| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 282 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 279 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Google
|
| Latest Threads |
Where did those lies abou...
Forum: General Commentary
Last Post: Deus Vult
9 hours ago
» Replies: 3
» Views: 7,196
|
Pope St. Pius X's prophec...
Forum: Catholic Prophecy
Last Post: Stone
Today, 08:51 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 1,688
|
Holy Mass in Georgia [Atl...
Forum: October 2024
Last Post: Stone
Today, 08:42 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 50
|
Holy Mass in New Hampshir...
Forum: October 2024
Last Post: Stone
Today, 08:37 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 48
|
Thursday Night Holy Hour ...
Forum: Appeals for Prayer
Last Post: Stone
Today, 06:50 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 461
|
St. Louis de Montfort: Af...
Forum: Our Lady
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 11:52 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 2,601
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Feas...
Forum: October 2024
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 11:30 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 74
|
Please Pray for Bishop Ti...
Forum: Appeals for Prayer
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 04:01 AM
» Replies: 4
» Views: 603
|
Fr. Ruiz Sermons: 20th Su...
Forum: Fr. Ruiz's Sermons October 2024
Last Post: Deus Vult
10-08-2024, 09:30 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 76
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: "Hai...
Forum: October 2024
Last Post: Deus Vult
10-08-2024, 09:03 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 86
|
|
|
| The Queen of the Seven Swords by G.K. Chesterton |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-10-2022, 08:58 AM - Forum: Resources Online
- Replies (1)
|
 |
The Queen of the Seven Swords
by G.K. Chesterton
A collection of poems by G.K. Chesterton, centered around the Blessed Virgin Mary. The title is in reference to the seven sorrows of Mary.
“And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts thoughts may be revealed.” (Luke 2:34)
|
|
|
| Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine by Rev. Michael Müller, C.SS.R. |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-10-2022, 08:23 AM - Forum: Church Doctrine & Teaching
- No Replies
|
|
Adapted for the Family and More Advanced Students in Catholic Schools and Colleges.
with the Approbation of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith
No. III. Benziger Brothers: New York, 1876
Printers to the Holy Apostolic See
Nihil Obstat: Joseph Helmpraecht, C.SS.R.
Baltimore, MD., 24 Sept., 1874
Imprimatur: J. Roosevelt Bayley
Archiep. Baltimorensis
Baltimore, 24 Sept., 1874
CONTENTS
Testimonials
Preface
Introduction—Why We Are in the World
Part I
I. God our Teacher
II. God our Teacher by His Church
III. St. Peter the Head of Christ’s Church
IV. Infallibility of the Pope
V. Propagation of Christ’s Religion
VI. Marks of the Church
VII. The Roman Catholic Church cannot be destroyed
VIII. What cannot and what can be Reformed in the Church
IX. The Faith of the Roman Catholic
X. Qualities of Faith
XI. Holy Scripture and Tradition
XII. No Salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church
----------------------
Testimonials.
Church of St. Charles Borromeo,
Sydney Place,
Brooklyn, August28, 1874.
Rev. dear Father Müller:
I have carefully read and examined your excellent manuscript, entitled “Familiar Explanations,” etc. As far as I can judge, it is a clear, sound, orthodox explanation of Catholic doctrine, in a form of question and answer, which cannot fail to be extremely useful for the right understanding of the truths, commandments, and sacraments of our holy religion. Particularly useful seem to be the parts which explain the True Faith, the True Church, the Infallibility of the Pope, and, well, I should have to mention every chapter, from the beginning to the end. It is another great Godsend for these days of unbelief and corruption.
I am your humble servant in the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary,
Francis J. Freel, D.D.
Rev. and dear Father Müller:
I have most carefully read and examined your excellent manuscript, “Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine.” I took the liberty to make a few alterations. I do not hesitate for a moment to pronounce this work of yours one of the most useful for our time and country. It is written in the true spirit of St. Alphonsus. Its theology is sound and solid, its spirit most devout, and its language simple and popular. I was particularly pleased with those chapters which treat on the Church, Papal Infallibility, Indifference to Religion, Prayer, and Grace. Your book cannot but prove most useful to those who are learning and to those who teach the Christine Doctrine. Its diligent and frequent perusal cannot fail to confirm converts in their faith, and supply Catholics with quite popular and solid arguments to refute the fallacious objections of non-Catholics. I feel confident that both the clergy and laity will hail with delight the publication of a book so well calculated to remedy the two great evils of our time and country—want of faith and true piety.
Congratulating you on having so successfully accomplished one of the most difficult works,
I am your devoted confrere,
A. Konings, C.S.S.R
PREFACE
About five months ago, a zealous priest, after speaking of the books that I have published, wrote in his letter as follows:
“Permit me to suggest to you what, in my humble opinion, is badly wanted in our barren religious literature and heretical language: A series of correct and concise Catechisms. I know of nothing more needed, and better calculated to do good. Three numbers would abundantly suffice.
“No. 1. For little children in spelling classes—for adults lamentably uninstructed in what is necessary to know and to believe, in order to save their souls, and who, at the same time, are so slow of intellect that only the simplest and most necessary elements of the Catholic faith and practice can be imparted to them—for colored people, and others that cannot read, and especially for that legion of stray sheep in humbler walks of life, who are picked up and brought to the priest for instruction, confession and communion on occasions of missions or in Paschal time, and who have neither time, inclination, nor sufficient instruction to read bulky mission books or dry catechisms filled with long technical answers, or learn much by heart.
“What is necessary for these classes, is not so much that they may be able to explain, as they should know what they must believe and do in order to save their souls. Therefore, in first catechisms, meant for the uninstructed, not to say stupid, the questions should be longer, and the answers shorter, in order that the child may be instructed in, and, as it were, introduced to, the proper answer, by the very wording of the question, that the feeble memory may not be burdened by a load of words, which it is unable to carry with ease or profit. The true idea of a catechism for the classes of people just mentioned is, that by frequent questions on each point, it wakens the intellects of the uninstructed or the torpid to the matter it is wished to communicate. Hence, not only great care must be taken in framing the questions correctly, but these questions must be multiplied for the entirely uninstructed, especially so as to ask attention to each point that it is desired to teach. To illustrate: It would be a very faulty infants’ catechism that would have under one question and answer—‘Q. How many Gods are there? A. There is but one God in three persons, each equal to the other Persons, whom we call the Holy Trinity.’
“No. 2. For the use of Parochial Schools, and of catechumens who have more opportunity or more capacity.
“No. 3. For colleges, academies, high schools, for persons of cultivation, old as well as young, for professional men, etc. This number should especially be plain, popular, comprehensive, and interesting, not so dry and clumsy, nor so full of unsatisfactory, as most books of this class are. Objections, however stupid and threadbare, should be noticed and briefly refuted.
“The object of such a series of catechisms is, clearly and deeply to impress the truths of religion upon the minds of the young. A clear knowledge of these truths will, with the grace of God, gradually gain the affections of youth for the Divine Teacher of our religion, Jesus Christ, our Blessed Lord and Redeemer. In order, however, to reach this great object, it is necessary that in each number should be found, as much as possible, the same order and the same questions and answers for the chief truths of religion, so that these truths, by the additional questions and answers in another number, may be but more clearly explained and more solidly established. This rule, I think, ought to be followed in a series of catechisms, as otherwise confusion might be created in many a child’s mind and memory. On the contrary, truths clearly proposed and explained and often repeated in the same words, and in the same order, cannot fail to remain deeply impressed upon mind and memory.
“As we live in a heretical country, the best and most natural order to be followed in preparing a series of catechisms seems to me to be this: God has been the teacher of mankind from the beginning of the world, and by means of His Church, He will, to the end of time, continue to teach men,
“I. What they must believe.
“II. What they must do.
“III. The means of grace which they must use in order to be saved.
“The explanation of the commandments should be a safe guide of conscience or popular moral theology. In this explanation, therefore, should be stated not only the duties of each commandment, but also the sins which are mortal and which are venial.
“In my humble opinion there are two great truths of our religion to the explanation of which there should be devoted almost as much time and space as to all the rest. These truths are the Divine Mission of the Roman Catholic Church and the Holy Eucharist. Today, more than ever, these truths should be made plain and impressed upon the minds and hearts of the young—the Divine Mission of the Church, because she is the divinely appointed teacher of mankind—the Holy Eucharist, because it is the center of our religion, its life, strength, and support.
“The objection that the explanation of these truths at length would make the catechism rather diffuse is scarcely worthy of consideration. What is objectionable in a catechism is not so much diffuseness as obscurity in meaning, or deficiency in clearly explaining the doctrines of our religion. It is true, nothing new can be taught in a catechism, since the truths of our holy religion are always the same. But the manner of proposing and explaining those truths may be new. It certainly admits of improvement in our English literature. Whenever a doctrine is clearly proposed and explained it is easily understood and remembered, and makes a lasting impression. But whenever a doctrine is proposed and explained in a dry and obscure manner, it is apt to create disgust, and leave both heart and mind empty. In rendering not only clear, but distinct, every proposition that should be admitted in a catechism, lies the highest art of its composer, as his science is tried by his including in a given catechism all that ought to be put into it in view of the persons for whom and objects for which it is prepared, and of excluding all else.
“There are some who think and say that our religion may be taught in a few lessons. Be it so. But, generally speaking, a few lessons in religion will not make practical Catholics, or else we should not see so many of the young fall away from the faith. Had they learned better what the Church and the Holy Eucharist are, many of them, instead of having become bitter enemies of the Church, would have become her most strenuous defenders by word and example. A clear, satisfactory explanation of these two great truths in a catechism is alone sufficient to recommend it both to the clergy and laity.
“Each number should contain an appendix with a brief summary of the chief duties which every Christian must know and observe, on Sundays and weekdays, in and out of church, in order to be saved, and with short prayers for morning, night, during the day, at church, for confession, Holy Communion, etc. Thus they would serve for convenient prayer-books in the absence of others. Of course, these books must be small in size, and large of print, so as to serve for pocket use, and not injure the eyes.
“I have been sighing for years for such a series of Catechisms, and cannot conceive how you, in your laudable zeal to profit souls, and to assist your brethren of the clergy, school-brothers, and school-sisters, Sunday-school teachers, and parents, could have overlooked them, or not have felt their necessity yourself.
“What I suggest to you is, undoubtedly, one of the most difficult undertakings. It is a work which, no doubt, will be criticized either in a friendly or in a captious spirit. No attention should be paid to the criticisms of those who are not able or willing to supply an admitted want, but who, from unholy motives, labor to search out trifling faults in excellent and necessary works of this kind, without suggesting anything better and more practical. But by the suggestions of many of those competent, that which is already good becomes perfect. Thus at last a series of Catechisms may be given us, which we can put, pure and simple, into the hands of children and their instructors, as teaching the doctrines Catholic faith, without need of supplementary explanations.
“Now, should you—as I scarcely dare anticipate—think seriously on my humble proposals, and furnish us with the above mentioned series of Catechisms, you would thereby certainly earn the undying thanks of thousands, especially of priests, parents, school-brothers, school-sisters, and Sunday-school teachers, more worthy and deserving of consideration than your humble but admiring servant in Christ.”
I am not quite certain whether or not the good and zealous priest would object to the publication of his letter. So I suppress his name, deservedly held in veneration, and by no one in higher veneration than by myself. In compliance with his request I have prepared this series of Catechisms, and in preparing it, have been guided by his views, as they perfectly agree with mine on the subject. I am impressed more strongly than ever with a sense of the great difficulty of the task. It has always been a matter of considerable difficulty even to the most learned theologians to write a plain, practical Catechism. I should have wished that some one more competent, and more experienced in writing, had engaged in the difficult undertaking. Hence I am ready to charge myself with presumption for venturing on so difficult a task, which has occupied the pens of the ablest theologians.
I can find for myself no excuse but in the sincerity with which I have sought principally to benefit that portion of the flock of Jesus Christ which is dearest to His sacred heart—little children.
What has greatly encouraged me to place these Catechisms before the public, is the favorable reports made by those who read them in manuscript, and were competent to judge their theological accuracy, their earnestness and simplicity of language.
As to the defects of my undertaking—which unquestionably are many—I hope the sincerity of a good will, and the earnest desire of benefiting Catholic youth, will be sufficient to plead my cause with my indulgent and considerate brethren of the clergy and laity. And thus, imperfect as the new production may be, I present it to my brethren of the clergy and laity, hoping that it may meet with sound criticisms, communicated to me either publicly or privately.
I have now only to add that I submit this, and whatever else I have written, to the better judgment of our Bishops, but especially to the Holy See, anxiously desirous to think nothing, to say nothing, to teach nothing but what is approved of by those to whom the sacred deposit of Faith has been committed—those who watch over us and are to render an account to God for our souls.
Now, should the Prelates of the Church deem this series of Catechisms well calculated to promote the great cause for which it has been prepared, the writer will believe himself amply rewarded for his labor, and will feel extremely grateful if they encourage their introduction by recommending them to the clergy and laity of their dioceses.
New York: Feast of the Immaculate Conception, 1874.
St. Alphonsus’ Church, 234 South 5th Ave.
Introduction—Why We Are in this World
Question: Who created you?
ANSWER: God created me.
Q. Out of what did God make you?
A. God made me out of nothing. 2 Mach. vii. 28.
Q. Of what are you composed?
A. Of two parts—a soul and a body.
Q. To whose likeness did God create you?
A. "God created me to his own image and likeness." Gen. 1. 26.
Q. Is this likeness in your body or in your soul?
A. It is principally in my soul.
Q. Is your soul then a spirit like to God?
A. It is.
Q. Is your soul one like God?
A. It is.
Q. Will your soul live forever like God?
A. It will.
Q. In what else is your soul like to God?
A. In its love for God.
Q. How does this love make the soul like to God?
A. Because in loving God it loves what is infinitely good and perfect, and so loving, tries to make itself good and perfect like to God.
Q. Does God then love Himself?
A. Yes; because being all wise, He knows Himself, who is all wisdom; and being in Himself infinite perfection must love Himself always, and all His creatures in proportion as they resemble Him.
Q. In the one God there are three distinct persons. Is there anything in the soul like to this?
A. Yes; in the soul there are three distinct powers.
Q. What are these powers?
A. The understanding, will, and memory.
Q. Of what use are these three powers to man?
A. By means of them he can learn languages, build churches, palaces, great cities, steamboats, and railroads, write and print books, count days, dates, distances, money, and above all, know and love God.
Q. Can animals do this?
A. No.
Q. Why can they not?
A. Because they have not rational souls.
Q. What lesson are we to learn from this?
A. That man is not a mere animal, made simply for this world, but that he has a soul made to know, love, and serve God, its Creator, whose image and likeness it is.
Q. What is the plain answer to be made to men who say they have no soul?
A. If they say they have no soul they must consider themselves simply animals, and since they are pleased to be animals they had better go and live with the class of beings to which they belong.
Q. Why did God make us to His own image and likeness?
A. That He might bestow upon us His own happiness in heaven. "I am thy reward exceeding great." Gen. XV. 1.
Q. On what condition will He bestow upon us His own happiness?
On condition that we always serve Him on earth. "The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and him only shalt thou serve." Matt. iv. 10
Q. How must we serve God?
A. By doing God's will. "Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matt. vii. 21.
Q. Were all men made to be forever happy with God in heaven?
A. Yes, all without exception. "God will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of truth." 1 Tim., ii. 4.
Q. Why are many not saved?
A. Because instead of serving God they seek only the riches and pleasures of this world.
Q. May we not seek and use the goods of this world?
A. We may, so far as they help us to serve God.
Q. How must we regard those goods and pleasures which keep us from serving God?
A. We must neither seek nor use them.
Q. Why?
A. Because God has said: "What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul." Matt. xvi. 26
Q. How can the goods and pleasures of this world cause us to lose our souls?
A. By drawing us away from God.
Q. Cannot the riches and pleasures of this world make us happy?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because the soul was not created for and by them, but by God for Himself. It was not created for time, but for eternity. the riches and pleasures of this world end with this world; and if we set our happiness on them, it must end with them.
Q. But cannot we love those pleasures and God at the same time?
A. We cannot love both, above all things, at the same time. If we make the riches and pleasures of this world the sole object of our lives, we must forget God, our Creator.
Q. Where then are we to seek true happiness?
A. In God alone.
Q. How are we to seek for true happiness only in God?
A. By serving God according to His will.
Q. What do we say of the man who serves God as God wishes to be served?
A. That he is united with God, or that he is a follower of the only true religion.
Q. Who then is a follower of the true religion?
A. He alone who serves God according to God's will.
Q. What will happen to us after death if we have not served God?
A. God will cast us into the everlasting torments of hell. As we have cast Him off, so will He cast us off, and have nothing to do with us.
Q. What then must always be our greatest care?
A. To do the holy will of God.
PART I.
Lesson I.—God , Our Teacher
Question. Who can teach us how to serve God according to His will?
Answer. Either God Himself, or he to whom God has made His will known.
Q. Has God ever spoken to men, and made His will known to them?
A. Yes; very often.
Q. To whom did he speak?
A. To the patriarchs and the prophets.
Q. What do you mean by "patriarchs?"
A. All those holy men who lived before Moses.
Q. Name some of them.
A. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.
Q. What did God say to them?
A. He told them who He was, why He had made them, in what manner they must worship Him, and what they must believe and do to be happy with Him in heaven, and escape the everlasting pains of hell.
Q. What else did God say to those holy men?
A. He commanded them to tell their fellow-men what he had spoken to them.
Q. What do you mean by "prophets?"
A. Men filled with the Spirit of God.
Q. What Spirit was this?
A. The Holy Ghost, the Lord and Life-giver.
Q. Name some of the prophets.
A. Moses, Elias, Isaias, Jeremias, Ezechiel, Daniel, Malachias, etc.
Q. Why are they called prophets?
A. Because they foretold things to come.
Q. How could they know things to come?
A. Because God made them known to them.
Q. What did they foretell?
A. They foretold especially the time of the coming of the Redeemer, the circumstances of His birth, of His life, passion, and death.
Q. What else did the prophets foretell of the Redeemer?
A. His resurrection and Ascension, and the sending down of the Holy Ghost, the destruction of Jerusalem, the rejection of the Jews, the conversion of the Gentiles, and the founding, spreading, and duration of His Church.
Q. Why was all this foretold by the prophets?
A. That all men might prepare for the coming of the Redeemer, know Him by the prophecies, and believe and do all that He would command them.
Q. How were men to know for certain that God had spoken to the patriarchs and prophets?
A. Because God Himself bore witness to the truth of their words by miracles.
Q. What do you mean by a miracle?
A. Miracles are most extraordinary works which cannot be done by mere natural powers, but by the power of God alone; such as the raising of the dead to life, giving sight to the blind, and the like.
Q. If holy men work miracles in confirmation of the truth of their words, must we, then, believe that God has spoken through them?
A. Yes; because God cannot permit a miracle except in confirmation of the truth, and therefore, when God speaks, whether it be through man, or in His own divine person, we must listen and obey, simply because it is the voice of God.
Q. Why cannot God permit a miracle in confirmation of error?
A. Because He cannot deceive us.
Q. When did God begin to speak to men?
A. When He first created man.
Q. How long did God continue to speak to men through the patriarchs and prophets?
A. For about four thousand years.
Q. Did God, after that time, speak no more?
A. At the end of that time, He sent His only Son, Jesus Christ, to teach men.
Q. Who is Jesus Christ?
A. Jesus Christ is the son of God, true God and true man in one divine person.
Q. In what condition was mankind when the Redeemer came?
A. The grossest darkness of the understanding, and the most lamentable depravity of the will prevailed almost over the entire world.
Q. What was the consequence of this darkness and depravity?
A. All mankind, with the exception of the Jews, having lost the knowledge of God, worshiped creatures, even the very demons, as gods, and the most shameful vices were praised as virtues.
Q. Why did not the Jews also worship false gods?
A. Because the Jews or Israelites were a people chosen by God from the corrupt mass of mankind, and watched over with special care.
Q. Why did God choose the Jews for his people, and watch over them with special care?
A. Because, notwithstanding their sins, God took pity on men, and wished that through the Jews all those laws and truths which He had made known to mankind should be preserved, and that through them salvation might come to the whole world.
Q. For what other reason did God choose the Jews for his people?
A. God also wished that from them at last should be born one holy enough to be the mother of the Redeemer.
Q. What remedy did Jesus Christ apply to heal those universal evils of the understanding?
A. He enlightened men by His divine doctrine and example
Q. What remedy did our blessed Redeemer apply to heal the great evils of the will?
A. He gave us the sacraments and prayer as means to obtain those graces which He merited for us by His life and death, whereby we would be enabled to believe and practise what he had taught us.
Lesson II.—God, Our Teacher by his Church
Q. What did Jesus Christ do in order that all men, even to the end of the world, might learn His holy Doctrine, and have the means of grace by which alone they could be saved?
A. He established a well-organized society of those who believed in Him and professed His whole Doctrine.
Q. What did Jesus Christ call this society?
A. He called it His Church.
Q. Who were the first members of that society?
A. The Immaculate Virgin Mary, the twelve Apostles, the seventy-two disciples, and some other followers of Jesus Christ.
Q. How did Jesus Christ organize His society?
A. From among His followers He chose twelve men to be the witnesses and teachers of His Doctrine and works.
Q. What were these twelve men called?
A. Apostles.
Q. Where were the Apostles to be the witnesses of Christ's doctrine and works?
A. "In Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth." Acts i. 8.
Q. What did Jesus Christ give the Apostles to understand when He said to them that they would be witnesses unto Him all over the world?
A. That He had chosen them in order that, after His ascension into heaven, they should preach to all nations what they had seen and heard from Him.
Q. How did He prepare the Apostles for so difficult and important an office?
A. He first instructed them publicly and privately, for three years and a half, and during fourty days after His resurrection, in all the doctrines which they should make known to all nations, and then sent to them the Holy Ghost to enlighten and strengthen them in their office.
Q. What else did He do?
A. He gave His Apostles those very powers which He Himself exercised on earth.
Q. What were those powers?
A. His power as Teacher, as Priest, and as Ruler or King of an everlasting kingdom.
Q. When did Jesus Christ bestow His powers upon His Apostles?
A. When He said to them: "All power is given to me in heaven and on earth." Matt. xxviii. 18. "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you." John xx. 21.
Q. What were the Apostles' powers as Teachers?
A. Power to spread abroad, explain, and preserve uncorrupted the holy doctrines of Jesus Christ, and to condemn all false teaching.
Q. In what words did Jesus Christ bestow this power upon the Apostles?
A. In these words: "Go and teach all nations, preach the Gospel to every creature." Matt. xxviii. 18.
Q. What were the Apostles' powers as Priests?
A. Power to offer sacrifice, and administer the sacraments of Christ.
Q. In what words did He bestow this power upon them?
A. In these words: "Do this that I have done," that is, sacrifice this, "in remembrance of me." Luke xxii.19. "Go, baptize mankind in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Matt. xxviii. 19. "Whosesoever sins you forgive, they are forgiven them." John xx. 21.
Q. What were the Apostles' powers as Rulers?
A. Power to govern the Church, make laws for the people, and enforce those laws.
Q. In what words did He bestow this power upon them?
A. In these words: "Teach mankind to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Matt. xxviii. 18. "I give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matt. xvi. 19
Q. Were these powers of Teacher, Priest, and Ruler given to all men alike, who believed in Jesus Christ?
A. No; to the Apostles only and their successors.
Q. When, then, our Lord bestowed on His Apostles His own powers of teaching, administering the sacraments, and governing the Church, did He at the same time command all men to hear and obey them?
A. He did, in these words: "Whosoever will not believe, shall be condemned;" and, "He who heareth you heareth me;" and, "He who will not hear the Church, let him be as the heathen and publican." Matt. xviii. 17.
Q. What do we learn from all this?
A. That the Church of Jesus Christ was made up of two classes of men: of teachers and hearers; of priests and people; of rulers and subjects; so that we are bound to believe what the Church teaches, receive her sacraments, and obey her laws.
Lesson III.—St. Peter the Head of Christ's Church
Q. Were the Apostles to exercise their powers as they pleased?
A. They were only to exercise their powers under the supreme authority of St. Peter.
Q. Why?
A. Because Jesus Christ appointed St. Peter to be His Representative on earth, and the visible Head of His whole Church.
Q. But is not Christ Himself the Head of the Church?
A. Christ is the invisible Head, but Peter is the visible Head of the Church.
Q. Was it necessary that the Church of Christ should have a Visible Head as well as the Invisible One?
A. Yes; because the entire community of pastors and the faithful are the visible body of the Church of Christ, and a visible body or society must also have a visible head.
Q. Why?
A. Because the principle of supreme authority is a fundamental principle of reason and experience.
Q. What do you mean by this?
A. I mean that reason and experience teach us that there can be no order, no law, no civilization without supreme authority; in other words, supreme authority is the foundation of order and law.
Q. Can we see the necessity of such authority whithersoever we turn?
A. We can.
Q. Give some examples?
A. Every ship or steamboat must have its captain. Every railroad engine must have its engineer. In every society we find a president. In every government there must be a president or a monarch.
Q. Do we find the principle of authority in practice even amongst the savages?
A. Yes; and even amongst brute beasts, even among the tiny insects. We find, for instance, that the ants and the bees have their queen or supreme ruler.
