| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Forum Statistics |
» Members: 296
» Latest member: m@c
» Forum threads: 6,907
» Forum posts: 12,863
Full Statistics
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 340 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 335 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Facebook, Google, Twitter
|
|
|
| Archbishop Lefebvre 1982: In the Heart of the Church |
|
Posted by: Stone - 02-27-2023, 07:07 PM - Forum: Sermons and Conferences
- No Replies
|
 |
The Angelus - February 1982
The Role of the [traditional] Priestly Society of St. Pius X in the Heart of the Church
Conference Given by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Buenos Aires, Argentina 13 August 1981
Ladies and Gentlemen:
It is always a great joy for me to return to this beautiful Republic of Argentina. I'm already beginning to know the country, but unfortunately, I am not yet able to speak to you in Spanish and I will have to seek Father Faure's help to translate for me.
We know that many questions are being asked about my attitude in the Church, about my position in the Church. What is the attitude of Monsignor Lefebvre in the Catholic Church? What is the situation of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X in the heart of the Church?
I would like to be able to answer these questions in the most exact and correct manner. To do this I think we are obliged to consider briefly what the actual situation in the Church is, and in this way explain the reasons for our attitude and our position.
I think that finding myself before a select audience—before a profoundly Catholic audience—it will not be necessary for me to insist on what the situation in the Church was until Vatican Council II. It can be said, in a general way, that the Church, the men of the Church, such as they were during the time of Pope Pius XII, whom I knew personally when I was Apostolic Delegate for French Africa, were very different from what they are today. I had the opportunity to meet frequently with Pius XII every year for eleven years.
I can say that generally, in the Roman Congregations and in the Vatican, there existed a very profound sense of the Catholic Faith. They truly worked for the reign of the Faith of Our Lord Jesus Christ and for the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ—a reign over people, over families and over society.
Indeed, you know well that for four centuries great efforts have been made to fight against that Catholic doctrine, that Faith of the Church, but the truth is that when one went to the Vatican, he would find that the Catholic Faith was alive in all those Roman Congregations and there would be found considerable support, above all for a missionary bishop such as I was. At that time, if we needed to enlighten our faith on some point of doctrine, it was sufficient to consult the congregation of the Holy Office to obtain a precise and clear answer, in conformity with the Faith of the Church and its Magisterium. There was no hesitation!
In the same way, to know what kind of relations the Vatican wanted to maintain between the Holy See and civil societies, it sufficed to direct oneself to the Secretariat of State which had then, very clear and very precise principles before the states which were not Catholic regarding Catholic states. For example, I remember well that in General Franco's time, in Spain, Pope Pius XII used to tell me that never had there been realized an agreement so conformed to Catholic doctrine as the agreement reached with the Spanish government. To make such a statement was a most extraordinary thing for the Holy Father to do.
There was experienced then, in all these dominions the secular knowledge of the Church, just as the knowledge and protection of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary towards her children can be felt. When the principles of the relations between the Vatican and the states were facilitated by the Catholic Faith there were no difficulties in anything having to do with relations of the states with the Church. Regarding Her mission of saving souls, when the states were Catholic, the Holy See counted on the support of the chiefs of state, of whom She asked that Our Lord Jesus Christ be the one to reign in society. When the chiefs of state drew up a constitution they would provide in the first article that "the Catholic religion is the only one officially recognized by the state." In this way, what the Holy See wanted was accomplished: the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ for the salvation of souls, not in order to have a temporal influence in those states.
Concerning states that were not Catholic, for example Senegal, where I spent fifteen years as Archbishop over 3,500,000 inhabitants. There were 3,000,000 Moslems and 500,000 Animists, of which, happily, 100,000 were converted to the Faith. We were, consequently, a small minority. And what did the Church do in this case? She sent priests, bishops, religious men and women, brothers of the Christian schools—brothers who were dedicated to teaching the people, so that slowly, surely, those who did not believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ, would be converted to the Church, would be transformed into Christians, even at the price of the blood of those preachers.
How many of these missionaries sent by the Church during the course of centuries have been massacred, massacred because they said that Our Lord Jesus Christ should be the King of people, King of society? These missionaries the Church has raised to Her altars and has considered them martyrs. In the same way the Church has raised to Her altars many saints, holy popes, holy bishops, holy priests, religious men and women, fathers of families, mothers of families, kings, queens, the poor. So did the Church show the example of these persons who had worked—each one in Her midst, who had worked in the course of their lives to sanctify themselves by the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ and to establish His reign in souls. All these kings and queens who have been canonized give us an extraordinary example which we would do well to adopt in our days.
How proud we could be to have in our day examples of kings and queens who would live like saints! What examples this would mean for the whole world! And that posture was conserved by the Church until the times of Pius XII.
But, unfortunately, we must recognize that something has changed in the Church. Of course, when I say the Church I am conscious of the fact that the Church cannot change, because the Church will always be eternal, holy, universal, catholic and apostolic. So that, when I speak of the Church, it is not realized or taken into account that I do not wish to attack the Church. I have an immense veneration for the Church and I think that I continue always working for the Church, as I did in the times of Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII.
But we cannot help recognizing that something important has changed in the Church.
If we go back to the first causes of the actual situation, if we look for the first author of these changes, we will meet the first enemy, the great enemy of Our Lord Jesus Christ, His sworn enemy—Satan himself. The devil always fought against Our Lord Jesus Christ and he could have thought he triumphed at the moment of the Crucifixion, at the moment of Calvary but there he was also defeated, for which reason he went on attacking the Mystical Body of Christ, the Holy Catholic Church, and then, from the beginning, and for three centuries, there were thousands and thousands of martyred Christians who gave testimony of the Faith—of their faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Then came the heresies, the schisms, the attacks against the Faith, the divisions brought to life by the devil and so, disgracefully, millions of Christians separated themselves from the Church. Satan also invented false religions which made the work of the missions difficult by making impossible the conversion of entire nations. That was the work of the devil for fifteen centuries, we can say, until the moment of the French Revolution.
Until that time the devil worked as an enemy of the Church, to destroy the Church from without and so he was able to take entire nations away from the Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ and bring them to the gates of hell. Afterwards, to be more sure in his attacks on the Church, which was defended by her children and governed by those who were called lieutenants of Our Lord Jesus Christ by the Catholic princes, Satan attacked those same governments of the Catholic states and unleashed a persecution against those Catholic states which resulted in their no longer being Catholic states. The atheistic states, the states that did not profess any religion, persecuted the Catholic Church, which was then attacked by the same lay-states which had become anti-Catholic states. This constituted a considerable success for Satan within those states, those universities, those schools in which he formed generations imbued with liberalism, modernism, atheism, so that the moment arrived for Satan to take over those states. In the end, all Catholic homes allowed themselves to be penetrated by this climate.
Pope St. Pius X says in his first Encyclical of 1904:
Quote:"As of now the enemy is not outside of the Church but within the Church itself,"
and St. Pius X designates the places where the enemy is found: the enemy is in the seminaries, the enemy has infiltrated the seminaries, among the professors of the seminaries. This is clear! It is St. Pius X himself who says so!
Fifty years before this text from St. Pius X, Pope Pius IX showed the bishops the plan of the secret society and asked that the acts of the Italian secret societies be published. In these documents can be read:
Quote:"from now on we will penetrate the parishes and into the episcopates, and into the seminaries and so we will have parish priests, bishops and cardinals who will be our disciples, and from these cardinals we hope one day to have a pope, who will be imbued with our ideas and will not appear to have been elected by the secret societies. Thus the Christian people will think they are following the Chair of Peter and in its place they will follow us."
Fifty years later this satanic plan is realized, according to the same words of St. Pius X, and since then, since fifty years ago, in the fifty years following, not only secret societies revealed this plan and this acitivity, but even the Blessed Virgin Mary at Fatima and at LaSalette predicted that one day the enemy would mount to the highest positions in the Church. This means something very grave: that perhaps there will be no need to climb as high as the Holy Father but to the positions in command in the Church.
And so we come to Vatican Council II, in which those who were imbued with these modernist ideas would end up triumphant. I was witness, in particular, during a last session of the Advisory Council preparatory to the Council itself (I was a member of the Central Commission in which there were seventy Cardinals and twenty bishops, among which I was counted as President of the Episcopal Assembly of French Africa), to a violent discussion between Cardinal Bea and Cardinal Ottaviani about the document on religious freedom.
These two Cardinals confronted each other to such a point that Cardinal Ruffini (of Palermo) had to intervene, saying he was sorry to assist at such a serious discussion between two Cardinals, members of the College of Cardinals, and for this reason the only solution left was to appeal to the higher authority, that is to say, the Pope. In this session, Cardinal Bea entitled his thesis, "De libertate religiosa" ("About Religious Liberty"); on the contrary, Cardinal Ottaviani entitled it "About Religious Tolerance." This is how Cardinal Ottaviani defended the traditional thesis of the Church and Cardinal Bea, the liberal thesis. These two theses were submitted to a vote. The Cardinals voted and we proved, according to the results, that they were totally divided. Some were liberals and supported Cardinal Bea, and others were conservative and traditionalists and they supported Cardinal Ottaviani.
The result of this was, in agreement with what we have seen of the Council, that the liberals won. This cannot be denied. They were the ones who dominated in Vatican Council II, unfortunately, (disgracefully), with the support of His Holiness Paul VI. This was clearly appreciated when the names of the four moderators Pope Paul VI named to the Council were made known. These moderators were Cardinals Agagianiain, Suenens, Dopfner and Lercaro. Of these, only one was conservative: Cardinal Agagianian. He did not speak, but remained silent. He was a timid man, very discreet, who spoke little, he did not allow his influence to be felt. Cardinal Lercaro was the Bishop of Florence. His Vicar General in Florence was a member of the Communist Party. Cardinal Suenens, on his part, God only knows what he has done before and after the Council to extend his liberal ideas. For example: he gave conferences in Canada in favor of the marriage of priests. Cardinal Dopfner, on his part, kept his ecumenism very marked. He himself was saying that first came common prayer between Catholics and Protestants and then you could speak about doctrine. This made the majority of bishops who formed part of the Council follow the liberal minority, which, in fact, dominated in the Council. These were the three moderators of the Council, three moderators named by the Chair of Peter, and this shows what orientation the Chair of Peter had.
Several hours would be needed to be able to show you how the liberals dominated during the course of Vatican II. So that you can know this exactly, for yourselves, it seems opportune for me to advise you read a book by Fr. Ralph Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, which was originally written in English and was then translated into other languages, and where it is impartially shown, because its author was not, properly speaking, a traditionalist, the image of the battle which developed in the Council between the liberals and some conservatives who could still speak.
