Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
Online Users |
There are currently 499 online users. » 0 Member(s) | 497 Guest(s) Bing, Google
|
Latest Threads |
Retreat Conference: Histo...
Forum: Conferences
Last Post: Deus Vult
1 hour ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 2
|
Retreat Conference: The P...
Forum: Conferences
Last Post: Deus Vult
1 hour ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 2
|
We Are Warned - Prophecie...
Forum: Catholic Prophecy
Last Post: Stone
2 hours ago
» Replies: 21
» Views: 31,096
|
The Flame They No Longer ...
Forum: Resources Online
Last Post: Stone
2 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 6
|
Feast of the Visitation o...
Forum: Our Lady
Last Post: Stone
2 hours ago
» Replies: 6
» Views: 15,617
|
Dom Prosper Guéranger: Th...
Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:50 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 6,938
|
The Feast of the Most Pre...
Forum: Pentecost
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:49 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 85
|
Prayers to the Precious B...
Forum: In Honor of Our Lord
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:32 AM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 14,303
|
The Catholic Trumpet: Wit...
Forum: The Catholic Trumpet
Last Post: Stone
06-30-2025, 09:03 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 123
|
Apologia pro Marcel Lefeb...
Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Last Post: Stone
06-30-2025, 08:51 AM
» Replies: 21
» Views: 5,575
|
|
|
Archbishop Lefebvre: Preparing the Council 1959-1962 |
Posted by: Stone - 04-06-2021, 10:23 AM - Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
- No Replies
|
 |
Archbishop Lefebvre: Preparing the Council 1959-1962
Written by Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais and originally published in the French magazine, Fideliter.
The English translation was taken from the May 2002 issue of The Angelus.
On June 5, 1960, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, then Archbishop of Dakar and President of the Episcopal Commission for French-speaking West Africa, was appointed by Pope John XXIII to the Central Preparatory Commission for the Council. His Excellency took part in all the sessions of that commission until June 1962, during which time he was able to assess the seriousness of such preparation. However, he became quickly aware of the formidable struggle of influence between the "Romans" (e.g., those wanting to preserve Tradition) and the Liberals. That struggle intensified and finally broke out in the open at the very beginning of the Council.
Archbishop Lefebvre was not yet aware of the intrigues and behind-the-scene dealings that would rig the Council when he received a letter from Cardinal Tardini dated June 18, 1959. That letter was an inquiry asking bishops around the world questions and suggestions regarding the various topics which should be addressed during the coming Council. On May 17, 1959, Pope John XXIII had announced the establishment of such preparatory commission.
Some episcopal responses deserve to be known. For example, Bishop Carli, from a small diocese in Italy, wished to have the Council pronounce a firm condemnation of the theory on evolution, as well as of the moral relativism already rampant. That bishop’s concerns were added to those of a Brazilian prelate, Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, who asked that the coming council "denounce with the strongest words the conspiracy against the City of God." Bishop de Castro Mayer thought and wished that the formation of clerics should result with priests more aware and more combative against what he called "the Anti-Christian Conspiracy."
Cardinal Tardini’s Survey
One of Bishop de Castro Mayer’s compatriots and confreres, Bishop Geraldo de Proenca Sigaud, was no less determined and pugnacious in denouncing "the implacable enemy of both the Church and Catholic society...", i.e. the Revolution, insisting on an "active counter-revolutionary stance," especially against Communism.
The Archbishop of Dakar (Senegal), who was about to form a holy alliance with these prelates was at first preoccupied by the ever-increasing dominance of bishops’ conferences, which he saw as an obstacle to the true authority of diocesan prelates. In his response to Cardinal Tardini, His Excellency did ask for some clarifications pertaining to the laity’s apostolate. He also expressed his concern for sound doctrine by proposing remedies to the deviations that had begun to spread in the seminaries, in particular that doctrine be taught following the Summa of Saint Thomas and with the help of a manual on the Church’s social doctrine. Two aspects of Church doctrine were of particular concern to the Archbishop:
1. The dogma "outside the Church, no salvation," which he insisted needed to be reinforced especially against errors undermining the missionary role of the Church.
2. He also asked for a clear affirmation of the Marian truth that the most holy Virgin Mary, Mother of God is Mediatrix of all graces. Such affirmation, said Archbishop Lefebvre, would undoubtedly confirm the spiritual motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
These proposals by the Archbishop and the three other bishops mentioned earlier were very touchy and more conspicuous by their demand on doctrinal affirmation than all other suggestions and proposals made by the rest of the world’s Catholic bishops.
First Skirmishes
The question regarding the selection of the Council’s periti (experts) was addressed at the very first plenary session of the Central Commission. Archbishop Lefebvre had received in advance, like his colleagues, the list of the experts chosen by the pope, and was the only one to voice his opposition to such contradiction between theory and practice.
Said the Archbishop:
Quote:As for the quality of the theologians and experts in Canon Law, they must have a true love for the Church and they must adhere completely first in their hearts, with their lips and by their actions to the doctrines of the Roman pontiffs and the documents written by them. This is of paramount importance, since we have been surprised to find the names of theologians whose doctrine is at variance with the necessary qualities demanded in advisors.
At least three of these experts had been censured by the Church hierarchy. "When I mentioned these names," he continued,
Quote:Cardinal Ottaviani did not react. However, after that meeting, during a coffee break, I was approached by His Eminence, who took me by the arm and said: "I understand your concern, but what can we do? The Holy Father, himself, wants things to be this way. He desires to have experts who have made a name for themselves."
By November, 1961, open sessions began for examining and discussing the schemas prepared by the various commissions. The Archbishop agreed, generally speaking, with most of the sessions by giving his placet. The Council was about to proclaim the truth against contemporary errors, in order to eradicate them for good. So thought Archbishop Lefebvre, who later said:
Quote:That would have heralded a new era for the Church, and struck a decisive blow against Protestantism. Had we followed that route, the Council would have become a lighthouse for the world. If only they would have used the pre-Conciliar schemas, which contained a solemn profession of sound doctrine concerning modern problems.