Q. What follows from this?
A. That the same God who observes such wonderful order in the most simple works of nature; the same God who planted in our reason the principle of order and authority, must necessarily observe this order in the greatest of His works—in the establishment of His Church.
Q. How do we know that Christ has established this principle of supreme authority in His Church?
A. We know it from the fact that He gave greater powers to St. Peter than to the rest of the Apostles.
Q. How do we know this?
A. From the words of Christ Himself, who said to Peter: "I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matt. xvi. 18.
Q. What did our Lord understand by this "rock?"
A. St. Peter himself.
Q. Why so?
A. Because Christ called him Cephas, which is a Syriac word, and means a rock.
Q. What else did our Lord say to St. Peter on this occasion?
A. "I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth it shall be loosed also in heaven." V.19
Q. But did not Jesus Christ say the same to the rest of the Apostles?
A. He addressed these words to all the Apostles in common, but He addressed them to St. Peter in particular, saying: "I say to THEE, thou art Peter," etc.
Q. Why did He say so?
A. To show clearly that He wished to bestow on St. Peter some especial power.
Q. Did our Lord make this more clear on some other occasion?
A. Yes; when He said to St. Peter: "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep." John xxi. 15-17.
Q. What did He mean by lambs?
A. The faithful.
Q. What did He mean by sheep?
A. The pastors.
Q. Why did Jesus Christ speak thus?
A. To show that just as sheep feed the lambs, so also pastors feed the souls of the faithful.
Q. What follows from this?
A. That Christ intrusted to Peter both the pastors and the faithful.
Q. Did the Apostles themselves recognize Peter's supremacy?
A. They did.
Q. Who called together the disciples, and presided over the council which they held in Jerusalem to elect a new Apostle in the place of Judas?
A. St. Peter.
Q. Might this new Apostle have been chosen by St. Peter himself?
A. Yes; undoubtedly.
Q. Who says so?
A. St. John Chrysostom, who lived in the fifth century.
Q. Who first preached Jesus crucified, and converted by his sermon three thousand persons?
A. St. Peter.
Q. Who first declared that the Gentiles were to be admitted to Baptism, according to a divine revelation which he had received on that subject?
A. St. Peter.
Q. Who first decided in an assembly of the Apostles at Jerusalem that Christians were no longer to be subjected to the Jewish law of circumcision?
A. St. Peter.
Q. What are we to learn from this?
A. That St. Peter was the Head of the Church of Jesus Christ.
Q. Why?
A. Because he exercised the office of supreme Head of the Church on all those occasions.
Q. When the evangelists give the names of the Apostles whom do they always name first?
A. St. Peter.
Q. What are the words of St. Matthew, x.2?
A. "The names of the twelve apostles: The first Simon, who is called Peter."
Q. Might it not be said that St. Peter was always named the first either because he was the eldest or because he had been called to the apostleship before the rest?
A. No; because St. Andrew was both older than Peter and had become a disciple of Christ before him.
Q. What follows from this?
A. That the rest of the Apostles acknowledged Peter as the head of the Church.
Q. What Father of the Church writes: "It was not St. Andrew that was appointed head; it was St. Peter"?
A. St. Ambrose, who lived in the fourth century. C. 12, in 2 Corinth.
Q. What Father used this expression: "Behold the Apostle St. Peter, in whom power shines with so much brightness"?
A. St. Augustine, who lived in the fourth century. 2 Lib. de Bapt.
Q. And who writes: "St. Peter was made the chief of the Apostles in order that unity should be preserved in the Church"?
A. St. Optatus, who lived in the fourth century. 2 Lib. adv. Parmen.
Q. And who again wrote as follows: "It is known in all ages that Peter was the Prince and Head of the Apostles, the foundation-stone of the Catholic Church. This is a fact which no one doubts"?
A. The Fathers of the General Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431.
Q. What doctrine do we learn from the writings of those Fathers of the Church?
A. That they and the faithful of all ages acknowledged Peter as the Head of the Church of Christ.
Q. Was it Christ's will that this office of head should be continued from St. Peter to his successors to the end of the world?
A. It was.
Q. Why?
A. Because Christ founded His Church to last to the end of time.
Q. Who has always been acknowledged as the visible Head of the Church of Christ after the death of St. Peter?
A. The Pope or Bishop of Rome.
Q. Why do you say that the Popes or Bishops of Rome are the successors of St. Peter?
A. Because St. Peter established his See at Rome, and died there.
Q. How do you answer those who say that St. Peter never went to Rome?
A. I would ask them three questions:
1. If St. Peter did not suffer martyrdom at Rome, under the Emperor Nero, where did he die?
2. If St. Peter did not die at Rome, from what place, and at what time were his remains carried thither?
3. Did not the Fathers of the Church who lived in the first ages of Christendom, know better who was the first Bishop of Rome than the Protestants of our day can know?
Q. What does St. Augustine say about Peter being at Rome?
A. "After Peter came Linus, and Clement followed after Linus." Epist. ad Generos.
Q. What other Father writes: "St. Peter was the first who occupied the See of Rome, after him came Linus, and after Linus came Clement"?
A. St. Optatus. 2 Lib. adv. Parmen.
Q. And who tells us that "Rome has become the capital of Christendom because it was there that St. Peter established his See"?
A. St. Leo the Great. Serm. I. in Nat. Apost.
Q. What clearly follows from the writings of those Fathers of the Church?
A. That the Popes or Bishops of Rome were always held to be the successors of St. Peter.
Q. Was the office of teacher, of priest, and of ruler in the persons of the other apostles also to continue throughout all time?
A. It was.
Q. How do we know this?
A. From the fact that Jesus Christ gave power to the Apostles to choose others, and ordain them as Bishops, and appoint them as rulers of His Church.
Q. In what words did He give this power?
A. In these: "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you."
Q. What is the meaning of those words?
A. The meaning is unmistakably this: As My Heavenly Father has empowered me to choose you to take My place on earth, so I empower you to choose others to take your place.
Q. From what other words of our Lord do we know that the threefold office of the Apostles was to continue to the end of the world?
A. From these words of our Lord: "Behold, I am with you all days, even to the end of the world" (Matt. xxviii. 20); that is, I am with you in your successors to the end of the world.
Q. When Jesus Christ chose the Apostles to preach His holy doctrine, and establish His Church all over the world, was it necessary for them to remember the whole doctrine of Christ, understand it perfectly, and preach it in that sense in which Jesus Christ had preached it and wished it to be understood by the whole world?
A. Yes; this was absolutely necessary.
Q. Did Jesus Christ assure the Apostles that He would bestow upon them the grace to remember His whole doctrine, and understand it well?
A. He did.
Q. On what occasion did He give them this assurance?
A. When He said: "The Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you." John xiv. 26.
Q. What effect, then, did the Holy Ghost work in the Apostles when He came down upon them on Whitsunday?
A. He reminded them of all that they had seen and heard from Jesus Christ, and He enlightened them so as to understand His doctrine, and preach it in that sense in which Jesus Christ wished it to be understood and practised.
Q. What is this grace, which the Holy Ghost bestowed upon the Apostles, called?
A. The grace or gift of infallibility in teaching.
Lesson IV.—Infallibility of the Pope
Q. Did our Blessed Saviour foresee that certain men would corrupt or misinterpret His holy Doctrine?
A. He did.
Q. When certain men either corrupted or misinterpreted Christ's holy Doctrine, what was necessary to remove all doubts about its true meaning, and preserve it always pure and uncorrupted?
A. That there should be one particularly priviledged by God to set forth and state plainly with divine certainty the true meaning of Christ's doctrine in all questions where His doctrine was concerned.
Q. What do we call such a priviledged person?
A. The supreme judge in all points of divine law, from whose sentences there is no appeal.
Q. Why is such a judge necessary?
A. To put an end to all disputes about points of divine law.
Q. How so?
A. If every man in the country were to take the laws of the State, and to explain them as he pleased, there would be nothing but confusion and disorder in society. In like manner, if every man were to take the sacred, eternal law of God, the doctrine of Jesus Christ, and to interpret it as he pleased, there would be nothing but confusion in religion.
Q. What safeguard has human wisdom adopted to prevent confusion and disorder in society?
A. It has found it necessary to appoint a supreme judge to decide ultimately in all disputed points of civil law.
Q. What is the plain inference from this?
A. That if even human wisdom sees the necessity of appointing a supreme judge to decide ultimately in all points of civil law, it cannot be supposed that God, who is InfiniteWisdom, should neglect to appoint a supreme judge to decide ultimately in all points of divine law, in order thus to prevent all confusion in religion.
Q. What safeguard has human wisdom adopted to prevent confusion and disorder in society?
A. It has found it necessary to appoint a supreme judge to decide ultimately in all disputed points of civil law.
Q. What is the plain inference from this?
A. That if even human wisdom sees the necessity of appointing a supreme judge to decide ultimately in all points of civil law, it cannot be supposed that God, who is Infinite Wisdom, should neglect to appoint a supreme judge to decide ultimately in all points of divine law, in order thus to prevent all confusion in religion.
Q. Was there ever a time when men were left to themselves, to fashion their own religion, to invent their own creed, their own form of worship, and to decide in matters of religion?
A. No; there always existed on earth a visible teaching authority, to which it was a bounden duty of every man to submit.
Q. Whom did God appoint to be this visible teaching authority before the coming of the Redeemer?
A. During the four thousand years that elapsed before the coming of the Redeemer, the doctrines that were to be believed, the feasts that were to be observed, the sacrifices, the ceremonies of worship, everything was regulated by the living, authoritative voice of the patriarchs, the priests, and the prophets.
Q. How do we know that God in the Old Law appointed a tribunal, presided over by the High-Priest, to judge in all controversies, both of doctrine and morals, and from whose decision there was no appeal?
A. The Jewish historian, Josephus, who was well aquainted with the laws and religion of his own nation, says: "The High-Priest offers sacrifice to God before the other priests; he guards the laws, judges controversies, punishes the guilty, and whoever disobeys him is punished as one that is impious towards God." Lib. 2, Contra Appium.
Q. Is there still a greater authority than Josephus bearing witness to the fact?
A. Yes; the Word of God itself bears witness to the fact. "If thou perceive," says holy Scripture, "that there be among you a hard and doubtful matter in judgment between blood and blood, cause and cause, and thou seest that the words of the judges within the gates do vary, arise and go up to the place which the Lord thy God shall choose. And thou shalt come to the priests, and to the judge that shall be at that time, and thou shalt ask them, and they shall show thee the truth of the judgment. And thou shalt do whatsoever they shall say, and thou shalt follow their sentence. Neither shalt thou decline to the right hand nor to the left hand. Nut he that will be proud and refuse to obey the commandments of the priest, who ministereth at the time to the Lord thy God, and to the decree of the judge, that man shall die, and thou shalt take away the evil from Israel." Deut. xvii. 8-12.
Q. What do we see from this?
A. Here we see clearly a tribunal appointed by Almighty God Himself to decide in the last resort; a tribunal from whose sentence there is no appeal. There is no exception, the rule is for all, the terrible sentence is pronounced against every transgressor. Whosoever shall refuse to abide by the decision of the High-Priest shall die the death.
Q. How long did this tribunal remain intact?
A. Until the coming of the Saviour.
Q. Who assures us of this?
A. Our Blessed Redeemer Himself, in these words: "The Scribes and Pharisees have sat in the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do." Matt. xxiii. 2.
Q. Now, did our Lord Jesus Christ establish a supreme tribunal; did He give to the world and infallible judge and teacher, to decide ultimately in all controversies, both of faith and morals, whose decision is final, and without appeal?
A. Our Blessed Saviour came not to destroy the Law, but to make it perfect. He therefore established in the New Law that which the Old Law was most necessary for the preservation of faith and morals. He gave to the whole world an infallible judge and teacher, to decide ultimately in all points of faith and morals.
Q. Whom did Jesus Christ appoint as the infallible judge and teacher in all points of faith and morals?
A. St. Peter, the Head of His Church.
Q. Were not all the successors of the Apostles to possess the gift of infallibility?
A. No; the successor of St. Peter, the Pope of Rome, only.
Q. How do we know that the successors of the other Apostles, the Catholic Bishops, were not endowed with the gift of infallibility?
A. Because Jesus Christ never promised it to them.
Q. How do we know that Jesus Christ never promised it to them?
A. Because no such promise is recorded either in Holy Scripture or tradition.
Q. Why did Christ not promise to the Bishops the gift of infallibility?
A. Because He does not multiply and dispense His gifts without necessity.
Q. Was not the gift of infallibility necessary to the Bishops?
A. By no means.
Q. Why not?
A. Because after the Apostles had preached the full doctrine of Christ, their successors had only to guard this doctrine, and deliver it uncorrupted to the faithful.
Q. What does the Apostle St. Paul write to the Bishop St. Timothy on this subject?
A. "Keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding the profane novelties of words, and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called." (1 Tim. vi. 20, and 2 Tim. i. 14.) "But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse, erring and driving into error. But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee." 2 Tim. iii. 13.
Q. But did not Christ promise the Apostles and their successors: "The Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth, shall be in you, and abide with you forever"? John xiv. 16.
A. He did so promise.
Q. If, then, according to this promise, the Spirit of Truth shall abide forever with the successors of the Apostles, are they not personally infallible?
A. By no means.
Q. Why not?
A. The Spirit of Truth may abide in a person, and yet that person may not be infallible. The Spirit of Truth may abide in a multitude, and yet not each individual of the multitude may possess it in its entirety.
Q. Give an example.
A. A million men may not know the road to a certain city to which they must go. A single guide suffices to set this million on the right road. Once on it, they have only to follow their guide and they cannot go astray. Once the way is pointed out, all know it to be right, but only one could point out the right road to be followed.
Q. Do you mean that Christ wished that in this same manner the Spirit of Truth should abide with the Catholic Bishops?
A. Precisely so; for Christ gave them and all the faithful, in the person of the Head of His Church, an infallible teacher of all the truths which He and His Apostles taught. By invariably following this teacher the Spirit of Truth will always abide with them.
Q. How do we know that the Pope as successor to St. Peter possesses the gift of infallibility?
A. Christ Himself assured St. Peter and his successors of this.
Q. On what occasion?
A. When He told St. Peter that by His prayer to His heavenly Father He had obtained this gift of infallibility for him and all his successors. "I have prayed for thee (Peter) that thy faith fail not, and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren." Luke xxii. 31, 32.
Q. Why did Christ pray to His Father that St. Peter and his successors should be endowed with the gift of infallibility?
A. Because Christ wished that the never-failing faith of St. Peter and his successors should be forever the foundation-stone of His Church.
Q. On what occasion did Christ assure us of this?
A. When He asked the Apostles: "Whom do you say that I am?" Matt. xvi. 15.
Q.Which of the Apostles made answer to this question?
A. St. Peter.
Q. What was his answer?
A. "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God."
Q. What answer did Christ make to this reply of St. Peter?
A. He said: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church."
Q. What is the meaning of these words of our Lord?
A. Jesus Christ means to say that, as it is My Father who has made known to you, Peter, that I am His Son, I also make known to the whole world, that you and your successors will always know and understand who I am, and what I have taught.
Q. When did Christ build His Church upon Peter, that is, intrust him with the whole flock?
A. When He said to him: "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep." John xxi. 16.
Q. What is the meaning of this?
A. Christ says that His whole flock, teachers and hearers, priests and people, rulers and subjects, must believe and teach as Peter and his successors believe and teach.
Q. Why?
A. Because his faith, according to Christ's solemn words, shall not fail, since no power shall prevail against Peter or any of his successors so as to cause them to teach anything else than what Christ has taught. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against my Church," built upon Peter's faith. Matt. xvi. 18.
Q. What follows from this?
A. That where Peter, that is, the Pope, is, there is the Church of Christ, or in other words, that all those who believe and teach as the Pope does, form the true Church of Christ. St. Ambrose.
Q. Who, by his own motion, often condemned heresies, both before and after the first general council?
A. The Pope.
Q. To whom did the Catholic Bishops always have recourse in all controversies both of faith and morals?
A. To the Pope.
Q. If the obstinacy of the party condemned by the Pope made it advisable to have recourse to general councils, were these councils, then, after the most mature deliberation, ever found to do anything else than to confirm the sentence already passed by the Pope?
A. They were not. (See Q. and A. in Additional Questions and Answers)
Q. Did any Pope ever issue any decree concerning the truths of the faith or sound morality, which was not afterwards received by the great body of the Bishops, as containing the most solid and wholesome doctrine?
A. Such a thing never happened.
Q. Could the greatest enemies of the Catholic faith ever prove that any Pope taught any doctrine contrary to the sacred truths taught by Jesus Christ and His Apostles?
A. Never. (See Q. and A. in Additional Questions and Answers)
Q. What are we to understand from all this?
A. That it has always been the belief of the Catholic Church that the Pope, in his solemn decisions in matters of faith and morals, is infallible.
Q. If this be true, how then could it happen that some years ago a few Bishops and Priests were said not to have held this to be a doctrine of Catholic faith?
A. Because the divine tradition of this doctrine had not been as yet explicitly defined by the Holy Father.
Q. Did those Bishops, assembled in the Council of the Vatican, continue to oppose the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope, after it was defined?
A. No. All, without exception, freely and joyfully subscribed their names to the decrees of the council, and professed their faith in the infallibility of the Pope.
Q. If, then, in a general council, or assembly of all the Catholic Bishops, the meaning of a certain doctrine of Christ was to be set forth in precise language, and the majority of Bishops would explain it in one sense, and the minority in another, on which side would be the truth?
A. On that side, though it be the minority of Bishops, which agrees with the Pope.
Q. Why?
A. Simply because Christ bound Himself solemnly only to Peter and his successors that their faith should never fail; that is, that every one of them would always be so enlightened by the Holy Ghost as to understand the true meaning of His doctrine, and state and teach it plainly with divine certainty. "Where Peter is, there is the Church."
Q. Must we, then, believe that such decisions of the Pope in matters of faith and morals are infallibly true?
A. Yes; because this is an article of faith, which we must believe, as firmly as we believe that there is a God.
Q. If anyone should say, or even think otherwise, what would he be before God?
A. An apostate from the faith.
Q. Does the Pope then teach anything new, when in such misinterpretations of Christ's doctrine he declares what is to be believed?
A. No; he plainly states the truth in the sense in which Jesus Christ and the Apostles preached it.
Q. Can you now tell me whose office it is to guard the doctrine of Christ, as preached by the Apostles, and proclaim and apply it always and everywhere, one and the same, and to defend the rights of God on earth against every enemy, at all times, and in all places?
A. This is the Pope's office.
Q. Who is appointed by God Himself to declare and apply the invariable doctrine of Jesus Christ, and to govern all men and nations, kings and peoples, according to this invariable doctrine?
A. The Pope.
Q. Must the Pope as guardian and judge of the law of God, resist with all his might every passion or tendency of every age, nation, community, or individual, whenever it leaves the law of God?
A. He is bound in conscience to do so.
Q. When does the Pope speak "ex Cathedra," or infallibly?
A. He speaks infallibly whenever in the discharge of his office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, he defines (that is, finally determines), according to his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine concerning faith or morals, to be held by the Universal Church, or anything else that is conducive to the preservation of faith and morals.
Q.When the Pope, in accordance with the duty of his apostolic ministry and his supreme apostolic authority, proceeds, in briefs, encyclical letters, consistorial allocutions, and other apostolic letters, to declare certain truths, to reprobate perverse doctrines, and condemn certain errors, must such declarations of truth, and condemnations of error, be considered as infallible, and as binding in conscience, and requiring our firm interior assent, although they do not express an anathema on those who disagree?
A. Such declarations of truth and condemnations of error are infallible, or ex cathedra acts of the Pope, and, therefore are binding in conscience, and requiring our firm interior assent; to refuse which would be for us a mortal sin, since such a refusal would be a virtual denial of the dogma of infallibility, and we should be heretics were we conscious of such a denial. St. Alphonsus Liguori. Theol. Mor., Lib I., 104.
Q. Are not such doctrinal utterances of the Pontiff of imperfect and incomplete authority until they are confirmed and accepted by the Bishops of the Church?
A. Nothing is ever farther from the thoughts of the bishops than that the papal declarations of truth, and condemnations of error, should need the confirmation and acceptance of the pastors of the Church to be true utterances of the Holy Ghost, and binding in conscience, because their confirmation and acceptance does not add certainty to that which is already infallible.
Q. What does the Vatican Council teach on this subject?
A. It teaches that "the definitions of the Roman Pontiff, concerning faith and morals, are irreformable of themselves, and not by force of the consent of the Church thereto." Sess. iv., c. iv.
Q. What have the Fathers of the Church styled the Pope?
A.
The mouth of the Church, ever living and open to teach the whole world;
The centre of Christian faith and unity, and the light of truth for the universe;
The Father of souls, the guide of consciences, and the sovereign judge of the religious interests of mankind;
The Prince of priests—a greater Patriarch than Abraham—greater than Melchisedech in priesthood—than Moses in authority—than Samuel in jurisdiction; a Peter in power, Christ by unction, pastor of pastors, guide of guides, the cardinal joint of all churches, the impregnable citadel of the communion of the children of God, the immovable corner-stone upon which the Church of God reposes.
Q. Why have the Fathers given these titles to the Pope?
A. Because the Pope is the infallible teacher of the Church of Christ.
Q. What sentiments, then, should every Catholic express concerning the Pope?
A. I acknowledge in the Pope an authority before which my soul bows, and yet suffers no humiliation.
Lesson V.—Propagation of Christ's Religion
Q. What did the Apostles do after they had received the Holy Ghost on Whitsunday?
A. They went forth into the whole world to instruct all nations, according to the orders given them by Jesus Christ.
Q. What did they do with those who believed their doctrine?
A. They gathered them into congregations.
Q. What came from these congregations of believers?
A. There arose, in many places, communities of Christians, whose rulers were the Apostles.
Q. What did the Apostles do when those communities of Christians became very numerous?
A. They chose from amongst them men whom they ordained Bishops, appointing them everywhere as the spiritual rulers of the new Christian communities, with the commission likewise to ordain and appoint others to like offices.
Q. Were all these communities united with one another?
A. Yes; because they all professed the same faith, partook of the same sacraments, and formed all together one great Christian community, under one common head, St. Peter.
Q. What did they call this great community of Christians under one common head?
A. The Catholic, that is, the universal Church, or, simply, the Church.
Q. What, then, is the Church at the present time?
A. The entire body of pastors and people, bound together by the same divine truths, laws, and means of grace, under one head, the Pope of Rome.
Q. Who are the true successors of the Apostles?
A. Only the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church.
Q. Why?
A. Because they alone are rightly consecrated and in communion with the Pope, the Head of the Church.
Q. Did Christ appoint the Pope alone to govern His Church?
A. The Bishops, too, aid in governing the Church, but only with and under their head, the Pope. "Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops, to rule the Church of God." Acts xx. 28.
Q. On what condition did Christ grant any power to His Apostles and their successors?
A. On condition that they would always believe and teach, as the visible Head of His Church believed and taught, and remain obedient to him.
Q. What does St. Irenæus say on the subject?
A. "The Apostles certainly delivered the truth and all the mysteries of our faith to their successors, the pastors. To these, therefore, we ought to have recourse to learn them, especially to the greatest church, the most ancient and known to all, founded at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, which retains the tradition which it received from them, and which is derived through a succession of Bishops down to us. To this Church of Rome, on account of its chiefer principality, it is necessary that every church, that is, the faithful everywhere, address themselves, in which Church the tradition from the Apostles is everywhere preserved." Lib. iii. c. 3.
Q. What does St. Cyprian say?
A. "There is but one God and one Christ; there is but one Church and one See, founded upon Peter by our Lord Himself." Lib. i. ep. 8.
Q. What did St. Jerome write to Pope Damasus?
A. "I am attached to your Chair, which is the Chair of St. Peter. I know that the Church is built upon this rock. Whosoever does not eat the Lamb in this house is profane, and whoever does not enter into this Ark, will perish in the waters of the deluge. I do not know Vitalis, I am unacquainted with Meletius, and Paulinus is unknown to me—whoever is not with you is against Jesus Christ, and whoever gathereth not with you, scattereth."
Q. What conclusion are we forced to draw from this constant tradition of the Fathers?
A. That all Christians are bound to be in full communion with the Church of Rome.
Q. Why is the Catholic Church called the Roman Church?
A. Because St. Peter established the See of his primacy in Rome, and because he handed down the same to be the See of all his successors.
Q. How do the Bishops rule the Church?
A. Each Bishop governs the diocese or bishopric assigned to him by the Pope, and according to the regulations of the Pope. They occasionally meet in council to give their opinion about the best way of advancing the welfare of the Church, and to make decrees and regulations, to be approved of by the Pope.
Q. Through whom do the Bishops exercise their office in the particular congregations (parishes) of their dioceses?
A. Through the priests or pastors whom they appoint.
Q. When may a priest discharge the duties of the priesthood?
A. When he has been expressly sent, or authorized, for that purpose, by his lawful Bishop.
Q. By what means are unity and good order maintained in the Church?
A. By the laity being always obedient to the priests, the priests to the Bishops, and the Bishops to the Pope. "Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls." Heb. xiii. 17.