We cannot forget that Pope John XXIII expressly asked the Cardinals of the Roman Curia, who were without doubt the most traditional, not to intervene in the discussions of the Council. In fact, even though the Roman Cardinals integrated the commissions they no longer spoke. This was a very hard blow for the conservative groups who were keeping themselves faithful to the tradition of the Catholic Church, who were not innovators, who were not modernists.
We met in a small group after the second year of the Council: Monseigneur Sigaud, Monseigneur Corli (Bishop of Gaeta), Monseigneur Castro Meyer (Bishop of Campos), and I, and we began to work so that we would be able to unite bishops who could oppose themselves to this great danger which was presenting itself throughout the Church. There were never more than two hundred and fifty of us.
I would like to give you just one example of what the Council was: We did everything possible so that Vatican Council II would condemn Communism. Being a pastoral council (we should not forget that Vatican II was a pastoral council), that is to say, a council which has as its principal preoccupation the salvation of souls, which has as its object the destruction of the errors that menace souls, it was necessary, without doubt that this Council should be opposed to the greatest danger presenting itself in this age, as is Communism—a danger which extends itself throughout the world.
This Council, where 2,500 bishops responsible for the Catholic Church were meeting was not capable of formally condemning Communism.
We, on our part, made all the effort possible to have Communism condemned. So we managed to get 450 signatures to ask for this condemnation. Monseigneur Siguad and I went to see Monseigneur Felici, the Secretary of the Council, carrying in our hands the signatures we had gathered within the time specified by the internal regulations, so that this condemnation of Communism could be proposed to the Council Fathers. When Monseigneur Garrone who was the Postulator of the Council made reference to this document, he said that only one bishop had presented the possibility of having Communism condemned, even though we had gathered 450 signatures. He said, "I haven't heard anyone speak of this." We know that Monseignor Glorieux, who was one of the secretaries of the Council, made this list of signatures disappear so that we could not look for others to present to the Council Fathers.
Confronted with this situation we thought we would direct ourselves to the bishops from behind the Iron Curtain: Cardinal Wyszynski, Cardinal Beran and Cardinal Slypyi, who had been persecuted by Communism, who had been imprisoned. We thought that if we could get the support of these three Cardinals, we might be able to get close to a thousand signatures. The two of us then went to see Cardinal Wyszynski, Cardinal Beran and Cardinal Slypyi. We had prepared a project with a very careful format in Monseignor Carli's charge, in which the Council Fathers were asked to condemn Communism.
In the first place, we went to see Cardinal Beran, who at that moment was Archbishop of Prague. Cardinal Beran said,
Quote:"I am totally in agreement with you, I want to sign the document, but not alone. If I sign alone, the Communists will attack my family in Czechoslovakia. I want to sign, but I want other bishops, other cardinals, to support this position also because if we are many it will be much more difficult for them to attack me."
He finally signed, and we promised him that if no other bishop signed the declaration, we would return his signature. Then we approached Cardinal Slypyi who lived in the Vatican itself, behind the sacristy at St. Peter's. When we met him and presented him with the document, he said,
Quote:"I am totally in agreement with you. If there is an error we should condemn, it is Communism. You already know what my position is, but I am guest of the Vatican, and I'm sure that up there (pointing to the cupola of St. Peter's), they don't want Communism condemned. I know this very well."
Lastly, we went to see Cardinal Wyszynski, and not finding him in his rooms I spoke to him on the telephone. Cardinal Wyszynski said to me,
Quote:"Monseigneur, you know what my intervention was on that point at the Council. I asked at the Council that a complete document be drawn up to condemn Communism and nobody supported me; my proposition was rejected, and I no longer want to do any intervening."
We saw ourselves obliged to return Cardinal Beran's (Archbishop of Prague) signature. This is the true story of this document on the condemnation of Communism which was never approved by the Council. This example alone shows what Vatican II was, a Council in which 2,500 Fathers were gathered together which did not confront Communism, the major enemy of God, of the Church, of all spiritual principles. A Council which acts in this manner condemns itself.
I'm not going to insist any more about all those doings of the Council, of that pastoral Council which produced fruits which were, without a doubt, disastrous. After the Council, the liberals who had triumphed completely during it, occupied all the commissions that were in charge of bringing forth the proclaimed reforms. All the persons who directed these commissions, which were those in charge of putting everything into practice, all the congregations were in the hands of the modernists and the liberals. Even now, we can say, generally, that the Roman Congregations are in the hands of the modernists and the liberals who have succeeded those who have died.
Having shown what my attitude was, I return then to the questions I asked at the beginning of this conference. Are you amazed that someone condemns us? Are you amazed that the authorities of the Church persecute us, me in particular, who together with Monseignor Siguad and Monseignor Carli were, in a way, inside the Council, the spearpoint, of Catholic tradition and to the fidelity of the Church of always, of fidelity to the Church? Now that the chiefs of the Roman Congregations are those liberals who triumphed at the Council, it is evident that they will have as their objective the persecution of all traditionalists.
Of me, for example, who have formed a seminary which has been approved in the regular manner by the bishop of the diocese of the place and which has been constituted in agreement with all the canonical rules. The fact that the seminary should have been developed has disquieted them and they have prepared a kind of plot against it and against the Society which I have founded; a plot, definitely against us, to accomplish the suppression of the tradition of the Church. I don't think this can surprise anyone. We can affirm that they don't have enemies on the left, they only have enemies on the right. Time goes by and I would not like to tire you.
If I were to give you all the details of this plot and of the form in which the condemnation of my seminary and of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X was arrived at, you would be astounded. I give you just one detail: after the visit which took place at the Seminary at Ecône, Switzerland, by two monsignors sent from Rome, I was invited to that city by three Cardinals to give some complementary information. This meeting to which I was invited, did not constitute in any way an ecclesiastical court. It can be said that it was simply a visit in courtesy.
At the beginning of the interview, present at which were Cardinal Garrone, Cardinal Wright and the Spanish Cardinal Tabera, Cardinal Garrone asked me, "Monseigneur, will you permit us to record this conversation?" I told him that they could record it on the condition that they would afterwards give me a copy of same. He said, "Yes, of course, we will give it to you."
Nevertheless, having finished the conference, when I asked them for the copy of the conversation, they denied it to me. A second example that shows what this interview with the Roman Cardinals was: wanting to know who had named those Cardinals to interview me, if they constituted a commission, if it had to do with a particular initiative or was something that the Pope had ordered—and that I didn't know anything about, had no document, no official note and never had anything like it been done at the Vatican. I directed myself to Cardinal Staffa, who was the President of the Apostolic Assignment of the Roman Tribunal, and there I presented a recourse of complaint. I paid the fees which are demanded in the Roman Tribunal, so that I could present a complaint and I was given a receipt.
Once I did this, Cardinal Villot, who was at that time the Secretary of State, wrote a letter by his hand and in his own handwriting, to Cardinal Staffa, forbidding him to give me any document and ordering him to close the process immediately. In this way, we can see how the executive power injected itself into the sphere of the judicial power. Something which had never happened in the Church and it kept Cardinal Staffa from passing judgment on my complaint. In such a way that the Society, my seminaries and I, myself, were condemned without due process, without judgment, without documents and without being able to relate this condemnation to the visit of the two monsignors to Ecône.
I myself had the opportunity to tell Pope John Paul II (I had already told Pope Paul VI) that the form in which I had been condemned was worse than that used by the Soviets: at least they establish the farce of a tribunal; in my case, even that wasn't allowed. In fact, I should close my seminaries, immediately expel my seminarians who were at their studies in the middle of the year, and then dismiss all the teachers. You understand that a situation like this one can only be attributed to the occupation of the Church—the occupation of the Church by modernism which persecutes the traditionalists.
Remember the story of Cardinal Mindszenty? The way in which that Cardinal was treated by the Vatican can be considered ignoble. Cardinal Mindszenty, the hero of his people, who wanted to remain for many years in the selfsame Hungary, shut up in the United States Embassy to be near his people, was treated worse by the Roman Congregations, the Roman Curia, than he had been by the Soviets. Cardinal Slypyi is another example. He himself told me,
Quote:"I have been treated worse here, in Rome, than I was in Ukrainia."
One more example: Cardinal Wysznski. When he went into Rome he was watched, without being able to circulate freely around the city. All of this shows an absolutely ignoble persecution. Why? Because these three Cardinals were traditionalists. Then, when they tell us, "You should obey," we answer them,
Quote:"We don't want to obey the enemies of the Church. I do not want to obey those who destroy the Church. I do not admit it."
What Pope Paul VI entitled the "auto-destruction" of the Church is nothing else than what the self-same bishops and priests are realizing within the Catholic Church. I do not want to contribute to the destruction of the Church!
What I have just finished telling you is sad, but the Cardinals who are actually in Rome, whose names you certainly know, continue in this new policy, this new attitude of the Church, contrary to the tradition of Christ. Be it through the liturgy, through teaching, through the catechism, through the general policy of the Church before states and civil societies, a completely new orientation has been imposed. Everything has changed in the Church.
In the liturgy it is very clear. All our sacraments have been overthrown and subverted, all the old books have been suppressed and replaced by new books. This is not treating of a reform like that of St. Pius V, which had as its objective to remove from the Mass the additions made during the years which were precisely not in agreement with Tradition. The reform of St. Pius X had the same sense: elements were removed which had been acquired in preceding years which were not very conformed to Tradition, so as to return to that Tradition. But here one treats of the suppression of Tradition, of a new concept of the Mass, a concept which is more Protestant than Catholic, which was accomplished through the presence of six Protestant pastors who were called to transform our Mass.
It's a new thing in the treatment of the Mass, of the Holy Mass of always: to call six pastors so that they came to change it. What could these Protestants say when they were asked: "What would you like us to change in the Mass?" but to align our liturgy with the Protestant liturgy. This is the sense of the dialogue which is so much spoken of, a very grave attitude which responds to a general principle, to consider the religion of others as true as ours. Consequently, to consider that the Catholic religion is not the only religion through which one can be saved, the only divine religion, founded by God, founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, with a perfectly different orientation from the others—it is inconceivable!
The Church itself has asked the states to not be Catholic states any more, to suppress the first articles of their constitutions, which say: 'The Catholic religion is the only religion recognized by the State." It is the Holy See itself which has asked this of the different states and it is because of this that there are no more Catholic states. That is finished. Because the Holy See desires that all religions be recognized equally in all the states, that all religions be equal. This is a completely new orientation for the Church. Never has the Church accepted, never has the Church taken this stand. The Church has never accepted that Our Lord Jesus Christ be put on an equal footing with Buddha, Luther and all those founders of false religions.