Two Kinds of Documents
On January 20, 1962, after Cardinal Ottaviani had introduced his schema explaining that "the deposit of the Faith must be safeguarded in all its purity," Archbishop Lefebvre, believing that the Church could not keep the deposit of the Faith without combating errors, said: "The Council must tackle the current errors. How are we supposed to defend the Faith if we don’t have principles?"
Then on January 23, His Excellency made another statement suggesting that the Council commission should prepare two sets of documents, the first set to be composed of canons condemning the errors of the day, and the second set of documents comprising a work that would constitute "a synthesis of the whole Catholic Faith, while dispelling in passing the principal errors of the times such as Teilhardism, naturalism, materialism, etc., but presented in a positive fashion."
Archbishop Lefebvre with 2 priests participating in the Council
As the sessions and debates proceeded, it became apparent that there was a split among the Cardinals. When a schema was introduced by the chairman of the sub-commission which had drafted it, a debate ensued led by the cardinals, especially Lienart, Frings, Alfrink, Dopfner, Konig and Leger opposing Ruffini, Siri, Larraona and Brown.
"It was very clear to all the members present," Archbishop Lefebvre explained, "that there was a division within the Church, a division that was not accidental or superficial, but deep; a division that was more pronounced between the cardinals than between archbishops or bishops."
Dramatic Confrontation
On June 19, 1962, on the eve of the last day of preparatory sessions, two schemas opposing each other were presented for discussion. The first document, Chapter 9 of the schema on the Church, prepared by the sub-commission on theology, dealt with "Relations between the Church and State, and religious tolerance." It comprised 9 pages of text along with 14 pages of footnotes referring to pontifical Magisterium going from Pius IX to Pius XII. On the other hand, the second text prepared by the Secretariat for Christian Unity, chaired by Cardinal Bea, was entitled "On Religious Liberty." It comprised 15 pages of text and 5 pages of footnotes, with no references at all to the Church’s perennial Magisterium. Having received the documents ahead of time, the Archbishop wondered:
Quote:The first is Catholic Tradition, but as for the second, how should we label it? Liberalism, another French Revolution, a Declaration of the Rights of Man - this is what they are trying to impose on the Church. Just incredible! Let us wait and see what is going to happen at the session.
And so it came to pass. Cardinal Ottaviani began his presentation by attacking the opposite schema. Said His Eminence:
Quote:In setting forth the doctrine of the relations between a Catholic state and other religions, I believe that the Council must follow the Church’s own doctrine, and not the doctrine that would please non-Catholics or accede to their demands. That is why I believe that it is necessary to eliminate discussion of the constitution proposed by the Secretariat for Christian Unity because it betrays the influence of contacts with non-Catholics.
After illustrating this influence by several examples, he presented his schema, dominated by concern for the preservation and defense of the Catholic Faith, and for safeguarding the temporal common good based on the unity of all the citizens in the true religion.
Then Cardinal Bea stood up to present his own concept of religious liberty, valid for every circumstance and for every man, even "in error about the Faith." Until this moment, the Church had only maintained the right of her own sons; now was she going to demand the same for those who follow cults? Indeed, this was the case, as Cardinal Bea soon explained, underscoring the ecumenical significance of the subject:
Quote:Today this question is of very great interest to non-Catholics, who have repeatedly reproached the Church for being intolerant in those places where her members are in the majority, and of clamoring for religious liberty in those places where they are but a minority. Each and every case where intolerance has been found has been carefully noted and brought up. This objection harms to the utmost all the efforts expended to bring non-Catholics to the Church. While developing this schema in fulfillment of its duty, the Secretariat had this circumstance before its eyes, and wondered what was the Church’s duty concerning religious liberty and how it should be exercised.
In order to justify his assertions in opposition to the prior universal practice of the Catholic world, Cardinal Bea went so far as to advance the proposition that "in current conditions, no nation can properly be said to be Catholic, and none can be considered as alone and separate from the others," which would suggest a common international regime of religious liberty. "Besides," he added, "the state as such does not know the existence and realm of the supernatural order." In fine, the reigning pontiff wanted an aggiornamento, "that is, adaptation to the current conditions of life and not the re-establishment of what had been possible, and even necessary, under other sociological structures."
Tolerance or Religious Liberty
Cardinal Bea concluded: "Our two reports disagree on the fundamental questions set forth in numbers 3 and 8. It belongs to this illustrious assembly to judge." Irritated by the historical relativism which his opponent had just applied to Church law pertaining to public worship, Cardinal Ottaviani thought it good to reply by underscoring the opposition: "Now everyone can see that we do not agree about certain things; indeed, that we disagree on matters of doctrine."
"They were like that, the two of them standing," Archbishop Lefebvre would relate. "The rest of us, seated, watched two eminent cardinals clash over such a fundamental thesis."
The voting ensued, and Archbishop Lefebvre said:
Quote:On religious liberty, non placet… because it is based on false principles solemnly condemned by the sovereign pontiffs, for example, by Pius IX, who called this error "a delirium." On the Church, chapters IX-X, placet. But the presentation of the basic principles could be done more in relation to Christ-King as in the encyclical Quas Primas. The goal of this Council is to preach Christ to all men and to reaffirm that the Catholic Church alone can authentically preach Christ, Christ the salvation and life of individuals, families, professional societies, and other civil organizations.