Lesson VI.—Marks of the Church
Q. How many churches did Christ establish?
A. He established only one Church.
Q. How do we know this?
A. Because He said to St. Peter: "Upon thee I will build My Church."
Q. Was it a visible or an invisible Church that Christ established?
A. Christ established a visible Church.
Q. How do we know this?
A. Because Christ has commanded us "to lay our complaints before the Church, that is, before her pastors, and abide by her decision" (Matt. xviii. 17); and because an invisible Church could neither teach the law of God nor administer the sacraments.
Q. How does it follow from this that Christ's Church is visible?
A. Because our Lord cannot command us to lay our complaints before invisible pastors.
Q. How, then, is the Church of Christ visible?
A. She is visible because all her pastors and members are visible, and have always suffered persecution because they were members of the Church of Christ.
Q. For how many years was this visible Church of Christ to last?
A. It was to last to the end of the world.
Q. How do we know this?
A. Because Jesus Christ said that His Church should last to the end of the world.
Q. What are his words?
A. "Behold I am with you all days, even to the end of the world" (Matt. xxviii. 20); and, "The gates of hell shall not prevail against my church." Matt. xvi. 18.
Q. What would happen, then, if the Church were not to last to the end of the world?
A. Jesus Christ would have told an untruth; to say which would be blasphemous.
Q. How old is the Church to-day?
A. Over eighteen hundred years since our Saviour ascended into heaven.
Q. In which of the religious societies do we find these marks of the Church of Christ?
A. Only in the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
Q. Can the Roman Catholic Church be traced as far back as eighteen hundred years?
A. It can; because we can trace an uninterrupted succession of Popes and Bishops from Pius IX. to St. Peter, and it is impossible to show that it was established at any later period.
Q. Did the Roman Catholic Church ever cease to exist?
A. Never; for she has always existed, and it would be impossible for one to name a period when she did not exist since the time of her establishment.
Q. Do all admit that the Catholic Church was the first Church, that it is the oldest Church, and, consequently the Church established by Jesus Christ?
A. All must admit this; for it is a fact clearly proven by Scripture and by history.
Q. Who bear witness to this fact?
A. The Jews and the Gentiles bear witness to it, and even Protestants themselves acknowledge it.
Q. How do Protestants acknowledge it?
A. If asked why they call themselves Protestants, they answer: "Because we protest against the Catholic Church."
Q. What follows from this answer?
A. That the Catholic Church is older than Protestantism, otherwise they could not have protested against her.
Q. If we go still farther back, and ask the Greeks how they came to existence, what will be their answer?
A. They must answer: "We began by separating from the Catholic Church in the ninth century.
Q. What follows from this?
A. That the Catholic Church existed for eight hundred years before the Greek Church began, and, consequently, it is older than the Greek Church.
Q. If we thus go back to the very days of the Apostles, what do we find everywhere?
A. That every sect separated from the Catholic Church, and, consequently that the Catholic Church existed before any of them.
Q. What follows from this?
A. That the Catholic Church is the oldest Church, the first Church, and, consequently, the Church established by our Lord Jesus Christ.
Q. Can anything like this be said of any of the non-Catholic religious sects now existing?
A. By no means; since the oldest of them was established only about three hundred years ago.
Q. Do you mean to say that the Protestant doctrine was not known before it was preached by Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII., and John Knox?
A. I do, for it is impossible to show from history what society held this doctrine before Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII., and John Knox.
Q. If the Protestant religion was established fifteen hundred years later than the true Church of Christ, what follows from this?
A. It clearly follows that the Protestant religion is not the true Church of Jesus Christ.
Q. But were, then, a Protestant to say to you that his doctrine is the same as that held by the Apostles and the Church during the first four centuries, what would you answer him?
A. I would simply ask him whether or not he was foolish enough to believe that our Lord Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin and the Apostles were all Protestants.
Q. Are there still some other marks by which the true Church of Christ may be easily known?
A. Yes, by these four: She is one; she is holy; she is Catholic; she is apostolic.
Q. How many societies are there in this world, in which unity has always existed, and has never been broken?
A. There is only one such society, and this society is the Catholic Church.
Q. In what do her members differ from one another?
A. They differ in their character, their education, their modes of thought; they differ in their language, their habits of life, their sympathies, prejudices; in one word, they differ from one another in everything that distinguishes man from man.
Q. Is there one thing in which they do differ from one another?
A. There is; they do not differ, and never have differed, from one another in their religion, in which alone they are all of one mind and one heart.
Q. How so?
A. Because they believe all the same sacred truths contained in the Apostles' Creed, they are all bound by the same commandments of God and the Church, they have all recourse to the same means of grace, the seven sacraments and prayer, and they unite all in the same divine worship—in the holy sacrifice of the Mass.
Q. Can this union in religion ever be broken in the Catholic Church?
A. Never; because the entirety of her faith will, according to Christ's promise, never fail in her Head—the Pope—from whom it will always flow in all its purity upon all her pastors, and through them upon the rest of the faithful; and the pastors, as well as their flocks, are, by the express command of Christ, all bound under pain of mortal sin to teach and to believe as the Pope teaches and believes, and to be perfectly submissive to him.
Q. How is the Roman Catholic Church holy?
A. Because her founder, Jesus Christ, is holy, and she teaches His holy doctrine, offers to all the means of holiness, and is distinguished by the holiness of so many thousands of her children.
Q. What means the word Catholic?
A. It means "universal."
Q. How is the Roman Church Catholic or universal?
A. Because she exists in all ages, teaches all nations, and maintains all revealed truths, and, therefore, she always went by the name of Catholic, even among her bitterest enemies. "Your faith is spoken of in the whole world." Romans i. 8.
Q. How is the Roman Catholic Church apostolic?
A. Because she has come down directly from the Apostles through the uninterrupted succession of her bishops; and because she received from the Apostles of Christ, who alone could give them, her doctrine, her orders, and her mission.
Q. Is any non-Catholic religious society one?
A. No.
Q. Why can no non-Catholic religious society be one?
A. Because to be one a religious society composed of various members must obey one infallible head only, submit absolutely to be governed by that common head, and obey the infallible teachings of that head. No non-Catholic religious society has or pretends to have such a head and such an infallible teacher.
Q. Give another reason why none of the Protestant sects can be one?
A. Every one of their members assumes to himself more power than Christ gave even to Peter and his successors.
Q. How so?
A. The founders of the Protestant sects and their successors after them, invariably taught their followers that every one has the right to interpret Holy Scripture as he pleases, and to believe as he pleases.
Q. What is the consequence of this freedom of interpretation and belief, as it is called?
A. That no two of them believe alike; that. according to them, Christ's doctrine contradicts itself, and that many of them have already become unbelievers.
Q. Is any non-Catholic religious society holy?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because their founders and their doctrine are unholy.
Q. Why are their founders not holy?
A. Because the founders of Protestantism were bad Catholics, who fell away from the faith. "And of your ownselves shall arise men speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them." Acts xx. 28.
Q. Why is their doctrine not holy?
A. Because it makes our divine Lord Jesus Christ a liar; rejects and derides the means of holiness instituted by Him; and instead of leading men to holiness, leads them to unbelief and idolatry, by leaving every one free to believe whatever he chooses.
Q. Why cannot non-Catholic religious societies be called Catholic?
A. Because they sprang up only in later years, and have not ceased to split again into countless sects, none of which is universally spread, or continually spreading in the manner ordained by Christ.
Q. What are the Calvinists, Arminians, Antinomians, Independents, Kilhamites, Glassites, Haldanites, Bereans, Swedenborgians, New-Jerusalemites, Orthodox Quakers, Hicksites, Shakers, Panters, Seekers, Jumpers, Reformed Methodists, German Methodists, Albright Methodists, Episcopal Methodists, Wesleyan Methodists, Methodists North, Methodists South, Protestant Methodists, Episcopalians, High Church Episcopalians, Low Church Episcopalians, Ritualists, Puseyites, Dutch Reformed, Dutch non-Reformed, Christian, Israelites, Baptists, Particular Baptists, Seventh-Day Baptists, Hardshell Baptists, Softshell Baptists, Forty Gallon Baptists, Sixty Gallon Baptists, African Baptists, Free-will Baptists, Church of God Baptists, Regular Baptists, Anti-Mission Baptists, Six Principle Baptists, River Brethren, Winebremarians, Menonites, Second Adventists, Millerites, Christian Baptists, Universalists, Orthodox Congregationalists, Campbellites, Presbyterians, Old School and New School Presbyterians, Cumberland Presbyterians, United Presbyterians, The Only True Church of Christ, 573 Bowery, N.Y,. up stairs, 5th story, Latter-Day Saints, Restorationists, Schwentfelders, Spiritualists, Mormons, Christian Perfectionists, etc., etc., etc.?
A. They are all so many sects that sprang up from Protestantism.
Q. Was any of the non-Catholic religious societies ever universally called Catholic?
A. None of them was or can, by right, be called by that name.
Q. Why not?
A. Because the name Catholic belongs to the true Church only; for they who remained and remain always united with the ancient body of the faithful have retained their ancient name; but they, on the contrary, who have separated from that body, received a new name, as a mark of their new departure.
Q. Why can none of the non-Catholic religious societies be called apostolic?
A. Because none of them sprang up until fifteen hundred years after the times of the Apostles. They cannot, therefore, trace their descent directly to the Apostles who were commissioned by Christ to teach, and of whom they have no lawful successors. Therefore their teachers, not being empowered by the Apostles or their lawful successors, are not sent by Christ, and are not to be believed and obeyed by Christians.
Q. If, then, none but the Roman Catholic Church has the marks of the one Church of Christ, what follows from this?
A. That the Roman Catholic Church alone is the true Church of Jesus Christ.
Q. Give a few proofs to show that the Roman Catholic Church alone is the true Church of Jesus Christ.
A. 1. The antiquity of the Roman Catholic Church.
2. Her establishment by poor fisherman all over the earth.
3. Her invariable duration from that time.
4. The miracles which are wrought in her.
5. The purity and holiness of her doctrines and precepts.
6. The holiness of all those who live according to her laws.
7. The deep science of her doctors.
8. The almost infinite number of her martyrs.
9. The peace of mind and happiness of soul experienced by those who have entered her bosom.
10. The fact that all Protestants admit that a faithful Catholic will be saved in his religion.
11. The frightful punishments inflicted by God upon all the persecutors of the Catholic Church.
12. The melancholy death of all the authors of heresies.
13. The constant fulfilment of the words of our Lord, that His Church would always be persecuted—all tend to convince every reasonable mind that the Roman Catholic Church alone is the true Church of Jesus Christ.
Lesson VII.—The Roman Catholic Church Cannot Be Destroyed
Q. What is the world in which we live?
A. It is the temple of God.
Q. What forms the carpeted floor of this temple?
A. The earth, with all its thousands of flowers.
Q. What forms the vaulted dome?
A. The blue sky above, with its millions of twinkling stars.
Q. For whom did God create this temple?
A. For man, that man might worship Him therein.
Q. What, then, is the world?
A. It is only the temple of religion, reared by God to His own honor and glory, and to the benefit of His servant, man.
Q. Does God watch over the world—the temple of His religion.
A. He watches over it with unceasing care, so that not even a grain of sand, not one atom of matter, has as yet been lost ever since the first morning of creation.
Q. Is it not of far greater importance for God to watch over the preservation of His religion?
A. It is.
Q. Why?
A. Because the preservation of the true religion, or of the true worship and service of God, is of greater importance than the preservation of the world—the material temple in which He is worshipped.
Q. How do we know this?
A. Because, to create the world God used no effort. He simply said: "Be it done," and it was done. But to create and establish His Church, the SOn of God sacrificed wealth, honors, pleasure, and everything that man holds dear. He suffered poverty, contempt, persecution. He labored during His whole life, and at last died on a gibbet, and poured out every drop of His sacred blood.
Q. If God, then, preserves with such care the universe—the earthly, material temple, which cost Him nothing—will He not preserve with greater care His heavenly temple, His holy Church, which cost Him His blood and life?
A. He will, indeed, because the temple of this world without religion would be a sad mockery, a worthless encumbrance. It would have failed in the object for which God created it.
Q. What follows from this?
A. That before God allows His religion to be destroyed He must, of necessity, first destroy the world, which is the temple of religion; in other words, sooner shall the sun refuse its light, sooner shall the precious Blood of Jesus Christ lose its atoning power; sooner shall God cease to be God, than the Church of Jesus Christ cease to be the true Church.
Q. But let us suppose the Church of Jesus Christ had ceased to exist, who would be able to restore her to life?
A. God alone.
Q. Why?
A. Because to raise a dead person or the Church to life, is a far greater work than to preserve that person or Church in life; it is equal to the work of creation. Even the Apostles themselves could not give life to the Church; they could, with the assistance of God, only preserve that life which Jesus Christ had given her.
Q. How great, then, must be he who could restore that dead Church to life?
A. He must be greater than the Apostles; he must, at least, be equal to Jesus Christ Himself.
Q. But are there not men who tell us that they have raised the dead Church to life and restored her?
A. Yes; very many.
Q. Name some of these wonderful men.
A. Martin Luther, Henry VIII., Calvin.
Q. What did Martin Luther do?
A. He claimed to restore the Church to life; to reestablish and reform her.
Q. How did our Lord Jesus Christ establish His Church?
A. By leading a life of poverty and pain. "He had not where to lay His head." By renouncing all that the world holds dear. By practising through His whole life the three great virtues of poverty, chastity, and entire obedience—obedience even to the death of the Cross.
Q. How did Luther establish his Church?
A. By doing the exact opposite of all this. By breaking his vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.
Q. Can the church of Luther, then, be the Church of Christ?
A. No; unless the Son of God were to change His nature, which is impossible.
Q. Is not the Catholic Church the Kingdom of Jesus Christ on earth, which He has acquired with so much toil and labor and suffering?
A. Yes; it is the kingdom which He has purchased with His own blood, and which He has loved more than His own life.
Q. Will any power be able to tear this kingdom from Jesus Christ?
A. It would be blasphemous to think so.
Q. Is not the Catholic Church the sheepfold of which Jesus Christ is the Shepherd?
A. She is.
Q. Will the hellish wolf ever be able to take entire possession of the sheepfold in spite of her Divine Shepherd?
A. Sooner will the heavens and the earth pass away than that this will happen.
Q. Is not the Catholic Church the household of which Jesus Christ is the Master?
A. She is.
Q. Will Satan be able to take possession of this household in spite of its Divine Master?
A. No one can say so without blasphemy.
Q. Is not the Catholic Church the Body of Jesus Christ?
A. The Church, says St. Paul, is the Body of Christ.
Q. What follows from this?
A. That Christ is inseparably united with His Church.
Q. What, then, would it be for one to say that the Church could be destroyed?
A. It would be to say that Christ or God can be overcome, which would be the height of madness and blasphemy.
Q. How long will Christ protect and defend His own Body—the Catholic Church?
A. To the end of the world.
Q. In what words has He given us this assurance?
A. In these words: "Behold, I am with you all days, even to the end of the world" (Matt. xxviii. 20); and, therefore, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against my Church."
Q. Is there any other reason why the Catholic Church cannot be destroyed?
A. Yes; the true life of the Catholic Church is the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth, who, according to the promise of Jesus Christ, will abide with His Church for ever.
Q. What is meant by this promise?
A. That the Holy Ghost will enlighten the pastors of the Catholic Church to preserve and deliver her holy doctrine to the end of the world uncorrupted, and encourage them and the faithful to live up to it, and even to lay down their lives for it. St. John xiv. 16, and Gal. iv. 6.
Q. What follows from this?
A. It follows that, although the hands of blind or wicked men may rob the Church, may pluck the crown from the Pontiff's brow, may drive her prelates into exile or death, may destroy and defile her sanctuaries, may persecute her children and massacre them by thousands, yet her faith, planted by the Son of God on earth, will gloriously shine and endure to the end of the world.
Lesson VIII.—What Cannot And What Can Be Reformed In The Church
Q. What follows from the fact that the holy Roman Catholic Church can never be destroyed by any created power?
A. That it would be the sin of heresy for any one to say that a reform of the doctrine or the constitution of the Roman Catholic Church could ever become necessary.
Q. Can anyone change the doctrine of Jesus Christ, or the articles of faith, the commandments, or the sacraments?
A. To think so and to attempt to do so would be as foolish as it would be for one to attempt to reform the visible world and the laws which God has established to preserve and maintain it.
Q. Could some new doctrine, new commandment, or new sacrament be added; or could some of the articles of faith, some of the commandments, or some of the sacraments be left out?
A. By no means.
Q. Why not?
A. Because not even the Apostles themselves had power from Christ to add to, or leave out, any portion of Christ's doctrine.
Q. How do we know this?
A. Because Jesus Christ said to the Apostles: "Go and teach all nations, teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.
Q. In what other words has our Blessed Saviour assured us that His holy doctrine will never suffer any change?
A. In these words: "Amen, I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled." Matt. v. 18. "Heaven and earth shall pass, but my words shall not pass." Matt. xxiv. 35.
Q. What does St. Paul say to assure us that nothing whatsoever can be added to, or left out of the doctrine of Jesus Christ?
A. He says: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we said before so now I say again: if any one preach to you a gospel besides that which you have received, let him be accursed." Gal. i. 8, 9.
Q. Is there nothing in the Catholic Church that may be reformed?
A. Nothing in the doctrine which was delivered to her from the beginning to teach, but the manners of such of her pastors and children as fail to live up to her teachings, may and ought to be reformed.
Q. May Priests and even Bishops, nay, even a Pope, fail to live up to Christ's holy doctrine?
A. They may, indeed; and certain periods of the lives of some of them have been very disedifying.
Q. How can we easily account for this?
A. Because one can know and teach the true doctrine of Christ without practising it.
Q. What, then, is the answer to those who object to our religion because the lives of certain pastors of the Church have been disedifying?
A. The lives of the scribes and the Pharisees were very disedifying. Nevertheless our blessed Saviour told the multitudes and His disciples that "they have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things, therefore, whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not: for they say and do not." Matt. xxiii. 2.
Q. Does the Lord make use of apostate Catholics, such as Martin Luther, Calvin, John Knox, Henry VIII., King of England, to reform the manners of the people?
A. The thought is absurd. The lives of those men were evil, and it is only the devil that makes use of them to pervert the people still more. The Lord makes use of His saints, such as a St. Francis of Assisium, a St. Dominick, a St. Ignatius, a St. Alphonsus, to convert the people and reform their evil manners by explaining to them the truths of faith, the commandments, and the necessity of receiving the sacraments with proper dispositions, and by setting them in their own lives the loftiest example of faith, purity, and all Christian virtues.
Q. Is it possible to reform men in any other way?
A. Since the coming of the Redeemer it has never been heard that men were reformed and made virtuous by any other means than those which Jesus Christ left to His Church.
Lesson IX.—The Faith of the Roman Catholic.
Q. What do the words "I believe" mean?
A. They mean that I hold to be true that which another tells me.
Q. What must we know of a person to believe firmly all his words?
A. That he is truthful and knows well the things which he tells us.
Q. Is God truthful?
A. "He is Truth itself." Rom. iii. 4.
Q. Does God know all things well?
A. "He knows all things as they are." 1 John iii. 20.
Q. Why, then, must we firmly believe all that God has made known?
A. Because He can neither deceive nor be deceived. "God is not as a man, that he should lie." Numb. xxiii. 19.
Q. What is to believe God?
A. It is to believe, without doubting, that whatever God has said is infallibly true.
Q. Can we of ourselves have this firm faith?
A. No; it is a particular gift and light of God. "By grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God." Eph. ii. 8.
Q. What does this gift bring about in the soul?
A. It enlightens the understanding, and moves the will of man to believe without doubting all that God has made known. "Faith is the evidence of things that appear not." Heb. xi. 1.
Q. To whom did God make known all that we must believe and do?
A. Only to the Roman Catholic Church.
Q. From whom, then, must all men learn that they must believe and do?
A. From the Roman Catholic Church, because she alone was appointed by God to teach the truths of salvation to all nations.
Q. Is to believe what the Roman Catholic Church teaches not the same as to believe God Himself?
A. It is, indeed.
Q. Why?
A. Because Jesus Christ has said to the pastors of the Church: "He who heareth you heareth me, and he who despiseth you despiseth me."
Q. What, then, is the faith of the Roman Catholic?
A. It is a grace and light of the Holy Ghost, which enables him to believe most firmly all that God teaches him by His Church.
Q. Is this faith of the Roman Catholic a divine or human faith?
A. It is divine faith.
Q. Why is it divine?
A. Because, by the light of grace, the Catholic knows for certain that the pastors of the Church are commissioned by God Himself to teach all men, in His name, authoritatively and infallibly, all the sacred and immutable truths of salvation, and, therefore, he feels himself bound in conscience to believe them without hesitation.
Q. Is this divine faith absolutely necessary for salvation?
A. Yes; because it is only by divine faith that we can please God.
Q. Who assures us of this?
A. Jesus Christ Himself.
Q. What are His words?
A. "Go and teach all nations.—He that believeth not shall be condemned." Mark xvi.
Q. What does St. Paul say of those who do not believe God, when He speaks to them through those whom He appointed to teach men?
A. That "it is impossible to please God without faith." Heb. xi.
Q. What, then, is the rule of faith which Jesus Christ gave to all men?
A. To listen to His living voice, speaking through the pastors of His Church, and to believe them.
Q. Can men possibly have divine faith out of the Catholic Church?
A. Out of the Catholic Church there can be none but human faith.
Q. What do you mean by human faith?
A. To believe a man on his own authority.
Q. Do those who are out of the Church, and teach and preach to the people, teach and preach on their own authority?
A. They do; because they are not sent by God, nor have they received any mission from His Church.
Q.What follows from this?
A. That those who believe them do not believe God, but man, and, therefore, their faith is only human, which availeth them nothing unto salvation.
Lesson X.—Qualities of Faith.
Q. When is our faith quite pleasing to God?
A. When it is strong, lively, entire, and sound.
Q. When is our faith strong?
A. When we believe without the least doubt, and choose to lose all, even our life, rather than fall away from it.
Q. When is our faith lively?
A. When we practise what our faith teaches.
Q. When is our faith entire?
A. When we believe all the truths which the Catholic Church teaches, as contained in the Holy Scripture or tradition.
Q. When is our faith sound?
A. When we avoid not only open heresy, but also diligently shun, and in our hearts dissent from, those errors which approach it more of less closely, and religiously observe those constitutions and decrees whereby such evil opinions, either directly or indirectly, have been proscribed and prohibited by the Holy See.
Lesson XI.—Holy Scripture and Tradition
Q. What do you mean by Holy Scripture?
A. A collection of books which were written by holy men, inspired by the Holy Ghost, and acknowledged by the Catholic Church to be the written Word of God.
Q. How is Holy Scripture divided?
A. Into the books of the Old and the New Testament; or, of the Old and the New Law.
Q. What are we told in the books of the Old Testament?
A. In the books of the Old Testament we are told those truths which God made known before the coming of Christ.
Q. What are we told in the books of the New Testament?
A. Some of the truths which God made known through Jesus Christ and His Apostles.
Q. Is it easy for everyone to understand the Holy Scripture?
A. There is nothing more difficult than to understand the true meaning of every passage of the Scripture.
Q. How do we know this?
A. From Holy Scripture itself, which says that "there are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest to their own destruction." 2 Peter iii. 16.
Q. May not everyone explain the Bible in his own private manner?
A. "No prophecy of the Scripture," says St. Peter, "is made by private interpretation." 2 Peter i. 20.
Q. To whom belongs the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures?
A. To the Catholic Church alone.
Q. Why?
A. "Because the Apostles carefully entrusted the Scriptures to their successors; and to whom the Scriptures were entrusted, to them also was committed the interpretation of Scripture." St. Irenaeus.
Q. How does the Church make known the meaning of any passage of Scripture?
A. She makes it known either directly by a solemn definition, or by the universal consent of the Church dispersed throughout the world; and she makes it known indirectly when she tells us that we are to interpret Scripture in such a way that our interpretation shall be in harmony with her teaching upon all other points of Christian doctrine.
Q. Have any great evils followed from the unrestricted private interpretation of the Bible?
A. Yes; numberless heresies and impieties.
Q. What have the chief pastors of the Church done to guard the faithful against corrupted Bibles, and against erroneous interpretations of the Bible?
A. They have decreed—1. That, with regard to reading the Bible in the vernacular, we should have the learning and piety requisite for it. 2. That the translation should be approved by the Holy See, or accompanied with explanations by a Bishop.
Q. Why did you say that in the New Testament we are told some of the truths, and not all the truths which God made known through Jesus Christ and the Apostles?
A. Because all the truths preached by Jesus Christ and the Apostles are not recorded in the Bible.
Q. How do we know this?
A. From the Bible itself, which says: "Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of His disciples, which are not written in this book." John xx. 30.
Q. Why did the Apostles not write down all that Jesus had taught?
A. Because Jesus Christ had not commanded them to write, but to preach His doctrine. "Go ye into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature." Mark xvi.15.
Q. What is the unwritten doctrine of Jesus Christ and the Apostles called?
A. Tradition.
Q. How did the unwritten doctrine of Jesus Christ come down to us?
A. The Apostles took great care to instruct their disciples thoroughly, and make them capable of so instructing others. Thus their pure doctrine was delivered to the first Bishops and priests of the Roman Catholic Church. By these, it was in like manner handed down to their successors; and so on, unimpaired, to those who, at the present time, teach in the Catholic Church.