From the political point of view, you know well, you know perfectly, in almost the whole world, the Episcopates positively favor the Communist revolution and socialism.
In France, the election of Mitterand was owed to a large degree to the efforts of the bishops and priests who asked the faithful to vote in socialism. Result: we have four Communist ministers and this with the support of bishops and clerics. It's unimaginable! Rome did not intervene to prevent this socialist government from taking hold in France. A government, that is, in its deeds, militantly atheistic and which will monopolize all the teaching and which, consequently, will have all the Catholic schools in its hands.
When I had the opportunity to travel to Mexico last January, the Mexican Episcopate published a document which expressly approved of the revolution in El Salvador, to the point of asking that the Mexican Catholics contribute—be it with arms to go and fight against the government, be it with money to help the revolution. Where are we going? What Church is this? They tell us: "You disobey!" But, should we obey? Could it be that these bishops represent the Church? Without a doubt, there are still good bishops and these bishops are persecuted. You have an example in your homeland—Monsignor Tortolo, who never became Cardinal and who could well have been the Archbishop of Buenos Aires. The case of Monsignor Morcillo, Archbishop of Madrid, whom I know very well, consitutes another example. Monsignor Morcillo was never a Cardinal. They used to tell him, "You can't be a Cardinal because the primary diocese in Spain is the diocese of Toledo, therefore being a Cardinal corresponds only to the Bishop of Toledo." Immediately after the death of Monsignor Morcillo, Monsignor Tarancon who was the Archbishop of Madrid, was raised to the cardinalate. All the secretaries of the Council were named Cardinal, but Monsignor Morcillo, also a secretary, never was.
Cardinal Siri, who was President of the Italian Episcopal Conference was stripped of his office only one month after the election of Paul VI. We have to say that there are enemies of the Church who have occupied the Church. The Church is occupied!
You know Cardinal Pironio very well. A Cardinal who, having the ideas and attitudes he does, was named President of the Congregation for Religious. Another example, Cardinal Knox. A Cardinal who is, in fact, sacrilegious. During the Eucharistic Congress at Melbourne (at that moment I was in Australia, although I did not assist at the Congress), the so-called "Kamburu Mass" took place. What is a "Kamburu Mass"? He made the primitive population who live in the interior in Australia come. Men dressed in a manner you can just imagine, who danced on the platform which had been prepared for the Mass, next to the altar; they danced their primitive dances while the words of Consecration were being pronounced. What this man did is a sacrilege, and this man was named Prefect of the Congregation of Rites. What can this man do before such a Congregation?
Cardinal Baggio, for example, who was Apostolic Nuncio in Chile, and had to abandon the country for reasons not very favorable to him (you have only to ask the government of Chile what those reasons were), it's he who is now in charge of the naming of bishops!
Cardinal Casaroli, actual Secretary of State, can be found on the list of the Masonic Lodge P2 which is published by the newspapers. I'm not the one who says so, it's the Italian newspapers.
How can it be conceived that the Church continue its work of sanctification by means of those men? While they are at the head of the Church, we traditionalists will always be persecuted, and the Church will continue its auto-destruction.
I conclude. On our part, we have already chosen and we will not change that choice. We want to follow the Church that has always been. We want to remain faithful to the 250 popes who have defended Tradition and the Catholic Faith. We want to continue the priesthood in the Church and it is for that reason that we will continue to ordain priests in spite of the prohibition from Rome. We want to ordain true priests so that they can continue praying the true Mass, throughout the world and the length of history. This is indispensable.
All those liturgical reforms have been made by that evil spirit of ecumenism, of false ecumenism. It is because of this that the Faith has disappeared and that there are no longer any vocations. I have had the joy of already ordaining more than one hundred young priests, members of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X.
In October, we will have 270 seminarians, seminarians who belong to the five seminaries which have been founded in only ten years. You know that we have actually begun the work of a seminary here, in the Argentine Republic, forty kilometers from Buenos Aires, the La Reja neighborhood, where we already have twenty vocations, without counting the seminarians who, having completed their year of spirituality in the Argentine seminary, are now continuing their studies at Ecône, at Albano, or those having a monastic vocation are following it at Bedoin and San Michel-en-Brenne, France.
This [Argentine] seminary is under the particular care of Reverend Father Michel Faure and its director is Father Morello. We want to build a seminary capable of sheltering 120 seminarians, who will come from all the countries of Spanish America, to continue that priesthood of which I am speaking to you, to continue the Catholic Faith in these lands. Where will your children go if they no longer have Catholic schools? Because in the Catholic schools that actually exist, they are taught principles contrary to the Faith.
We have made our choice. We will not change it because we want to be Catholic. We want to die Catholics.
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
|
|
|
| Dominicans of Avrillé: Holiness in the Family - Sincerity and Lies |
|
Posted by: Stone - 02-27-2023, 11:22 AM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
- No Replies
|
|
HOLINESS IN THE FAMILY
Sincerity and Lies
by Brother François-Marie O.P.
from “Le Sel de la Terre” 120 (Spring 2022)
“Lord! Who will dwell in your tabernacle? Who will rest on your holy mountain [Heaven]? He who speaks the truth in his heart and has not deceived in his words” (Ps 14)
IT IS OF THE HIGHEST IMPORTANCE, if we want to lead to Heaven the children whom the good Lord has entrusted to us, to take care to educate them, from their earliest years, in the practice of the virtues that make them good, that is to say, similar to God who is infinite Goodness.
We will begin these talks with the virtue of truthfulness or sincerity, which goes hand in hand with the flight from the opposite vice: lying
Sincerity
The Truth
God created us in his image. He gave us the word to imitate him.
Just as God has an eternal word, the Word, which is the true expression of the eternal wisdom of the Father and therefore the absolute Truth, so we have our Word, which must be the true expression of our thought. When we do this, we are truly imitators and children of God.
Truth is what is. Every word must be the expression of what is, that is, of the truth.
We may be insincere in our dealings with God: in our self-examination, in confession, in prayer, in our inner conversation with him, but we will not be able to deceive him, for God knows everything. We will be the main victims of this lie.
The same is not true of our neighbor. He can be deceived, and both justice and charity require that we be true to him, so that he will not be deceived either by our words or by our actions.
The Benefits of Sincerity
The sincerity of children does honor to the parents and greatly facilitates the work of education. We have a good example of this good habit in the children of the Barbedette family, whose eldest child was 12 years old at the time of the apparitions in Pontmain (France) on January 17, 1871:
Knowing that her children were not in the habit of lying, Mrs. Barbedette asked them to describe what they saw, then after some time, disconcerted by the fact that she saw nothing, but not questioning their word, she sent for the sister teacher to verify, then the priest.
These parents, profoundly Catholics, had succeeded in giving their children the habit of sincerity. It allowed the inhabitants of the village, all grouped behind their parish priest, to believe in the reality of the apparition, to react promptly to the expectation of the Virgin Mary, that is, to pray. The result was to stop the advance of the German army.
How to Develop Sincerity in Children
There are three ways:
a) Give the Example
* By never deceiving children.
We set the stage for lying every time we promise things – rewards or punishments – and then fail to keep our word, because we have spoken too quickly, impatiently or thoughtlessly.
If these failures are repeated frequently, children learn that words can be different from actions.
* By setting an example of truth, especially where it costs.
This doesn’t have to be in words, but in actions. Children who see a parent scratch a car while parking and leave without saying anything will probably not learn a good lesson from it; likewise if, at the entrance to a museum, they hear him lie about the age of one of them in order to benefit from the reduced rate.
In this area, small and seemingly insignificant mistakes can have serious consequences on a child’s conscience, and he or she will conclude that lying is allowed whenever it is useful. He will immediately make applications, the seriousness of which he alone will judge, and the parents will know nothing about it, or too late.
b) Inspire a Deep Esteem For Sincerity
* By praising this virtue often, and by making it admired when good examples allow it.
* By blaming the lie.
* By stating loud and clear that we will be proud to have children who practice this virtue.
Be concerned with truth to the point of detail. When your children tell their “adventures”, help them to tell things accurately down to the smallest detail, correcting their exaggerations or confusions.
c) Encourage the Sincerity of Children
* By faith. Jesus is the Truth. He knows all, he sees all. If you love the truth, you will be a friend of Jesus. If you lie, you become a friend of the devil who is the father of lies.
* By discretion.
One should never make fun of the scruples and ingenuity of children, nor make them known to others. The child who sees his confidences betrayed will close his heart definitively.
In a delicate matter, avoid questions that show our doubt or ignorance too clearly. Still not very virtuous, because of his age, the child who understands that he can lie with impunity will easily give in to temptation.
What to do then? As much as possible, get information from other sources by doing a little investigation. When you have enough information to know what happened, you can help the child practice truthfulness. If the evidence is not specific enough and the mistake is not serious, it is better to look the other way than to destroy trust.
* By the remission of the punishment.
The child must see the difference in treatment between an admitted and an unconfessed fault. If he is to be punished, he must not be given the impression that the cause of his grief is his sincerity, for he will never again confide in anyone.
However, if the offence requires it, it must be repaired, but with kindness, so that he feels appeased and even happy to have told the truth. It is sometimes possible not to punish at all, but this should be the exception.
The Lie
The Eighth Commandment: “Thou Shall Not Lie”.
God’s commandments are based on God’s nature and on our own. They tend to make us a living image of our Creator, making us good, virtuous and ultimately, happy.
As God is the supreme Truth, nothing is more contrary to Him than lying; this is why He absolutely forbids it by the eighth commandment: “Thou shalt not lie”, in order to prevent man from insulting his Creator. Indeed, every lie being the negation of a truth, tends to deny God, the supreme Truth. That is why no one must lie.
This is the negative part of the commandment which, like all the others, also has a positive part, commanding us to tell the truth. An effective education should not be limited to prohibitions, but should emphasize what is ordered for the good of the child: this is why we began this talk by talking about the virtue of truthfulness.
Lying In General
St. Augustine aptly defines lying by saying that it consists in speaking against one’s own thought in order to deceive.
a) Two Conditions Are Necessary For a Lie To Exist:
* expressing things one does not think ‑ whether they are true or false. Saying something that is false but believed to be true is not a lie, but a mistake. On the other hand, one can lie by saying something that is materially true, but which one believes to be false.
* intend to deceive. Fabulous or romantic stories, ironic jokes expressed by antiphrasis or obvious exaggeration are not lies as long as they do not aim to deceive.
b) Lying Has a Triple Evil:
* It harms the liar, who degrades himself by taking away something of his likeness to God. The liar makes himself guilty, both before God and before his own conscience. Lying can lead to blindness and damnation.
