounced in the Homily for the celebration, that agenda is in fact explicitly affirmed by the silence.
Let us now examine the text of the talk to see what else can be gleaned.
As the Modernists would be very inclined to fear that Traditionalists would be apt to criticize this talk — there were even rumors in Rome that the Vatican was obsessed that traditional Catholics would stage a demonstration against the Anniversary — we have to look closely to see what is intended to be seen only by initiated Modernists.
Quotations are from our unofficial English translation of the homily…see previous Blog post for citations.
+ + +
Holy Mass at the Roman Parish of Ognissanti, on the Via Appia Nuova
Homily of Pope Francis
3rd Sunday in Lent
Saturday, March 7, 2015
On the occasion of the feast of the Jewish Passover, Jesus went to Jerusalem. Arriving at the Temple, he does not find people who seek God, but people who are conducting their own business: merchants of animals for the offering of sacrifice, money-changers, who exchange the “impure” money, bearing the image of the Emperor, with the money approved by the religious authority to pay the annual temple tax. What do we find when we take ourselves there, when we go to our temples? I give you this example: The unworthy commerce, source of ill-gotten gain, provokes the energetic reaction of Jesus. He overturns their tables and throws their money to the ground, he drives the merchants away, saying to them: « Don’t make the House of my Father a market! » (John 2:16).
Note, from the start, that the Pope founds his entire homily on the comparison between the Jewish liturgy and the Christian liturgy. This is the standard Modernist reading of the liturgical aggiornamento: Just as the Jewish liturgy was ignorant and superficial, the Christian inspired and interior; so the old Mass was obsessed with appearances and rules, the reformed Liturgy is open and free and unvexing.
Note that the Pope uses the current Italian version of the Gospels, which erroneously translates the Greek, οἶκον ἐμπορίου, as “market”, when in fact is means “house of business”, that is, “covered market place”. (The actual mercantile practices in the Gospel text took place, not in the Temple, but in the Courtyard of the Gentiles, the most exterior part of the outer area, in which even Gentiles who were believers could enter. No part of the Mosaic Law forbade trade in this area. Contrariwise, the Mosaic Law, of which Jesus as God is the author, precepted the offering of sacrifices to God: the support of the Temple by the annual tax, too, was a customary obligation of the entire Jewish People, to which Jesus never objected.)
In fact, the use of the Jewish – Christian parallelism to fault the old liturgy and praise the new, is a form of antisemitism which we would expect from a Lutheran faithful to Luther’s bigotry against both the Jewish People and the traditional Mass, the kind of theological bigotry propounded in liberal Germany theological institutes, such as those from which Cardinal Kasper may draw his racially tinged concepts of African Bishops, as Edward Pentin exposed during the recent Extra-Ordinary Synod on the Family. But let’s not allow our expectations or history to get in the way of the evidence.
Referring to the words of Jesus in John 2:16, the Pope continues:
This expression does not only refer to the traffic which was being practiced in the courtyards of the Temple. Rather, it regards the type of religiosity. The gesture of Jesus is a gesture of “cleaning”, of purification, and the mentality which He expresses can be found in the texts of the Prophets, according to which God does not take pleasure in an exterior cult wrought through material sacrifice and based upon personal interest (cf. Isaiah 1:11-17; Jeremiah 7:2-11). This gesture is a call back to authentic worship, to the correspondence between liturgy and life; a call which is valid for every epoch and even for us today. That correspondence between liturgy and life. The liturgy is not something strange, over there, far off, and one during which I think of many things, or pray the Rosary. No, no. There is a correspondence, between the liturgical celebration and what I then carry on in my life; and on this (path) one must go further ahead, one must journey onward.
Here the pope abandons the common reading of this passage in the Fathers, which attributes Jesus’ ire not to the mercantile operations per se, but to the corruption which had crept into it, such as not exchanging coins at the fair value, or selling animals for sacrifice at inflated prices; all of which defrauded the honest Jew who came to worship God, especially the poorer ones. (Remember that Jesus’ family was so poor that, at His birth, Joseph could only afford 2 turtle doves for sacrifice not the customary lamb).
To use this text while avoiding the condemnation of the sin of the exploitation of the poor, is a very notable exception for the man who is Pope Francis: seeing that he has railed against this for his entire Pontificate. This omission, therefore, should be seen as significant: namely that the true message of his homily is aimed at something else. We can see what that is, in the text paragraph of his talk:
The conciliar Constitution, Sacrosanctum Concilium, defines the liturgy as « the first and indispensable source from which the faithful can draw the true Christian spirit » (n. 14). Which means to reaffirm the essential link which unites the life of the disciple of Jesus with liturgical worship. This is, above all, not a doctrine to comprehend, or a rite to fulfill; it is naturally also this but in another manner, it is essentially diverse: it is a source of life and of light for our journey of faith.
That is, he is going to speak about the liturgical renewal, not about Jesus cleansing the Temple, per se. The Pope continues:
Moreover, the Church calls us to have and to promote an authentic liturgical life, so that there may be a harmony between what the liturgy celebrates and what we ourselves life in our own existence. It treats of how to express in life what we have received by means of the Faith and what which have celebrated (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 10).
The Church does nothing of the kind, actually. Vatican II did not impose any obligation on anyone in the Church, since it established no canons or anathemas not even promulgated a new liturgy. The Novus Ordo came into being only in 1969, and its authors were the Consilium established by Pope Paul VI, not by the Council Fathers. Nor did it even attempt to be faithful to the document, which the Pope just cited. The Pope could have mentioned this, but he did not: and his silence is significant. He is affirming that his intentions are to continue in that line of misrepresenting the Council as Pope Paul VI did.