Q. How do we know this?
A. We know it from what St. Paul writes in his Second Epistle to the Bishop Timothy (chap. 11.2), and from the early Fathers of the Church.
Q. What does St. Paul write?
A. "And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also."
Q. Which of the early Fathers of the Church writes, when speaking of the ninety-first heresy: "All things are not found in the Holy Scripture, for the Apostles have taught us some by tradition, some by writing"?
A. St. Epiphanius.
Q. Who is it that writes: "Of the many truths of faith held by the Church, some have been received from the inspired writings, others from tradition; both sources are equally pure and certain"?
A. St. Basil, in his treatise on the Holy Ghost. Chap. xxvii.
Q. Is that which was taught by Jesus Christ and His Apostles, but which is not written, less true than that which is written?
A. The one is just as true as the other.
Q. Why?
A. Because the Apostles taught the true doctrine of Jesus Christ not less by their preaching, than by their writings, and the Holy Ghost expressed His will, as well by their tongues as by their pens.
Q. What follows from this?
A. That we must believe the unwritten Word of God as firmly as the written.
Q. Who assures us most emphatically of this?
A. St. Paul, in these words: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our Epistle." 2 Thess. 11. 14.
Q. Was this also the belief of the Fathers of the Church?
A. It was; for St. John Chrysostom writes, in his 4th homily on the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Thessalonians: "Therefore it is evident that the Apostles taught many things without writing, which we must believe as firmly as those which are written."
Q. Name some of those truths of which the Bible does not speak, but which we believe from tradition?
A. We know only from tradition—
1. That little children are to be baptized.
2. That we must keep holy the Sunday instead of the Saturday.
3. We know only from tradition those books which are divine, and contain the written word of God.
Q. But was it not possible that those truths which were taught by the Apostles, but were not written, might easily be corrupted, or forgotten altogether, because not recorded in Holy Scripture?
A. No; because God himself took care that what He had taught should not be forgotten, but be handed down to us uncorrupted.
Q. Was there any written Word of God for two thousand years, from Adam down to Moses?
A. There was not.
Q. How then did all that God spoke to Adam, Noah, etc., come down uncorrupted to Moses, who was the first to write down the Word of God?
A. By tradition; that is, God took care that the Patriarchs, His faithful servants, should hand down by word of mouth His doctrine uncorrupted from generation to generation.
Q. Could not, and did not God do the same from the time of the Apostles down to us?
A. He could, and did, by means of the faithful pastors of His Church.
Q. How did the pastors of His Church hand down to us the unwritten doctrine of the Apostles?
A. Partly by word of mouth and partly by their writings, in which they explain the doctrine of the Apostles, written and unwritten.
Q. What do we understand from this?
A. That, for example, the faith of the Catholic Church in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament would have been at all times precisely what it is, had it pleased God that the passages in Holy Scripture, relating to it, had never been written; and so with all the rest of the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Q. Are the doctrines of the Catholic Church then entirely independent of Scripture?
A. They are; because she taught her doctrines, and they were believed by the early Christians before the New Testament was written—centuries, indeed, before the Bible was collected into its present form; and she would have done so, in precisely the same manner, had they never been written.
Q. What, then, do we mean when we say: "I believe the Holy Catholic Church"?
A. We mean that we firmly believe in the fact that Jesus Christ has established a visible church, endless in her duration, and infallible in her doctrine, which we must believe and obey without reserve, if we would obtain eternal salvation; and that this Church is no other than the Roman Catholic Church.
Q. How do people come to lose this faith?
A.
1. By want of instruction.
2. By neglect of prayer and other religious duties.
3. By worldliness and a wicked life.
4. By reading bad books.
5. By intercourse with scoffers at religion.
6. By mixed marriages.
7. By becoming members of secret societies.
8. By pride and subtle reasoning on the mysteries of our religion.
9. By want of submission to the Church.
10. By godless education.
Lesson XII.—No Salvation Outside of the Roman Catholic Church.
Q. Since the Roman Catholic Church alone is the true Church of Jesus Christ, can any one who dies outside of the Church be saved?
A. He cannot.
Q. Why not?
A. Because one who does not do the will of God cannot be saved.
Q. Is it, then, the will of God that all men should be Catholics?
A. Yes; because it is only in the Roman Catholic Church that they can learn the will of God; that is, the full doctrine of Jesus Christ, which alone can save them.
Q. Did Jesus Christ Himself assure us most solemnly, and in plain words, that no one can be saved out of the Roman Catholic Church?
A. He did, when He said to His Apostles: "Go and teach all nations, and teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. He that believeth not all these things shall be condemned."
Q. Did Jesus Christ assure us in other words of the damnation of those who die out of His Church?
A. He did in these words: "He who will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." Matt. xviii. 17.
Q. Can you give some further proofs to show that no one can be saved out of the Roman Catholic Church?
A. From these words of Jesus Christ: "Other sheep I have who are not of this fold. them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and they shall be one fold and one shepherd." John x. 16
Q. How can you show from these words of our Lord that all who wish to be saved must be Roman Catholics?
A. Because in this passage He plainly declares that all those of His sheep who are not of His fold (that is, of His Church) must, as a necessary condition of their salvation, be brought to that fold.
Q. What do the Fathers of the Church say about the salvation of those who die out of the Roman Catholic Church?
A. They all, without exception, pronounce them infallibly lost forever.
Q. What did St. Augustine and the other Bishops of Africa, at the Council of Zirta, A.D. 412, say about them?
A. "Whosoever," they said, "is separated from the Catholic Church, however commendable in his own opinion his life may be, he shall, for the very reason that he is separated from the Union of Christ, not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." John iii. 36.
Q. What does St. Cyprian tell us about the salvation of those who die out of the Roman Catholic Church?
A. He says that, "He who has not the Church for his mother cannot have God for his Father;" and with him the Fathers in general say, that "as all who were not in the ark of Noah perished in the waters of the deluge, so shall all perish who are out of the true Church."
Q. Who are out of the pale of the Roman Catholic Church?
A. All unbaptized persons, unbelievers, apostates, excommunicated persons, and all heretics.
Q. How do we know that unbaptized persons are not saved?
A. Because Jesus Christ has said: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John iii. 5.
Q. How do we know that unbelievers are not saved?
A. Because it is said of them that they do not please God. "Without faith it is impossible to please God."
Q. How do we know that apostates are not saved?
A. Because to fall away from the faith is a great sin, which makes one lose the kingdom of heaven.
Q. How do we know that persons justly excommunicated, who are unwilling to do what is required of them before they are absolved, are not saved?
A. Because the sin of great scandal, for which they were as dead members expelled from the communion of the Church, excludes them from the kingdom of heaven.
Q. What is the meaning of the word heretic?
A. Heretic is a Greek word, and means simply a chooser.
Q. Who, then, is a heretic?
A. A baptized person who chooses among the doctrines proposed to him by the Roman Catholic Church, to accept such doctrines as they please him, and to reject the rest.
Q. How do we know that heretics are not saved?
A. Because St. Paul the Apostle assures us that such a chooser or heretic is condemned. "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid; knowing that he who is such an one is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment." Tit. iii. 10, 11.
Q. Are there any other reasons to show that heretics, or Protestants who die out of the Roman Catholic Church, are not saved?
A. There are several. They cannot be saved because
1. They have no divine faith.
2. They make a liar of Jesus Christ, of the holy Ghost, and of the Apostles.
3. They have no faith in Christ.
4. They fell away from the true Church of Christ.
5. They are too proud to submit to the Pope, the Vicar of Christ.
6. They cannot perform any good works whereby they can attain heaven.
7. They do not receive the Body and Blood of Christ.
8. They die in their sins.
9. They ridicule and blaspheme the Mother of God and His Saints.
10. They slander the spouse of Jesus Christ—the Catholic Church.
Q. Why is it that Protestants have no divine faith?
A. Because they do not believe God in those whom He has appointed to teach.
Q. Who is the teacher among Protestants?
A. Every one is his own teacher, his own law-giver and judge in matters of religion.
Q. Was there ever a time when God left men to themselves, to fashion their own religion, to invent their own creed, and their own form of worship?
A. No; from the beginning of the world God established on earth a visible teaching authority, to which it was the bounden duty of every man to submit.
Q. What follows from this?
A. That Protestants, by refusing to submit to that divine teaching authority, cannot have divine faith.
Q. What is the act of faith of a Protestant?
A. O my God, I believe nothing except what my own private judgment tells me to believe; therefore I believe that I can interpret Thy written word—the Holy Scriptures—as I choose. I believe that the Pope is anti-Christ; that any man can be saved, provided he is an honest man; I believe that faith alone is sufficient for salvation; that good works, and works of penance, and the confession of sins are not necessary, etc.
Q. Is this an act of divine faith?
A. It is rather a great blasphemy against God; it is the language of Luther, who, according to his own avowal, learned it from the devil.
Q. But if a Protestant should say—"I have nothing to do with Luther, or Calvin, or Henry VIII., or John Knox; I go by the Bible" what would you answer him?
A. In that case you adopt and go by the principles and spirit of these men, and you change the written Word of God into the word of man.
Q. How so?
A. Because every Protestant interprets Holy Scripture in his own private manner, giving it that meaning which he chooses to give it, and thus, instead of believing the Word of God, he believes rather his own private interpretation of it, which is but the word of man.
Q. Now, what is man without divine faith?
A. Such a man is profane, and devoid of all religion; and for refusing all obedience to his Sovereign Lord, he will never enjoy His presence, or see clearly what he is not willing to believe humbly.
Q. How do Protestants make a liar of Jesus Christ?
A. Jesus Christ says: “Hear the Church." "No;" say Luther and all Protestants, "do not hear the Church, protest against her with all your might!”
Jesus Christ says: "If any one will not hear the Church, look upon him as a heathen and a publican." “No,” says Protestantism, “if any one does not hear the Church, look upon him as an apostle, as an ambassador of God."
Jesus Christ says: "The gates of hell shall not prevail against my Church." "No," says Protestantism, “’Tis false; the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church for a thousand years and more."
Jesus Christ has declared St. Peter, and every successor to St. Peter—the Pope—to be his Vicar on earth. "No," says Protestantism, "the Pope is Anti-Christ."
Jesus Christ says: "My yoke is sweet, and my burden light." Matt. xi. 30. "No," said Luther and Calvin "it is impossible to keep the commandments."
Jesus Christ says: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Matt. xix. 17. "No," said Luther and Calvin, "faith alone, without good works, is sufficient to enter into life everlasting."
Jesus Christ says: " Unless you do penance, you shall all likewise perish." Luke, iii. 3. "No," said Luther and Calvin, "fasting, and other works of penance are not necessary in satisfaction for sin.”
Jesus Christ says: "This is my body." "No," said Calvin, "this is only the figure of Christ's Body, it will become his body as soon as you receive it."
Jesus Christ says: "I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery." Matt. xix. 9. "No," say Luther and all Protestants, to a married man, “you may put away your wife, get a divorce, and marry another."
Jesus Christ says to every man: “Thou shalt not steal." “No," said Luther to secular princes, “I give you the right to appropriate to yourselves the property of the Roman Catholic Church."
Q. How do Protestants make a liar of the Holy Ghost?
A. The Holy Ghost says in Holy Scripture: "Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love or hatred" (Eccles. ix. 1); "Who can say: My heart is clean, I am pure from sin"? (Prov. xx. 9); and "Work your salvation with fear and trembling" (Philip. 11. 12). "No," said Luther and Calvin, "but whosoever believes in Jesus Christ, is in the state of grace."
Q. How do Protestants make liars of the Apostles?
A. St. Paul says: "If I should have faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." 1 Cor. xiii. 2. "No," said Luther and Calvin, "faith alone is sufficient to save us."
St. Peter says that in the Epistles of St. Paul there are many things "hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as also the other Scriptures, to their own perdition." 2 Eph. iii. 16. "No," said Luther and Calvin, "the Scriptures are very plain, and easy to be understood."
St. James says: "Is any sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the Lord." Ch. v. 14. "No," said Luther and Calvin, "that is a vain and useless ceremony."
Q. Now, do you think God the Father will admit into heaven those who thus make liars of His Son Jesus Christ, of the Holy Ghost, and the Apostles?
A. No; He will let them have their portion with Lucifer in hell, who first rebelled against Christ, and who is the father of liars.
Q. Have Protestants any faith in Christ?
A. They never had.
Q. Why not?
A. Because there never lived such a Christ as they imagine and believe in.
Q. In what kind of Christ do they believe?
A. In such a one of whom they can make a liar, with impunity, whose doctrine they can interpret as they please, and who does not care about what a man believes, provided he be an honest man before the public.
Q. Will such a faith in such a Christ save Protestants?
A. No sensible man will assert such an absurdity.
Q. What will Christ say to them on the day of judgment?
A. I know you not, because you never knew Me.
Q. Can a man be saved who has left the true Church of Christ—the Holy Catholic Church?
A. No; because the Church of Christ is the kingdom of God on earth, and he who leaves that kingdom shuts himself out from the kingdom of Christ in heaven.
Q. Have Protestants left the true Church of Christ?
A. They have, in their founders, who left the Catholic Church either through pride or through the passion of lust and covetousness.
Q. Who were the first Protestants?
A.
1. Martin Luther, a bad German priest, who left his convent, broke the solemn vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, which he had made to God, married a nun, and became the founder of the Lutherans.
2. Henry VIII., a bad Catholic king of England, who murdered his wives, and founded the Episcopalian or Anglican Church.
3. John Calvin, a wicked French Catholic, who was the founder of the Calvinists.
4. John Knox, a bad Scottish priest, who was the founder of the Presbyterians or Puritans.
Q. What great crime did these wicked men commit?
A. They rebelled against the Church of Jesus Christ, and caused a great number of their Catholic countrymen to follow their bad example.
Q. What will be the punishment of those who wilfully rebel against the Holy Catholic Church?
A. Like Lucifer, and the other rebellious angels, they will be cast into the everlasting flames of hell.
Q. Who has assured us of this?
A. Jesus Christ Himself, the Son of God.
Q. What are His words?
A. "He who will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican." MAtt. xviii. 17.
Q. What does Jesus Christ tell us in these words?
A. He tells us plainly that he who is out of His Church, and does not obey her, is before Him as the heathen and publican.
Q. What follows from this?
A. It follows that, as the heathen is damned, so, also, all those will be damned who die out of the Church of Jesus Christ.
Q. Can a man be saved who is too proud to submit to the Head of the Church of Christ, and despises Jesus Christ in His representative—the Pope?
A. He cannot; because Jesus Christ says: "He who despiseth you (the Apostles and their successors) despiseth me."
Q. Do Protestants despise Jesus Christ in the person of St. Peter and his successors?
A. They do; for Luther taught them that whoever does not oppose the authority of the Pope cannot be saved. 1 Vol. Germ. Edit., f. 353.
Q. Do you think Christ can admit into Heaven him by whom He is despised?
A. This is impossible, and of such a one is true what St. Paul says: "He that resisteth the power that is from God, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist purchase to themselves damnation." Rom. xiii. 1,2.
Q. Can any one enter into the Kingdom of Heaven without good works?
A. No.
Q. How do we know this?
A. Because on the last day of judgment Christ will say to the wicked: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire. For I was hungry and you gave me not to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me not to drink." Matt. xxv. 41, 42.
Q. Do not Protestants perform such good works?
A. Many of them do.
Q. Will they be saved on account of such good works?
A. By no means; because works, however good in themselves, performed outside of the church established by Jesus Christ, are not accompanied and vivified by divine faith, without which it is impossible to please God, and, therefore, they do not, they cannot merit the everlasting joys of Heaven. As faith without works is dead, so also works without faith are dead and cannot save the doer from damnation.
Q. What does Jesus Christ say of those who do not receive His Body and Blood?
A. Except you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood, you shall not have life in you. John vi. 54.
Q. Do Protestants receive the Body and Blood of our Lord?
A. No, because their ministers are not priests, and consequently have no power from Jesus Christ to say Mass, in which, by the words of consecration, bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ.
Q. What follows from this?
A. That they will not enter into life everlasting, and deservedly so, because they abolished the holy sacrifice of the Mass.
Q. What was the consequence of the abolition of Mass?
A. By abolishing the Mass, they robbed God the Father of the infinite honor which Jesus Christ renders Him therein, and themselves of all the blessings which Jesus Christ bestows upon those who assist at this holy sacrifice with faith and devotion. "Wherefore the sin of the young men (the sons of Heli) was exceeding great before the Lord, because they withdrew men from the sacrifice of the Lord." 1 Kings ii. 17.
Q. Do you believe that God the Father will admit into heaven these robbers of His infinite honor?
A. By no means; because if those are damned who steal temporal goods of their neighbor, how much more will those be damned who deprive God of His infinite honor and their fellow-men of the infinite spiritual blessings of the Mass.
Q. Can a man be saved who dies in the state of mortal sin?
A. He cannot; because God cannot unite Himself to a soul in heaven who, by mortal sin, is His enemy.
Q. Do Protestants commit other mortal sins besides those above mentioned?
A. Very many besides.
Q. How do you prove this?
A. If it is a mortal sin for a Roman Catholic wilfully to doubt only one article of his faith, it is also, most assuredly, a mortal sin for Protestants wilfully to deny not only one truth, but almost all the truths revealed by Jesus Christ.
Q. Do they die in the sins of apostasy, blasphemy, slander, etc.?
A. They do, because all die in mortal sin who, having grievously offended Almighty God, are nor willing to confess their sins.
Q. How do we know this?
A. Because Jesus Christ assures us that those sins which are not forgiven by His apostles and their successors, by means of confession, will not be forgiven. "Whose sins you retain they are retained." John xx. 22, 23.
Q. Are Protestants willing to confess their sins to a Catholic Bishop or priest, who alone has power from Christ to forgive sins? "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them."
A. No, for they generally have an utter aversion to confession, and therefore their sins will not be forgiven throughout all eternity.
Q. What follows from this?
A. That they die in their sins and are damned.
Q. If any one loves God, will he also love the Mother of God and the Saints?
A. He will, undoubtedly.
Q. Do Protestants love the Mother of God and the Saints?
A. They do not, or they would not ridicule and blaspheme the Mother of God and the Saints.
Q. What follows from this?
A. That Protestants will never be admitted into the company of the Saints in heaven, whom they have ridiculed and blasphemed on earth.
Q. Would a great king of this world punish most severely one who slanders the Queen?
A. He would.
Q. Is the Catholic Church the Spouse of Jesus Christ, the King of heaven and earth?
A. She is, and St. Paul assures us that "Jesus Christ loves His church, that He died for her in order that He might have a glorious church, having neither spot nor wrinkle, but holy and without blemish." Eph. v. 25-27.
Q. Have Protestants ever ceased to slander her?
A. Never.
Q. How do they slander the Spouse of Jesus Christ?
A. The Protestant Episcopalian book of homilies, for instance, says: "Laity and clergy, learned and unlearned, all ages and degrees of men, women, and children of entire Christendom had been drowned in abominable idolatry."
Q. Is idolatry a grievous sin?
A. It is one of the most grievous sins that can be committed.
Q. Could Protestants ever prove that the Catholic Church, the Spouse of Christ, became guilty of this sin?
A. Never; on the contrary, all know that the Catholic Church has abolished idolatry and has always held it in abomination.
Q. What follows from this?
A. That Protestants commit the great sin of slander against the Spouse of Christ.
Q. Can they commit this great sin without accusing Jesus Christ at the same time of having abandoned that glorious Spouse, whom He loves so ardently?
A. They cannot.
Q. What follows from this?
A. That the vengeance of Jesus Christ shall sooner or later overtake Protestants for committing the sins of horrid blasphemy and slander.
Q. But is it not a very uncharitable doctrine to say that none can be saved out of the Church?
A. On the contrary, it is a very great act of charity to assert this doctrine most emphatically.
Q. Why?
A. Because Jesus Christ Himself and His apostles have taught it in very plain language.
Q. Is it not great charity to warn one's neighbor when he is in danger of falling into a deep abyss?
A. It is indeed.
Q. Are not all those who are out of the Church in very great danger of falling into the abyss of hell?
A. They are.
Q. Is it not, then, great charity to warn them of this danger?
A. It would be as great a cruelty not to warn them.
Q. Are all those who are out of the Church equally guilty and damnable before God?
A. No; some are more guilty than others.
Q. Who are least guilty and damnable?
A. Those who, without any fault of theirs, do not know Jesus Christ or His doctrine at all.
Q. Who are most guilty and damnable?
A. Those who know the Catholic Church to be the only true Church, but do not embrace her faith, as also those who could know her if they would candidly search, but who, through indifference and other culpable motives, neglect to do so.
Q. What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity of knowing better?
A. Their inculpable ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance.
Q. Is it then right for us to say that one who was not received into the Church before his death, is damned?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because we cannot know for certain what takes place between God and the soul at the awful moment of death.
Q. What do you mean by this?
A. I mean that God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may see the truth of the Catholic faith, be truly sorry for his sins, and sincerely desire to die a good Catholic.
Q. What do we say of those who receive such an extraordinary grace, and die in this manner?
A. We say of them that they die united, at least, to the soul of the Catholic Church, and are saved.
Q. What, then, awaits all those who are out of the Catholic Church, and die without having received such an extraordinary grace at the hour of death?
A. Eternal damnation.
Q. But are there not many who would lose the affections of their friends, their comfortable homes, their temporal goods, and prospects in business, were they to become Catholics? Would not Jesus Christ excuse them under such circumstances from becoming Catholics?
A. As to the affections of friends, Jesus Christ has solemnly declared that: "He who loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me," Matt. x. 37; and to the loss of temporal gain He has answered: "What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his soul?" Mark viii. 36.
Q. But would it not be enough for such a one to be Catholic in heart only, without professing his religion publicly?
A. No; for Jesus Christ has solemnly declared that, "He who shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him the Son of Man shall be ashamed when he shall come in his majesty, and that of his Father, and of the holy angels." Luke ix. 26.
Q. But might not such a one safely put off being received into the Church till the hour of death?
A. This would be to abuse the mercy of God.
Q. What might be the punishment for this sin?
A. To lose the light and grace of faith, and die a reprobate.
Q. What else keeps many from becoming Catholics?
A. It is this; they know very well that, if they become Catholics, they must lead honest and sober lives, be pure, and check their sinful passions, and this they are unwilling to do. "Men love darkness rather than light," says Jesus Christ, "because their deeds are evil." There are none so deaf as those that will not hear.
Q. What follows from what has been said on salvation in the Roman Catholic Church alone?
A. That it is very impious for one to think and to say that it matters little what a man believes provided he be an honest man.
Q. What answer can you give to a man who speaks thus?
A. I would ask him whether or not he believed that his honesty and justice was so great as that of the Scribes and Pharisees in the Gospel?
Q. In what did the honesty and justice of the Scribes and Pharisees consist?
A. They were constant in prayer, they paid tithes according to the law, gave great alms, fasted twice a week, and compassed sea and land to make a convert and bring him to the knowledge of the true God.
Q. What did Jesus Christ say of this justice of the Pharisees?
A. He says: "Unless your justice shall exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matt. v. 20.
Q. Was, then, the righteousness of the Pharisees very defective in the sight of God?
A. Most undoubtedly. Their righteousness was all outward show and ostentation. They did good only to be praised and admired by men; but within, their souls were full of impurity and malice. They were lewd hypocrites, who concealed great vices under the beautiful appearance of love for God, charity to the poor, and severity to themselves. Their devotion consisted in exterior acts, and they despised all who did not live as they did; they were strict in the religious observances of human traditions, but scrupled not to violate the commandments of God.
Q. What are you then to think of those men who say: "It matters little what a man believes, provided he be honest"?
A. That their exterior honesty, like that of the Pharisees, may be sufficient to keep them out of prison, but not out of hell.
Q. Should a non-Catholic say: "I would like very much to believe the doctrine of the Catholic Church, but I cannot," how would you answer?
A. That, without doubt, it is the will of God, that "all men be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth." 1 Tim. ii. 4; but it is, at the same time, the will of God that you should earnestly employ all the proper means to acquire this necessary knowledge; otherwise, you plainly show that you do not sincerely desire to believe.
Q. What are the means you speak of?
A. Sincerity of heart which must prove itself,
1. By a most earnest desire to know the true religion,
2. By a diligent and persistent search for it,
3. By fervent and frequent prayer to God for the gift of faith,
4. And lastly, by a firm resolution to trample underfoot every obstacle that might hinder or retard one from embracing the known truth.