The Reign of Christ the King
He explained:
Quote:The schema on religious liberty does not preach Christ, therefore it is false. The schema presented by the commission on theology does introduce a sound and authentic doctrine, but reads more like a treatise, and it does not stress enough the only reason behind all such doctrine, which is no less than the social kingship of Christ the King. From the focus of Christ, source of salvation and of life, all the fundamental truths could be set forth in a "pastoral" fashion, as they say, and at the same time the errors of secularism, naturalism, materialism, etc., would be expelled.
That intervention, so unique by its supernatural elevation, which brought the debate back to the highest principle, could not help but make a striking impression on the minds of the commission fathers. For a man filled with the spirit of wisdom had stood up asserting not the rights of man, but the rights of Christ the King.
The Latin Fathers (Italians, Spanish, Latin-American) were supportive of the Ottaviani schema, whereas the Fathers from America, England, Germany, Holland and France sided with Cardinal Bea.
And so the Council, whose goal was to give the Church a new impetus and to manifest her unity, was irreparably divided only a few weeks before the grand opening of that Council. Archbishop Lefebvre explained:
Quote:That division was on one fundamental theme: the social kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ. Should our Lord reign over all nations ? Cardinal Ottaviani said definitely yes, whereas Cardinal Bea was saying, No! I wondered, "If things are this way now, what will come out of this Council?"
|
|
|
An Interview with Fr. Arturo Vargas |
Posted by: Stone - 04-06-2021, 09:37 AM - Forum: True vs. False Resistance
- No Replies
|
 |
Taken from The Recusant - Issue 53 [Autumn 2020]
By way of introducing a Resistance priest whom not many will already know, we are very pleased to present this brief interview which is, we hope, the first of several articles...
An Interview with Fr. Arturo Vargas
The Recusant-Father, please tell us a little bit about yourself, to introduce you to English-speaking readers who may not have heard of you.
Fr. Vargas-I appreciate the opportunity given to me by The Recusant to comment on some of the things asked of me here, everything for the glory of God and honour of Our Most Blessed Mother: may they guide my understanding to be as objective as possible.I am Father Arturo Vargas Meza. I entered the seminary of La Reja, Argentina in the year 1981 at the age of 23. I began my studies with the year of spirituality, then philosophy, then Scholastic Theology, and finally I was chosen to the priestly dignity of which I am most unworthy. On November 30, 1986, the feast of Saint Andrew the Apostle, His Excellency Most Reverend Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre ordained me a priest. Since then I have been 34 years a priest to date. From 1986 to 2012 I belonged to the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X and I left it for doctrinal and faith reasons. Later I will explain these reasons why I left the congregation: I can only assure you that it was very hard for me and it still pains me to have left it, but I would never return to it as long as it keeps contact with Modernist Rome.
The Recusant-How did you come to Tradition? Were you born into it?
Fr. Vargas-I lived for 15 years in the countryside where at that time the reforms in the Church after the Council still had not come in as fully as we see them today. Then I moved for study reasons to the city of Guadalajara and at the age of 18 I left the Modernist mass definitively, for reasons which you will already know (the new doctrine, the new masses etc.). Up to that moment I did not know the Mass of All Time, the Traditional Mass, nor had I attended one, but I had not renounced my Catholic principles handed down to me by my maternal grandfather who had fought in the Cristeros War back in 1926 -he was born in 1905 and was most certainly one of those soldiers of Christ the King.My desire was to be a doctor. I never thought about the priesthood and was about to reach my goal of a career in medicine, but I did not finish it because of the following:
Shortly before embarking on a career in medicine, I felt a very strong call to a religious vocation, but I did not like the idea of entering the diocesan seminary nor any other that smelled of modernism. For that reason I considered the vocation a utopia. Utopia became a reality when I resigned from medical school due to the subject of embryology where I saw the greatness of God in creating us and I passed this subject only with the classes that were given to us without studying for the exam. Again, but with more conviction, the call to the priesthood came to me, but my condition that I would not enter anything with modernism remained stronger than ever as long as I dedicated myself to the only thing that I knew how to pray well, the ROSARY. All this happened in the middle of the year 1980 when I was still 22 years old, not long before I turned 23. For the month of December I heard in the press that the “Rebel Bishop,” as the modernists nicknamed him, was coming to Mexico. December passed and my uncertainty about meeting him grew, but I did not know if he would come to Guadalajara or only to Mexico City and if he did go to Guadalajara I had no idea where the Holy Mass would be celebrated.
Uncertainty invaded my heart already given to God.In mid-January or early February, I can’t remember exactly, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre celebrated Holy Mass in Guadalajara, which, by the grace of God, I attended in the company of a friend who invited me. I was very struck by the person of the Archbishop who was wearing the episcopal vestments: never in my life had I seen an Archbishop dressed like him. The atmosphere that was breathed in the room also drew my attention powerfully and I felt fully identified with everything that took place there although I did not understand anything about the Latin Mass. In the midst of this environment and mediating the grace of God, I made the biggest decision of my life: to enter the congregation founded by this great Archbishop. I entered the seminary that same year, 1981.
The Recusant-Can you please tell us a bit more about what you remember of Archbishop Lefebvre?
Fr. Vargas-How could I go about describing him? I saw in him a man of God, one who loved the TRUTH, faithful and devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and uncompromising when it came to Vatican II. He was, in summary, a faithful defender of the Catholic Church. Listening to him was a true honour, the hours passed quickly when he told us about his comings and goings to Rome, the times they humiliated him and so on. Personally, I had a very special affection for him, which started from the example he gave us seeing him pray in the chapel, in the cloisters of the seminary with his breviary in hand and he was a true father when we spoke personally with him.
We felt very secure in everything because he gave us all the security that is required to be a good seminarian and then, following his example, we also wanted to be good priests because we had a well-finished example that divine providence had entrusted to us. I remember when, shortly before the episcopal consecrations, he unfortunately fell into the deceptions of the Vatican II people by signing something with them -the next day he retracted everything he had signed and raised his battle flag again.