The Pope continues:
The disciple of Jesus does not go to church only to observe a precept, to feel okay with a God who should not “trouble” him much. “But I, Lord, go every Sunday, I fulfill …, don’t mix yourself up with my life, don’t bother me”. This is the mentality of so many Catholics, so many. The disciple of Jesus goes to church to encounter the Lord and to find in his grace, working in the Sacraments, the strength to think and act according to the Gospel. On which account, we cannot delude ourselves into thinking that we can enter the house of the Lord and “cover ourselves over”, with prayers and devotional practices, comportments contrary to the requirements of justice, of honesty or of charity towards our neighbor. We cannot substitute with “religious gifts” what is owed to our neighbor, putting off a true conversion. The cult, the liturgical celebration, are the privileged place to heed the voice of the Lord, which guides us along the road of righteousness and Christian perfection.
Notice the dichotomy between the “disciples of Jesus” and “too many Catholics”. If you think the Pope is literally saying that “many Catholics” are not “disciples of Jesus”, you are correct!The truth is, however, that when one speaks properly, “Catholics” are the only disciples of Jesus that there are! for they are the only ones who take Him as seriously as He Himself insisted to be taken. So what is the Pope getting at? We must understand, that while it appears that he is using words in their proper sense, he is not; thus we must consider that he is not, if we are to understand him aright.
Secondly, if one considers the many scandalous deeds and actions of Pope Francis, as Pope and before in Argentina, we can rightly say that we find his words astounding: because he is condemning “many Catholics” for doing what he himself is notorious for doing, yet omitting that he is also at fault for that.What kind of “authentic Christian life” is that?
We must understand, therefore, that in this homily, the Holy Father has no intention of presenting a call to authentic Christian life, rather, his goal is to attack it. For his actions speak louder than his words and give them context, even if that is politically incorrect to say. If his intentions were otherwise, he would publicly repent of his bad example and many scandalous words and deeds during the last 2 years as Pope. He did not. That is significant.
Therefore, the true reading must be, that the authentic Christian life which seeks interior conversion for the sanctification of the exterior life, is to be rejected, and in its place one should implement what the aggiornamento gave us, the appearances of a renewal, which have visibly altered the liturgies of the Church, but have entirely abandoned the interior man, especially the interior of many priests and bishops, to interior corruption, to hypocrisy, superficiality etc., the very same things the Pope appears to be condemning.
The Pope continues:
This regards the fulfillment of a journey of conversion and penitence, to take from our life the scars of sin, as Jesus did, by cleansing the Temple of petty interests. And Lent is the favorable time for all of this, it is the time for interior renewal, for the forgiveness of sin, the time in which we have been called to rediscover the Sacrament of Penance and of Reconciliation, which causes us to pass from darkness to the light of grace and friendship with Jesus. There is no need to forget the great strength which this Sacrament has for the Christian life: it makes us grow in union with God, it makes us reacquire the lost joy and to experience the consolation of feeling ourselves personally welcomed by the merciful embrace of God.
The error of Luther was to seek God in the confirmation of his own personal “will” to be saved, founded in a fiducial faith. This error gave rise to the sentimentalism of Protestantism, which puts the experience of faith in the place of dogmatic faith; to which error there followed unbridled free thought in matters of religion, since “faith” no longer required intellectual assent to defined propositions or to revealed truths. What remained from Protestantism was consumed by Modernism, where sentiment alone remains. Thus Modernists go to church to get a feeling, a consolation, just as the pope is proposing for “disciples of Jesus”. Thus, we have our true key to read the Papal homily: The “disciples” are Modernists, the Jews are the Traditionalists, the pre-conciliar Catholics, who refuse the Aggiornamento.
The pope continues this line of thought, in his concluding remarks, where he calls for the continued revolution in the Church.
Dear brothers and sisters, this Church was constructed thanks to the apostolic zeal of St. Luigi Orione. It is precisely here, that, fifty years ago, blessed Paul VI inaugurated, in a certain sense, the liturgical reform with the celebration of the Mass in the language spoken by the people. I auger that this circumstance may revive in you all the love of the house of God, In her, may you find great spiritual help. Here you are able to experience, every time you wish to, the regenerative power of personal prayer and of community prayer. Listening to the Word of God, proclaimed in the liturgical assembly, it sustains you in the path of our Christian life. You meet together here between these walls, not as strangers, but as brothers, capable of giving one another a hand freely, because you have been built up in love through Christ, the foundation of hope and the fundament of pledge for every believer.
Him, Jesus Christ, the Corner Stone, do we embrace in this Holy Mass, renewing the resolution to commit ourselves for our own interior purification and for the interior cleansing of the spiritual edifice of the Church, of which each of us is a living part in force of our Baptism. Amen.
To a simple Catholic it might seem that the Pope is saying something quite different than what we have expounded, but take it from a student of 3 pontifical faculties, that is just what it is intended and crafted to appear to mean to a simple Catholic.
Thus, in summation, we can say, that the homily as presented is calling for greater violence against the “Jews”, that is the traditionalists — Jesus cleansing the Temple, is after all a prime example for the justification for violence* — and in favor of the Aggiornamento of the Church ever more deeply, and thus in favor of the Kasper Thesis, the heretical thesis of divorcing the Sacraments from the observance of the moral law, the thesis promoted by Cardinal Kasper, who is the Cardinal patron of the very church in which this homily was given.