Q. But will one not lose his dear liberty if he believes and does what the Roman Catholic Church teaches?
A. No; on the contrary, he will then only enjoy true liberty, for he only is free whom the truth makes free.
Q. Cannot God do all things that He pleases?
A. He can.
Q. Why?
A. Because He is supreme Liberty itself.
Q. But can God sin?
A. He cannot.
Q. Are not the angels and saints in heaven free?
A. They are perfectly free, because they partake of the liberty of God.
Q. But can the saints sin?
A. They cannot.
Q. Is it, then, a mark of liberty to be under the power of sin, in following your passions, and so going to perdition?
A. This is no power or mark of liberty at all.
Q. What is it, then?
A. It is rather a mark of weakness and misery.
Q. What does the power of sin imply?
A. The possibility of becoming a slave of sin and the devil.
Q. Are those then truly free who are greatly under the power of sin, and thus go to hell?
A. They are rather the miserable slaves of sin and of their passions.
Q. What must necessarily become of them if they remain under this power of sin and of their passions?
A. They will become the slaves of the devil in hell for all eternity.
Q. Who, then, can call himself truly free?
A. He who wills and does what God wishes him to do for his everlasting happiness.
Q. If God, then, as we have seen, wishes that men should be saved only in the holy Roman Catholic Church, does a man lose, or does he enjoy liberty, when he believes and does what the Church teaches?
A. Then, indeed, he enjoys true liberty, and makes a proper use of it.
Q. What do you say of a man whose power of will is very great, and who hardly experiences any difficulty in following the teaching of the Church?
A. Such a man is truly free.
Q. Do Catholics, then, who faithfully live up to the teaching of the Church, enjoy greater liberty than Protestants and unbelievers, who believe and do as they please?
A. They do, indeed, because they are the children of the light of truth, that leads them to heaven, whilst those who live out of the Church are the children of the darkness of error, that leads them finally into the abyss of hell.
Q. If no one can be saved except in the Roman Catholic Church, what are all who are out of it bound to do?
A. They are obliged to become members of the Church.
Q. Does not common sense tell this to every non-Catholic?
A. It does.
Q. How so?
A. Because every non-Catholic believes that every practical member of the Catholic Church will be saved.
Q. What follows from this?
A. It clearly follows that when there is question about eternal salvation and eternal damnation, a sensible man will take the surest way to heaven.
Q. Will every one who is a member of the Catholic Church be saved?
A. No; only practical members will be saved; but those who are dead members, that is, bad Catholics, will be condemned to hell.
Q. Who is a practical member of the Catholic Church?
A. He who firmly believes all the truths contained in the Apostles' Creed, keeps the commandments of God and of the Church, and uses the means of grace, that is, the sacraments and prayer.
Q. Where do you learn all this?
A. In the Christian doctrine.
Q. Whose duty is it to teach the Christian doctrine?
A. This is the duty of the pastors of the Catholic Church.
Q. Is it very pleasing to God to instruct men in the Christian doctrine?
A. Yes; it is one of the holiest works, and most pleasing to God.
Q. Whose duty is it to attend to the explanation of the Christian doctrine?
A. This is the duty of all, but especially of those who are more or less ignorant of the Christian religion.
Q. Is God much pleased with those who eagerly listen to the explanation of the Christian doctrine?
A. God is so pleased with them that He often showed His pleasure by miracles.
Q. Is God also much displeased with those who do not care for the Christian doctrine?
A. God is so displeased with them that He often showed His displeasure by frightful punishments.
Q. What should we do when we hear the Christian doctrine explained?
A. We should listen to it with the intention of profiting by it.
Q. What do you call the book which briefly contains the Christian doctrine in the form of questions and answers?
A. The Catechism.
Q. Of what, then, does the Catechism treat?
A. The Catechism treats of what we must believe, of what we must do, and of the means of grace which we must use; that is, of the sacraments and prayer.
|
|
|
|
| Babies could be killed 28 days after birth under proposed Maryland law, attorney warns |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-09-2022, 09:38 AM - Forum: Abortion
- No Replies
|
|
Babies could be killed 28 days after birth under proposed Maryland law, attorney warns
Senate Bill 669 could be interpreted to allow for abortions through the first month after the baby is born, a legal analyst says.
Mon Mar 7, 2022 - 5:53 pm EST
ANNAPOLIS, Maryland (LifeSiteNews) – Legislation proposed in the Maryland Senate would allow babies to be left to die for as long as the first 28 days after birth, according to analysis from a pro-life attorney.
Senate Bill 669 is also known as the Pregnant Person’s Freedom Act of 2022, but the problems go beyond the use of “person” in place of accurate references to women having babies. Senator William Smith, a Democrat, sponsored the legislation, which will have a hearing on March 15.
“[T]he bill also proposes a revision of the fetal murder/manslaughter statute that would serve to handcuff the investigation of infant deaths unrelated to abortion,” American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) attorney Olivia Summers wrote in her analysis.
This is because the legislation prohibits investigations and criminal prosecutions for women and medical professionals for a “failure to act” in relation to a “perinatal death.”
“In other words, a baby born alive and well could be abandoned and left to starve or freeze to death,” Summers wrote, “and nothing could be done to punish those who participated in that cruel death.”
She said that the language used is unclear, so the law could be interpreted to “prevent investigations into the death of infants at least seven days AFTER their birth, and may extend to infants as old as four weeks!”
The Maryland Code does not define “perinatal,” Summers said. A 2020 law does define “perinatal care” as the “provision of care during pregnancy, labor, delivery, and postpartum and neonatal periods.”
A definition on MedicineNet, a website owned by WebMD, defines it as “the 20th to 28th week of gestation” to “1 to 4 weeks after birth.”
Summers, with the ACLJ, noted in her analysis that the state already has a safe haven law that allows parents to leave a newborn baby with a responsible adult without fear of prosecution.
“Under the Safe Haven law, a distressed parent who is unable or unwilling to care for their infant can safely give up custody of their baby, no questions asked,” the Maryland Department of Human Services explains. “Newborns can be left at hospitals or law enforcement stations.”
“There is absolutely no reason for Maryland Senate Bill 669’s attempt to prevent someone who lets their baby die from being investigated,” Summers said. ”This bill just further exposes the complete lack of regard abortion advocates have for innocent human life.”
“If they truly want to protect life and women, then legislators could simply extend the length of the safe harbor provision already in place,” she said.
Senator Smith, the bill’s sponsor, did not provide a comment on the ACLJ’s analysis of the legislation. The office responded to the initial email but did not comment any further.
|
|
|
|
| Europeans Panic-Buying Iodine |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-09-2022, 09:33 AM - Forum: Global News
- No Replies
|
|
Even before this news today:
there was this:
Putin's nuclear alert is prompting Europeans to panic-buy iodine as they think it may protect them from radiation, reports say
Business Insider | Mar 3, 2022
Russian President Vladimir Putin's nuclear alert is prompting Europeans to panic-buy iodine because they believe it may protect them from radiation poisoning, multiple reports said.
Some pharmacies in Bulgaria, Poland, and the Czech Republic have sold out of iodine since Putin launched an invasion of Ukraine and ordered Russia's nuclear weapons to be placed on high alert, Reuters reported.
Iodine pills in a classroom in Fessenheim, France, on June 12, 2018, during a nuclear-accident drill. Reuters
Nikolay Kostov, the chair of the Pharmacies Union, told Reuters that Bulgarian pharmacies had sold as much iodine in the past six days as they usually sold each year.
In Poland, the number of pharmacies selling iodine more than doubled after demand soared, Reuters reported.
Officials in other European countries including Belgium, France, and the Netherlands said they were also seeing an increase in demand despite being farther away from the conflict in Ukraine, local media reported.
In Belgium, nearly 30,000 residents picked up iodine tablets, which are normally offered for free in pharmacies, The Brussels Times reported. The pharmacists' union in France reported a significant increase in people requesting the medication, Le Parisien reported.
Iodine — which can be taken in pill or syrup form — can be used to help protect people from developing thyroid cancer, which can be caused by radiation.
But if radiation is not present in the body, taking iodine is not protective and could cause harm, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
European officials said this week that taking the medication was not necessary and would not help in a nuclear war.
"The current situation in Ukraine does not require taking tablets of iodine," the Federal Agency for Nuclear Control tweeted. "Only take iodine on the recommendation of the authorities."
Dana Drábová, the head of the Czech State Office for Nuclear Safety, tweeted: "You ask a lot about iodine tablets ... as radiation protection when (God forbid) nuclear weapons are used, they are basically useless."
|
|
|
|
| CDC Director Walensky Admits She Found Out Vaccines were Effective by Watching CNN |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-09-2022, 09:25 AM - Forum: Pandemic 2020 [Secular]
- No Replies
|
|
CDC Director Walensky Admits She Found Out Vaccines were Effective by Watching CNN
GP [adapted] | March 8, 2022
Robert Kennedy Jr. tweeted out a report from his organization the Children’s Health Defense on Tuesday on CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky’s recent talk in St. Louis. Walensky spoke at a Washington University event where she admitted that the medical elites relied too much on the vaccine as a “cure-all” and disregarded treatments.
This is something the rest of us already knew. There was not prescribed treatment for COVID patients and now nearly one million Americans are dead!
Dr. Walensky also said she found out about the effectiveness of the vaccines by watching CNN.
Stunning!
Quote:Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), became the latest prominent official to contradict key aspects of the official COVID-19 narrative of the past two years.
In a March 3 appearance at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, Walensky was interviewed by Dr. William G. Powderly, co-director of the institution’s Division of Infectious Diseases.
During the interview, Walensky said she learned COVID vaccines were effective from watching CNN. She also admitted health officials relied too heavily on vaccines as a “cure-all” of sorts for COVID, and said vaccine makers didn’t warn the agency that the vaccines would be less effective against potential variants.
She also admitted that the science, far from being “settled,” is “gray” instead of “black and white.”
|
|
|
|
| Canadian banks say Freedom Convoy backers’ frozen accounts will be flagged for life |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-09-2022, 09:16 AM - Forum: Global News
- No Replies
|
|
Canadian banks say Freedom Convoy backers’ frozen accounts will be flagged for life
'There would be something in the file indicating a freeze had taken place,' said the Canadian Bankers Association on Monday.
Tue Mar 8, 2022
OTTAWA (LifeSiteNews) — Freedom Convoy supporters whose bank accounts were frozen will be flagged for life.
The personal accounts of protesters that were locked after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act have been permanently marked, the Canadian Bankers Association (CBA) revealed at the House of Commons finance committee meeting on Monday.
According to Blacklock’s Reporter, bankers also explained that they froze accounts corresponding to 257 names that were not on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) blacklist provided to the banks, meaning they went beyond the scope of what the government asked of them.
“We primarily relied upon the names provided by the RCMP, but there were obligations under the order separate that required banks to make their own determinations,” Angelina Mason, general counsel for the Bankers Association, testified to the finance committee on Monday.
“Were there accounts of individuals frozen that did not appear on a list of names submitted by banks to the RCMP?” New Democrat Member of Parliament (MP) Daniel Blaikie asked.
“Yes,” Mason replied.
“Once an account is frozen and eventually unfrozen, are there any permanent markers or indications on a client’s file that would indicate they have had their accounts previously frozen?” Conservative MP Adam Chambers queried.
“There would be something in the file indicating a freeze had taken place,” Mason affirmed.
In response to other questions, Mason confirmed that if a person whose name was flagged by the RCMP had a joint account with someone whose name did not appear on the RCMP’s blacklist, the banks froze the account anyway, cutting both parties off from accessing their funds.
Mason added that even in the event that some of these accounts were illegitimately or unnecessarily frozen, there was “immunity provided” in the Emergencies Act that shields the banks from any legal consequences.
The Freedom Convoy protest, which consisted of thousands of protesters and hundreds of trucks, clogged the downtown core of Canada’s capital of Ottawa for just over three weeks, from the end of January until mid-February.
The stated goal of the protest was to get Canadian governments to rescind the mandates they had imposed during the so-called COVID pandemic, with supporters of the protest saying the measures taken to fight the virus were largely unnecessary, harmful, and unconstitutional.
When the convoy of trucks and their supporters were first making their way to Ottawa, Trudeau maligned the diverse group of Canadians as a “fringe minority” with “unacceptable views” while also suggesting many of the demonstrators were Nazi sympathizers and racists.
Despite the size and length of the protest, police reports indicate that the movement was overwhelming peaceful and non-violent, but was nonetheless met with Trudeau invoking the never-before-used Emergencies Act, granting him the power to use federal police to forcibly end the protest while compelling financial institutions to freeze the bank accounts of anyone involved in financing the protest without a court order.
Trudeau’s harsh actions against the protesters were met with widespread criticism from international figures on both the political right and the political left.
Conservative FoxNews host Tucker Carlson accused Trudeau of turning Canada into a “dictatorship” after he granted himself the emergency powers, and prominent left-wing comedian Bill Maher likened Trudeau’s anti-protester rhetoric to the discriminatory and hateful language used by Adolf Hitler.
Since the Freedom Convoy protest, many provinces decided to move in the direction the protesters desired by phasing out or outright axing their vaccine mandates, vaccine passports, and mandatory indoor masking policies. However, Trudeau’s federal government has still held on to the vaccine mandate for all interprovincial air travelers, mandatory quarantining for unvaccinated Canadians entering Canada, and the requirement that all employees of the federal government be fully vaccinated.
|
|
|
|
| Pope Francis is using Synod to separate Church ‘leadership’ from ‘ordination’: liberal Vatican nun |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-08-2022, 12:51 PM - Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
- No Replies
|
|
Pope Francis is using Synod to separate Church ‘leadership’ from ‘ordination’: liberal Vatican nun
Sr. Nathalie Becquart told The New York Times that the role of women in the Church was changing under Pope Francis.
![[Image: nathalie-becquart-810x500.jpg]](https://www.lifesitenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/nathalie-becquart-810x500.jpg)
Sr. Nathalie Becquart, under-secretary of the Synod of Bishops
Mon Mar 7, 2022
VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) – A prominent female member of the Vatican Curia, Sister Nathalie Becquart, has declared that Pope Francis intends to “disconnect participation in the leadership of the church from ordination” in the Synod on Synodality.
Sr. Becquart – appointed in February 2021 as the Vatican’s first female member of the Roman Curia with synodal voting rights, and under-secretary of the Synod of Bishops, the body which is organizing the current Synod on Synodality – made the revelation in an interview conducted by The New York Times as part of the publication’s “Women and Leadership special report.”
Asked about the “obstacles” to female ordination in the Catholic Church, Becquart replied:
Quote:The vision of Pope Francis, through this synod, is to get rid of a clerical church and move to a synodal church — to disconnect participation in the leadership of the church from ordination. We can say that the way now opening up is to listen to all different views; for instance, not everyone thinks ordination of women is a good path. You have some groups calling for that, but you also have some groups calling for new ministries.
“The question of women is a sign of the times,” she said. “It is a powerful call within our societies and in the church. The church has already said we should fight against any discrimination against women. But it is a long way, not only in the church.”
Similar allusions to fundamental change in the Catholic Church following the Synod on Synodality were made by Cardinal Mario Grech, the general-secretary of the Synod of Bishops, who recently said the Synodal process would be a “discernment process,” by which the Church would “find truth.” Grech even hinted at Pope Francis effecting a “change” in doctrine following the Synod.
Yet the Church has already explicitly ruled against the possibility of female ordination, despite Becquart’s suggestion that such an option could be on the table. In Ordinatio sacerdotalis, Pope John Paul II firmly condemned any attempt at female ordination, writing:
Quote:Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.
The doctrine of male-only priesthood “has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents,” the Pope added.
Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has repeatedly confirmed this magisterial teaching, stating that “women cannot become priests because this is excluded by the nature of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.” This prohibition is “normative and as a truth contained in Revelation, not a habit subject to change.”
In 2019, warning about the Amazon Synod’s working document (Instrumentum Laboris), Müller wrote firmly against any future change to the teaching on ordination:
Quote:Therefore, no synod – with or without the Pope – and also no ecumenical council, or the Pope alone, if he spoke ex cathedra, could make possible the ordination of women as bishop, priest, or deacon. They would stand in contradiction to the defined doctrine of the Church.
Pope Francis’ reported desire to divorce ecclesiastical “leadership” from ordination has already been rejected as impossible by Father Karl-Heinz Menke, a retired theologian of dogmatics at the University of Bonn. Menke told LifeSiteNews in 2019 that “the power of ordination (potestas ordinis) and the judicial power (potestas jurisdictionis) may not be separated.” Jurisdiction is intrinsically linked with “ordination,” noted Menke. ...
Notwithstanding such teaching, Becquart’s own appointment as under-secretary to the Synod of Bishops was taken by Cardinal Grech as a sign of change both in the curia and the wider Church, as noted by LifeSiteNews previously. “We will then see what other steps could be taken in the future,” he declared after her appointment, adding that her presence in the General Secretariat would “undoubtedly” force a structural change.
Becquart herself alluded to a form of ecclesiastical revolution, commenting in 2021 that “the Church has learned from the Synod of the Amazon the importance of empowering women.” The “clericalist mindset is changing,” she said, employing one of Pope Francis’ oft-repeated terms.
Becquart repeated this theme when speaking to The New York Times, saying “now we rediscover that the main focus of the church is people walking together: Everyone has a role. Nobody should be set aside.”
She praised Pope Francis’ 2021 motu proprio Spiritus Domini, which opened up the ministries of acolyte and lector to women for the first time, calling it “a major change” for women in the Church.
However, theologian and acclaimed author Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, told LifeSiteNews at the time that the Pope’s move was “a kind of sop thrown to the feminists in the Church, which, of course, will not satisfy them, since the ‘holy grail’ is the priesthood or even the episcopacy.”
|
|
|
|
| St. Augustine of Hippo: Of the Good of Marriage, Of the Good of Widowhood, and on Holy Virginity |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-08-2022, 09:36 AM - Forum: Fathers of the Church
- Replies (2)
|
|
This treatise, and the following, were written against somewhat that still remained of the heresy of Jovinian. S. Aug. mentions this error in b. ii. c. 23, de Nuptiis et Conc. Jovinianus, he says, who a few years since tried to found a new heresy, said that the Catholics favored the Manichæans, because in opposition to him they preferred holy Virginity to Marriage. And in his book on Heresies, c. 82. That heresy took its rise from one Jovinianus, a Monk, in our own time, when we were yet young. And he adds that it was soon overborne and extinguished, say about A.D. 390, having been condemned first at Rome, then at Milan. There are letters of Pope Siricius on the subject to the Church of Milan, and the answer sent him by the Synod of Milan, at which St. Ambrose presided. Jerome had refuted Jovinian, but was said to have attempted the defense of the excellency of the virgin state, at the expense of condemning marriage. That Augustine might not be subject to any such complaint or calumny, before speaking of the superiority of Virginity, he thought it well to write on the Good of Marriage.
This work we learn to have been finished about the year 401, not only from the order of his Retractations, but also from his books on Genesis after the Letter, begun about that year. For in b. ix. on Genesis, c. 7, where he commends the Good of Marriage, he says: Now this is threefold, faithfulness, offspring, and the Sacrament. For faithfulness, it is observed, that there be no lying with other man or woman, out of the bond of wedlock: for the offspring, that it be lovingly welcomed, kindly nourished, religiously brought up: for the Sacrament, that marriage be not severed, and that man or woman divorced be not joined to another even for the sake of offspring. This is as it were the rule of Marriages by which rule either fruitfulness is made seemly, or the perverseness of incontinence is brought to order. Upon which since we have sufficiently discoursed in that book, which we lately published, on the Good of Marriage, where we have also distinguished the Widow's continence and the Virgin's excellency, according to the worthiness of their degrees, our pen is not to be now longer occupied. This very work is referred to in Book I. on the Deserts and Remission of Sins, c. 29.— Bened. Ed.
1. Forasmuch as each man is a part of the human race, and human nature is something social, and has for a great and natural good, the power also of friendship; on this account God willed to create all men out of one, in order that they might be held in their society not only by likeness of kind, but also by bond of kindred. Therefore the first natural bond of human society is man and wife. Nor did God create these each by himself, and join them together as alien by birth: but He created the one out of the other, setting a sign also of the power of the union in the side, whence she was drawn, was formed. For they are joined one to another side by side, who walk together, and look together whither they walk. Then follows the connection of fellowship in children, which is the one alone worthy fruit, not of the union of male and female, but of the sexual intercourse. For it were possible that there should exist in either sex, even without such intercourse, a certain friendly and true union of the one ruling, and the other obeying.
2. Nor is it now necessary that we enquire, and put forth a definite opinion on that question, whence could exist the progeny of the first men, whom God had blessed, saying, Increase, and be ye multiplied, and fill the earth; if they had not sinned, whereas their bodies by sinning deserved the condition of death, and there can be no sexual intercourse save of mortal bodies. For there have existed several and different opinions on this matter; and if we must examine, which of them be rather agreeable to the truth of Divine Scriptures, there is matter for a lengthened discussion. Whether, therefore, without intercourse, in some other way, had they not sinned, they would have had sons, from the gift of the Almighty Creator, Who was able to create themselves also without parents, Who was able to form the Flesh of Christ in a virgin womb, and (to speak even to unbelievers themselves) Who was able to bestow on bees a progeny without sexual intercourse; or whether many things there were spoken by way of mystery and figure, and we are to understand in another sense what is written, Fill the earth, and rule over it; that is, that it should come to pass by fullness and perfection of life and power, so that the very increase and multiplication, whereby it is said, Increase, and be ye multiplied, be understood to be by advance of mind, and abundance of virtue, as it is set in the Psalm, You shall multiply me in my soul by virtue; and that succession of progeny was not given unto man, save after that, by reason of sin, there was to be hereafter departure in death: or whether the body was not made spiritual in the case of these men, but at the first animal, in order that by merit of obedience it might after become spiritual, to lay hold of immortality, not after death, which by the malice of the devil entered into the world, and was made the punishment of sin; but after that change, which the Apostle signifies, when he says, Then we living, who remain, together with them, shall be caught up in the clouds, to meet Christ, into the air, that we may understand both that those bodies of the first pair were mortal, in the first forming, and yet that they would not have died, had they not sinned, as God had threatened: even as if He should threaten a wound, in that the body was capable of wounds; which yet would not have happened, unless what He had forbidden were done. Thus, therefore, even through sexual intercourse there might take place generations of such bodies, as up to a certain point should have increase, and yet should not pass into old age; or even into old age, and yet not into death; until the earth were filled with that multiplication of the blessing. For if to the garments of the Israelites God granted their proper state without any wearing away during forty years, how much more would He grant unto the bodies of such as obeyed His command a certain most happy temperament of sure state, until they should be changed for the better, not by death of the man, whereby the body is abandoned by the soul, but by a blessed change from mortality to immortality, from an animal to a spiritual quality. Of these opinions which be true, or whether some other or others yet may be formed out of these words, were a long matter to enquire and discuss.
3. This we now say, that, according to this condition of being born and dying, which we know, and in which we have been created, the marriage of male and female is some good; the compact whereof divine Scripture so commends, as that neither is it allowed one put away by her husband to marry, so long as her husband lives: nor is it allowed one put away by his wife to marry another, unless she who have separated from him be dead. Therefore, concerning the good of marriage, which the Lord also confirmed in the Gospel, not only in that He forbade to put away a wife, save because of fornication, but also in that He came by invitation to a marriage, there is good ground to inquire for what reason it be a good. And this seems not to me to be merely on account of the begetting of children, but also on account of the natural society itself in a difference of sex. Otherwise it would not any longer be called marriage in the case of old persons, especially if either they had lost sons, or had given birth to none. But now in good, although aged, marriage, albeit there has withered away the glow of full age between male and female, yet there lives in full vigor the order of charity between husband and wife: because, the better they are, the earlier they have begun by mutual consent to contain from sexual intercourse with each other: not that it should be matter of necessity afterwards not to have power to do what they would, but that it should be matter of praise to have been unwilling at the first, to do what they had power to do. If therefore there be kept good faith of honor, and of services mutually due from either sex, although the members of either be languishing and almost corpse-like, yet of souls duly joined together, the chastity continues, the purer by how much it is the more proved, the safer, by how much it is the calmer. Marriages have this good also, that carnal or youthful incontinence, although it be faulty, is brought unto an honest use in the begetting of children, in order that out of the evil of lust the marriage union may bring to pass some good. Next, in that the lust of the flesh is repressed, and rages in a way more modestly, being tempered by parental affection. For there is interposed a certain gravity of glowing pleasure, when in that wherein husband and wife cleave to one another, they have in mind that they be father and mother.
4. There is this further, that in that very debt which married persons pay one to another, even if they demand it with somewhat too great intemperance and incontinence, yet they owe faith alike one to another. Unto which faith the Apostle allows so great right, as to call it power, saying, The woman has not power of her own body, but the man; again in like manner also the man has not power of his own body, but the woman. But the violation of this faith is called adultery, when either by instigation of one's own lust, or by consent of lust of another, there is sexual intercourse on either side with another against the marriage compact: and thus faith is broken, which, even in things that are of the body, and mean, is a great good of the soul: and therefore it is certain that it ought to be preferred even to the health of the body, wherein even this life of ours is contained. For, although a little chaff in comparison of much gold is almost nothing; yet faith, when it is kept pure in a matter of chaff, as in gold, is not therefore less because it is kept in a lesser matter. But when faith is employed to commit sin, it were strange that we should have to call it faith; however of whatever kind it be, if also the deed be done against it, it is the worse done; save when it is on this account abandoned, that there may be a return unto true and lawful faith, that is, that sin may be amended, by correction of perverseness of the will. As if any, being unable alone to rob a man, should find a partner in his iniquity, and make an agreement with him to do it together, and to divide the spoil; and, after the crime has been committed, should take off the whole to himself alone. That other grieves and complains that faith has not been kept with him, but in his very complaint he ought to consider, that he himself rather ought to have kept faith with human society in a good life, and not to make unjust spoil of a man, if he feels with how great injustice it has failed to be kept with himself in a fellowship of sin. Forsooth the former, being faithless in both instances, must assuredly be judged the more wicked. But, if he had been displeased at what they had done ill, and had been on this account unwilling to divide the spoil with his partner in crime, in order that it might be restored to the man, from whom it had been taken, not even a faithless man would call him faithless. Thus a woman, if, having broken her marriage faith, she keep faith with her adulterer, is certainly evil: but, if not even with her adulterer, worse. Further, if she repent her of her sin, and returning to marriage chastity, renounce all adulterous compacts and resolutions, I count it strange if even the adulterer himself will think her one who breaks faith.