He recognised his error with, I would say, the humility of a saint, and that has comforted me a lot and moved me to imitate him a little in his courageous stand.While he was still living, my priesthood felt secure in the Society, the Archbishop and I had a very good personal affinity. I still remember the last talk we had together, who would have thought that it would be the last of many? At that time he asked me to go to Rome and visit the Vatican in order to soak up the spirit of those glory years of Pius XII, Pius XI, Saint Pius X, among other Popes. I saw his death as a great tragedy, I had never cried for a relative of mine, but with him it was different because we had lost a father, for me a Saint, and I sensed that, with his death, persecutions would come for those priests who were committed with him in his fight against modernism, and also my oath against modernism which I had taken as was commanded by Pope St. Pius X.
The Recusant-If you were talking to someone who is a recent convert to Tradition, or too young to remember, how would you describe the SSPX of those earlier times?
Fr. Vargas-If I were talking to such people, I would tell them that the Society was a safe haven where scholasticism was taught as before, that it breathed an atmosphere very much in accordance with the times of the great Popes before the Second Vatican Council, especially His Holiness Pius XII and the Popes before him. Archbishop Lefebvre was what guaranteed all those things, everything I told you, but I would not necessarily say the same after his death because I got to see how the traitorous satraps delivered the work of the Archbishop into the hands of the these cursed wolves all the way down to the present.
The Recusant-What is your view of the Second Vatican Council? How do you see the situation in the Church in general, and the situation in the world?
Fr. Vargas-I studied very closely the Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis of his Holiness Saint Pius X in which he says about those who occupy the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ today:
Quote:“Finally, there is the fact which is all but fatal to the hope of cure that their very doctrines have given such a bent to their minds, that they disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and relying upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of truth that which is in reality the result of pride and obstinacy.”
I think that His Holiness Saint Pius X defines very well what is going on today in modernism and there is no turning back with these people, because they are convinced, they are Free-masons, they collude with the devil and those whom he controls. Humanly I do not see a solution to so many calamities that have arisen within the Church of Jesus Christ and I am fully convinced that only divine intervention will return the river to its channels, and for this I think the Pusilus Grexor small flock is being prepared.
The Recusant- Please tell us a bit about your involvement in the Resistance. Where were you when you became aware of something wrong in the SSPX? How did you find out or learn of it? How did you react?
Fr. Vargas: Before going to Spain, while I was still in Mexico, I had a meeting with the Superior General of the congregation Mgr. Fellay, during which we already talked about those rumours, which had been growing stronger, about a possible agreement with modernist Rome. He replied that he would not go to Rome without authorisation from “us” -obviously he meant not from the low-ranking priests but of the priors, superiors of autonomous houses, district superiors etc. Of course, he did not keep his promise given that in April 2012 he went to Rome like a little lamb at the call of the then Pope Benedict XVI, the same Benedict XVI who had lifted the “excommunication” but of course not that of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. When this happened [in April 2012] I was already in Spain as a punishment for not giving in to that lousy business which should never have taken place because it meant beheading the work of our founder and surrendering in the combat of all time, in summary it was another kiss from Judas to Our Lord Jesus Christ which has been given through the centuries. This attitude “outraged” many of us, I use quotation marks because, as the saying goes, empty vessels make the most noise [mucho ruido, y pocas nueces -literally, “lots of noise, few nuts” i.e. plenty of hype and not much substance! -Ed.], clearly almost all my colleagues agreed with it in the depths of their hearts.
Immediately afterwards we were forbidden to talk about it with faithful, nuns and other priests, in our sermons we had to talk about anything but those sordid agreements with Vatican II. They were very difficult moments because of the push and pull within the same community without meaning to, there was a bitter controversy on the subject, and the authorities in turn tried to minimize it, although they lied about it because these authorities did not care at all what the priests thought. At the same time the faithful only wanted to reassure us by talking about the next chapter which was due to be held in late June and early July in Écône, Switzerland. But that did not prevent the pressure in the pot from increasing on such a thorny issue and saddening the hearts of both priests and faithful who were saddened by the situation between Rome and the Society.
My reaction to such a situation was, of course, very much against those Pharisaic agreements, as they reminded me of the attitude of Judas and the Pharisees when they dealt with the betrayal of Our Lord. My opinion did not matter any more, but my emphatic refusal of such an agreement remained, for which I got a black mark against my name and was watched more carefully, but did not care at all because in the end, that was my true position and to this day I do not regret it. Before the chapter, I had a talk with Bishop de Galarreta in which I put to him that Bishop Fellay should at least retract publicly what had been done in April of that same year even if he did not know that he was betraying Archbishop Lefebvre and, ultimately, Our Lord Jesus Christ. Bad news of the chapter came to us before it ended: relations with Rome would continue, Bishop Fellay and his advisers would be re-elected as a reward for their juicy relations with the modernist heretics and Bishop Fellay would not make that act of mea culpa publicly because he was not “forced” to do so.
We lost those who were against the arrangements and a witch's house [i.e. a tempest] would be unleashed on those of us who opposed these spurious arrangements. Thus was our fidelity rewarded. I and the other priests faithful to Our Lord and to Archbishop Lefebvre found ourselves facing the very difficult situation of deciding whether to accommodate ourselves to this treacherous farce or to leave what was no longer the congregation founded by Archbishop Lefebvre. I must admit, the decision was not an easy one, it was one of the most terrible in my life and the most painful, I prayed a lot, I asked for the light of the Holy Ghost and every day it was a nightmare for me to stay in the Society, but I did not want to rush into anything which I would later regret. While I was reaching this decision, I suffered greatly in my heart from the bitter betrayal of the Society’s superiors: it is a suffering which cannot be explained in words, at one point I thought I had gone crazy. At last my prayer was heard and the answer was to leave the Society. This decision was accompanied by a great tranquility in my heart and soul and my uncertainty was turned into joy and happiness. This radical change amazed me. I was already sure of what I should do, just wait for the providential moment to leave the Society, a happy ending so far.