____________________
* Remember, it is a mortal sin of sacrilege to use scripture for an evil purpose or to interpret it in a sense contrary to the common opinion of the Fathers of the Church. The true example given by Our Lord in the Temple, is that as God’s Divine Son He has the right to cleanse His own Church from corruption, and this He surely will do, even before the great day of His Final Return. And that it is a grave offense to the Divine Majesty of His Father, that the uses of the places dedicated to the worship of God, as He commanded it, be stained with moral corruption. In other words, the example of Our Lord in the temple gives us the exact opposite indications as that which the Pope promotes, because it is diametrically opposed to the impiety of Modernism, to the hypocrisy of the pink mafia, and to the objectives of Free Masons and the Progressive Movement, and the adaptation of liturgy to life, such as the Aggiornamento has been applied.
Rome, March 9, 2015: On Saturday, Pope Francis celebrated the 50th anniversary of the first use of a vernacular form of the Roman Rite, when he visited the titular church of Cardinal Walter Kasper, at Rome, the Parish of All Saints (Ognisannti).
For the record, here is our unofficial English translation of the original Italian text, which can be found at News.Va.
+ + +
Holy Mass at the Roman Parish of Ognissanti, on the Via Appia Nuova
Homily of Pope Francis
3rd Sunday in Lent
Saturday, March 7, 2015
On the occasion of the feast of the Jewish Passover, Jesus went to Jerusalem. Arriving at the Temple, he does not find people who seek God, but people who are conducting their own business: merchants of animals for the offering of sacrifice, money-changers, who exchange the “impure” money, bearing the image of the Emperor, with the money approved by the religious authority to pay the annual temple tax. What do we find when we take ourselves there, when we go to our temples? I give you this example: The unworthy commerce, source of ill-gotten gain, provokes the energetic reaction of Jesus. He overturns their tables and throws their money to the ground, he drives the merchants away, saying to them: « Don’t make the House of my Father a market! » (John 2:16).
This expression does not only refer to the traffic which was being practiced in the courtyards of the Temple. Rather, it regards the type of religiosity. The gesture of Jesus is a gesture of “cleaning”, of purification, and the mentality which He expresses can be found in the texts of the Prophets, according to which God does not take pleasure in an exterior cult wrought through material sacrifice and based upon personal interest (cf. Isaiah 1:11-17; Jeremiah 7:2-11). This gesture is a call back to authentic worship, to the correspondence between liturgy and life; a call which is valid for every epoch and even for us today. That correspondence between liturgy and life. The liturgy is not something strange, over there, far off, and one during which I think of many things, or pray the Rosary. No, no. There is a correspondence, between the liturgical celebration and what I then carry on in my life; and on this (path) one must go further ahead, one must journey onward.
The conciliar Constitution, Sacrosanctum Concilium, defines the liturgy as « the first and indispensable source from which the faithful can draw the true Christian spirit » (n. 14). Which means to reaffirm the essential link which unites the life of the disciple of Jesus with liturgical worship. This is, above all, not a doctrine to comprehend, or a rite to fulfill; it is naturally also this but in another manner, it is essentially diverse: it is a source of life and of light for our journey of faith.
Moreover, the Church calls us to have and to promote an authentic liturgical life, so that there may be a harmony between what the liturgy celebrates and what we ourselves life in our own existence. It treats of how to express in life what we have received by means of the Faith and what which have celebrated (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 10).
The disciple of Jesus does not go to church only to observe a precept, to feel okay with a God who should not “trouble” him much. “But I, Lord, go every Sunday, I fulfill …, don’t mix yourself up with my life, don’t bother me”. This is the mentality of so many Catholics, so many. The disciple of Jesus goes to church to encounter the Lord and to find in his grace, working in the Sacraments, the strength to think and act according to the Gospel. On which account, we cannot delude ourselves into thinking that we can enter the house of the Lord and “cover ourselves over”, with prayers and devotional practices, comportments contrary to the requirements of justice, of honesty or of charity towards our neighbor. We cannot substitute with “religious gifts” what is owed to our neighbor, putting off a true conversion. The cult, the liturgical celebration, are the privileged place to heed the voice of the Lord, which guides us along the road of righteousness and Christian perfection.
This regards the fulfillment of a journey of conversion and penitence, to take from our life the scars of sin, as Jesus did, by cleansing the Temple of petty interests. And Lent is the favorable time for all of this, it is the time for interior renewal, for the forgiveness of sin, the time in which we have been called to rediscover the Sacrament of Penance and of Reconciliation, which causes us to pass from darkness to the light of grace and friendship with Jesus. There is no need to forget the great strength which this Sacrament has for the Christian life: it makes us grow in union with God, it makes us reacquire the lost joy and to experience the consolation of feeling ourselves personally welcomed by the merciful embrace of God.
Dear brothers and sisters, this Church was constructed thanks to the apostolic zeal of St. Luigi Orione. It is precisely here, that, fifty years ago, blessed Paul VI inaugurated, in a certain sense, the liturgical reform with the celebration of the Mass in the language spoken by the people. I auger that this circumstance may revive in you all the love of the house of God, In her, may you find great spiritual help. Here you are able to experience, every time you wish to, the regenerative power of personal prayer and of community prayer. Listening to the Word of God, proclaimed in the liturgical assembly, it sustains you in the path of our Christian life. You meet together here between these walls, not as strangers, but as brothers, capable of giving one another a hand freely, because you have been built up in love through Christ, the foundation of hope and the fundament of pledge for every believer.
Him, Jesus Christ, the Corner Stone, do we embrace in this Holy Mass, renewing the resolution to commit ourselves for our own interior purification and for the interior cleansing of the spiritual edifice of the Church, of which each of us is a living part in force of our Baptism. Amen.