He who gets used to telling small lies as a child, whatever the reason, will tell bigger ones as an adult: he will lie in his commitments, in his business, etc.
* The liar deprives his neighbor of the truth. He makes him take the false for the true, which can lead to great damage and great faults.
* The liar offends God in the person of his Word who said: “I am the Truth” and honors, in his place, Satan the father of lies.
The Lie in Society Today
In the 18th century, one of the “great ancestors” of our republican and anti-Catholic (French) society, the ill-fated Voltaire wrote:
“Lying is a vice only when it does harm; it is a very great virtue when it does good. So be more virtuous than ever. You must lie like a devil, not timidly, not for a time, but boldly and always. Lie, my friends, lie, I will return it to you on occasion.” [Letter to Thiériot, October 21, 1736].
The motto had many followers, in politics, in economics, in education, in the press, and in morality.
In the 20th century, Marxism used lying as a battle tactic and made it a “virtue,” extolled in its “catechism” for its militants. In the 21st century, we are told that we have entered the “post-truth” era, that is, no objective truth is admitted anymore. The official discourse is constructed according to the ideology of the time, according to the objectives to be achieved, whether they be military, educational, political or scientific. One must see in this perspective the insistence on the Darwinist theory of evolution, on global warming due to CO₂, on the health crisis, etc.
Lying In Children Today
The child is naturally sincere; he speaks as he thinks and spontaneously corrects what seems to him to be contrary to the truth. Mental restriction, dissimulation, deceit, and hypocrisy are not usually the work of the child. This tendency to truth, which is fundamental, is however wounded by original sin and can be wounded even more by the environment and education.
All educators know that most children lie by the time they are old enough to be reasonable. Of course, it is usually not in serious matters, but children who never or almost never lie are very rare.
It seems that this ailment has become more common than it used to be. This means that even in the best families, something has been missed in early childhood education. We reported above the example of the Barbedette children in Pontmain in 1871. Let us cite here two other examples:
Lucia of Fatima in 1917 never lied, even when her mother beat her to force her to say she had not seen the Blessed Virgin.
That of Jacqueline Aubry, the little visionary of Ile-Bouchard (France) in 1947: her parents rarely practiced and there was no family prayer, however her mother could testify that her daughter had never lied, that is why she believed her when she told the vision of the Holy Virgin.
What To Do When You See That The Child Is Lying
* If it is the first time, we must mark our surprise, our sorrow with gravity.
* If the child reoffends, he should be kept in disgrace by limiting relations with him to what is strictly necessary. Examples from the Scriptures should be used to show the severity of God’s punishment for lying, such as the story of Ananias and Sapphira in the Acts of the Apostles.
What Are The Main Reasons Children Lie
* Fear: this is the most common. The child has done something wrong, for example, broken an object, not learned a lesson or cannot do an assignment; fearing to be scolded or punished, he/she chooses the easy way out that seems to solve the problem, by telling a lie, or even by cheating in class if it is an assignment.
The point is that the child would rather go out and play than complete a task or service. If asked the question, “Have you finished?” In games, children cheat because they want to win.
* Vanity: to show off, he magnifies what is to his advantage, he diminishes or denies what would make him look bad.
We see that the child lies because his virtue is weak. Certainly, he has the infused virtues that accompany sanctifying grace, but he does not sufficiently possess the acquired virtues, which are formed by the repetition of virtuous acts. He reacts “naturally”, in most cases. He lacks humility, courage, generosity, love of justice, and therefore frankness, sincerity and loyalty.
Three Remedies For Lying Children
1. It is necessary to inculcate, from the earliest age, the love of truth, explaining to children that Jesus is the Truth itself, and that, in order to be a friend of Jesus, one must always tell the truth. Jesus, being God, sees all and knows all; we cannot hide anything from him. If one does not tell the truth, one is a friend of the devil. Moreover, it is cowardly to lie.
2. If you discover that something wrong has been done, do not ask your child questions in an angry, threatening tone, but encourage him to tell the truth and assure him that a frank confession will earn him forgiveness. If your child is loyal, do not punish him or her, but encourage him or her to make amends (these are two different things). This will eliminate lying out of fear. The child accepts the consequences of his misdeeds very well because he has a sense of justice, and generally there is no malice in most of his faults. He will gladly make amends, for example by doing a favor.
3. Point out to the child how much peace his or her soul feels when he or she has told the truth. Some time ago, in a school, a small group of children had damaged the bottom of a plasterboard wall, already damaged by humidity and by a few kicks. The next day, after the prayer, the director asked that the culprits come forward, assuring that they would not be punished, but would have to repair the damage by doing some services. The perpetrators of this degradation promptly denounced themselves, and diligently carried out the requested repairs. Of course, the parents had to bear some of the costs. But each child became aware of the consequences of his or her own stupidity, either by accompanying the father to repair the damaged wall, or by contributing to the costs with his or her piggy bank, or by rendering compensatory services at home.
|
|
|
|
| St. Alphonsus Liguori: Daily Meditations for the First Week of Lent |
|
Posted by: Stone - 02-27-2023, 08:32 AM - Forum: Lent
- Replies (7)
|
|
God is merciful! Yes; the mercy of God is infinite; but with all that mercy, how many are lost every day! I come to heal the contrite of heart! God heals those sinners who have a good will. He pardons their sins, but He cannot pardon their determination to go on sinning.
I.
The sinner says: But God is merciful. I reply: Who denies it? The mercy of God is infinite; but with all that mercy, how many are lost every day! I come to heal the contrite of heart. (Is. lxi. 1). God heals those who have a good will. He pardons sin; but He cannot pardon the determination to sin. The sinner will reply: But I am young. You are young: but God does not count years, but sins. And this reckoning of sins is not the same for all. In one, God pardons a hundred sins, in another a thousand, another He casts into hell after the second sin. How many has the Lord sent there at the first sin! St. Gregory relates that a child of five years old was cast into hell for uttering a blasphemy. The Blessed Virgin revealed to that great servant of God, Benedicta of Florence, that a girl of twelve years old was condemned for her first sin. Another child of eight years sinned, and after his first sin, died and was lost. We are told in the Gospel of St. Matthew, that the Lord immediately cursed the fig-tree the first time that He found it without fruit, and it withered: May no fruit grow on thee forever! (Matt. xxi. 19). Another time God said: For three crimes of Damascus, and for four, I will not convert it. (Amos i. 3). Some presumptuous man may perhaps ask the reason of God why He pardons three and not four sins. In this we must adore the Divine judgments of God, and say with the Apostle: O the depth of the riches, of the wisdom, and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! (Rom. xi. 33). St. Augustine says: "He well knows whom He pardons and whom He does not pardon; when He shows mercy to any one, it is gratuitous on His part; and when He denies it, He denies it justly."
The obstinate sinner will reply: But I have so often offended God, and He has pardoned me; I hope, therefore, He will pardon me this other sin. But I say: And because God has not hitherto punished you, is it always to be thus? The measure will be filled up, and the chastisement will come. Samson, continuing his wanton conduct with Dalila, hoped nevertheless to escape from the hands of the Philistines, as he had done before; I will go out as I did before and shake myself. (Jud. xvi. 20). But that last time he was taken, and lost his life. Say not, I have sinned, and what harm hath befallen me? Say not, says the Lord, I have committed so many sins, and God has never punished me: For the Most High is a patient rewarder. (Ecclus. v. 4). That is, the time will come when He will repay all; and the greater His mercy has been, so much the greater will be the punishment.
When I am tempted, O my merciful God, I will instantly and always have recourse to Thee. Hitherto I have trusted in my promises and my resolutions, and I have neglected to recommend myself to Thee in my temptations; and this has been my ruin. No; from this day henceforth Thou shalt be my hope and my strength; and thus shall I be able to accomplish all things. Give me the grace, then, through Thy merits, O my Jesus, to recommend myself always to Thee, and to implore Thy aid in my necessities. I love Thee, O my Sovereign Good, amiable above all that is amiable, and Thee only will I love; but Thou must help me. And thou also, O Mary my Mother, thou must help me by thy intercession; keep me under the mantle of thy protection, and grant that I may always call upon thee when I am tempted; thy name shall be my defence.
II.
St. Chrysostom says, that we ought to fear more when God bears with the obstinate sinner than when He punishes him: "There is more cause to fear when He forbears than when He quickly punishes"; because, according to St. Gregory, God punishes more rigorously those whom He waits for with most patience, if they remain ungrateful: "Whom He waits for the longer He the more severely condemns." Often, adds the Saint, do those whom He has borne with for a long time die suddenly at last, without having time to be converted: "Often those who have been borne with a long time are snatched away by sudden death, so that it is not permitted them to shed a tear before they die." Especially, the greater the light which God has given you has been, the greater will be your blindness and obstinacy in sin: For it had been better for them (said St. Peter) not to have known the way of justice, than after they had known it, to turn back. (2 Peter ii. 21). And St. Paul said, that it is impossible (morally speaking) for a soul that sins after being enlightened to be again converted: For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift ... and are fallen away, to be renewed again unto penance. (Heb. vi. 4, 6).
Terrible, indeed, is what the Lord says against those who are deaf to His calls: Because I have called and you have refused ... I also will laugh in your destruction, and will mock when that shall come to you which you feared. (Prov. i. 24, 26). Take notice of those two words, I also; they signify that as the sinner has mocked God, confessing, promising, and yet always betraying Him, so the Lord will mock him at the hour of death. Moreover, the Wise Man says: As a dog that returneth to his vomit, so is the fool that repeateth his folly. (Prov. xxvi. 11). So he who relapses into the sins he has detested in Confession, becomes odious to God.
Behold me, O my God, at Thy feet. I am that loathsome sinner who so often returned to feed upon the forbidden fruit which I had before detested. I do not deserve mercy, O my Redeemer; but the Blood Thou hast shed for me encourages and compels me to hope for it. How often have I offended Thee, and Thou hast pardoned me! I have promised never again to offend Thee; and yet I have returned to the vomit, and Thou hast again pardoned me. Do I wait, then, for Thee to send me straight to hell--or to give me over to my sins which would be a greater punishment than hell? No, my God, I will amend; and that I may be faithful to Thee, I will place all my trust in Thee.
Spiritual Reading
SAY NOT: "I HAVE SINNED AND WHAT EVIL HATH BEFALLEN ME?"