5. Also the question is wont to be asked, when a male and female, neither the one the husband, nor the other the wife, of any other, come together, not for the begetting of children, but, by reason of incontinence, for the mere sexual intercourse, there being between them this faith, that neither he do it with any other woman, nor she with any other man, whether it is to be called marriage. And perhaps this may, not without reason, be called marriage, if it shall be the resolution of both parties until the death of one, and if the begetting of children, although they came not together for that cause, yet they shun not, so as either to be unwilling to have children born to them, or even by some evil work to use means that they be not born. But, if either both, or one, of these be wanting, I find not how we can call it marriage. For, if a man should take unto him any one for a time, until he find another worthy either of his honors or of his means, to marry as his compeer; in his soul itself he is an adulterer, and that not with her whom he is desirous of finding, but with her, with whom he so lies, as not to have with her the partnership of a husband. Whence she also herself, knowing and willing this, certainly acts unchastely in having intercourse with him, with whom she has not the compact of a wife. However, if she keep to him faith of bed, and after he shall have married, have no thought of marriage herself, and prepare to contain herself altogether from any such work, perhaps I should not dare lightly to call her an adulteress; but who shall say that she sins not, when he is aware that she has intercourse with a man, not being his wife? But further, if from that intercourse, so far as pertains to herself, she has no wish but for sons, and suffers unwilling whatever she suffers beyond the cause of begetting; there are many matrons to whom she is to be preferred; who, although they are not adulteresses, yet force their husbands, for the most part also wishing to exercise continence, to pay the due of the flesh, not through desire of children, but through glow of lust making an intemperate use of their very right; in whose marriages, however, this very thing, that they are married, is a good. For for this purpose are they married, that the lust being brought under a lawful bond, should not float at large without form and loose; having of itself weakness of flesh that cannot be curbed, but of marriage fellowship of faith that cannot be dissolved; of itself encroachment of immoderate intercourse, of marriage a way of chastely begetting. For, although it be shameful to wish to use a husband for purposes of lust, yet it is honorable to be unwilling to have intercourse save with an husband, and not to give birth to children save from a husband. There are also men incontinent to that degree, that they spare not their wives even when pregnant. Therefore whatever that is immodest, shameless, base, married persons do one with another, is the sin of the persons, not the fault of marriage.
6. Further, in the very case of the more immoderate requirement of the due of the flesh, which the Apostle enjoins not on them by way of command, but allows to them by way of leave, that they have intercourse also beside the cause of begetting children; although evil habits impel them to such intercourse, yet marriage guards them from adultery or fornication. For neither is that committed because of marriage, but is pardoned because of marriage. Therefore married persons owe one another not only the faith of their sexual intercourse itself, for the begetting of children, which is the first fellowship of the human kind in this mortal state; but also, in a way, a mutual service of sustaining one another's weakness, in order to shun unlawful intercourse: so that, although perpetual continence be pleasing to one of them, he may not, save with consent of the other. For thus far also, The wife has not power of her own body, but the man: in like manner also the man has not power of his own body, but the woman. That that also, which, not for the begetting of children, but for weakness and incontinence, either he seeks of marriage, or she of her husband, they deny not the one or the other; lest by this they fall into damnable seductions, through temptation of Satan, by reason of incontinence either of both, or of whichever of them. For intercourse of marriage for the sake of begetting has not fault; but for the satisfying of lust, but yet with husband or wife, by reason of the faith of the bed, it has venial fault: but adultery or fornication has deadly fault, and, through this, continence from all intercourse is indeed better even than the intercourse of marriage itself, which takes place for the sake of begetting. But because that Continence is of larger desert, but to pay the due of marriage is no crime, but to demand it beyond the necessity of begetting is a venial fault, but to commit fornication or adultery is a crime to be punished; charity of the married ought to beware, lest while it seek for itself occasion of larger honor, it do that for its partner which cause condemnation. For whosoever puts away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, makes her to commit adultery. To such a degree is that marriage compact entered upon a matter of a certain sacrament, that it is not made void even by separation itself, since, so long as her husband lives, even by whom she has been left, she commits adultery, in case she be married to another: and he who has left her, is the cause of this evil.
7. But I marvel, if, as it is allowed to put away a wife who is an adulteress, so it be allowed, having put her away, to marry another. For holy Scripture causes a hard knot in this matter, in that the Apostle says, that, by commandment of the Lord, the wife ought not to depart from her husband, but, in case she shall have departed, to remain unmarried, or to be reconciled to her husband; whereas surely she ought not to depart and remain unmarried, save from an husband that is an adulterer, lest by withdrawing from him, who is not an adulterer, she cause him to commit adultery. But perhaps she may justly be reconciled to her husband, either he being to be borne with, if she cannot contain herself, or being now corrected. But I see not how the man can have permission to marry another, in case he have left an adulteress, when a woman has not to be married to another, in case she have left an adulterer. And, this being the case, so strong is that bond of fellowship in married persons, that, although it be tied for the sake f begetting children, not even for the sake of begetting children is it loosed. For it is in a man's power to put away a wife that is barren, and marry one of whom to have children. And yet it is not allowed; and now indeed in our times, and after the usage of Rome, neither to marry in addition, so as to have more than one wife living: and, surely, in case of an adulteress or adulterer being left, it would be possible that more men should be born, if either the woman were married to another, or the man should marry another. And yet, if this be not lawful, as the Divine Rule seems to prescribe, who is there but it must make him attentive to learn, what is the meaning of this so great strength of the marriage bond? Which I by no means think could have been of so great avail, were it not that there were taken a certain sacrament of some greater matter from out this weak mortal state of men, so that, men deserting it, and seeking to dissolve it, it should remain unshaken for their punishment. Seeing that the compact of marriage is not done away by divorce intervening; so that they continue wedded persons one to another, even after separation; and commit adultery with those, with whom they shall be joined, even after their own divorce, either the woman with a man, or the man with a woman. And yet, save in the City of our God, in His Holy Mount, the case is not such with the wife. But, that the laws of the Gentiles are otherwise, who is there that knows not; where, by the interposition of divorce, without any offense of which man takes cognizance, both the woman is married to whom she will, and the man marries whom he will. And something like this custom, on account of the hardness of the Israelites, Moses seems to have allowed, concerning a bill of divorcement. In which matter there appears rather a rebuke, than an approval, of divorce.
8. Honorable, therefore, is marriage in all, and the bed undefiled. And this we do not so call a good, as that it is a good in comparison of fornication: otherwise there will be two evils, of which the second is worse: or fornication will also be a good, because adultery is worse: for it is worse to violate the marriage of another, than to cleave unto an harlot: and adultery will be a good, because incest is worse; for it is worse to lie with a mother than with the wife of another: and, until we arrive at those things, which, as the Apostle says, it is a shame even to speak of, all will be good in comparison of what are worse. But who can doubt that this is false? Therefore marriage and fornication are not two evils, whereof the second is worse: but marriage and continence are two goods, whereof the second is better, even as this temporal health and sickness are not two evils, whereof the second is worse; but that health and immortality are two goods, whereof the second is better. Also knowledge and vanity are not two evils, whereof vanity is the worse: but knowledge and charity are two goods, whereof charity is the better. For knowledge shall be destroyed, says the Apostle: and yet it is necessary for this time: but charity shall never fail. Thus also this mortal begetting, on account of which marriage takes place, shall be destroyed: but freedom from all sexual intercourse is both angelic exercise here, and continues forever. But as the repasts of the Just are better than the fasts of the sacrilegious, so the marriage of the faithful is to be set before the virginity of the impious. However neither in that case is repast preferred to fasting, but righteousness to sacrilege; nor in this, marriage to virginity, but faith to impiety. For for this end the righteous, when need is, take their repast, that, as good masters, they may give to their slaves, i.e., their bodies, what is just and fair: but for this end the sacrilegious fast, that they may serve devils. Thus for this end the faithful are married, that they may be chastely joined unto husbands, but for this end the impious are virgins, that they may commit fornication away from the true God. As, therefore, that was good, which Martha was doing, being engaged in the ministering unto the Saints, but that better, which Mary, her sister, sitting at the feet of the Lord, and hearing His word; thus we praise the good of Susanna in married chastity, but yet we set before her the good of the widow Anna, and, much more, of the Virgin Mary. It was good that they were doing, who of their substance were ministering necessaries unto Christ and His disciples: but better, who left all their substance, that they might be freer to follow the same Lord. But in both these cases of good, whether what these, or whether what Martha and Mary were doing, the better could not be done, unless the other had been passed over or left. Whence we are to understand, that we are not, on this account, to think marriage an evil, because, unless there be abstinence from it, widowed chastity, or virgin purity, cannot be had. For neither on this account was what Martha was doing evil, because, unless her sister abstained from it, she could not do what was better: nor on this account is it evil to receive a just man or a prophet into one's house, because he, who wills to follow Christ unto perfection, ought not even to have a house, in order to do what is better.
9. Truly we must consider, that God gives us some goods, which are to be sought for their own sake, such as wisdom, health, friendship: but others, which are necessary for the sake of somewhat, such as learning, meat, drink, sleep, marriage, sexual intercourse. For of these certain are necessary for the sake of wisdom, as learning: certain for the sake of health, as meat and drink and sleep: certain for the sake of friendship, as marriage or sexual intercourse: for hence subsists the propagation of the human kind, wherein friendly fellowship is a great good. These goods, therefore, which are necessary for the sake of something else, whoever uses not for this purpose, wherefore they were instituted, sins; in some cases venially, in other cases damnably. But whoever uses them for this purpose, wherefore they were given does well. Therefore, to whomsoever they are not necessary, if he use them not, he does better. Wherefore, these goods, when we have need, we do well to wish; but we do better not to wish than to wish: because ourselves are in a better state, when we account them not necessary. And on this account it is good to marry, because it is good to beget children, to be a mother of a family: but it is better not to marry, because it is better not to stand in need of this work, in order to human fellowship itself. For such is the state of the human race now, that (others, who contain not, not only being taken up with marriage, but many also waxing wanton through unlawful concubinages, the Good Creator working what is good out of their evils) there fails not numerous progeny, and abundant succession, out of which to procure holy friendships. Whence we gather, that, in the first times of the human race, chiefly for the propagation of the People of God, through whom the Prince and Saviour of all people should both be prophesied of, and be born, it was the duty of the Saints to use this good of marriage, not as to be sought for its own sake, but necessary for the sake of something else: but now, whereas, in order to enter upon holy and pure fellowship, there is on all sides from out all nations an overflowing fullness of spiritual kindred, even they who wish to contract marriage only for the sake of children, are to be admonished, that they use rather the larger good of continence.
10. But I am aware of some that murmur: What, say they, if all men should abstain from all sexual intercourse, whence will the human race exist? Would that all would this, only in charity out of a pure heart, and good conscience, and faith unfeigned; much more speedily would the City of God be filled, and the end of the world hastened. For what else does the Apostle, as is manifest, exhort to, when he says, speaking on this head, I would that all were as myself; or in that passage, But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remains that both they who have wives, be as though not having: and they who weep, as though not weeping: and they who rejoice, as though not rejoicing: and they who buy, as though not buying: and they who use this world as though they use it not. For the form of this world passes by. I would have you without care. Then he adds, Whoever is without a wife thinks of the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord: but whoever is joined in marriage, thinks of the things of the world, how to please his wife: and a woman that is unmarried and a virgin is different: she that is unmarried is anxious about the things of the Lord, to be holy both in body and spirit: but she that is married, is anxious about the things of the world, how to please her husband. Whence it seems to me, that at this time, those only, who contain not, ought to marry, according to that sentence of the same Apostle, But if they contain not, let them be married: for it is better to be married than to burn.
11. And yet not to these themselves is marriage a sin; which, if it were chosen in comparison of fornication, would be a less sin than fornication, and yet would be a sin. But now what shall we say against the most plain speech of the Apostle, saying, Let her do what she will; she sins not, if she be married; and, If you shall have taken a wife, you have not sinned: and, if a virgin shall have been married, she sins not. Hence surely it is not lawful now to doubt that marriage is no sin. Therefore the Apostle allows not marriage as matter of pardon: for who can doubt that it is extremely absurd to say, that they have not sinned, unto whom pardon is granted. But he allows, as matter of pardon, that sexual intercourse, which takes place through incontinence, not alone for the begetting of children, and, at times, not at all for the begetting of children; and it is not that marriage forces this to take place, but that it procures pardon for it; provided however it be not so in excess as to hinder what ought to be set aside as seasons of prayer, nor be changed into that use which is against nature, on which the Apostle could not be silent, when speaking of the excessive corruptions of unclean and impious men. For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting is free from blame, and itself is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity, no longer follows reason, but lust. And yet it pertains to the character of marriage, not to exact this, but to yield it to the partner, lest by fornication the other sin damnably. But, if both are set under such lust, they do what is plainly not matter of marriage. However, if in their intercourse they love what is honest more than what is dishonest, that is, what is matter of marriage more than what is not matter of marriage, this is allowed to them on the authority of the Apostle as matter of pardon: and for this fault, they have in their marriage, not what sets them on to commit it, but what entreats pardon for it, if they turn not away from them the mercy of God, either by not abstaining on certain days, that they may be free to pray, and through this abstinence, as through fasting, may commend their prayers; or by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife.
12. For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting, is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of an harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of an harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife. Of so great power is the ordinance of the Creator, and the order of Creation, that, in matters allowed us to use, even when the due measure is exceeded, it is far more tolerable, than, in what are not allowed, either a single, or rare excess. And, therefore, in a matter allowed, want of moderation, in a husband or wife, is to be borne with, in order that lust break not forth into a matter that is not allowed. Hence is it also that he sins far less, who is ever so unceasing in approaches to his wife, than he who approaches ever so seldom to commit fornication. But, when the man shall wish to use the member of the wife not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she allows it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman. Therefore the ornament of marriage is chastity of begetting, and faith of yielding the due of the flesh: this is the work of marriage, this the Apostle defends from every charge, in saying, Both if you shall have taken a wife, you have not sinned: and if a virgin shall have been married, she sins not: and, Let her do what she will: she sins not if she be married. But an advance beyond moderation in demanding the due of either sex, for the reasons which I have stated above, is allowed to married persons as matter of pardon.
13. What therefore he says, She, that is unmarried, thinks of the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; we are not to take in such sense, as to think that a chaste Christian wife is not holy in body. Forsooth unto all the faithful it was said, Do you not know that your bodies are a temple of the Holy Ghost within you, Whom you have from God? Therefore the bodies also of the married are holy, so long as they keep faith to one another and to God. And that this sanctity of either of them, even an unbelieving partner does not stand in the way of, but rather that the sanctity of the wife profits the unbelieving husband, and the sanctity of the husband profits the unbelieving wife, the same Apostle is witness, saying, For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in a brother. Wherefore that was said according to the greater sanctity of the unmarried than of the married, unto which there is also due a greater reward, according as, the one being a good, the other is a greater good: inasmuch as also she has this thought only, how to please the Lord. For it is not that a female who believes, keeping married chastity, thinks not how to please the Lord; but assuredly less so, in that she thinks of the things of the world, how to please her husband. For this is what he would say of them, that they may, in a certain way, find themselves obliged by marriage to think of the things of the world, how to please their husbands.
14. And not without just cause a doubt is raised, whether he said this of all married women, or of such as so many are, as that nearly all may be thought so to be. For neither does that, which he says of unmarried women, She, that is unmarried, thinkest of the things of the Lord, to be holy both in body and spirit: pertain unto all unmarried women: whereas there are certain widows who are dead, who live in delights. However, so far as regards a certain distinction and, as it were, character of their own, of the unmarried and married; as she deserves the excess of hatred, who containing from marriage, that is, from a thing allowed, does not contain from offenses, either of luxury, or pride, or curiosity and prating; so the married woman is seldom met with, who, in the very obedience of married life, has no thought save how to please God, by adorning herself, not with plaited hair, or gold and pearls and costly attire, but as becomes women making profession of piety, through a good conversation. Such marriages, forsooth, the Apostle Peter also describes by giving commandment. In like manner, says he, wives obeying their own husbands; in order that, even if any obey not the word, they may be gained without discourse through the conversation of the wives, seeing your fear and chaste conversation: that they be not they that are adorned without with crispings of hair, or clothed with gold or with fair raiment; but that hidden man of your heart, in that unbroken continuance of a quiet and modest spirit, which before the Lord also is rich. For thus certain holy women, who hoped in the Lord, used to adorn themselves, obeying their own husbands: as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord: whose daughters you have become, when you do well, and fear not with any vain fear. Husbands in like manner living at peace and in chastity with your wives, both give ye honor as to the weaker and subject vessel, as with co-heirs of grace, and see that your prayers be not hindered. Is it indeed that such marriages have no thought of the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord? But they are very rare: who denies this? And, being, as they are, rare, nearly all the persons who are such, were not joined together in order to be such, but being already joined together became such.
15. For what Christian men of our time being free from the marriage bond, having power to contain from all sexual intercourse, seeing it to be now a time, as it is written, not of embracing, but of abstaining from embrace, would not choose rather to keep virginal or widowed continence, than (now that there is no obligation from duty to human society) to endure tribulation of the flesh, without which marriages cannot be (to pass over in silence other things from which the Apostle spares.) But when through desire reigning they shall have been joined together, if they shall after overcome it, because it is not lawful to loose, in such wise as it was lawful not to tie, the marriage bond, they become such as the form of marriage makes profession of, so as that either by mutual consent they ascend unto a higher degree of holiness, or, if both are not such, the one who is such will not be one to exact but to yield the due, observing in all things a chaste and religious concord. But in those times, wherein as yet the mystery of our salvation was veiled in prophetic sacraments, even they who were such before marriage, yet contracted marriage through the duty of begetting children, not overcome by lust, but led by piety, unto whom if there were given such choice as in the revelation of the New Testament there has been given, the Lord saying Whoever can receive, let him receive; no one doubts that they would have been ready to receive it even with joy, who reads with careful attention what use they made of their wives, at a time when also it was allowed one man to have several, whom he had with more chastity, than any now has his one wife, of these, unto whom we see what the Apostle allows by way of leave. For they had them in the work of begetting children, not in the disease of desire, as the nations which know not God. And this is so great a thing, that many at this day more easily abstain from all sexual intercourse their whole life through, than, if they are joined in marriage, observe the measure of not coming together except for the sake of children. Forsooth we have many brethren and partners in the heavenly inheritance of both sexes that are continent, whether they be such as have made trial of marriage, or such as are entirely free from all such intercourse: forsooth they are without number: yet, in our familiar discourses with them, whom have we heard, whether of those who are, or of those who have been, married, declaring to us that he has never had sexual intercourse with his wife, save with the hope of conception? What, therefore, the Apostles command the married, this is proper to marriage, but what they allow by way of pardon, or what hinders prayers, this marriage compels not, but bears with.
16. Therefore if haply, (which whether it can take place, I know not; and rather think it cannot take place; but yet, if haply), having taken unto himself a concubine for a time, a man shall have sought sons only from this same intercourse; neither thus is that union to be preferred to the marriage even of those women, who do this, that is matter of pardon. For we must consider what belongs to marriage, not what belongs to such women as marry and use marriage with less moderation than they ought. For neither if each one so use lands entered upon unjustly and wrongly, as out of their fruits to give large alms, does he therefore justify rapine: nor if another brood over, through avarice, an estate to which he has succeeded, or which he has justly gained, are we on this account to blame the rule of civil law, whereby he is made a lawful owner. Nor will the wrongfulness of a tyrannical rebellion deserve praise, if the tyrant treat his subjects with royal clemency: nor will the order of royal power deserve blame, if a king rage with tyrannical cruelty. For it is one thing to wish to use well unjust power, and it is another thing to use unjustly just power. Thus neither do concubines taken for a time, if they be such in order to sons, make their concubinage lawful; nor do married women, if they live wantonly with their husbands, attach any charge to the order of marriage.
17. That marriage can take place of persons first ill joined, an honest decree following after, is manifest. But a marriage once for all entered upon in the City of our God, where, even from the first union of the two, the man and the woman, marriage bears a certain sacramental character, can no way be dissolved but by the death of one of them. For the bond of marriage remains, although a family, for the sake of which it was entered upon, do not follow through manifest barrenness; so that, when now married persons know that they shall not have children, yet it is not lawful for them to separate even for the very sake of children, and to join themselves unto others. And if they shall so do, they commit adultery with those unto whom they join themselves, but themselves remain husbands and wives. Clearly with the good will of the wife to take another woman, that from her may be born sons common to both, by the sexual intercourse and seed of the one, but by the right and power of the other, was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bare children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful. For the difference that separates times causes the due season to have so great force unto the justice and doing or not doing anything, that now a man does better, if he marry not even one wife, unless he be unable to contain. But then they married even several without any blame, even those who could much more easily contain, were it not that piety at that time had another demand upon them. For, as the wise and just man, who now desires to be dissolved and to be with Christ, and takes more pleasure in this, the best, now not from desire of living here, but from duty of being useful , takes food that he may remain in the flesh, which is necessary for the sake of others; so to have intercourse with females in right of marriage, was to holy men at that time a matter of duty not of lust.
18. For what food is unto the conservation of the man, this sexual intercourse is unto the conservation of the race: and both are not without carnal delight: which yet being modified, and by restraint of temperance reduced unto the use after nature, cannot be lust. But what unlawful food is in the supporting of life, this sexual intercourse of fornication or adultery is in the seeking of a family. And what unlawful food is in luxury of belly and throat, this unlawful intercourse is in lust that seeks not a family. And what the excessive appetite of some is in lawful food, this that intercourse that is matter of pardon is in husband and wife. As therefore it is better to die of hunger than to eat things offered unto idols: so it is better to die without children, than to seek a family from unlawful intercourse. But from whatever source men be born, if they follow not the vices of their parents, and worship God aright, they shall be honest and safe. For the seed of man, from out what kind of man soever, is the creation of God, and it shall fare ill with those who use it ill, yet shall not, itself at any time be evil. But as the good sons of adulterers are no defense of adulteries, so the evil sons of married persons are no charge against marriage. Wherefore as the Fathers of the time of the New Testament taking food from the duty of conservation, although they took it with natural delight of the flesh, were yet in no way compared with the delight of those who fed on what had been offered in sacrifice, or of those who, although the food was lawful, yet took it to excess: so the Fathers of the time of the Old Testament from the duty of conservation used sexual intercourse; and yet that their natural delight, by no means relaxed unto unreasonable and unlawful lust, is not to be compared either with the vileness of fornications, or with the intemperance of married persons. Forsooth through the same vein of charity, now after the spirit, then after the flesh, it was a duty to beget sons for the sake of that mother Jerusalem: but it was nought save the difference of times which made the works of the fathers different. But thus it was necessary that even Prophets, not living after the flesh, should come together after the flesh; even as it was necessary that Apostles also, not living after the flesh, should eat food after the flesh.
19. Therefore as many women as there are now, unto whom it is said, if they contain not, let them be married, are not to be compared to the holy women then, even when they married. Marriage itself indeed in all nations is for the same cause of begetting sons, and of what character soever these may be afterward, yet was marriage for this purpose instituted, that they may be born in due and honest order. But men, who contain not, as it were ascend unto marriage by a step of honesty: but they, who without doubt would contain, if the purpose of that time had allowed this, in a certain measure descended unto marriage by a step of piety. And, on this account, although the marriages of both, so far as they are marriages, in that they are for the sake of begetting, are equally good, yet these men when married are not to be compared with those men as married. For these have, what is allowed them by the way of leave, on account of the honesty of marriage, although it pertain not to marriage; that is, the advance which goes beyond the necessity of begetting, which they had not. But neither can these, if haply there be now any found, who neither seek, nor desire, in marriage anything, save that wherefore marriage was instituted, be made equal to those men. For in these the very desire of sons is carnal, but in those it was spiritual, in that it was suited to the sacrament of that time. Forsooth now no one who is made perfect in piety seeks to have sons, save after a spiritual sense; but then it was the work of piety itself to beget sons even after a carnal sense: in that the begetting of that people was fraught with tidings of things to come, and pertained unto the prophetic dispensation.
20. And on this account, not, so as it was allowed one man to have even several wives, was it allowed one female to have several husbands, not even for the sake of a family, in case it should happen that the woman could bear, the man could not beget. For by a secret law of nature things that stand chief love to be singular; but what are subject are set under, not only one under one, but, if the system of nature or society allow, even several under one, not without becoming beauty. For neither has one slave so several masters, in the way that several slaves have one master. Thus we read not that any of the holy women served two or more living husbands: but we read that many females served one husband, when the social state of that nation allowed it, and the purpose of the time persuaded to it: for neither is it contrary to the nature of marriage. For several females can conceive from one man: but one female cannot from several, (such is the power of things principal-) as many souls are rightly made subject unto one God. And on this account there is no True God of souls, save One: but one soul by means of many false gods may commit fornication, but not be made fruitful.