March 8, 2015: The From Rome blog is not accustomed to quote comments from other websites, but every now and then one runs upon a comment which summarizes in the succinct and colorful language with which laymen are often blessed to have the talent for, the true nature and spirit of current events. Here is just one comment from a layman, James, made on the article, Uneasy Truce: Vatican Spokesman will not sue Canadian Blogger for Public Criticism, by Kathy Schiffer at National Catholic Register, on March 6th:
Posted by James on Friday, Mar 6, 2015 2:40 PM (EDT):
The totally gratuitous scandal ignited by Father Rosica’s real and threatened actions against Mr. Domet is plain stupid. It is hard to believe that there is any facet of common sense that would allow a priest to embark on such a course of action. Nevertheless, given the current climate where the heterodox are given full reign to attack and undermine doctrine, why not bite at the heels of a concerned, faithful and orthodox layman. The utterly cruel nonsense Mr. Domet met with at the Vatican when he appealed to their intervention is of even greater concern. Lies, theft and malarkey go unabated and uncorrected. They pose behind any chunk of pious sentimentality to boost their orthodox credentials (soccer balls on altars comes to mind). Left-wing clerics, from the “tippy-top” to the local pastor are exposing themselves to be beneath contempt over the last two years. They have lost all credence among Catholics who are not amongst the low-info. Indeed … “why all the reticence?” Cowardliness, that’s why. All of them need to learn how to teach doctrine and how to accompany the flock on the spiritual journey…but I guess it’s just easier to distort the Magisterium rather than lead the flock to the journey’s intended end. Someone needs to hold the mirror up. Someone needs to fire these clowns. Someone needs instruction on how to make a genuine examination of conscience, or if not that, how to write a letter of resignation.
Rome, March 6, 2015: The agenda of Communism* to disarm Christendom more and more has reached fever pitch this week with pronouncements by the Vatican Observer at the United Nations, the Pope, and several media outlets in the United States against the death penalty.
Patheos a left-wing, source for news and opinion for Catholics in the English speaking world, is running a story today about this, entitled, “Catholic Media Unite in Opposition to the Death Penalty“. That article in part reads:
‘Capital Punishment Must End.’ That’s the bold headline in the National Catholic Register this morning. The Register, in a groundbreaking collaboration with three other Catholic journals, published a strong statement opposing capital punishment.
The editorial boards of the Register, the National Catholic Reporter, Our Sunday Visitor and America joined in opposition to the death penalty, as the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in Glossip v. Gross, a case out of Oklahoma that challenges the most widely used lethal injection protocol as being cruel and unusual punishment.
The title of their article is more than misleading, it is implicitly heretical.°
For this simple reason, that it is de fide, that is a truth of Divine Revelation itself, that the State has the authority to punish wicked doers with capital punishment.
This is the teaching of Our Lord during His very Passion, when to Pontius Pilate, the Roman Procurator of Judea, insisting that He not be silent but answer his questions, He replied to him, declaring:
You would have no power over Me if it were not given you from above (John 19:11).
This truth was taught by St. Paul in other words, when he said,
1LET every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. 2Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. 3 For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.5 Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For therefore also you pay tribute. For they are the ministers of God, serving unto this purpose. 7 Render therefore to all men their dues. Tribute, to whom tribute is due: custom, to whom custom: fear, to whom fear: honour, to whom honour.
Therefore, the Catholic Faith has ever held that the state has the authority from God to punish criminals with capital punishment, since the metaphor “power of the sword” in St. Paul’s day referred to the punishment of beheading which was inflicted upon citizens of the empire for grave crimes.
The State, thus, has the moral right and the duty to impose this punishment in appropriate cases, the propriety of which arises not from the subjective dispositions of the individual, but from the objective transgression of the moral law committed by the evil doer.
This truth of the faith is intimately associated with another truth, namely that the Moral Law — which says what is right and wrong, which has God as its author and which is legible in the works of His creation — is superior in dignity to the individual human person, inasmuch as every human person is a creature of God Who is the Author of the moral law. For every law shares in the dignity of the one who issues it.
For these reasons it is not only an error, but a heresy against the Faith of Christ, to say that capital punishment is evil, un-useful or inappropriate, either in itself, or in its application. It is always useful and necessary to the state, because there will always be in this world, individuals who gravely offend the particular or common good in such wise as to merit the supreme temporal punishment, the loss of their own life. That is a fact of original sin.
The Roman Catechism, which summarized the Faith of the Catholic Church at the time of the Council of Trent had this to say on capital punishment:
That Pope John Paul II said that there exists other means to remediate the criminal does not mean that capital punishment is evil in itself or to be entirely abolished. He spoke about the remediation of the individual, not the duty of the state or the right of the state nor of the greater common good. And if he meant anything contrary to the teaching of Christ, it is obvious, that he erred and is not to be followed in that, since Vatican I required that Popes teach nothing contrary to Christ and His Apostles, and exhorted Catholics not to follow them if they do so.
________________
* Marx held that the way to social justice was through class revolution, and that capital punishment was the tool of the rulers to suppress the masses: this error promoted through liberation theology has spread from Europe to most of Latin America.
° Inasmuch as it says that such pronouncements are Catholic.
+ + + + + + +
The Book on the Trinity, every faithful Catholic priest would love as his next present
With this book, your priest will always have something intelligent and awesomely inspiring to preach to you about
God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit!
Q. The Catholic world is gladdened to hear today that Fr. Rosica has decided not to take legal action against you, for your public criticism of his positions at your now famous blog, Vox Cantoris. As one of those who would like to know more about this sad episode, I am honored that you have consented to be interviewed by the From Rome blog.
Let us begin, therefore, with the facts of the case. When and how did you receive the threat of legal action, what Fr. Rosica now calls, the cease and desist letter?