The Recusant-Why, in your opinion, has the Resistance made so little apparent progress in the past seven or eight years? What went wrong? Is it just that honest mistakes have been made, or is the problem somewhat more sinister?
Fr. Vargas-In 2013, we few priests who formed the Resistance had a meeting with Bishop William-son and we asked him, as an authority, to lead the Resistance. In response we were given a resounding “NO!” -not even as a spiritual advisor. That was our first disappointment and it was very painful indeed. So we were left adrift, each on his own, each left to his own luck by a bishop. We were very discouraged by his refusal, everyone present at that meeting, but we were not going to let that be the reason for abandoning the combat of Archbishop Lefebvre, he would know how to lead us from heaven to continue the fight. This was the first huge failure of the incipient Resistance and shows how the devil wanted to annihilate us from the beginning. This error was followed by another serious problem that held back or discouraged those of us who sought to carry on the combat of all time. Bishop Williamson gathered together his select group from which all of us were excluded who did not think like this “group,” which I regard as constituting a “congregation” as can be seen by two sudden blows given by a “traditionalist” bishop against whom we still wanted to continue our fight and who puts into practice the devil’s maxim: “Divide and Conquer.” The one writing this has been slandered and abandoned by these four other bishops [Williamson, Faure, Tomas Aquinas and Zendejas -Ed.]. They are faithfully following Bishop Williamson.
I asked them to prove their defamatory accusations against me and... I am still awaiting their answer. I have come to think of them in this way, and I hope whoever reads this will not be shocked: that they form a ‘fifth column’ inside the Resistance in order to annihilate all vestiges of Tradition in the Church. It is for this reason that we leave them and continue for our part, thinking that it will be more difficult for the enemy to annihilate us and at the same time hoping for divine intervention in these times which are so dire for the Catholic Church . Personally, in no way do I share with the four bishops of the flaccid “resistance” the errors that Bishop Williamson has committed, such as Eucharistic miracles within the modern mass or advising people to attend the new mass, among many others. I have refuted the first error with a study on the miracle based on Saint Thomas Aquinas, but so far I have not had an answer to my refutation. I have pointed out three things on this question [of Bishop Williamson]:
•His not accepting responsibility as leader of the Resistance
•That he formed a very exclusive “congregation” in order to divide us
•His doctrinal errors which he continues to perpetrate.
In these three things, can we see the work of God being done by them? Is this not rather doing the devil’s dirty work? Judge for yourselves. This explains the little progress of the true Resistance, the Resistance which several of us priests throughout the world have stayed with, though distances separate us.
|
|
|
Free Catholic Audiobooks |
Posted by: Stone - 04-06-2021, 07:19 AM - Forum: Resources Online
- No Replies
|
 |
I came across this website that appears to offer free Catholic Audiobooks from pre-Vatican II sources, many (all?) of which are available for personal download: http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/
An example: Catholic Audiobook: The Love of the Sacred Heart Illustrated by St. Mechtilde - Published in 1922 - click here to download.
|
|
|
O filii et filiæ |
Posted by: Stone - 04-06-2021, 06:33 AM - Forum: Easter
- No Replies
|
 |
O filii et filiæ
O filii et filiae is a Catholic hymn celebrating Easter. It was written by Jean Tisserand, O.F.M. (d. 1494).
|
|
|
Sub tuum praesidium |
Posted by: Stone - 04-06-2021, 06:19 AM - Forum: Marian Hymns
- Replies (1)
|
 |
Sub Tuum Praesidium
"Beneath Thy Protection" (Greek: Ὑπὸ τὴν σὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν; Latin: Sub tuum praesidium) is a Christian hymn.
It is the oldest preserved extant hymn to the Blessed Virgin Mary as Theotokos.
Latin Text
Sub tuum praesidium
confugimus,
Sancta Dei Genetrix.
Nostras deprecationes ne despicias
in necessitatibus nostris,
sed a periculis cunctis
libera nos semper,
Virgo gloriosa et benedicta.
English Translation
We fly to Thy protection,
O Holy Mother of God;
Do not despise our petitions
in our necessities,
but deliver us always
from all dangers,
O Glorious and Blessed Virgin.
Some of the Latin versions have also incorporated the following verses often attributed to Saint Bernard of Clairvaux to the above translation:
Domina nostra, Mediatrix nostra, Advocata nostra (Our Lady, our Mediatrix, Our Advocate)
tuo Filio nos reconcilia (Reconcile us to your Son)
tuo Filio nos recommenda (Recommend us to your Son)
tuo Filio nos representa (Represent us to your Son)
|
|
|
Hymns Honoring the Blessed Sacrament |
Posted by: Stone - 04-05-2021, 05:56 PM - Forum: Catholic Hymns
- Replies (4)
|
 |
O Sacrum Convivium
Original Latin (punctuation from Liber Usualis)
O sacrum convivium!
in quo Christus sumitur:
recolitur memoria passionis eius:
mens impletur gratia:
et futurae gloriae nobis pignus datur.
Alleluia.
Translation of original Latin
O sacred banquet!
in which Christ is received,
the memory of his Passion is renewed,
the mind is filled with grace,
and a pledge of future glory to us is given.
Alleluia.
O Sacrum Convivium is a Latin prose text honoring the Blessed Sacrament. It was included as an antiphon to Magnificat in the vespers of the liturgical office on the feast of Corpus Christi. The text of the office is attributed with some probability to Saint Thomas Aquinas. Its sentiments express the profound affinity of the Eucharistic celebration, described as a banquet, to the Paschal mystery : "O sacred banquet at which Christ is consumed, the memory of his Passion is recalled, our souls are filled with grace, and the pledge of future glory is given to us."
|
|
|
Salve Sancta Parens |
Posted by: Stone - 04-05-2021, 05:49 PM - Forum: Marian Hymns
- No Replies
|
 |
Latin text
Salve sancta parens enixa puerpera Regem
Qui caelum terramque regit in saecula saeculorum.