If God chastised sinners the moment they insult Him, we should not see Him so much despised. But, because He does not instantly punish their transgressions, and because, through mercy, He restrains His anger and waits for their return, they are encouraged to continue to offend Him. For, because sentence is not speedily pronounced against the evil, the children of men commit evils without any fear. (Eccles. viii. 11). But it is necessary to be persuaded that, though God bears with us, He does not wait, nor bear with us forever. Expecting, as on former occasions, to escape from the snares of the Philistines, Samson continued to allow himself to be deluded by Dalila. I will go out as I did before, and shake myself. (Jud. xvi. 20). But the Lord was departed from him. Samson was at last taken by his enemies, and lost his life. The Lord warns you not to say: I have committed so many sins, and God has not chastised me. Say not: I have sinned, and what harm hath befallen me? for the Most High is a patient rewarder. (Ecclus. v. 4). God has patience for a certain term, after which He punishes all your sins; the first and the last. And the greater has been His patience, the more severe His vengeance.
Hence according to St. John Chrysostom, God is more to be feared when He bears with sinners than when He instantly punishes their sins. And why? Because, says St. Gregory, they to whom God has shown most mercy, shall, if they do not cease to offend Him, be chastised with the greatest rigour. The Saint adds that God often punishes such sinners with a sudden death, and does not allow them time for repentance. And the greater the light God gives certain sinners for their correction, the greater is their blindness and obstinacy in sin. For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than, after they had known it, to turn back. (2 Pet. ii. 21). Miserable the sinners who, after having been enlightened, return to the vomit. St. Paul says, that it is morally impossible for them to be again converted. For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated--have tasted also the heavenly gifts, ... and are fallen away, to be renewed again to penance. (Heb. vi. 4).
Listen, then, to the admonition of the Lord: My son, hast thou sinned? Do so no more, but for thy former sins pray that they may be forgiven thee. (Ecclus. xxi. 1). My child, add not sins to those which you have already committed, but be careful to pray for the pardon of your past transgressions; otherwise, if you commit another mortal sin, the door of the Divine Mercy may be closed against you, and your soul may be lost forever. When, then, the devil tempts you again to yield to sin, say to yourself: If God pardons me no more, what shall become of me for all eternity? Should the devil, in reply, say: "Fear not, God is merciful," answer him by saying: What certainty or what probability have I, that, if I return again to sin, God will show me mercy or grant me pardon? Behold the threat of the Lord against all who despise His calls: Behold I have called and you refused ... I also will laugh in your destruction, and will mock when that shall come to you which you feared. (Prov. i. 24). Mark the words I also; they mean that, as you have mocked the Lord by betraying Him again after your Confession and promises of amendment, so He will mock you at the hour of death. I will laugh and will mock. But God is not mocked. (Gal. vi. 7).
O folly of sinners! If you purchase a house, you spare no pains to get all the securities necessary to guard against loss; if you take medicine, you are careful to assure yourself that it cannot injure you; if you pass over a river, you carefully avoid all danger of falling into it; and, for a transitory enjoyment, for the gratification of revenge, for a brutal pleasure, which lasts but a moment, you risk your eternal salvation, saying: "I will go to Confession after I commit this sin!" And when, I ask, are you to go to Confession? You say: "Tomorrow." But who promises you tomorrow? Who assures you that you shall have time for Confession, and that God will not deprive you of life, as He has deprived so many others, in the act of sin? "Are you sure of a whole day," says St. Augustine, "and you cannot be sure of an hour?" You cannot be certain of living for another hour, and you say: "I will go for Confession tomorrow!" Listen to the words of St. Gregory: "He who has promised pardon to penitents, has not promised tomorrow to sinners." God has promised pardon to all who repent; but He has not promised to wait till tomorrow for those who insult Him. Perhaps God will give you time for repentance, but perhaps He will not. But, should He not give it, what shall become of your soul? In the meantime, for the sake of a miserable pleasure, you lose the grace of God, and expose yourself to the danger of being lost forever.
Would you, for such transient enjoyments, risk your money, your honour, your possessions, your liberty, and your life? No; you would not. How, then, does it happen that, for a miserable gratification, you risk your soul, Heaven and God? Tell me: Do you believe that Heaven, Hell, Eternity, are Truths of Faith? Do you believe that, if you die in sin, you are lost forever? Oh, what temerity, what folly, to condemn yourself voluntarily to an Eternity of torment with the hope of afterwards reversing the sentence of your condemnation! "No one," says St. Augustine, "wishes to fall sick with the hope of getting well." No one can be found so foolish as to take poison with the hope of preventing its deadly effects by adopting the ordinary remedies. And you will condemn yourself to hell, saying that you expect to be afterwards preserved from it. O folly! which, in conformity with the Divine threats, has brought, and brings every day, so many to hell. Thou hast trusted in thy wickedness, and evil shall come upon thee, and thou shalt not know the rising thereof. (Is. xlvii. 10). You have sinned, trusting rashly in the Divine mercy; the punishment of your guilt shall fall suddenly upon you, and you shall not know from whence it comes.
What do you say? What resolution do you make? If, after reading this, you do not firmly resolve to give yourself to God, I weep over you, and regard you as lost.
Evening Meditation
REFLECTIONS AND AFFECTIONS ON THE PASSION OF JESUS CHRIST
I.
Now behold our loving Jesus already on the point of being sacrificed on the altar of the Cross for our salvation, in that blessed night which preceded His Passion. Let us hear Him saying to His Disciples at the last supper that He takes with them, With desire have I desired to eat this pasch with you. (Luke xxii. 15). St. Laurence Justinian, considering these words, asserts that they were all words of love: "With desire have I desired; this is the voice of love." As if our loving Redeemer had said, O men, know that this night, in which My Passion will begin, has been the time most longed after by Me during the whole of My life; because I shall now make known to you, through My sufferings and My bitter death, how much I love you, and will thereby oblige you to love Me, in the strongest way it is possible for Me to do. A certain author says that in the Passion of Jesus Christ the Divine Omnipotence united itself to Love, --Love sought to love man to the utmost extent that Omnipotence could arrive at; and Omnipotence sought to satisfy Love as far as its desire could reach.
O Sovereign God! Thou hast given Thyself entirely to me; and how, then, shall I not love Thee with my whole self? I believe, --yes, I believe Thou hast died for me; and how can I, then, love Thee so little as constantly to forget Thee, and all that Thou hast suffered for me? And why, Lord, when I think on Thy Passion, am I not quite inflamed with Thy love, and do not, then, become entirely Thine, like so many holy souls who, after meditating on Thy sufferings, have remained the happy prey of Thy love, and have given themselves entirely to Thee?
II.
The spouse in the Canticles said that whenever her Spouse introduced her into the sacred cellar of His Passion, she saw herself so assaulted on all sides by Divine love, that, all languishing with love, she was constrained to seek relief for her wounded heart: The king brought me into the cellar of wine, he set in order charity in me. Stay me up with flowers, compass me about with apples; because I languish with love. (Cant. ii 4, 5). And how is it possible for a soul to enter upon the meditation of the Passion of Jesus Christ without being wounded, as by so many darts of love, by those sufferings and agonies which so greatly afflicted the Body and Soul of our loving Lord, and without being sweetly constrained to love Him Who loved her so much? O Immaculate Lamb, thus lacerated, covered with Blood, and disfigured, as I behold Thee on this Cross, how beautiful and how worthy of love dost Thou appear to me! Yes, because all these wounds that I behold in Thee are so many signs and proofs of the great love Thou bearest to me. Oh, if all men did but contemplate Thee often in that state in which Thou wert one day made a spectacle to all Jerusalem, who could help being seized with Thy love? O my beloved Lord, accept me to love Thee, since I give Thee all my senses and all my will. And how can I refuse Thee anything, if Thou hast not refused me Thy Blood, Thy life, and all Thyself?
|
|
|
|
| Anne Catherine Emmerich: The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ |
|
Posted by: Stone - 02-27-2023, 06:30 AM - Forum: Lenten Devotions
- Replies (78)
|
|
The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ
From the Meditations of Anne Catherine Emmerich
London, Burns and Lambert [1862]
Taken from here
![[Image: QXBp]](https://imgs.search.brave.com/WyKt5rcu1BA9Ai7xBs3qqxQIstFo5yIUCaq83b6YCio/rs:fit:307:225:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly90c2Uz/LmV4cGxpY2l0LmJp/bmcubmV0L3RoP2lk/PU9JUC53NUhNS2Ji/STFnWERkdjRQZjNQ/VS1BSGFMYiZwaWQ9/QXBp)
PREFACE TO THE FRENCH TRANSLATION
BY THE ABBÉ DE CAZALÈS.
THE writer of this Preface was travelling in Germany, when he chanced to meet with a book, entitled, The History of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, from, the Meditations of Anne Catherine Emmerich, which appeared to him both interesting and edifying. Its style was unpretending, its ideas simple, its tone unassuming, its sentiments unexaggerated, and its every sentence expressive of the most complete and entire submission to the Church. Yet, at the same time, it would have been difficult anywhere to meet with a more touching and life-like paraphrase of the Gospel narrative. He thought that a book possessing such qualities deserved to be known on this side the Rhine, and that there could be no reason why it should not be valued for its own sake, independent of the somewhat singular source whence it emanated.
Still, the translator has by no means disguised to himself that this work is written, in the first place, for Christians; that is to say, for men who have the right to be very diffident in giving credence to particulars concerning facts which are articles of faith; and although he is aware that St. Bonaventure and many others, in their paraphrases of the Gospel history, have mixed up traditional details with those given in the sacred text, even these examples have not wholly reassured him. St. Bonaventure professed only to give a paraphrase, whereas these revelations appear to be something more. It is certain that the holy maiden herself gave them no higher title than that of dreams, and that the transcriber of her narratives treats as blasphemous the idea of regarding them 6in any degree as equivalent to a fifth Gospel; still it is evident that the confessors who exhorted Sister Emmerich to relate what she saw, the celebrated poet who passed four years near her couch, eagerly transcribing all he heard her say, and the German Bishops, who encouraged the publication of his book, considered it as something more than a paraphrase. Some explanations are needful on this head.
The writings of many Saints introduce us into a now, and, if I may be allowed the expression, a miraculous world. In all ages there have been revelations about the past, the present, the future, and even concerning things absolutely inaccessible to the human intellect. In the present day men are inclined to regard these revelations as simple hallucinations, or as caused by a sickly condition of body.
The Church, according to the testimony of her most approved writers, recognises three descriptions of ecstasy; of which the first is simply natural, and entirely brought about by certain physical tendencies and a highly imaginative mind; the second divine or angelic, arising from intercourse held with the supernatural world; and the third produced by infernal agency.1 Lest we should here write a book instead of a preface, we will not enter into any development of this doctrine, which appears to us highly philosophical, and without which no satisfactory explanation can be given on the subject of the soul of man and its various states.