Mr. Domet: Well, it clearly did not seem to me as a “cease and desist letter” which could have been written by him without the aid of one of Toronto’s most expensive law firms (though he does state the work was “pro bono; the fees to my Solicitor are certainly not, I’ve already paid her a retainer, as is just). The letter was quite clear on its demands and what was more astounding was the continued threat of a lawsuit even had I complied with their demands which I was not prepared to do. I was at lunch on Tuesday, February 17, the day before Ash Wednesday with a colleague and it came across my smartphone. Suffice to say, after reading it, lunch was over. The letter is available on line at my blog, people can read it and draw their own conclusions.
Q. What was your and your wife’s reaction at receiving such a communication from a man of God? and this at the beginning of Lent?
Mr. Domet: I was astounded and shocked, and my wife was extremely hurt and upset; and frankly, afraid as I was of what this meant for us and our home and my son; this has been very hard on her, especially coming from a priest. We know so many and work with so many priests organizing and assisting, consulting and training for the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite and chanting the Mass. She herself has a beautiful voice and assists me every week in the traditional rite. I also sing weekly in the Ordinary Form so my work with priests is well known and my love and respect for these good priests with whom I work is without doubt. The affects upon us have been physical, too, with more than a few chiropractic adjustments for neck and shoulder pain and stress. As for Lent, well; since we married nearly two years ago, life’s been pretty soft. Our Lent began with a very heavy cross much more so than the usual we might try to put upon ourselves. We have both been sustained by prayers from so many people around the world and we have many times offered up this trial to God our Father united with the Cross of Christ. We are happy that we can now regroup over the next few days and rest and then get on with a more structured Lenten focus.
Q. Who is Jesus Christ and what does the Catholic Faith mean to you? And how did this magnify your dismay at what had happened?
Mr. Domet: He is my LORD and saviour and King of all; if I try to do anything without him I fail – I’ve proven that more than once and “I can do all things in Him who strengthens me” was what I remembered in this matter. Nothing is more important than the Catholic Faith as given to us by Our Blessed Lord; He and It are the rock on which life makes sense and truth is anchored.
As for my dismay, what else can we expect? Look around at the world and at the Church. The Church for many reasons is weak so faith is weak; when faith is weak, Catholics are weak and the world is inflamed with evil and terror. I am dismayed that there are so few Catholics, whether priest, prelate or laity, prepared to stand up for Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church. In Canada, we have over 40% baptized as Catholics, in the United States of America maybe 30% ; if every one of us went to the Sacraments and Mass on Sunday and lived our faith we would change our nations overnight! If that is the situation here, how much more for Europe where the percentages are even higher? My dismay is your dismay—the failings of Catholics to be Catholic and stand up for Our Lord.
Q. What did you do first, seek advice or contact the Law Firm in question?
Mr. Domet: I sought advice from a very small group of close advisors. I did not contact the law firm directly – I needed to secure the right Solicitor and found her, a Catholic with some other background knowledge which I cannot reveal but which aided our strategy. Our first contact back to the law firm apparently engaged “pro bono” by Father Rosica was by mail with the response to their first letter and contact was only made by my Solicitor.
Q. What was the advice given, or response from the Firm, as the case may be….?
Mr. Domet: As I indicated this on my own blog, Vox Cantoris; we responded to the deadline in the first letter to prevent an injunction on their part, though not meeting their demands, of course. We stated our position and suggested other options for discussion within the Church which were rejected.
Other items were then put on the table, making demands on me that were impossible to accept. It became apparent to me that we needed to communicate with clarity what we were not prepared to do, and what we were prepared to do, which was to defend ourselves and engage a crowd-funding campaign to sustain it.
Q. Out of respect for your contact in the Secretariat of State, I won’t ask you to divulge his name. And, assuming the advice he gave you was not his own, but that which he was counseled to give, can you tell us what advice did he give you? And did you ask him to explain why he gave such unexpected advice?
Mr. Domet: As I stated on my blog, I first “took it to the Church” as we are commanded to do in Holy Scripture. Frankly, it was easier to go to my contact in Rome than my own Chancery in Toronto. I can only assume that the information coming back to me was his personal advice and nobody else’s and I have no reason to believe otherwise. However, I was asked to state my “intention” and I did not respond to it and was then asked the next morning again and that maybe it would be better to “seek humility” and “apologise.” I did not and was advised not to respond to either. The fact is, intervention could have happened on the first or second day.
Q. Personally, I have seen time and time again, members of the clergy use spiritual counsels to convince the laity to assume a posture of excessive respect toward the clergy which seems to be would only enable further abusive behavior by members of the clergy, the same or otherwise. Was this any part of your own reaction to the advice given you through your contact in the Secretariate of State? And how does that reflect on the state of affairs in the Vatican, under Pope Francis, in your opinion?
Mr. Domet: I don’t think that I am qualified to give an opinion on the Secretariat of State and its operation under Pope Francis. However, let me state this; I’ve heard a lot of clergy do exactly as you stated and I myself have seen it directly, I have experienced it directly. It is the height of clericalism and it is detestable.
It is particularly detestable to attempt to do it to informed laity, which is in direct contravention of our rights and duties under Canon 212 §3 and the precepts of Vatican II, which they preach when it suits them.
Look, our parents and grandparents were victims of a clericalism that destroyed the liturgy and the faith for millions of souls. The same clericalism abused and sodomised and destroyed lives. This same clericalist attitude demanded that we “pay, pray and obey” while they “preyed!” Some of them say that we who wish to live by the Law and desire proper liturgy are Pharisaical and pelagian and desire clericalism. Nonsense! It is they that are the Pharisees, they are the clericalists –I’ve seen it; I’ve lived it and I’ve had direct experience with all of it and in some ways that I would rather not discuss at this time.
Q. What should catholics, and especially catholic bloggers who are faithful to the teaching of Christ, do, when confronted with such a letter?
Mr. Domet: Pray. Ask for spiritual warriors to pray especially Carmelite Nuns (thank you to them!!!). Assemble a small team of advisors and a practicing Catholic lawyer including a Canon Lawyer; but something tells me this won’t be happening again anytime soon.