A: Virgo Dei Genitrix, quem totus non capit orbis:
In tua se clausit viscera factus homo.
B: Sentiant omnes tuum [ad]iuvamen
Quicunque celebrant tuam commemorationem. [Alleluia]
C: Eructavit cor meum verbum bonum: dico ego opera mea Regi. [Psalm 44:2a]
Gloria Patri
English translation
Hail, Holy Mother, who in childbirth brought forth the King
who rules heaven and earth, world without end.
A: O Virgin Mother of God, He whom the whole world can not contain:
Enclosed Himself in thy womb, and became a man.
B: Let all feel thy help and protection
Whosoever celebrates your memory.
C: My heart hath uttered a good word; I speak my works to the King.
Glory be to the Father …
|
|
|
Pope Pius IX: The Syllabus of Errors |
Posted by: Stone - 04-05-2021, 05:39 PM - Forum: Encyclicals
- No Replies
|
 |
The Syllabus Of Errors
I. PANTHEISM, NATURALISM AND ABSOLUTE RATIONALISM
1. There exists no Supreme, all-wise, all-provident Divine Being, distinct from the universe, and God is identical with the nature of things, and is, therefore, subject to changes. In effect, God is produced in man and in the world, and all things are God and have the very substance of God, and God is one and the same thing with the world, and, therefore, spirit with matter, necessity with liberty, good with evil, justice with injustice. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862.
2. All action of God upon man and the world is to be denied. — Ibid.
3. Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations. — Ibid.
4. All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind. — Ibid. and Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846, etc.
5. Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason. — Ibid.
6. The faith of Christ is in opposition to human reason and divine revelation not only is not useful, but is even hurtful to the perfection of man. — Ibid.
7. The prophecies and miracles set forth and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are the fiction of poets, and the mysteries of the Christian faith the result of philosophical investigations. In the books of the Old and the New Testament there are contained mythical inventions, and Jesus Christ is Himself a myth.
II. MODERATE RATIONALISM
8. As human reason is placed on a level with religion itself, so theological must be treated in the same manner as philosophical sciences. — Allocution “Singulari quadam,” Dec. 9, 1854.
9. All the dogmas of the Christian religion are indiscriminately the object of natural science or philosophy, and human reason, enlightened solely in an historical way, is able, by its own natural strength and principles, to attain to the true science of even the most abstruse dogmas; provided only that such dogmas be proposed to reason itself as its object. — Letters to the Archbishop of Munich, “Gravissimas inter,” Dec. 11, 1862, and “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.
10. As the philosopher is one thing, and philosophy another, so it is the right and duty of the philosopher to subject himself to the authority which he shall have proved to be true; but philosophy neither can nor ought to submit to any such authority. — Ibid., Dec. 11, 1862.
11. The Church not only ought never to pass judgment on philosophy, but ought to tolerate the errors of philosophy, leaving it to correct itself. — Ibid., Dec. 21, 1863.
12. The decrees of the Apostolic See and of the Roman congregations impede the true progress of science. — Ibid.
13. The method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of our times and to the progress of the sciences. — Ibid.
14. Philosophy is to be treated without taking any account of supernatural revelation. — Ibid.
III. INDIFFERENTISM, LATITUDINARIANISM
15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. — Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.
17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. — Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.
18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church. — Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.
IV. SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, SECRET SOCIETIES, BIBLICAL SOCIETIES, CLERICO-LIBERAL SOCIETIES
Pests of this kind are frequently reprobated in the severest terms in the Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846, Allocution “Quibus quantisque,” April 20, 1849, Encyclical “Noscitis et nobiscum,” Dec. 8, 1849, Allocution “Singulari quadam,” Dec. 9, 1854, Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863.
V. ERRORS CONCERNING THE CHURCH AND HER RIGHTS
19. The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free- nor is she endowed with proper and perpetual rights of her own, conferred upon her by her Divine Founder; but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church, and the limits within which she may exercise those rights. — Allocution “Singulari quadam,&quuot; Dec. 9, 1854, etc.
20. The ecclesiastical power ought not to exercise its authority without the permission and assent of the civil government. — Allocution “Meminit unusquisque,” Sept. 30, 1861.
21. The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion. — Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. — Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.
23. Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals. — Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
24. The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect. — Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851.
25. Besides the power inherent in the episcopate, other temporal power has been attributed to it by the civil authority granted either explicitly or tacitly, which on that account is revocable by the civil authority whenever it thinks fit. — Ibid.
26. The Church has no innate and legitimate right of acquiring and possessing property. — Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856; Encyclical “Incredibili,” Sept. 7, 1863.
27. The sacred ministers of the Church and the Roman pontiff are to be absolutely excluded from every charge and dominion over temporal affairs. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862.
28. It is not lawful for bishops to publish even letters Apostolic without the permission of Government. — Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.
29. Favours granted by the Roman pontiff ought to be considered null, unless they have been sought for through the civil government. — Ibid.
30. The immunity of the Church and of ecclesiastical persons derived its origin from civil law. — Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
31. The ecclesiastical forum or tribunal for the temporal causes, whether civil or criminal, of clerics, ought by all means to be abolished, even without consulting and against the protest of the Holy See. — Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856; Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
32. The personal immunity by which clerics are exonerated from military conscription and service in the army may be abolished without violation either of natural right or equity. Its abolition is called for by civil progress, especially in a society framed on the model of a liberal government. — Letter to the Bishop of Monreale “Singularis nobisque,” Sept. 29, 1864.