21. But since out of many souls there shall be hereafter one City of such as have one soul and one heart towards God; which perfection of our unity shall be hereafter, after this sojourn in a strange land, wherein the thoughts of all shall neither be hidden one from another, nor shall be in any matter opposed one to another; on this account the Sacrament of marriage of our time has been so reduced to one man and one wife, as that it is not lawful to ordain any as a steward of the Church, save the husband of one wife. And this they have understood more acutely who have been of opinion, that neither is he to be ordained, who as a catechumen or as a heathen had a second wife. For it is a matter of sacrament, not of sin. For in baptism all sins are put away. But he who said, If you shall have taken a wife, you have not sinned; and if a virgin shall have been married, she sins not: and, Let her do what she will, she sins not, if she be married, has made it plain enough that marriage is no sin. But on account of the sanctity of the Sacrament, as a female, although it be as a catechumen that she has suffered violence, cannot after Baptism be consecrated among the virgins of God: so there was no absurdity in supposing of him who had exceeded the number of one wife, not that he had committed any sin, but that he had lost a certain prescript rule of a sacrament necessary not unto desert of good life, but unto the seal of ecclesiastic ordination; and thus, as the many wives of the old Fathers signified our future Churches out of all nations made subject unto one husband, Christ: so our chief-priest, the husband of one wife, signifies unity out of all nations, made subject unto one husband, Christ: which shall then be perfected, when He shall have unveiled the hidden things of darkness, and shall have made manifest the thoughts of the heart, that then each may have praise from God. But now there are manifest, there are hidden, dissensions, even where charity is safe between those, who shall be hereafter one, and in one; which shall then certainly have no existence. As therefore the Sacrament of marriage with several of that time signified the multitude that should be hereafter made subject unto God in all nations of the earth, so the Sacrament of marriage with one of our times signifies the unity of us all made subject to God, which shall be hereafter in one Heavenly City. Therefore as to serve two or more, so to pass over from a living husband into marriage with another, was neither lawful then, nor is it lawful now, nor will it ever be lawful. Forsooth to apostatise from the One God, and to go into adulterous superstition of another, is ever an evil. Therefore not even for the sake of a more numerous family did our Saints do, what the Roman Cato is said to have done, to give up his wife, during his own life, to fill even another's house with sons. Forsooth in the marriage of one woman the sanctity of the Sacrament is of more avail than the fruitfulness of the womb.
22. If, therefore, even they who are united in marriage only for the purpose of begetting, for which purpose marriage was instituted, are not compared with the Fathers, seeking their very sons in a way far other than do these; forasmuch as Abraham, being bidden to slay his son, fearless and devoted, spared not his only son, whom from out of great despair he had received save that he laid down his hand, when He forbade him, at Whose command he had lifted it up; it remains that we consider, whether at least continent persons among us are to be compared to those Fathers who were married; unless haply now these are to be preferred to them, to whom we have not yet found persons to compare. For there was a greater good in their marriage, than is the proper good of marriage: to which without doubt the good of Continence is to be preferred: because they sought not sons from marriage by such duty as these are led by, from a certain sense of mortal nature requiring succession against decease. And, whoever denies this to be good he knows not God, the Creator of all things good, from things heavenly even unto things earthly, from things immortal even unto things mortal. But neither are beasts altogether without this sense of begetting, and chiefly birds, whose care of building nests meets us at once, and a certain likeness to marriages, in order to beget and nurture together. But those men, with mind far holier, surpassed this affection of mortal nature, the chastity whereof in its own kind, there being added thereto the worship of God, as some have understood, is set forth as bearing first thirty-fold; who sought sons of their marriage for the sake of Christ; in order to distinguish His race after the flesh from all nations: even as God was pleased to order, that this above the rest should avail to prophesy of Him, in that it was foretold of what race also, and of what nation, He should hereafter come in the flesh. Therefore it was a far greater good than the chaste marriages of believers among us, which father Abraham knew in his own thigh, under which he bade his servant to put his hand, that he might take an oath concerning the wife, whom his son was to marry. For putting his hand under the thigh of a man, and swearing by the God of Heaven, what else did he signify, than that in that Flesh, which derived its origin from that thigh, the God of Heaven would come? Therefore marriage is a good, wherein married persons are so much the better, in proportion as they fear God with greater chastity and faithfulness, specially if the sons, whom they desire after the flesh, they also bring up after the spirit.
23. Nor, in that the Law orders a man to be purified even after intercourse with a wife, does it show it to be sin: unless it be that which is allowed by way of pardon, which also, being in excess, hinders prayers. But, as the Law sets many things in sacraments and shadows of things to come; a certain as it were material formless state of the seed, which having received form will hereafter produce the body of man, is set to signify a life formless, and untaught: from which formless state, forasmuch as it behooves that man be cleansed by form and teaching of learning; as a sign of this, that purification was ordered after the emission of seed. For neither in sleep also does it take place through sin. And yet there also a purification was commanded. Or, if any think this also to be sin, thinking that it comes not to pass save from some lust of this kind, which without doubt is false; what? Are the ordinary menses also of women sins? And yet from these the same old Law commanded that they should be cleansed by expiation; for no other cause, save the material formless state itself, in that which, when conception has taken place, is added as it were to build up the body, and for this reason, when it flows without form, the Law would have signified by it a soul without form of discipline, flowing and loose in an unseemly manner. And that this ought to receive form, it signifies, when it commands such flow of the body to be purified. Lastly, what? To die, is that also a sin? Or, to bury a dead person, is it not also a good work of humanity? And yet a purification was commanded even on occasion of this also; because also a dead body, life abandoning it, is not sin, but signifies the sin of a soul abandoned by righteousness.
24. Marriage, I say, is a good, and may be, by sound reason, defended against all calumnies. But with the marriage of the holy fathers, I inquire not what marriage, but what continence, is on a level: or rather not marriage with marriage; for it is an equal gift in all cases given to the mortal nature of men; but men who use marriage, forasmuch as I find not, to compare with other men who used marriage in a far other spirit, we must require what continent persons admit of being compared with those married persons. Unless, haply, Abraham could not contain from marriage, for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, he who, for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, could fearless sacrifice his only pledge of offspring, for whose sake marriage was dear!
25. Forsooth continence is a virtue, not of the body, but of the soul. But the virtues of the soul are sometimes shown in work, sometimes lie hidden in habit, as the virtue of martyrdom shone forth and appeared by enduring sufferings; but how many are there of the same virtue of mind, unto whom trial is wanting, whereby what is within, in the sight of God, may go forth also into the sight of men, and not to men begin to exist, but only become known? For there was already in Job patience, which God knew, and to which He bore witness: but it became known unto men by test of trial: and what lay hid within was not produced, but shown, by the things that were brought on him from without. Timothy also certainly had the virtue of abstaining from wine, which Paul took not from him, by advising him to use a moderate portion of wine, for the sake of his stomach and his often infirmities, otherwise he taught him a deadly lesson, that for the sake of the health of the body there should be a loss of virtue in the soul: but because what he advised could take place with safety to that virtue, the profit of drinking was so left free to the body, as that the habit of continence continued in the soul. For it is the habit itself, whereby anything is done, when there is need; but when it is not done, it can be done, only there is no need. This habit, in the matter of that continence which is from sexual intercourse, they have not, unto whom it is said, If they contain not, let them be married. But this they have, unto whom it is said, Whoever can receive, let him receive. Thus have perfect souls used earthly goods, that are necessary for something else, through this habit of continence, so as, by it, not to be bound by them, and so as by it, to have power also not to use them, in case there were no need. Nor does any use them well, save who has power also not to use them. Many indeed with more ease practise abstinence, so as not to use, than practise temperance, so as to use well. But no one can wisely use them, save who can also continently not use them. From this habit Paul also said, I know both to abound, and to suffer want. Forsooth to suffer want is the part of any men soever; but to know to suffer want is the part of great men. So, also, to abound, who cannot? But to know also to abound, is not, save of those, whom abundance corrupts not.
26. But, in order that it may be more clearly understood, how there may be virtue in habit, although it be not in work, I speak of an example, about which no Catholic Christian can doubt. For that our Lord Jesus Christ in truth of flesh hungered and thirsted, ate and drank, no one doubts of such as out of the Gospel are believers. What, then, was there not in Him the virtue of continence from meat and drink, as great as in John Baptist? For John came neither eating nor drinking; and they said, He has a devil; the Son of Man came both eating and drinking; and they said, Lo, a glutton and wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. What, are not such things said also against them of His household, our fathers, from another kind of using of things earthy, so far as pertains to sexual intercourse; Lo, men lustful and unclean, lovers of women and lewdness? And yet as in Him that was not true, although it were true that He abstained not, even as John, from eating and drinking, for Himself says most plainly and truly, John came, not eating, nor drinking; the Son of Man came eating and drinking: so neither is this true in these Fathers; although there has come now the Apostle of Christ, not wedded, nor begetting, so that the heathen say of him, He was a magician; but there came then the Prophet of Christ, marrying and begetting sons, so that the Manichees say of him, He was a man fond of women: And wisdom, says He, has been justified of her children. What the Lord there added, after He had thus spoken of John and of Himself; But wisdom, says He, has been justified of her children. Who see that the virtue of continence ought to exist even in the habit of the soul, but to be shown forth in deed, according to opportunity of things and times; even as the virtue of patience of holy martyrs appeared in deed; but of the rest equally holy was in habit. Wherefore, even as there is not unequal desert of patience in Peter, who suffered, and in John, who suffered not; so there is not unequal desert of continence in John who made no trial of marriage, and in Abraham, who begot sons. For both the celibate of the one, and the marriage estate of the other, did service as soldiers to Christ, as times were allotted; but John had continence in work also, but Abraham in habit alone.
27. Therefore at that time, when the Law also, following upon the days of the Patriarchs, pronounced accursed, whoever raised not up seed in Israel, even he, who could, put it not forth, but yet possessed it. But from the period that the fullness of time has come, that it should be said, Whoever can receive, let him receive, from that period even unto this present, and from henceforth even unto the end, whoever has, works: whoever shall be unwilling to work, let him not falsely say, that he has. And through this means, they, who corrupt good manners by evil communications, with empty and vain craft, say to a Christian man exercising continence, and refusing marriage, What then, are you better than Abraham? But let him not, upon hearing this, be troubled; neither let him dare to say, Better, nor let him fall away from his purpose: for the one he says not truly, the other he does not rightly. But let him say, I indeed am not better than Abraham, but the chastity of the unmarried is better than the chastity of marriage; whereof Abraham had one in use, both in habit. For he lived chastely in the marriage state: but it was in his power to be chaste without marriage, but at that time it behooved not. But I with more ease use not marriage, which Abraham used, than so use marriage as Abraham used it: and therefore I am better than those, who through incontinence of mind cannot do what I do; not than those, who, on account of difference of time, did not do what I do. For what I now do, they would have done better, if it had been to be done at that time; but what they did, I should not so do, although it were now to be done. Or, if he feels and knows himself to be such, as that, (the virtue of continence being preserved and continued in the habit of his mind, in case he had descended unto the use of marriage from some duty of religion,) he should be such an husband, and such a father, as Abraham was; let him dare to make plain answer to that captious questioner, and to say, I am not indeed better than Abraham, only in this kind of continence, of which he was not void, although it appeared not: but I am such, not having other than he, but doing other. Let him say this plainly: forasmuch as, even if he shall wish to glory, he will not be a fool, for he says the truth. But if he spare, lest any think of him above what he sees him, or hears anything of him; let him remove from his own person the knot of the question, and let him answer, not concerning the man, but concerning the thing itself, and let him say, Whoever has so great power is such as Abraham. But it may happen that the virtue of continence is less in his mind, who uses not marriage, which Abraham used: but yet it is greater than in his mind, who on this account held chastity of marriage, in that he could not a greater. Thus also let the unmarried woman, whose thoughts are of the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit, when she shall have heard that shameless questioner saying, What, then, are you better than Sara? Answer, I am better, but than those, who are void of the virtue of continence, which I believe not of Sara: she therefore together with this virtue did what was suited to that time, from which I am free, that in my body also may appear, what she kept in her mind.
28. Therefore, if we compare the things themselves, we may no way doubt that the chastity of continence is better than marriage chastity, while yet both are good: but when we compare the persons, he is better, who has a greater good than another. Further, he who has a greater of the same kind, has also that which is less; but he, who only has what is less, assuredly has not that which is greater. For in sixty, thirty also are contained, not sixty also in thirty. But not to work from out that which he has, stands in the allotment of duties, not in the want of virtues: forasmuch as neither is he without the good of mercy, who finds not wretched persons such as he may mercifully assist.
29. And there is this further, that men are not rightly compared with men in regard of some one good. For it may come to pass, that one has not what another has, but has another thing, which must be esteemed of more value. The good of obedience is better than of continence. For marriage is in no place condemned by authority of our Scriptures, but disobedience is in no place acquitted. If therefore there be set before us a virgin about to continue so, but yet disobedient, and a married woman who could not continue a virgin, but yet obedient, which shall we call better? Shall it be (the one) less praiseworthy, than if she were a virgin, or (the other) worthy of blame, even as she is a virgin? So, if you compare a drunken virgin with a sober married woman, who can doubt to pass the same sentence? Forsooth marriage and virginity are two goods, whereof the one is greater; but sobriety and drunkenness, even as obedience and stubbornness, are, the one good, and the other evil. But it is better to have all goods even in a less degree, than great good with great evil: forasmuch as in the goods of the body also it is better to have the stature of Zacchæus with sound health, than that of Goliah with fever.
30. The right question plainly is, not whether a virgin every way disobedient is to be compared to an obedient married woman, but a less obedient to a more obedient: forasmuch as that also of marriage is chastity, and therefore a good, but less than virginal. Therefore if the one, by so much less in the good of obedience, as she is greater in the good of chastity, be compared with the other, which of them is to be preferred that person judges, who in the first place comparing chastity itself and obedience, sees that obedience is in a certain way the mother of all virtues. And therefore, for this reason, there may be obedience without virginity, because virginity is of counsel, not of precept. But I call that obedience, whereby precepts are complied with. And, therefore, there may be obedience to precepts without virginity, but not without chastity. For it pertains unto chastity, not to commit fornication, not to commit adultery, to be defiled by no unlawful intercourse: and whoever observe not these, do contrary to the precepts of God, and on this account are banished from the virtue of obedience. But there may be virginity without obedience, on this account, because it is possible for a woman, having received the counsel of virginity, and having guarded virginity, to slight precepts: even as we have known many sacred virgins, talkative, curious, drunken, litigious, covetous, proud: all which are contrary to precepts, and slay one, even as Eve herself, by the crime of disobedience. Wherefore not only is the obedient to be preferred to the disobedient, but a more obedient married woman to a less obedient virgin.
31. From this obedience that Father, who was not without a wife, was prepared to be without an only son, and that slain by himself. For I shall not without due cause call him an only son, concerning whom he heard the Lord say, In Isaac shall there be called for you a seed. Therefore how much sooner would he hear it, that he should be even without a wife, if this he were bidden? Wherefore it is not without reason that we often consider, that some of both sexes, containing from all sexual intercourse, are negligent in obeying precepts, after having with so great warmth caught at the not making use of things that are allowed. Whence who doubts that we do not rightly compare unto the excellence of those holy fathers and mothers begetting sons, the men and women of our time, although free from all intercourse, yet in virtue of obedience inferior: even if there had been wanting to those men in habit of mind also, what is plain in the deed of the latter. Therefore let these follow the Lamb, boys singing the new song, as it is written in the Apocalypse, who have not defiled themselves with women: for no other reason than that they have continued virgins. Nor let them on this account think themselves better than the first holy fathers, who used marriage, so to speak, after the fashion of marriage. Forsooth the use of it is such, as that, if in it there has taken place through carnal intercourse anything which exceeds necessity of begetting, although in a way that deserves pardon, there is pollution. For what does pardon expiate, if that advance cause no pollution whatever? From which pollution it were strange if boys following the Lamb were free, unless they continued virgins.
32. Therefore the good of marriage throughout all nations and all men stands in the occasion of begetting, and faith of chastity: but, so far as pertains unto the People of God, also in the sanctity of the Sacrament, by reason of which it is unlawful for one who leaves her husband, even when she has been put away, to be married to another, so long as her husband lives, no not even for the sake of bearing children: and, whereas this is the alone cause, wherefore marriage takes place, not even where that very thing, wherefore it takes place, follows not, is the marriage bond loosed, save by the death of the husband or wife. In like manner as if there take place an ordination of clergy in order to form a congregation of people, although the congregation of people follow not, yet there remains in the ordained persons the Sacrament of Ordination; and if, for any fault, any be removed from his office, he will not be without the Sacrament of the Lord once for all set upon him, albeit continuing unto condemnation. Therefore that marriage takes place for the sake of begetting children, the Apostle is a witness thus, I will, says he, that the younger women be married. And, as though it were said to him, For what purpose? Straightway he added, to have children, to be mothers of families. But unto the faith of chastity pertains that saying, The wife has not power of her own body, but the husband: likewise also the husband has not power of his own body, but the wife. But unto the sanctity of the Sacrament that saying, The wife not to depart from her husband, but, in case she shall have departed, to remain unmarried, or to be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. All these are goods, on account of which marriage is a good; offspring, faith, sacrament. But now, at this time, not to seek offspring after the flesh, and by this means to maintain a certain perpetual freedom from every such work, and to be made subject after a spiritual manner unto one Husband Christ, is assuredly better and holier; provided, that is, men so use that freedom, as it is written, so as to have their thoughts of the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord; that is, that Continence at all times do take thought, that obedience fall not short in any matter: and this virtue, as the root-virtue, and (as it is wont to be called) the womb, and clearly universal, the holy fathers of old exercised in deed; but that Continence they possessed in habit of mind. Who assuredly, through that obedience, whereby they were just and holy, and ever prepared unto every good work, even if they were bidden to abstain from all sexual intercourse, would perform it. For how much more easily could they, at the bidding or exhortation of God, not use sexual intercourse, who, as an act of obedience, could slay the child, for the begetting of which alone they used the ministry of sexual intercourse?
33. And, the case being thus, enough and more than enough answer has been made to the heretics, whether they be Manichees, or whosoever other that bring false charges against the Fathers of the Old Testament, on the subject of their having several wives, thinking this a proof whereby to convict them of incontinence: provided, that is, that they perceive, that that is no sin, which is committed neither against nature, in that they used those women not for wantonness, but for the begetting of children: nor against custom, forasmuch as such things were usually done at those times: nor against command, forasmuch as they were forbidden by no law. But such as used women unlawfully, either the divine sentence in those Scriptures convicts them, or the reading sets them forth for us to condemn and shun, not to approve or imitate.
34. But those of ours who have wives we advise, with all our power, that they dare not to judge of those holy fathers after their own weakness, comparing, as the Apostle says, themselves with themselves; and therefore, not understanding how great strength the soul has, doing service unto righteousness against lusts, that it acquiesce not in carnal motions of this sort, or suffer them to glide on or advance unto sexual intercourse beyond the necessity of begetting children, so far as the order of nature, so far as the use of custom, so far as the decrees of laws prescribe. Forsooth it is on this account that men have this suspicion concerning those fathers, in that they themselves have either chosen marriage through incontinence, or use their wives with intemperance. But however let such as are continent, either men, who, on the death of their wives, or, women, who, on the death of their husbands, or both, who, with mutual consent, have vowed continence unto God, know that to them indeed there is due a greater recompense than marriage chastity demands; but, (as regards) the marriages of the holy Fathers, who were joined after the manner of prophecy, who neither in sexual intercourse sought anything save children, nor in children themselves anything save what should set forward Christ coming hereafter in the flesh, not only let them not despise them in comparison of their own purpose, but let them without any doubting prefer them even to their own purpose.
35. Boys also and virgins dedicating unto God actual chastity we do before all things admonish, that they be aware that they must guard their life meanwhile upon earth with so great humility, by how much the more what they have vowed is heavenly. Forsooth it is written, How great soever you are, by so much humble yourself in all things. Therefore it is our part to say something of their greatness, it is their part to have thought of great humility. Therefore, except certain, those holy fathers and mothers who were married, than whom these although they be not married are not better, for this reason, that, if they were married, they would not be equal, let them not doubt that they surpass all the rest of this time, either married, or after trial made of marriage, exercising continence; not so far as Anna surpasses Susanna; but so far as Mary surpasses both. I am speaking of what pertains unto the holy chastity itself of the flesh; for who knows not, what other deserts Mary has? Therefore let them add to this so high purpose conduct suitable, that they may have an assured security of the surpassing reward; knowing of a truth, that, unto themselves and unto all the faithful, beloved and chosen members of Christ, coming many from the East, and from the West, although shining with light of glory that differs one from another, according to their deserts, there is this great gift bestowed in common, to sit down in the kingdom of God with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, who not for the sake of this world, but for the sake of Christ, were husbands, for the sake of Christ were fathers.
|
|
|
|
| Moderna Readying for Next Pandemic With Human Tests of 15 Shots |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-08-2022, 08:55 AM - Forum: Health
- No Replies
|
|
Moderna Readying for Next Pandemic With Human Tests of 15 Shots
Effort aims to quickly make vaccines to fight next outbreak
Company fending off criticism over access to Covid vaccine
Bloomberg | March 7, 2022
Moderna Inc. plans to start human trials for vaccines against 15 threatening viruses and other pathogens by 2025, part of a strategy to develop shots that could be made quickly in response to a future pandemic.
The effort will include prototype vaccines against the virus that causes Middle East respiratory syndrome, a cousin of Covid-19; the Ebola and Marburg viruses; a tick-borne virus that causes Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever; and mosquito-borne viruses such as chikungunya and dengue fever, according to a company statement Tuesday.
Moderna has come under criticism from vaccine advocates who say the company has been slow to ship doses of its Covid vaccine to poor countries and that patents it is pursuing in South Africa threaten access to shots. The company is rowing back, announcing an agreement Monday to open a vaccine plant in Kenya that will make as many as 500 million doses annually, although it didn’t specify which vaccines might be produced there.
“Since our beginning, we have focused on developing a global health vaccine program,” Chief Executive Officer Stephane Bancel said in the statement. “Today, we are renewing that focus by expanding our work to develop vaccines against priority pathogens that threaten global health.”
Read More: Moderna, WHO Set for Vaccine Clash as Patents Threaten mRNA Use
While developing a Covid vaccine was relatively straightforward, it still took Moderna six months to choose a dose and establish safety before beginning final-stage trials. Moderna has been focusing on ways to ensure the world is prepared for the next pandemic, Bancel said in an interview.
The new effort aims to complete preliminary dose and safety testing for vaccines against numerous threatening viruses preemptively. That way, if of these viruses or a close relative causes a major epidemic, Moderna will have a prototype vaccine on hand and might be able to begin large human efficacy trials very quickly, Bancel said.
Knowing the appropriate dose for a vaccine “is really important,” Bancel said in the interview. “We can save a lot of time” when a new virus emerges if vaccines have already been tested against closely-related viruses.
Wide Range
The program expands on Moderna’s ambitious efforts to develop shots for a wide range of infectious diseases that could threaten global health. The company has already begun trials for vaccines against two of the priority pathogens, HIV and Zika virus. Development of a vaccine for Nipah, a deadly bat-borne virus that causes periodic outbreaks in Asia, is in the laboratory stage.
Other deadly diseases targeted by the program include two that aren’t caused by viruses, malaria and tuberculosis. Moderna said it was also starting a new program that would allow outside researchers to explore using Moderna’s technology against emerging or neglected diseases.
The effort might cost Moderna $300 million, Bancel said. While it looks for outside partners, the company will develop vaccines on its own for all 15 diseases, even if it finds no collaborators to help with the effort, according to the CEO.
Moderna also said it would never enforce its Covid-19 vaccine patents against manufacturers in 92 poor and lower-middle income countries, according to the statement, provided the vaccines are produced solely for use in those nations.
In 2020, Moderna pledged not to enforce its Covid-19 patents during the pandemic. With the omicron wave receding in many parts of the world, that’s raised the possibility that the worst of the pandemic may be over.
|
|
|
|
| C.S. Lewis On Living In Fear - Timeless Advice |
|
Posted by: SAguide - 03-07-2022, 11:48 PM - Forum: General Commentary
- No Replies
|
 |
You may have seen this, written by CS Lewis in 1948. Very applicable to today, just substitute covid for atomic:
C.S. Lewis On Living In Fear of Nuclear War
"They may break our bodies (a microbe can do that) but they need not dominate our minds."
In one way we think a great deal too much of the atomic bomb. “How are we to live in an atomic age?” I am tempted to reply: “Why, as you would have lived in the sixteenth century when the plague visited London almost every year, or as you would have lived in a Viking age when raiders from Scandinavia might land and cut your throat any night; or indeed, as you are already living in an age of cancer, an age of syphilis, an age of paralysis, an age of air raids, an age of railway accidents, an age of motor accidents.”