Q.And how do you think your case gives good example of what should be done in the future, regarding attempts by an ever increasing number of clergy and religious to urge and push the Church to abandon Christ’s teaching about faith and penance, marriage, chastity, and the traditional Eucharistic Discipline?
Mr. Domet: The example is quite clear; the Catholic blogosphere lit up with what happened; we need to see the power in that and take up the cause for the faith the family and the Holy Eucharist which seems to me to be at the heart of the matter.
How can those of us now unite to form an army of devoted and believing Catholics that blog to prevent an attempt to overturn doctrine at the Synod?
What vehicle can we use to coordinate our work, not control it, but to coordinate and disseminate and educate and catechise beyond just our few hundred readers?
Well, that’s what it was, I dare say now it is in the thousands! This situation since Ash Wednesday also shows the Church the power of blogs and how we will not be silent anymore in the face of heterodoxy. I can still remember as a child how my late mother particularly lamented what was done in the 1960’s. They had no way to stop it, no tools to fight back, we do and there is no excuse anymore not to use it to the advantage of the Church with “clarity and charity” as my own Archbishop will often state.
Q. Do you believe the proposals of Cardinal Kasper are, as Cardinals Muller and Sarah describe them, heretical, inasmuch as they propose to divorce Catholic Faith from Traditional discipline regarding the Sacraments?
Mr. Domet: Yes, 100% without reservation. Let me say this too. I married my lovely Frankie nearly two years ago; we courted for nearly two before that. I was married previously in the Church but was granted a “Decree of Nullity” many years ago. Let these prelates stop with the distortion of the facts. The annulment process, at least I can speak of here in Toronto, is rigorous and thorough as it must be, but it was not “painful.” It took time because I was lazy with my documents. My recollection is the cost was a suggested donation of $900 Canadian for which I received a tax receipt — so we can get off that carousel that it is not possible to obtain one.
One cannot divorce the Catholic Faith from Traditional discipline regarding the Sacraments and still remain Catholic.
Q. What do you think Catholic Cardinals and Bishops should be doing now to avert a disaster in October at the Synod for the Family?
Mr. Domet: Our own Cardinal Archbishop Thomas Collins has addressed the matter publicly and upholds the doctrine. He has asked for input from the faithful and I have certainly provided my own. What the Catholic faithful need to see are more examples of prelates such as Cardinal Burke and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Cardinal Sarah, Archbishop Cordileone, the Polish bishops and many of those in Africa. Why are they not all speaking out? What are they afraid of? I’ve had enough of bishops in Belgium and the United States and here in Canada musing about blessing and accepting of alternative lifestyles. Yes, they have said this; I don’t need to name them here. I’ve heard enough of this “mercy” it is a false mercy – there is nothing merciful about someone being left in a place that will jeopardise their eternal salvation.
Q. If the Pope and those who prefer loyalty to him to loyalty to Christ Jesus, should push or declare any deviation from the Faith or traditional discipline of the Sacraments in the October Synod, will you stand with the Pope or with Jesus Christ?
Mr. Domet: I stand with Jesus Christ my Lord and Saviour. Let us not, as Catholics, give an exaggerated status to any pope along the lines of what our protestant friends think – an infallibility without respect for the Gospel, which he does not possess. The First Vatican Council defined it very clearly.
Q. How high do you think the stakes are in this battle?
Mr. Domet: As high as they can be; schism, heresy and the loss of souls and as our beloved Benedict XVI said, “the very future of the world is at stake”; God will not be mocked.
When He is reviled by High Priests & theologians, His Disciples remain silent?
Rome, March 5, 2015: In a telling editorial, Edward Pentin, a noted journalist who covers the Vatican, describes the woeful situation in the Catholic Church under Pope Francis:
One of the most frustrating aspects of covering the Church today is the unwillingness of trusted and reliable sources to go on the record. Strangely, this seems most common when it comes to defending doctrine, and the Church generally, in the face of attack.
Whether it’s Church teaching coming under fire at the Synod on the Family, Vatican officials with vitally important and helpful information to share, or German bishops outnumbered by their dissenting brother bishops, few appear willing to go public and speak up for Christ and the truth…
Pentin goes on to speculate as to the causes, but omits the most probable one of all. Jorge Mario Bergoglio was notorious, in his tenure as Archbishop of Buenos Aries, for violently castigating those with whom he disagreed, going so far as to use crude and vulgar insults as he shouted at them, in person, or on the phone.
But, let us not pretend otherwise, it is not the Church alone which is being attacked by the vile proposals of “Team Bergoglio” theologians like Cardinal Kasper or Cardinal Marx, it is Jesus Christ Himself who is being denied in His teachings regarding the necessity of both faith and penance for salvation, as a prerequisite for receiving His love in the Eucharist.
Indeed, it is quite logical, that those who would crucify the Lord anew by a sacrilegious communion, and who in fact are currently crucifying Him by such unworthy communions — for all who oppose Christ’s teachings are in mortal sin and receive sacrilegiously — be refused from receiving Him, Who died the bloody death on the Cross to deliver them from the Prince of Darkness and Lies, and transfer them into the Kingdom of Light, Truth and Purity.
That so many Cardinals, Bishops, priests, deacons and religious, men and women, are silent in the face of these attacks on the Person of Our Lord, recalls the treachery and cowardice of the 11 Apostles who abandoned Our Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane in 33 A. D..
Ten of them had this excuse, that Our Lord had not yet risen from the dead, and they had not yet received the Holy Spirit.
But none of those who are silent today, have this excuse.