33. It does not appertain exclusively to the power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by right, proper and innate, to direct the teaching of theological questions. — Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.
34. The teaching of those who compare the Sovereign Pontiff to a prince, free and acting in the universal Church, is a doctrine which prevailed in the Middle Ages. — Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851.
35. There is nothing to prevent the decree of a general council, or the act of all peoples, from transferring the supreme pontificate from the bishop and city of Rome to another bishop and another city. — Ibid.
36. The definition of a national council does not admit of any subsequent discussion, and the civil authority car assume this principle as the basis of its acts. — Ibid.
37. National churches, withdrawn from the authority of the Roman pontiff and altogether separated, can be established. — Allocution “Multis gravibusque,” Dec. 17, 1860.
38. The Roman pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to the division of the Church into Eastern and Western. — Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851.
VI. ERRORS ABOUT CIVIL SOCIETY, CONSIDERED BOTH IN ITSELF AND IN ITS RELATION TO THE CHURCH
39. The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862.
40. The teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to the well- being and interests of society. — Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846; Allocution “Quibus quantisque,” April 20, 1849.
41. The civil government, even when in the hands of an infidel sovereign, has a right to an indirect negative power over religious affairs. It therefore possesses not only the right called that of “exsequatur,” but also that of appeal, called “appellatio ab abusu.” — Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851
42. In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law prevails. — Ibid.
43. The secular Dower has authority to rescind, declare and render null, solemn conventions, commonly called concordats, entered into with the Apostolic See, regarding the use of rights appertaining to ecclesiastical immunity, without the consent of the Apostolic See, and even in spite of its protest. — Allocution “Multis gravibusque,” Dec. 17, 1860; Allocution “In consistoriali,” Nov. 1, 1850.
44. The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government: hence, it can pass judgment on the instructions issued for the guidance of consciences, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church. Further, it has the right to make enactments regarding the administration of the divine sacraments, and the dispositions necessary for receiving them. — Allocutions “In consistoriali,” Nov. 1, 1850, and “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862.
45. The entire government of public schools in which the youth- of a Christian state is educated, except (to a certain extent) in the case of episcopal seminaries, may and ought to appertain to the civil power, and belong to it so far that no other authority whatsoever shall be recognized as having any right to interfere in the discipline of the schools, the arrangement of the studies, the conferring of degrees, in the choice or approval of the teachers. — Allocutions “Quibus luctuosissimmis,” Sept. 5, 1851, and “In consistoriali,” Nov. 1, 1850.
46. Moreover, even in ecclesiastical seminaries, the method of studies to be adopted is subject to the civil authority. — Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.
47. The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people, and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophical sciences and for carrying on the education of youth, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers, and according to the standard of the prevalent opinions of the age. — Epistle to the Archbishop of Freiburg, “Cum non sine,” July 14, 1864.
48. Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life. — Ibid.
49. The civil power may prevent the prelates of the Church and the faithful from communicating freely and mutually with the Roman pontiff. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862.
50. Lay authority possesses of itself the right of presenting bishops, and may require of them to undertake the administration of the diocese before they receive canonical institution, and the Letters Apostolic from the Holy See. — Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.
51. And, further, the lay government has the right of deposing bishops from their pastoral functions, and is not bound to obey the Roman pontiff in those things which relate to the institution of bishoprics and the appointment of bishops. — Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852, Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
52. Government can, by its own right, alter the age prescribed by the Church for the religious profession of women and men; and may require of all religious orders to admit no person to take solemn vows without its permission. — Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.
53. The laws enacted for the protection of religious orders and regarding their rights and duties ought to be abolished; nay, more, civil Government may lend its assistance to all who desire to renounce the obligation which they have undertaken of a religious life, and to break their vows. Government may also suppress the said religious orders, as likewise collegiate churches and simple benefices, even those of advowson and subject their property and revenues to the administration and pleasure of the civil power. — Allocutions “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852; “Probe memineritis,” Jan. 22, 1855; “Cum saepe,” July 26, 1855.
54. Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in deciding questions of jurisdiction. — Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. — Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
VII. ERRORS CONCERNING NATURAL AND CHRISTIAN ETHICS
56. Moral laws do not stand in need of the divine sanction, and it is not at all necessary that human laws should be made conformable to the laws of nature and receive their power of binding from God. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862.
57. The science of philosophical things and morals and also civil laws may and ought to keep aloof from divine and ecclesiastical authority. — Ibid.
58. No other forces are to be recognized except those which reside in matter, and all the rectitude and excellence of morality ought to be placed in the accumulation and increase of riches by every possible means, and the gratification of pleasure. — Ibid.; Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863.
59. Right consists in the material fact. All human duties are an empty word, and all human facts have the force of right. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862.
60. Authority is nothing else but numbers and the sum total of material forces. — Ibid.
61. The injustice of an act when successful inflicts no injury on the sanctity of right. — Allocution “Jamdudum cernimus,” March 18, 1861.
62. The principle of non-intervention, as it is called, ought to be proclaimed and observed. — Allocution “Novos et ante,” Sept. 28, 1860.
63. It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them. — Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1864; Allocution “Quibusque vestrum,” Oct. 4, 1847; “Noscitis et Nobiscum,” Dec. 8, 1849; Apostolic Letter “Cum Catholica.”
64. The violation of any solemn oath, as well as any wicked and flagitious action repugnant to the eternal law, is not only not blamable but is altogether lawful and worthy of the highest praise when done through love of country. — Allocution “Quibus quantisque,” April 20, 1849.
VIII. ERRORS CONCERNING CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE
65. The doctrine that Christ has raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament cannot be at all tolerated. — Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851.
66. The Sacrament of Marriage is only a something accessory to the contract and separate from it, and the sacrament itself consists in the nuptial benediction alone. — Ibid.