The Church directs certain means to be employed to ascertain by what spirit these ecstasies are produced, according to the maxim of St. John: ‘Try the spirits, if they be of God.’ When circumstances or events claiming to be supernatural have been properly examined according to certain rules, the Church has in all ages made a selection from them
Many persons who have been habitually in a state of ecstasy have been canonised, and their books approved. 7But this approbation has seldom amounted to more than a declaration that these books contained nothing contrary to faith, and that they were likely to promote a spirit of piety among the faithful. For the Church is only founded on the word of Christ and on the revelations made to the Apostles. Whatever may since have been revealed to certain saints possesses purely a relative value, the reality of which may even be disputed—it being one of the admirable characteristics of the Church, that, though inflexibly one in dogma, she allows entire liberty to the human mind in all besides. Thus, we may believe private revelations, above all, when those persons to whom they were made have been raised by the Church to the rank of Saints publicly honoured, invoked, and venerated; but, even in these cases, we may, without ceasing to be perfectly orthodox, dispute their authenticity and divine origin. It is the place of reason to dispute and to select as it sees best.
With regard to the rule for discerning between the good and the evil spirit, it is no other, according to all theologians, than that of the Gospel. A fructibus eorum, cognoscetis eos. By their fruits you shall know them. It must be examined in the first place whether the person who professes to have revelations mistrusts what passes within himself; whether he would prefer a more common path; whether far from boasting of the extraordinary graces which he receives, he seeks to hide them, and only makes them known through obedience; and, finally, whether he is continually advancing in humility, mortification, and charity. Next, the revelations themselves must be very closely examined into; it must be seen whether there is anything in them contrary to faith; whether they are conformable to Scripture and Apostolical tradition; and whether they are related in a headstrong spirit, or in a spirit of entire submission to the Church.
Whoever reads the life of Anne Catherine Emmerich, and her book, will be satisfied that no fault can be found in any of these respects either with herself or with her revelations. Her book resembles in many points the writings of a great number of saints, and her life also bears the 8most striking similitude to theirs. To be convinced of this fact, we need but study the writings or what is related of Saints Francis of Assissium, Bernard, Bridget, Hildegarde, Catherine of Genoa, Catherine of Sienna, Ignatius, John of the Cross, Teresa, and an immense number of other holy persons who are less known.. So much being conceded, it is clear that in considering Sister Emmerich to have been inspired by God’s Holy Spirit, we are not ascribing more merit to her book than is allowed by the Church to all those of the same class. They are all edifying, and may serve to promote piety, which is their sole object. We must not exaggerate their importance by holding as an absolute fact that they proceed from divine inspiration, a favour so great that its existence in any particular case should not be credited save with the utmost circumspection.
With regard, however, to our present publication, it may be urged that, considering the superior talents of the transcriber of Sister Emmerich’s narrations, the language and expressions which he has made use of may not always have been identical with those which she employed. We have no hesitation whatever in allowing the force of this argument. Most fully do we believe in the entire sincerity of M. Clèment Brentano, because we both know and love him, and, besides, his exemplary piety and the retired life which he leads, secluded from a world in which it would depend but on himself to hold the highest place, are guarantees amply sufficient to satisfy any impartial mind of his sincerity. A poem such as he might publish, if he only pleased, would cause him to be ranked at once among the most eminent of the German poets, whereas the office which he has taken upon himself of secretary to a poor visionary has brought him nothing but contemptuous raillery. Nevertheless, we have no intention to assert that in giving the conversations and discourses of Sister Emmerich that order and coherency in which they were greatly wanting, and writing them down in his own way, he may not unwittingly have arranged, explained, and embellished them. But this would not have the 9effect of destroying the originality of the recital, or impugning either the sincerity of the nun, or that of the writer.
The translator professes to be unable to understand how any man can write for mere writing’s sake, and without considering the probable effects which his work will produce. This book, such as it is, appears to him to be at once unusually edifying, and highly poetical. It is perfectly clear that it has, properly speaking, no literary pretensions whatever. Neither the uneducated maiden whose visions are here related, nor the excellent Christian writer who has published them in so entire a spirit of literary disinterestedness, ever had the remotest idea of such a thing. And yet there are not, in our opinion, many highly worked-up compositions calculated to produce an effect in any degree comparable to that which will be brought about by the perusal of this unpretending little work. It is our hope that it will make a strong impression even upon worldlings, and that in many hearts it will prepare the way for better ideas,—perhaps even for a lasting change of life.
In the next place, we are not sorry to call public attention in some degree to all that class of phenomena which preceded the foundation of the Church, which has since been perpetuated uninterruptedly, and which too many Christians are disposed to reject altogether, either through ignorance and want of reflection, or purely through human respect. This is a field which has hitherto been but little explored historically, psychologically, and physiologically; and it would be well if reflecting minds were to bestow upon it a careful and attentive investigation. To our Christian readers we must remark that this work has received the approval of ecclesiastical authorities. It has been prepared for the press under the superintendence of the two late Bishops of Ratisbonne, Sailer and Wittman. These names are but little known in France; but in Germany they are identical with learning, piety, ardent charity, and a life wholly devoted to the maintenance and propagation of the Catholic faith. Many French priests have 10given their opinion that the translation of a book of this character could not but tend to nourish piety, without, however, countenancing that weakness of spirit which is disposed to lend more importance in some respects to private than to general revelations, and consequently to substitute matters which we are simply permitted to believe, in the place of those which are of faith.
We feel convinced that no one will take offence at certain details given on the subject of the outrages which were suffered by our divine Lord during the course of his passion. Our readers will remember the words of the psalmist: ‘I am a worm and no man; the reproach of men, and the outcast of the people;’ and those of the apostle: ‘Tempted in all things like as we are, without sin.’ Did we stand in need of a precedent, we should request our readers to remember how plainly and crudely Bossuet describes the same scenes in the most eloquent of his four sermons on the Passion of our Lord. On the other hand, there have been so many grand platonic or rhetorical sentences in the books published of late years, concerning that abstract entity, on which the writers have been pleased to bestow the Christian title of the Word, or Logos, that it may be eminently useful to show the Man-God, the Word made flesh, in all the reality of his life on earth, of his humiliation, and of his sufferings. It must be evident that the cause of truth, and still more that of edification, will not be the losers.
1See, on this head, the work of Cardinal Bona, De Descretione Spirituum.
|
|
|
|
| Abp. Viganò: We must do penance for our sins this Lent and beg God to protect His Church |
|
Posted by: Stone - 02-23-2023, 06:02 PM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò
- No Replies
|
|
Abp. Viganò: We must do penance for our sins this Lent and beg God to protect His Church
From Passion Week until the Easter Vigil, the crosses and sacred images in the churches are veiled, to remind us of our unworthiness as sinners and the silence of God, a silence that Our Lord also experienced in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the Cross.
![[Image: Vigano-810x500.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Vigano-810x500.jpg)
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò
Thu Feb 23, 2023
(LifeSiteNews) — The following is Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s Ash Wednesday sermon.
IN CINERE ET CILICIO
Sermon on Ash Wednesday, in capite jejunii.
Omnipotens sempiterne Deus,
here Ninivitis, in cinere et cilicio pænitentibus,
indulgentiæ tuæ remedia præstitisti:
grants propitius; ut sic eos imitemur habitu,
quatenus veniæ prosequamur obtentu.
- Or. IV in benedictione Cinerum
There is only one thing that moves the Lord to compassion before the multitude of our sins: penance. A penance that is sincere, that exteriorly confirms true repentance for sins committed, the intention not to do them again, the will to repair them, and above all pain for having offended the divine Majesty by them. In cinere et cilicio, with ashes and hairshirt, that is, with that shaggy and pungent cloth that originally hails from Cilicia, woven of goat’s hair or horsehair, which was used as a garment by Roman soldiers, and which represents the spiritual and material dress of the penitent.
The divine Liturgy of this day was formerly reserved for public sinners, on whom a period of penance was imposed until Holy Thursday, when the Bishop gave them absolution.
Quote:Ecce ejicimini vos hodie a liminibus sanctæ matris Ecclesiæ propter peccata, et scelera vestra, sicut Adam primus homo ejectus est de paradiso propter transgressionem suam.
We cast you out of the enclosure of holy mother Church because of your sins and crimes, just as the first man Adam was cast out of Paradise because of his transgression. (Pont. Rom., De expulsione publice Pœnitentium).
This is what the Bishop commanded in the moving rite described in the Roman Pontifical, before exhorting them not to despair of the Lord’s mercy, committing themselves with fasting, prayer, pilgrimages, almsgiving and other good works to obtain the fruits of true penance. After this paternal and severe warning, penitents kneeling barefoot in the churchyard watched as the doors of the Cathedral, where the Bishop celebrated the divine Mysteries, were closed. Forty days later, on Holy Thursday, they would return to those doors with the same robes cast off, on their knees, holding an unlit candle in their hands. State in silentio: audientes audite, the Archdeacon would have ordered them. And he would continue, addressing the Bishop on behalf of the public penitents, recalling their works of reparation. Lavant aquæ, lavant lachrimæ. Then three times the Bishop would sing the antiphon Venite and welcome them into the church, where they would throw themselves with emotion at his feet, prostrati et flentes. At this point the Archdeacon would have said:
Quote:Restore in them, Apostolic Pontiff, what the seductions of the devil have corrupted; by the merits of your prayers and by the grace of reconciliation, bring these men close to God, so that those who were previously ashamed of their sins may now rejoice in pleasing the Lord in the land of the living, after defeating the author of their own ruin (Pont. Rom., De reconciliatione Pœnitentium).
I wanted to reflect on this most ancient rite – which I urge you to read and meditate on for your edification – in order to make you understand how the Church’s just severity is never separated from her maternal mercy, following the Lord’s example. If she were to deny that there are faults to be expiated, she would be failing in justice; if she were to delude sinners that they could merit forgiveness without sincere repentance, she would offend God’s mercy and lack charity. And yet she does not cease to remind us that we are children of wrath, because of Adam’s sin, our own sins, the sins of our brothers and sisters, and the public sins of nations, which are so abhorrent today. Holy Church reminds us of the penance of Adam and Eve, the redemption begun in that same paradise with the curse of the Serpent and the proclamation of the protoevangelium: I will put enmity between you and the Woman, between your seed and her seed: she will crush your head, and you will threaten her heel (Gen 3:15). Holy Church shows us the many occasions on which under the Old Law, our fathers sinned yet again, and once again obtained mercy from God thanks to penance: the example of the inhabitants of Nineveh is also recalled in the prayers and texts of the blessing of the Holy Ashes. She shows us – especially in the liturgy of Lent, Passion Week and Holy Week – the obedience of the Son of God to the Father’s will, in order to accomplish the wonderful work of the Redemption accomplished on the wood of the Cross. She proposes to us the example of the penitent saints, she points out to us the need for repentance and conversion, she instructs us with the admirable pedagogy of the sacred rites to understand the gravity of sin, the enormity of the offense against the divine Majesty, and the infinity of the merits of the Sacrifice of Our Lord that is renewed on our altars.