Clergy and religious who are silent because they fear a phone call from a mad-superior who wants to punish all who will not go along with open apostasy from Christ their Lord, are not worthy of Jesus Christ. Such without a doubt shall burn for all eternity in the pit of Hell with Judas Iscariot at their side.
But for those who claim some devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and have some likeness to the virgins St. John, St. Mary Magdalene and St. Martha, IT IS YOUR DUTY TO STAND BY THE CROSS AND SPEAK OUT, for Our Lord has no voice to reach the ears of sinners, but through YOU!
In this vale of tears, after God, there is no greater consolation but to contemplate and praise His Most Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary! Here is Hildegard von Bingen’s hymn to Our Lady: Ave Generosa! Hail, O Generous Woman!
Let us beseech this Virgin of Virgins, to save the Church from the impiety of Cardinal Kasper’s proposals and the malign conspiracy behind them which is spreading over the Church as a mortiferous cancer.
Today is the 76th Anniversary of the Election of Pope Pius XII
Editorial — Rome, March 2, 2015: In the English language, we are blessed with the capacity of using the honorific capitalization to vary the signification of words. Thus we can say that the church of which we are members is at the corner of Maple and Main street. Or we can say, that the Church of which we are members was founded by Christ Jesus. The first signifies a mere building, the second the Mystical Body of Christ. The same goes with the word, “faith”, though many Catholics in the English language are beginning to forget this. When we speak of the “Catholic faith” we say something different than when we speak of the “Catholic Faith”. The latter refers properly to the teachings of our holy religion, and as a metonymy — that is, the poetic usage by which a whole thing is named by a part, as in the prayer: “Lord, I am not worthy that Thou should come under my roof”, the word “roof” refers to the whole house: the body being the house of the soul, metaphorically — so when we say, “the Catholic Faith”, the expression can can also indicate the Catholic Religion itself, not just its doctrines.
But when we say, “the Catholic faith”, we ought to refer properly to the supernatural virtue of faith, as a Catholic should have it — there is no other way to have it — namely, to believe all which God has publicly revealed, and this in the same sense and understanding as it has always been understood by the Catholic Faith.
Thus, when we say, “Without humility, there is no Catholic faith”, we are speaking about the interior disposition of individuals, not of a distinction of Churches.
God gives grace to the humble, but to the proud He hardens His Heart
Though God can do all things, and though God can convert even the most hardened of sinners, as His Mercy can alone accomplish in such exceptional circumstances, everyone easily recognizes that it is very foolish to put one’s hope in such, as if such could be presumed.
Take for example the case of driving in a snow storm with a gas tank near empty. As one goes down the highway, one sees a sign for a gas station in the little town one is passing, and there is an exit to get off the road. The station is open, other cars are filling up. Yet, one knows that there is a gas station at home, and that though the needle on the gas gauge is getting near empty, there is a theoretical possibility of arriving home without stopping to fill up, since in all previous times one has nearly arrived home, by a few miles.
Now a reasonable person would consider the danger of being stranded even a few miles from home in a snow storm, and conclude that the prudent thing to do was to stop for gas at this little town now. Such prudence would be humble and an expression of humility, because one would recognize that one’s personal inclination to be optimistic about outcomes CANNOT and DOES NOT change the objective realities of the distance to reach home or the rate of consumption of gasoline by one’s car.
For this reason, it is unrealistic to presume that God will give grace to a proud man. For a proud man will not draw close to God, will not recognize his need for God’s mercy and providence and protection. Hence, he will not pray with sincerity to ask for help. A proud man does this because he is not attentive to the reality that HIS SOUL cannot arrive at the destination of Heaven without God’s grace and that HIS HEART needs sufficient grace right now to make it to the next stop on his path in life. Nor does he recognize that HE CANNOT produce grace of himself and must seek it from God.
Humility is the essential disposition of Catholic faith
The entire Catholic Faith, that is Catholic Religion, is founded upon humility, because IT ALONE accepts all which God has revealed. IT ALONE puts into practice all which God has commanded and requested and prefers. IT ALONE has never swerved from the right path of truth in doctrine and practice in regard to all matters of religion. IT ALONE rejects entirely the pride of the world, the pride of the flesh and the pride of the devil. The pride of the world which believes it can live without God; the pride of the flesh which believes man can achieve everything by himself, the pride of the Devil who believes he has every right to comport himself as God and dictate to the earth.
It is for the sake of humility, and preserving this spirit, that the Catholic Faith has ever taught, in all Her rites, that the priest is to face God during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, that man is to kneel or prostrate himself at communion, that the Eucharist is to be received on the tongue; that the Priest alone is the minister of the Sacraments.
The proud man denies this; the ally of the proud seeks to turn the Catholic away from this, by whatever art or strategem.
Vatican II’s “magisterium”?
If we speak, not in metaphors, not with words used improperly or in a broad sense, then we speak properly and in a strict sense. When we do this, we use words as they should and speak in a scientific manner.
In this sense, therefore, “magisterium” means the office of teaching; and “teaching” means the exposition of authoritative truth with the obligation of its acceptance.
Thus, speaking properly, no one says that a poet, when reciting poetry, teaches. Nor that a friend at the bar, reciting local gossip teaches. Likewise, when speaking of different ways in which one might encourage, instruct, do, write, etc., without any judgement of which is better or obligatory, such as in all pastoral discussions, no one should say that there is any teaching being handed down.
Thus, if a mechanic should say that an engine could be repaired in any of a number of ways, listing each way and placing no judgement upon them as to their utility, he has not taught anything in the strict sense of “teaching”. He has merely listed possibilities. In this sense a phone directory does not teach, because it only lists phone numbers.