In other words, do not let us begin by exaggerating the novelty of our situation. Believe me, dear sir or madam, you and all whom you love were already sentenced to death before the atomic bomb was invented: and quite a high percentage of us were going to die in unpleasant ways. We had, indeed, one very great advantage over our ancestors—anesthetics; but we have that still. It is perfectly ridiculous to go about whimpering and drawing long faces because the scientists have added one more chance of painful and premature death to a world which already bristled with such chances and in which death itself was not a chance at all, but a certainty.
This is the first point to be made: and the first action to be taken is to pull ourselves together. If we are all going to be destroyed by an atomic bomb, let that bomb when it comes find us doing sensible and human things—praying, working, teaching, reading, listening to music, bathing the children, playing tennis, chatting to our friends over a pint and a game of darts—not huddled together like frightened sheep and thinking about bombs. They may break our bodies (a microbe can do that) but they need not dominate our minds.
|
|
|
|
| TENEBRAE: A Lenten Meditation Archbishop Viganò |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-07-2022, 12:08 PM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò
- No Replies
|
|
TENEBRAE: A Lenten Meditation Archbishop Viganò
Venite, convertimini ad me, dicit Dominus.
Venite flentes, fundamus lacrymas ad Deum:
quia nos negleximus, et propter nos terra patitur:
nos iniquitatem fecimus,
et propter nos fundamenta commota sunt.
Festinemus anteire ante iram Dei,
flentes et dicentes:
Qui tollis peccata mundi, miserere nobis.
Transitorium ambrosianum in Dominica Quinquagesimæ
Come and be converted to me, says the Lord. Come weeping, let us shed tears to God: because we have transgressed, and because of us the earth suffers: we have committed iniquity and because of us its foundations have been shaken. Let us hasten to prevent God’s wrath, weeping and saying: You who take upon Yourself the sins of the world, have mercy on us.
It is difficult for a man of today to understand these words of the Ambrosian Missal. Yet they are simple in their severe clarity, for they show us that God’s wrath because of our sins and betrayals can only be appeased by contrition and penance. In the Roman Rite this concept is made even more clearly in the prayer of the Litany of Saints:
Deus, qui culpa offenderis, pænitentia placaris: preces populi tui supplicantis propitius respice; et flagella tuæ iracundiæ, quæ pro peccatis nostris meremur, averte.
O God, who is offended by guilt and appeased by penance: look kindly on the prayers of your people who implore You; and turn away from us the scourges of your wrath, which we deserve because of our sins.
Christian civilization was able to treasure this salutary notion, which keeps us away from sin not only for fear of the just punishment that it entails, but also for the offense caused to the Majesty of God, “infinitely good and worthy of being loved above all things,” as the Act of Contrition teaches us. Down the centuries humanity converted to Christ knew how to recognize in the mournful events of history – in earthquakes, famines, pestilences and wars – the punishment of God; and always the people struck by these scourges knew how to do penance and implore Divine Mercy. And when the Lord, the Blessed Virgin or the Saints intervened in human affairs with apparitions and revelations, in addition to the call to observe the Law of God they threatened great tribulations if men were not converted.
At Fatima, also, Our Lady asked for the Consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart and the reparative Communion of the First Saturdays as an instrument to appease the anger of God and to be able to enjoy a period of peace. Otherwise, Russia “will spread its errors throughout the world, promoting wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be destroyed.”
What should we expect from disregarding Our Lady’s requests and continuing to offend the Lord with more and more horrible sins? “They did not want to fulfill My request! Like the King of France, they will repent and do it, but it will be late. Russia will have already spread its errors throughout the world, provoking wars and persecutions of the Church.” These wars, which today afflict humanity to enslave it and submit it to the infernal plan of the Great Reset inspired by Chinese Communism, are once again the result of our indocility, of our obstinacy in believing that we can trample on the Law of the Lord and blaspheme His Holy Name without consequences. What wretched presumption! How much Luciferian pride!
The de-Christianized world and the secularized mentality that has infected even Catholics does not accept the idea of a God offended by the sins of men, and who punishes them with scourges so that they repent and ask for forgiveness. Yet this concept is one of the ideas that the creative hand of God has impressed on the soul of every man, inspiring that sense of justice that even pagans have. But precisely because it is present in all men of all times, our contemporaries are horrified by the idea of a God who rewards the good and punishes the bad, a God who reveals himself in His anger, who asks for tears and sacrifices from those who offend Him.
Behind this aversion to the wrath of the Lord, offended by the sins of mankind – and even more so by those whom He made His children in Baptism – is the implacable hatred of the enemy of the human race for the redeeming Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ, for the Passion of the Son of God, for the ransom that His Blood has merited for each of us, after the fall of Adam and our personal sins. A hatred that has consumed him ever since the creation of man, in a mad attempt to frustrate the work of God, to disfigure the creature made in His image and likeness, and even more to prevent the divine reparation of Christ, the new Adam, and Mary, the new Eve. On the Cross, the new Adam restores the order broken by sin as Redeemer; at the foot of the Cross, the new Eve participates in this restoration as Coredemptrix. The failure of Satan’s action is accomplished in the obedience of the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity to the Father, in the humiliation of the Son of God, just as Adam’s temptation was consummated in disobedience to the Lord’s will and in the proud presumption of being able to break His orders without consequences.
The world does not accept pain and death either as a just punishment for original sin and actual sins, nor as an instrument of ransom and redemption by Christ. And it is almost a paradox: the very one who by the temptation of our first Parents introduced death, sickness, and pain into the world does not tolerate that these very same things can also be the instrument of atonement when they are accepted with humility in order to repair fractured Justice. He does not tolerate the weapons of destruction and death to be snatched from him in order to become instruments of reconstruction and life.
Contemporary man is newly deceived by Satan, just as he was in the garden of Eden. Then, the Serpent made him believe that disobeying the order given by God not to reap the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil would not have any consequences; indeed, the Serpent told him that by such disobedience Adam would become like God. Today, the Serpent deludes man that these consequences are inescapable, and that he cannot accept death, sickness, and pain as just punishment, overturning them to his own advantage by uniting them to the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ. Because in accepting the sentence, the offender accepts the authority of the Judge, recognizes the infinite gravity of his fault, repairs the crime committed, and expiates the sanction that is deserved. By so doing, he returns to the Grace of God, nullifying the work of Satan.
For this reason, the closer the end of time approaches, the more the efforts of the Evil One are multiplied to cancel not only the Truth revealed by Christ and preached down the centuries by the Holy Church, but also to eliminate the very concept of justice that is the basis of the Redemption, the idea of the need of punishment for violation, of the reparation of guilt, of the gravity of the disobedience of the creature towards the Creator. It is obvious that the more men are led to believe that they have not committed any sin, the more they will think that do not need to repent of anything, that they have no debt of gratitude towards God who has so loved the world that He gave His Only-Begotten Son, obedient even to death, death on a Cross.
If we look around us, we see how this cancellation of Justice, of the sense of Good and Evil, of the idea that there is a God who rewards the good and punishes the wicked leads to a definitive, irreparable and irredeemable rebellion against the Lord, a premise for the eternal damnation of souls. The judge who acquits the criminal and punishes the righteous person; the ruler who promotes sin and vice and condemns or prevents honest and virtuous actions; the doctor who considers sickness as an opportunity for profit and health as a fault; the priest who is silent about the Last Things and considers as “pagan” concepts like penance, sacrifice, and fasting in atonement for sins – all of these are accomplices, perhaps unknowingly, in this latest deception of Satan. It is a deception that on the one side denies God lordship over creatures and the right to reward them and punish them according to their actions; while on the other he comes to promise goods and rewards that only God can grant: “All this I will give you, if you will fall prostrate and adore me” (Mt 4:9), he dares to say to Christ in the desert, after leading Him to the summit of the mountain.
The present events, the crimes that are daily committed by humanity, the multitude of sins that defy the Divine Majesty, the injustices of individuals and of Nations, the lies and frauds committed with impunity cannot be defeated by human means, not even if an army would take up weapons to restore justice and punish the wicked. Because human forces, without the grace of God and without being enlivened by a supernatural vision, are sterile and ineffective.
But there is a way to combat this deception, into which humanity has fallen for more than three centuries, that is, since it has had the pride and presumption to deify man and usurp the Royal Crown from Jesus Christ. And this way, infallible because it is divine, is the return to penance, sacrifice, and fasting. Not the vain penance of those who run on treadmills, not the foolish sacrifice of those who make themselves sterile in order not to overpopulate the planet, not the empty fasting of those who deprive themselves of meat in the name of green ideology. These are once again diabolical deceptions, with which we silence our consciences.
True penance, which Holy Lent ought to encourage us to carry out in a fruitful way, is that by which each of us offers privations and sufferings in atonement for our own sins and those committed by our neighbor, by Nations, and by the men of the Church. True sacrifice is that with which we unite ourselves with gratitude to the Sacrifice of Our Lord, giving a spiritual sense and a supernatural end to the pain that we nevertheless deserve. True fasting is that with which we deprive ourselves of food, not to lose weight, but in order to restore the primacy of the will over the passions, of the soul over the body.
The penances, sacrifices, and fasts that we will undertake during this Holy Lent will have a value of reparation and expiation that will merit for us, for our dear ones, for our neighbor, for our Homeland, for the Church, for the entire world, and for the souls in Purgatory those Graces that alone can stop the wrath of God the Father, because in uniting ourselves to the Sacrifice of His Son we will transform what Satan caused for all of us into a supernatural treasure, leading us into sin by disobeying the Lord. This treasure will restore broken order and violated justice; it will repair the faults that we have committed in Adam and also personally. To the infernal chaos there must be opposed the divine kosmos; to the prince of this world, the King of kings; to pride, humility; to rebellion, obedience. “To this in fact you have been called, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you may follow in his footsteps. [...] He bore our sins in his own body on the wood of the Cross, so that, no longer living for sin, we might live for justice; by his wounds you have been healed” (1 Pt 2:21-25).
I conclude this meditation by quoting the Epistle of the Mass of Ash Wednesday: this is taken from the book of the prophet Joel, and it reminds us of the role of the priests as mediators and intercessors in admonishing the people of God and calling them to conversion. It is a role that many clergy have forgotten, and that they even refuse, believing that it is the heritage of a Church that is out of date, a Church that does not keep up with the times, a Church that still believes that the Lord must be “appeased” with penance and fasting.
Quote:“Blow the trumpet in Zion, proclaim a fast, call a solemn assembly. Between the vestibule and the altar, let the priests, the ministers of the Lord, weep and say: Pardon, Lord, pardon your people, and do not abandon your inheritance to disgrace, do not make it the slave of the nations; that they may not say among the peoples: Where is their God? The Lord has shown zeal for his land and has pardoned his people. The Lord answered and said to his people: Behold, I will send you grain, wine, and oil, and you will have them in abundance, and no longer will I make you the disgrace of the nations: says the Lord Almighty (Jl 2:15-19).
As long as we have time, dear brothers and sisters, let us ask God for mercy; let us implore His pardon and make amends for sins that have been committed. Because a day will arrive when the time of Mercy will be completed, and the day of Justice will begin. Dies illa, dies iræ: calamitatis et miseriæ; dies magna et amara valde. That day will be a day of wrath : a day of catastrophe and misery ; a great and truly bitter day. On that day the Lord will come to judge the world with fire: judicare sæculum per ignem.
May it please God that the admonitions of Our Lady and the mystic Saints lead us, in this hour of darkness, to truly convert, to recognize our sins, to see them absolved in the Sacrament of Confession, and to atone for them with fasts and penances. So that the arm of God’s Justice may be stopped by the few, when it ought to fall upon the many. And so may it be.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
2 March 2022
Feria IV Cinerum, in capite jejunii
|
|
|
|
| Ratcheting up the fight against 'misinformation' |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-07-2022, 08:22 AM - Forum: Socialism & Communism
- No Replies
|
|
‘Truly Frightening:’ Feds Give Tech Companies Until May 2 to ‘Turn Over COVID-19 Misinformation’
Two U.S. Senators this week introduced a bill that could criminalize First Amendment rights, while the U.S. Surgeon General formally demanded tech companies
turn over data on organizations and individuals who post “COVID-19 misinformation” on social media platforms.
By Meryl Nass, M.D. | March 4, 2022
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defen...formation/
Two news stories this week reveal how the federal government plans to treat COVID “misinformation” as a crime, and what role tech companies will play in rounding up the “criminal.”
This is truly frightening.
Two U.S. Senators this week introduced a bill to provide tech companies cover via legislation that could make it possible for Congress to “legalize” censorship and criminalize First Amendment rights to freedom of speech.
Here’s a press release describing the bill:
Quote:“U.S. Senators Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), both members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, on Wednesday introduced legislation to counter the threat that misinformation and disinformation pose to public health as evidenced by the widespread false narratives throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.
“The Promoting Public Health Information Act would support efforts across the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and with outside stakeholders to communicate effectively during a public health emergency and address health misinformation.”
Here is what Murphy had to say about the bill:
Quote:“Throughout this pandemic, the impact of misinformation has been devastating. Rumors and conspiracy theories about the efficacy of masking or the safety of vaccines still run rampant on social media and have caused thousands of deaths that could have been prevented.
“This legislation will help us get smart about how to tackle misinformation and effectively promote science-based health information, especially as we continue fighting COVID-19 and prepare for future public health emergencies.”
In other words, the feds are asking detailed information about the demographics “exposed to misinformation,” allowing them to determine who’s reading what, and to obtain their names.
Next, in the last paragraph of this New York Times article, “The surgeon general calls on Big Tech to turn over Covid-19 misinformation data,” we learn that the federal government wants citizens to start “sharing” information on “misinformation:”
“‘We’re asking anyone with relevant insights — from original research and data sets to personal stories that speak to the role of misinformation in public health — to share them with us,’ Dr. [Vivek] Murthy said.”
Isn’t that sweet?
This is how they dress up the Stasi in 21st-century euphemism to encourage ratting out your friends and neighbors: “Please share with the feds. They care what you think.”
Sure they do.
According to the Times:
Quote:“President Biden’s surgeon general on Thursday formally requested major tech platforms submit information about the scale of COVID-19 misinformation on social networks, search engines, crowdsourced platforms, e-commerce platforms and instant messaging systems.
“The request for information from the surgeon general’s office demanded tech platforms send data and analysis on the prevalence of COVID-19 misinformation on their sites, starting with common examples of vaccine misinformation documented by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“The notice asks the companies to submit ‘exactly how many users saw or may have been exposed to instances of COVID-19 misinformation,’ as well as aggregate data on demographics that may have been disproportionately exposed to, or affected by, the misinformation.
“The surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, also demanded information from the platforms about the major sources of Covid-19 misinformation, including those that engaged in the sale of unproven Covid-19 products, services and treatments.
“‘Technology companies now have the opportunity to be open and transparent with the American people about the misinformation on their platforms,’” Murthy said in an emailed statement. He added: “‘This is about protecting the nation’s health.’”
“Companies have until May 2 to submit the data. Denying requests for information does not carry a penalty, but the notice is the first formal request from the Biden administration of the tech companies to submit COVID-19 misinformation data, according to the surgeon general’s office.
“Six months ago, Murthy used his first formal advisory to the U.S. to deliver a broadside against tech and social media companies, which he accused of not doing enough to stop the spread of dangerous health misinformation — especially about COVID-19. He called the misinformation “an urgent threat to public health.”
“The request for information is part of President Biden’s National COVID-19 Preparedness Plan, which the White House detailed on Wednesday and which is a road map for a new stage of the pandemic where COVID-19 causes ‘minimal disruption,’ according to the White House.
“Biden first revealed details of the plan during his State of the Union address Tuesday night.
“In addition to demanding misinformation data from the tech platforms, the surgeon general called on healthcare providers and the public to submit information about how COVID-19 misinformation has negatively influenced patients and communities.
“‘We’re asking anyone with relevant insights — from original research and data sets to personal stories that speak to the role of misinformation in public health — to share them with us,’” Murthy said.”
|
|
|
|
| Big Tech, world leaders are quietly preparing digital IDs |
|
Posted by: Stone - 03-05-2022, 09:57 AM - Forum: Socialism & Communism
- No Replies
|
|
Big Tech, world leaders are quietly preparing digital IDs to monitor, crush freedom fighters around the globe
Global digital IDs, built on the framework of COVID jab passports and combined with social conformity metrics already in place for U.S. corporations, could make permanent the liberty-crushing controls imposed during the pandemic.
Wed Mar 2, 2022
(LifeSiteNews [adapted]) — In 2021, widespread implementation of COVID jab passport schemes in cities, states, and countries around the world not only pressured people into getting experimental drugs, they also also inured them to the experience of scanning their personal medical data to enter public spaces.
Under the auspices of “public health,” free people became accustomed to a “check-point” society in which liberty is purchased by conformity with the arbitrary mandates of the elites.
Now, even as many COVID jab passport schemes are being dropped amid widespread COVID fatigue, the World Economic Forum (WEF), international banks, and global technology companies are rapidly moving to develop global digital IDs building on the framework of COVID jab passports.
Such technology could make permanent the liberty-crushing controls imposed during the pandemic.
Vaccine passports have paved the way for global digital IDs
As early as April 2020, key players in the universal COVID vaccination narrative, including NIAID head Dr. Anthony Fauci and billionaire software developer Bill Gates, began to float digital identification as a means of exiting the COVID “crisis.”
After the roll-out of the experimental COVID-19 jabs in late 2020, leaders around the world moved to enact discriminatory COVID passport schemes which used digital credentials to segregate societies.
Fast forward to last month: German telecommunications company T-Systems (whose mobile subsidiaries go by the name T-Mobile), announced it had partnered with the WEF to create “electronic vaccination certificates” with QR codes that can “be checked across national borders.”
At the same time, the president and CEO of the Canadian Bankers Association announced that “Canada’s banks are perfectly situated to help lead the creation of a federated digital ID system between government and the private sector.”
The developments have led commentators and experts to warn that technology used to develop COVID vaccine passport platforms won’t vanish as the COVID hysteria dwindles.
Instead, the vaccine verification technology can easily be adapted to track and score compliance with a vast range of government mandates and priorities above and beyond vaccination status, penalizing the noncompliant by easily freezing bank accounts, banning travel, and blocking access to public venues at the click of a button.
“While it may begin with only carrying digital information regarding whether an individual is vaccinated, the rest of the functionality of the Chinese Social Credit System can be integrated into the ‘Vaccine Passport’ system in a matter of minutes or hours,” explained China expert Reggie Littlejohn, co-founder of StopVaxPassports.org.
In a March 2 radio broadcast, conservative commentator Glenn Beck pointed out that “a digital ID system that would collect personal data about your online behavior, purchase history, network usage, medical history, travel history, energy uses, health stats” and more, using the information “to determine who should open bank accounts, conduct financial transactions, access insurance & treatment, book trips,” and even “cross borders.”
The warnings are not far-fetched.
Advocates have not hesitated to affirm the link between COVID jab passports and global digital IDs.
In a comprehensive Twitter thread outlining the shift toward centralized digital IDs, “Sikh for Truth,” a writer and editor for TruthTalk.uk, pointed out that the digital ID advocacy group ID2020, founded in 2016 in part by Gavi, the Rockefeller Foundation, and Microsoft, had connected the dots between widespread vaccination and digital ID platforms long before the COVID-19 pandemic.
In 2018, the nongovernmental organization suggested that “Vaccination offers a great opportunity to give children a sustainable, portable and secure digital identity early in life.”
Now, over 125 companies, including ID2020, MasterCard, Airlines for America, and IBM, have joined the Good Health Pass Collaborative to create a global COVID passport.
Armand Arton, founder of the Global Citizen Forum, noted that just as people rolled up their sleeves for experimental new injections, they may also be “more susceptible” to digital IDs in the wake of COVID-19.
Likewise Andrew Bud, founder and CEO of Iproov, a London-based company that sells facial recognition technology and developed the British COVID app, told Forbes last month, “The evolution of vaccine certificates will actually drive the whole field of Digital ID in the future.”
Last year, Bud told Business Leader that “once adopted for COVID,” digital credentialing systems “will be rapidly used for everything else.”
There are signs digital IDs are fast becoming the norm.
The European Union has already begun implementation of a digital ID wallet to store biometric data like facial recognition and fingerprints, while acting as the gateway to a wide range of services like opening a bank account, applying to a university, renting a car, and checking into a hotel.
Digital IDs could be the first step toward a global social credit system
Many people are already familiar with the Social Credit System utilized by the Chinese Communist Party, which uses digital ID technology to rank citizens’ “trustworthiness” according to the government using a range of factors including purchasing habits and social media interaction.
The system, still in its infant stages, is designed to reward behavior approved of by the communist superstate and punish dissidents by withholding or awarding freedoms.
But China’s not alone in collecting personal data in digital identification systems.
India has also had an extensive electronic ID system since 2009. Utilized by over a million people throughout the country, the digital ID platform logs demographic and biometric data and is linked to a payment system operated by Mastercard.
In Nigeria, a digital ID program which became mandatory to “open a bank account, apply for a driving licence, to vote and submit tax returns,” gave rise to serious privacy concerns, according to a report by Reuters last summer.
Meanwhile, the concept of comprehensive top-down digital ID with broad surveillance capabilities and an incentive structure to apply social controls had also been explored in an episode of the science fiction show Black Mirror.
The episode, entitled “Nosedive,” depicted a westernized version of China’s social credit system, in which failure to conform to arbitrary standards could swiftly cut individuals off from freedoms, privileges, social interactions, and even basic necessities.
But the idea isn’t isolated to foreign nations or science fiction TV shows.
ESG scores: From corporate ranking score to personal rating
A system of unified numerical scores for gauging political, environmental, and social conformity is actually already in place in the United States.
Known as Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) scores, the ranking system has become firmly entrenched among American corporations, tracking a company’s carbon footprint, political alignment, the racial and sexual “diversity” of its staff, and more.
In February, The Impact Investor noted that “stakeholders pay attention to the effect a company has on the environment,” while “third parties and even the government” are “also keeping track.”
World financial leaders have already called for “globally consistent” standards for recording and reporting ESG scores.
And ESGs aren’t limited to corporations.
According to The Impact Investor, personal ESG scores are already in the works, and are set to take in a full range of personal data points up to and including personal beliefs.
“Buying a gun, alcohol, or even clothing will all affect your overall ESG score,” the blog noted, adding, “Not only will your purchases matter, but who you purchase from and how they do business.”
“Your political affiliations also factor into your personal ESG score,” the resource continued. “The type of car you drive, how often, and even how many people are in the car when you drive will also come into play when deciding your score.”
Meanwhile, “unlike credit scores with a clear method of tabulation, cause, and effect, ESG scores depend on a wide variety of factors that most people have yet to consider,” the blog post noted, adding that “Depending on where you live, even calculating a personal ESG score can mean giving up your rights to basic privacy.”
A combination of vaccine passport tech and ideological ranking could spell the end of freedom in the West
It’s not difficult to see how a powerful centralized digital platform combined with a comprehensive rating system like a personal ESG score could create a modern slave class bound to obey the dictates of government and corporate elites.
A global digital ID could make permanent the kind of “two-tier” society previewed during the COVID-19 pandemic, introducing free western countries into a new caste system whereby those who conform to the values and mandates of those in power belong to a separate and privileged class, while those who do not are shunned and blacklisted.
The Canadian government’s militaristic crackdown on the Ottawa Freedom Convoy last month, whereby the bank accounts of protestors and supporters were frozen without due process, gives a disturbing glimpse into the ability of governments to easily destroy the lives of dissenters without the costly necessity of arrest or imprisonment.
Furthermore, in an increasingly cashless society, with all important data, information, controls, and permissions stored on smartphones, a centralized digital ID could afford totalitarian governments the ability to reorder society according to their whims, able to shut down opponents and seize the assets with the click of a button.
The fight isn’t over: don’t lose sight of what matters
As leaders around the world respond to increasing pressure from brave citizen groups by dropping coercive COVID mandates and restrictions, it’s important to keep our eyes on the shell game.
Don’t let Democrat leaders, U.N. elites, and WEF lackeys drop local vaccine passports only to replace them with global digital IDs, effectuating a more permanent and widespread obliteration of personal autonomy, national borders, and essential freedom.
Don’t trade your freedom for convenience. As trucker convoys and other massive protests around the world have rallied the world for liberty, turning public opinion toward the defense of God-given rights and freedoms, let’s make sure we don’t win the small battle against COVID mandates but lose the larger war against an emerging surveillance state.
Personal autonomy, along with the freedom to believe, to worship, to speak, and to disagree, are essential. We must fight to defend them.
|
|
|
|
|
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.fineartamerica.c...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.fineartamerica.com%2Fimages-medium-large-5%2Fmarriage-nicolas-poussin.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
![[Image: 0b8af734c0a047336a1769996c53422b_L.jpg]](https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/media/k2/items/cache/0b8af734c0a047336a1769996c53422b_L.jpg)
![[Image: 03hxa6mxjdxf8mrdesu8fme5icuwn4ptl8ycj6x....ormat=webp]](https://assistant.gloria.tv/FxK6pqhk7ZiS1AZwTDoBU6KMY/03hxa6mxjdxf8mrdesu8fme5icuwn4ptl8ycj6x.webp?format=webp)
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpaintingvalley.com%2Fim...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fpaintingvalley.com%2Fimages%2Fjesus-tempted-in-the-desert-painting-28.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