That door that closes slowly and heavily on its hinges in front of the penitents, leaving them far from the altar, is not deaf cruelty, but rather the suffering severity of a mother who does not cease to pray for them, who awaits them confident of seeing them repentant and aware of the supreme Good of which their faults have deprived them. For the same reason, from Passion Week until the Easter Vigil, the crosses and sacred images in the churches are veiled, to remind us of our unworthiness as sinners and the silence of God, a silence that Our Lord also experienced in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the Cross, and which mystics likewise experienced in the spiritual torments of the Dark Night.
Where has all this gone? Why, at the very moment when the world most needed to be called to fidelity to Christ, was the Church’s liturgy stripped of its most pedagogically effective symbols? Why was the rite of expulsion of public penitents abolished, and along with it the rite of their reconciliation? And again: why do Pastors no longer speak to us of original sin, of the way of the Cross, of the necessity of penance? Why is divine justice silenced or denied, while God’s mercy is distorted and nullified, as if we were entitled to it apart from our contrition? Why do we hear that absolution should not be denied to anyone, when repentance – as the Council of Trent teaches – is an inseparable matter of the Sacrament, together with the confession of one’s sins and the satisfaction of penance? Why be silent about the importance of meditating on Death, the inevitability of Judgment, and the reality of Hell for the damned and Heaven for the elect?
Because a Luciferian pride has led to the construction of an idol in place of the true God.
What could be more comforting than knowing that our innumerable infidelities, even the most serious, can be forgiven if only we humbly recognize ourselves as guilty and in need of the mercy of God, who gave His only begotten Son to save us and make us blessed for eternity?
It is the Mysterium iniquitatis, dear children. The mystery of iniquity: how it is permitted by God in order to temper us and make us worthy of eternal reward; how it can appear triumphant in its obscene arrogance, while the Good works in silence and without clamor; how it manages to seduce men with false promises, making them forget the horror of sin, the monstrosity of making us responsible for every suffering suffered by the Savior, for every time he was spat on, every beating he received, every scourge of the whip, every wound, every thorn, every drop of His precious Blood, every tear, and above all for every spiritual pain caused to the Man-God by our ingratitude. Responsible too for every suffering of His Most Holy Mother, whose Immaculate Heart was pierced by sharp swords, uniting Her to the Passion of Her divine Son.
Quote:Forty more days, and Nineveh will be destroyed! (Jon 3:2), announces the prophet Jonah. The Ninevites believed God, proclaimed a fast, and clothed themselves in sackcloth, all of them, from the greatest to the smallest. And when the news had reached the king of Nineveh, he arose from his throne, took off his cloak, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat on ashes.
Then, by decree of the king and his great officers, an order of this kind was made known in Nineveh: ‘Men and animals, herds and flocks, let them taste nothing; do not go to pasture and do not drink water; let men and animals cover themselves with sackcloth and cry out to God with strength; Let each one be converted from his wickedness and from the violence wrought by his hands. Perhaps God will change his mind, repent, and extinguish his burning wrath, so that we may not perish’ (Jon 3:5-9).
Forty more days: this warning also applies to us, perhaps more than it was true for the Ninevites. It applies to this corrupt and rebellious world, which has taken away the royal crown from Christ to make Satan reign, he who is murderous from the beginning. It applies to nations that were once Catholic, where the horror of abortion, euthanasia, genetic manipulation, and the perversion of morals cries out to Heaven for vengeance. It applies to the Church, infested with false shepherds and mercenaries who have become servants and accomplices of the Prince of this world, and who consider as enemies the faithful entrusted to them. It applies to each of us, who in the face of this universal subversion believe that we can escape the fight by seeking shelter in the comfortable prospect of God’s miraculous intervention, or by pretending to be able to live together with His enemies, accepting their blackmail as long as they leave us our small spaces in which to celebrate the Tridentine Mass.
Forty more days: this is the time that separates us from the feared “pontifical” document with which the authority of Peter, instituted to preserve the unity of the Faith in the bond of Charity, will again be used to accuse of schism those who do not want to bend to new, illicit restrictions of what for two thousand years has been the most precious treasure of the Church and the most terrible bulwark against heretics: the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; and he who tears the seamless garment of Christ by spreading heresies and scandals will seek to banish from the sacred enclosure those who remain faithful to the Lord.
Forty more days: this is the propitious time in which each of us, in the secret of his room, will be able to pray, fast, do penance, give alms and do good works to atone for our sins, to make reparation for the public sins of nations, and to implore the divine Majesty not to abandon His inheritance, the Holy Church, to the opprobrium of being dominated by the nations (Jon 2:12).
With these dispositions, dear children, it will not be necessary to remind you of the law of abstinence and fasting, because you know how to accumulate those spiritual treasures that no earthly power can take away from you, which will be the best preparation for the celebration of Easter that awaits us at the end of our Lenten journey.
In cinere et cilicio: may the ashes be a sign of the vanity of the world, of the illusory nature of its promises, of the inexorability of temporal death; may the pungent hairshirt that the soldiers used for their garments spur us to the good fight, as the concluding prayer of the Blessing of the Ashes exhorts us: Concede nobis, Domine, præsidia militiæ christianæ sanctis inchoare jejuniis: ut contra spiritales nequitias pugnaturi, continentiæ muniamur auxiliis. Grant us, Lord, that we may begin with holy fasting this campaign of Christian service, so that, as we take up battle against spiritual evils, we may be armed with weapons of self-restraint.
And so may it be.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
22 February 2023
Feria IV Cinerum
|
|
|
|
| Francis Drops Invocation of Our Lady |
|
Posted by: Stone - 02-23-2023, 09:03 AM - Forum: Pope Francis
- No Replies
|
|
Despite Steroids: Francis Drops Invocation of Our Lady
gloria.tv | February 23, 2023
Since his return from South Sudan, Francis has suppressed the final invocation of the Angelus: "Ora pro nobis, sancta Dei genetrix. Ut digni efficiámur promissionibus Christi” - Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Specola (InfoVaticana.com, February 20) comments, “Let us hope that Francis' constant request that we pray for him does not exclude the intercession of Our Mary.”
He adds, “We know that things are not going well, and that Francis is still undergoing delicate steroid treatment at the Gemelli. His abnormal obesity indicates that the side effects are there, and they are very serious.”
|
|
|
|
| New desecration in a church in Castellón |
|
Posted by: Stone - 02-23-2023, 08:57 AM - Forum: Anti-Catholic Violence
- No Replies
|
|
New desecration in a church in Castellón
![[Image: Diseno-sin-titulo-2023-02-22T163403.243.png.webp]](https://infovaticana.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Diseno-sin-titulo-2023-02-22T163403.243.png.webp)
Parish church of Santa María de Segorbe Parish Church of Santa María de Segorbe
By Infovaticana [computer translated from the Spanish] | February 23, 2023
It is the second desecration suffered by a church in the diocese of Castellón in less than a month. The proliferation of news like these shows that the devil is unleashed.
The Bishop of Castellón, Monsignor Casimiro López Llorente, has reported « with deep pain » that « a serious desecration of the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist took place on February 20 in the parish church of Santa María de Segorbe ». The assailants and authors of the desecration have also stolen the money raised at Misa.
« In the course of a robbery, carried out at night, several objects have been stolen, and, what is more serious, the Tabernacle has been opened and the Holy Eucharists have been spilled, deposited in the ciborium and in the virile of custody », reads the bishop's statement.
Casimiro López regrets that « in less than a month we have to regret a new desecration of the Eucharist in our Diocese. The previous took place on January 24 in the parish church of San Francisco de Asís de Castellón de la Plana. I ask the entire diocesan community and especially the parish priests and other church leaders to take extreme security measures to prevent robberies and, above all, the desecrations of the Blessed Sacrament ».
The bishop stresses that « what happened is a sacrilegious act against the greatest treasure that we Catholics have: the Most Holy Eucharist, the real and permanent presence of Jesus Christ among us ». For this reason, in order to repair this new sacrilegious act, Monsignor Casimiro will celebrate a Holy Mass of redress in the Church of Santa María de Segorbe, on Sunday, March 5, at 12:00 pm, « to which I invite all Catholics from the Diocese of Segorbe-Castellón -priests, religious and laity-, accompanying the faithful of this parish at this painful moment in their local history ».
The prelate also takes advantage in the statement to ask priests that in all parish churches, chapels and temples open to worship, acts of redress and reparation are carried out either with the celebration of Holy Mass or with the prolonged exposition of the Blessed Sacrament.
« I again urge all faithful Catholics to take advantage of what happened to renew our Eucharistic faith and devotion. Behind this event hides a call to conversion addressed to each one of us. Let us make this grievance an opportunity for redress. May this offense be an occasion to arouse and manifest our love for Jesus Christ, present in the Eucharist. », concludes the communiqué of the Bishop of Castellón.
|
|
|
|
| Is Bergoglio an Anti-Pope |
|
Posted by: Stone - 02-22-2023, 09:23 AM - Forum: Sedevacantism
- No Replies
|
|
The following was taken from the TIA website. While The Catacombs does not support every position taken by TIA with regard to the crisis in the Church, they post many good articles. From a recent Q&A there:
Is Bergoglio an Anti-Pope?
TIA,
I have enjoyed your website with its erudite commentary and faithful support of Catholic tradition for years. Keep up the good work.
Question: There is an article recently published in sfero (Social italiano) titled, Benedict XVI signaled the impeded see by his resignation at the Roman “hora vicesima” – “the twentieth hour”. The article asserts that the late Pope Benedict was coerced by the Cardinals, but he pulled a fast one and resigned only the administrative responsibilities as Bishop of Rome. And isn't that what the anti-pope Bergoglio calls himself?
The article claims Pope Benedict XVI never abdicated and remained the only pope until the end of his life: He renounced the ministerium, the exercise of power, ironically just as Benedict VIII did – exactly 1000 years earlier in 1013.
The article is by Andrea Cionci, and appears somewhat compelling providing a clear roadmap in the historical subterfuge by traitorous co-religious to remove, even murder the true Pope in office. I also recall the he had asked for prayers at the start of his pontificate to protect him from the “wolves” who were out to get him.