For this reason, “teaching” in the strict sense DOES NOT APPLY to the Second Vatican Council. For unlike all previous councils it promulgated no Creed, decreed no Canons, and Anathematized no errors or heresies. Thus, willing to not impose anything with the obligation of holding it for all times and places, its documents did not rise to the level of “magisterial teaching” in the proper sense.
The Sophistic Use of Vatican II
A sophistry is a form of argumentation which tricks the listener or reader into accepting a conclusion which is not logically validated by the terms or propositions of the argument.
For example: A dog has a bark; this tree has a bark: this tree is a dog.
Aristotle wrote an entire treatise on all the possible forms of erroneous argumentation in his work entitled The Elenchae.
Let’s consider, therefore, the most common sophistic argument used in regard to Vatican II:
Proposition 1: Vatican II is an ecumenical council. Proposition 2: Ecumenical councils are extraordinary expressions of the authentic magisterium of the Church. Conclusion 1: Therefore, Vatican II’s teaching is infallible. Conclusion 2: Therefore, all Catholics who reject any part of its teaching are heretics.
In this illation, there are 2 propositions, both of which are true. But there are 2 conclusions which are false.
It is true that Vatican II is an ecumenical council. That is a historical fact, which the documents and historical record confirm.
It is true that Ecumenical councils are extraordinary expressions of the authentic magisterium of the Church. No one denies that.
But for the first conclusion to be true, there would be required something more. Since to illate or conclude that Vatican II’s teaching is infallible, one needs to demonstrate 2 things, (1) that every act of the authentic magisterium of the Church is infallible and (2) that Vatican II exercised the authentic magisterium.
However, according to Cardinal Journet, in his book, The Church of the Incarnate Word, the authentic magisterium of the Church is not always infallible. Because, in theological terms, used properly, “authentic” does not mean infallible, it means that a thing originates from the author which it should have. And thus the phrase, “authentic magisterium of the Church” means nothing, properly, but that the teaching comes from those whom Our Lord Jesus Christ gave the authority to teach. Thus, one cannot say that the teaching of the United Nations is an act of the authentic magisterium of the Church, since Our Lord did not give the United Nations the authority to teach.
However, just because the Holy Father and Bishops in communion with him have the sole capacity to authentically exercise the magisterium of the Church does not mean that they must or do in fact exercise it. Just as a man with the capacity to speak or write or think, does not in every act speak or write or think. Nor is he obliged to.
Now since teaching requires that one hand down a truth with the obligation to accept it as true, inasmuch as Vatican II did this it did formally teach, and its teaching is authentic. But if it did not oblige catholic to accept it in such wise that non-acceptance was branded by the Council with the note of heresy, that is, in such wise that the counter teaching was condemned as erroneous or heretical, then a Catholic cannot sin by the sin of heresy or schism in rejecting it.
Yet this is manner in which Vatican II taught. And thus the above illation is false in its 1st conclusion, and thus false in its second conclusion.
But to understand this, let us, in fine, examine the historical record.
With what obligation did Pope Paul VI promulgate Vatican II
The act of promulgation of all of the Documents of the Second Vatican Council was taken by Pope Paul VI, on December 8, 1965, in the Apostolic Brief, In Spiritu Sancto, the English, Italian, Spanish & Portuguese translations of which can be found at the Vatican website. The only canonically valid text, however, is the Latin, which is missing from the Vatican Website.
Here is the key phrase, which indicates the level of obligation by which all Catholics must accept Vatican II’s teaching:
Mandamus autem ac praecipimus, ut, quae synodaliter in Concilio statuta sunt, sancte et religiose ab omnibus Christi fidelibus serventur ad Dei gloriam, ad Sanctae Matris Ecclesiae decus et ad hominum universorum tranquillitatem et pacem.
Here is our unofficial English translation:
Moreover, we command and precept, that, what have been laid down synodally in Council, are to be kept by all of Christ’s faithful in a holy and religious manner for the glory of God, for the ornament of Holy Mother Church and for the peace and tranquility of each and every man.
Significant, here, is that NOTHING is said regarding the obligation of accepting under any threat of punishment. Therefore, Paul VI established no punishment for not accepting it. Therefore, the only deviation that could be committed would be a moral one or a spiritual one. But all this, as Cardinal Journet observes in his book, The Church of the Incarnate Word, is the same as regards a fallible curial document, which, if one were to find any error in it, one would be obliged in conscience to reject it on that point and to inform the Holy Father of the error.
Thus, so long as one does recognize that Vatican II is an ecumenical council, that its fathers had the authority to teach, that they did not impose anything by establishing a disciplinary canon or anathematizing an error or heresy, and that Pope Paul VI in his promulgation of it wished it to be accepted with the same religious respect as as Curial document, as much as regards its non-definite character, one accepts it in a catholic manner, religiously and holily. But that does not mean, that upon discovering some error, one must accept it as a whole as something worthy of religious or holy respect, since “to accept something as a whole” means to consider the thing as a moral whole, in which everything is affirmed as true, even if false.
Humility recognizes Vatican II for what it was, Pride as something else
Humility, the virtue which inclines us to regard things as they are and NOT as we want them to be, requires, thus, that we recognize Vatican II for what it was, not something more or less.
In the sophism or false argument presented above, we see a common argument used to convince that Vatican II was something more than it intended itself to be. If we were to accept that, we would be proud. We would by our own private judgement be raising Vatican II to a level which it did not claim for itself.
Contrariwise, if we were to reject Vatican II as not being of the Church or being wholly in error, we would be proud. For we would by our own private judgement be lowering Vatican II to a level which it does not deserve.
Humility thus preserves the Catholic faith of the individual regarding questions which concern Vatican II. And it is only through such humility that the Catholic Faith can purdure in the soul of a believer.
News and Commentary on the Catholic Church
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept All”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.