So is the "Moose on the table"? Is the Church "Sede Vacant"?
I realize that the Church has had numerous anti-popes; the question begs itself: Should we now await for a proper enclave to elect a new, legitimate pope? I wonder. Is this an “Interregnum” or is the present situation an all out “Sede Vacant” situation? What makes matters worse are all the Cardinals who are cronies of Bergoglio. Catholic prophecies talk about a pope who will be forced to leave Rome and die a cruel death in exile. I do not think that is Bergoglio.
N.F.
TIA responds:
N.F.,
Thank you for your kind words and for your question.
It should be enough to clarify your doubts to state the following points:
- We do not give credit to the theory which imagines that Benedict XVI was coerced to abdicate by a group of Cardinals. He himself denied this possibility several times. His secretary, Arch. Georg Ganswein, who knew him quite well, also has denied it.
- In order to continue to sustain this theory after Benedict XVI's formal denial, one must imagine that he was also obliged to deny it later. Now then, this is tantamount to admitting that either he lost his mental faculties, that is, he did not know what he was talking when he denied the coercion, or to imagine that those Cardinals continued to exercise that same pressure over him until he died. If this last possibility were accepted, then any document he wrote after his abdication and any verbal declaration he made should also be denied for the same reason. Since he had many opportunities to let other persons know about this supposed pressure and never did, this hypothesis lacks common sense.
- Besides, on this topic the motto applies: Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur, "what is freely asserted is freely dismissed," or paraphrased, "What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
- We also do not give credit to the theory that pretends Pope Francis was not duly elected while Pope Benedict XVI was. Both Popes were elected by the College of Cardinals obeying the same rules established for the Papal Election.
- We do not think the Seat of Peter is vacant. We sustain that since the death of Pius XII it has been usurped by partisans of Progressivism.
- We do not consider Pope Francis as an anti-pope. However, he may be an Anti-Christ, to use the words of Our Lady of La Salette: “Rome will become the seat of the Anti-Christ.”
We hope these considerations answer your questions.
|
|
|
|
| Ebook: The Admirable Life of the Glorious Patriarch St. Joseph - Taken from the Mystical City of God |
|
Posted by: Stone - 02-22-2023, 08:32 AM - Forum: Resources Online
- No Replies
|
|
Ebook:
† † †
St. Joseph, an Undervalued Saint
by Venerable Mary of Agreda - taken from here
![[Image: A041_Joseph.jpg]](https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/religiousimages/A041_Joseph.jpg)
St. Joseph as royal, in the Jesuit Church in Quito, Ecuador
The following are words of Our Lady to Ven. Mary of Agreda reported in her famous book Mystical City of God:
My daughter, although you have described my spouse, Saint Joseph, as the most noble among the Princes and Saints of the heavenly Jerusalem, still you cannot properly manifest his eminent sanctity, nor can any mortal know it fully before he arrives at the vision of the Divinity. Then all will be filled with wonder and praise as the Lord will make them capable of understanding this truth.
On the last day, when all men shall be judged, the damned will bitterly bewail their sins, which prevented them from appreciating this powerful means of salvation and availing themselves, as they easily could have, of this intercessor to gain the friendship of the Just Judge.
The whole human race has much undervalued the privileges and prerogatives conceded to my blessed spouse and they do not realize what his intercession with God is able to do. I assure you, my dear child, that he is a greatly favored personage in the divine presence and has immense power to stay the arms of the divine vengeance.
I desire that you be very thankful to Divine Goodness for vouchsafing you so much light and knowledge regarding this mystery, and also for the favor which I am making you by revealing this. From now on, during the rest of your mortal life, see that you advance in devotion and in hearty love for my spouse, and that you thank the Lord for having thus favored him with such high privileges and for having given me such great joy in the knowledge of all his excellences.
In all your necessities you must avail yourself of his intercession. You should encourage many to venerate him and see that your own religious daughters distinguish themselves in their devotion to him. Whatever my spouse asks of the Lord in Heaven is granted upon the earth, and on his intercession depend many and extraordinary favors for men, if they do not make themselves unworthy of receiving them.
All these privileges were to be a reward for the amiable perfection of this wonderful Saint and for his great virtues; for the divine clemency is favorably drawn forth by them and looks upon Saint Joseph with generous liberality, ready to shower down its marvelous mercies upon all those who avail themselves of his intercession.
-Taken from The Mystical City of God, Washington, New Jersey: AMI Press, 1971, vol. 3, p. 167
|
|
|
|
| St. Thomas Aquinas on Fasting |
|
Posted by: Stone - 02-22-2023, 08:21 AM - Forum: Lent
- Replies (2)
|
|
St. Thomas Aquinas on Fasting
Taken from here.
![[Image: St.+Thomas+Aquinas+%25282%2529.jpg]](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YSXo3rpP-zo/T0VJODoK0tI/AAAAAAAAFGo/H9IbFNaplaI/s400/St.+Thomas+Aquinas+%25282%2529.jpg)
The Temptation of St. Thomas Aquinas
From the Summa Theologica (II, 2, Q 147, Art 1) of St. Thomas Aquinas writes the following words on Fasting. Yesterday was Ash Wednesday and the start of the Great Fast. Please join me in fasting for 40 days in observance of the traditional Lenten fast that took place for over a thousand years up until the Vatican Council in 1969.
Quote:Fasting is practiced for a threefold purpose:
- First, in order to bridle the lusts of the flesh, wherefore the Apostle says (2 Corinthians 6:5-6): "In fasting, in chastity," since fasting is the guardian of chastity. For, according to Jerome, "Venus is cold when Ceres and Bacchus are not there," that is to say, lust is cooled by abstinence in meat and drink.
- Secondly, we have recourse to fasting in order that the mind may arise more freely to the contemplation of heavenly things: hence it is related (Daniel 10) of Daniel that he received a revelation from God after fasting for three weeks.
- Thirdly, in order to satisfy for sins: wherefore it is written (Joel 2:12): "Be converted to Me with all your heart, in fasting and in weeping and in mourning." The same is declared by Augustine in a sermon: "Fasting cleanses the soul, raises the mind, subjects one's flesh to the spirit, renders the heart contrite and humble, scatters the clouds of concupiscence, quenches the fire of lust, kindles the true light of chastity."
|
|
|
|
| Ash Wednesday: Antiphona - Immutemur habitu in cinere |
|
Posted by: Stone - 02-22-2023, 08:14 AM - Forum: Lent
- No Replies
|
|
Ash Wednesday: Antiphona - Immutemur habitu in cinere
Each year, Ash Wednesday marks the beginning of Lent and is always 46 days before Easter Sunday. Lent is a 40-day season (not counting Sundays) marked by repentance, fasting, reflection, and ultimately celebration. The 40-day period represents Christ’s time of temptation in the wilderness, where he fasted and where Satan tempted him. Lent asks believers to set aside a time each year for similar fasting, marking an intentional season of focus on Christ’s life, ministry, sacrifice, and resurrection.
For fifteenth-century Christians, frequent meditation was necessary to condition and re-form the soul.In general, the goal of contemplation was to bring peace to the soul and direct it towards salvation. Devotional aids provided material for reconstructing one’s soul for the purpose of attaining Heaven instead of damnation.
This chant was performed by Chœur Saint-Michel
Chant text in Latin:
Immutemur habitu, in cinere et cilicio,
ieiunemus, et ploremus ante Dominum,
quia multum misericors est dimittere peccata nostra Deus noster.
|
|
|
|
| Vatican: Observe a Lenten 'Gas Fast' to avoid consumption of fossil fuels |
|
Posted by: Stone - 02-22-2023, 08:10 AM - Forum: Pope Francis
- No Replies
|
|
Lenten Tweet: What Are They Smoking in the Vatican?
gloria.tv | February 22, 2023
L’Osservatore Romano, the official daily of the decadent Vatican tweeted on February 20:
Quote:During Lent, Catholics are called to observe a gas fast to avoid fuelling the war and against the consumption of fossil fuels.
On the contrary, experts hope that the Vatican will drastically increase the consumption of common-sense enhancers during Lent.
|
|
|
|
| Pope intervenes again to restrict celebration of Latin Mass |
|
Posted by: Stone - 02-22-2023, 08:05 AM - Forum: Pope Francis
- No Replies
|
|
Pope intervenes again to restrict celebration of Latin Mass
AP NEWS [emphasis mine] | February 21, 2023
ROME (AP) — Pope Francis has intervened for the third time to crack down on the celebration of the old Latin Mass, a sign of continued friction with Catholic traditionalists.
Francis reasserted in a new legal decree published Tuesday that the Holy See must approve new celebrations of the old rite by signing off on bishops’ decisions to designate additional parish churches for the Latin Mass or to let newly ordained priests celebrate it.
The decree states that the Vatican’s liturgy office, headed by British Cardinal Arthur Roche, is responsible for evaluating such requests on behalf of the Holy See and that all requests from bishops must go there.
For weeks, Catholic traditionalist blogs and websites have reported a further crackdown on the old Latin Mass was in the works, following Francis’ remarkable decision in 2021 to reimpose restrictions on its celebration that were relaxed in 2007 by then-Pope Benedict XVI.
Francis said at the time that he was acting to preserve church unity, saying the spread of the Tridentine Mass had become a source of division and been exploited by Catholics opposed to the Second Vatican Council, the 1960s meetings that modernized the church and its liturgy.
Roche’s office followed up a few months later to double down on the Vatican’s position with a series of questions and answers that made clear that celebrating some sacraments according to the old rite was forbidden.
The new decree doesn’t restrict the celebration further but merely repeats what was previously declared. Its insistence on Roche’s authority in the process appeared aimed primarily at quashing traditionalist claims that the cardinal had exceeded his mandate. Francis signed off on the decree Monday during a private audience with Roche.
Francis’ crackdown on the old Mass outraged his conservative and traditionalist critics, many of whom have also attacked him for his focus on the environment, social justice and migrants.
Francis says he preaches the Gospel and what Jesus taught, and has defended the restrictions by saying they actually reflect Benedict’s original goal while curbing the way his 2007 concession was exploited for ideological ends.
Joseph Shaw, chairman of the Latin Mass Society in Britain, which promotes the old Mass, called the new document “grave” since it confirmed that bishops need explicit permission from Roche’s office to use parish churches for Tridentine Masses.
In a series of tweets, Shaw noted that when the office has been asked for such permissions to date, the office “has typically been restricting the number of locations and giving the permission for only two years.”
He said that would lead to uneven access to the old Mass, where it would be easy to find alternative locations in some places but impossible in others.
|
|
|
|
|