67. By the law of nature, the marriage tie is not indissoluble, and in many cases divorce properly so called may be decreed by the civil authority. — Ibid.; Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
68. The Church has not the power of establishing diriment impediments of marriage, but such a power belongs to the civil authority by which existing impediments are to be removed. — Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
69. In the dark ages the Church began to establish diriment impediments, not by her own right, but by using a power borrowed from the State. — Apostolic Letter “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851.
70. The canons of the Council of Trent, which anathematize those who dare to deny to the Church the right of establishing diriment impediments, either are not dogmatic or must be understood as referring to such borrowed power. — Ibid.
71. The form of solemnizing marriage prescribed by the Council of Trent, under pain of nullity, does not bind in cases where the civil law lays down another form, and declares that when this new form is used the marriage shall be valid.
72. Boniface VIII was the first who declared that the vow of chastity taken at ordination renders marriage void. — Ibid.
73. In force of a merely civil contract there may exist between Christians a real marriage, and it is false to say either that the marriage contract between Christians is always a sacrament, or that there is no contract if the sacrament be excluded. — Ibid.; Letter to the King of Sardinia, Sept. 9, 1852; Allocutions “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852, “Multis gravibusque,” Dec. 17, 1860.
74. Matrimonial causes and espousals belong by their nature to civil tribunals. — Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9 1846; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851, “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851; Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
IX. ERRORS REGARDING THE CIVIL POWER OF THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF
75. The children of the Christian and Catholic Church are divided amongst themselves about the compatibility of the temporal with the spiritual power. — “Ad Apostolicae,” Aug. 22, 1851.
76. The abolition of the temporal power of which the Apostolic See is possessed would contribute in the greatest degree to the liberty and prosperity of the Church. — Allocutions “Quibus quantisque,” April 20, 1849, “Si semper antea,” May 20, 1850.
X. ERRORS HAVING REFERENCE TO MODERN LIBERALISM
77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. — Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.
78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. — Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.
79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. — Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.
80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution “Jamdudum cernimus,” March 18, 1861.
The faith teaches us and human reason demonstrates that a double order of things exists, and that we must therefore distinguish between the two earthly powers, the one of natural origin which provides for secular affairs and the tranquillity of human society, the other of supernatural origin, which presides over the City of God, that is to say the Church of Christ, which has been divinely instituted for the sake of souls and of eternal salvation…. The duties of this twofold power are most wisely ordered in such a way that to God is given what is God’s (Matt. 22:21), and because of God to Caesar what is Caesar’s, who is great because he is smaller than heaven. Certainly the Church has never disobeyed this divine command, the Church which always and everywhere instructs the faithful to show the respect which they should inviolably have for the supreme authority and its secular rights….
. . . Venerable Brethren, you see clearly enough how sad and full of perils is the condition of Catholics in the regions of Europe which We have mentioned. Nor are things any better or circumstances calmer in America, where some regions are so hostile to Catholics that their governments seem to deny by their actions the Catholic faith they claim to profess. In fact, there, for the last few years, a ferocious war on the Church, its institutions and the rights of the Apostolic See has been raging…. Venerable Brothers, it is surprising that in our time such a great war is being waged against the Catholic Church. But anyone who knows the nature, desires and intentions of the sects, whether they be called masonic or bear another name, and compares them with the nature the systems and the vastness of the obstacles by which the Church has been assailed almost everywhere, cannot doubt that the present misfortune must mainly be imputed to the frauds and machinations of these sects. It is from them that the synagogue of Satan, which gathers its troops against the Church of Christ, takes its strength. In the past Our predecessors, vigilant even from the beginning in Israel, had already denounced them to the kings and the nations, and had condemned them time and time again, and even We have not failed in this duty. If those who would have been able to avert such a deadly scourge had only had more faith in the supreme Pastors of the Church! But this scourge, winding through sinuous caverns, . . . deceiving many with astute frauds, finally has arrived at the point where it comes forth impetuously from its hiding places and triumphs as a powerful master. Since the throng of its propagandists has grown enormously, these wicked groups think that they have already become masters of the world and that they have almost reached their pre-established goal. Having sometimes obtained what they desired, and that is power, in several countries, they boldly turn the help of powers and authorities which they have secured to trying to submit the Church of God to the most cruel servitude, to undermine the foundations on which it rests, to contaminate its splendid qualities; and, moreover, to strike it with frequent blows, to shake it, to overthrow it, and, if possible, to make it disappear completely from the earth. Things being thus, Venerable Brothers, make every effort to defend the faithful which are entrusted to you against the insidious contagion of these sects and to save from perdition those who unfortunately have inscribed themselves in such sects. Make known and attack those who, whether suffering from, or planning, deception, are not afraid to affirm that these shady congregations aim only at the profit of society, at progress and mutual benefit. Explain to them often and impress deeply on their souls the Papal constitutions on this subject and teach, them that the masonic associations are anathematized by them not only in Europe but also in America and wherever they may be in the whole world.
To the Archbishops and Bishops of Prussia concerning the situation of the Catholic Church faced with persecution by that Government….
But although they (the bishops resisting persecution) should be praised rather than pitied, the scorn of episcopal dignity, the violation of the liberty and the rights of the Church, the ill treatment which does not only oppress those dioceses, but also the others of the Kingdom of Prussia, demand that We, owing to the Apostolic office with which God has entrusted us in spite of Our insufficient merit, protest against laws which have produced such great evils and make one fear even greater ones; and as far as we are able to do so with the sacred authority of divine law, We vindicate for the Church the freedom which has been trodden underfoot with sacrilegious violence. That is why by this letter we intend to do Our duty by announcing openly to all those whom this matter concerns and to the whole Catholic world, that these laws are null and void because they are absolutely contrary to the divine constitution of the Church. In fact, with respect to matters which concern the holy ministry, Our Lord did not put the mighty of this century in charge, but Saint Peter, whom he entrusted not only with feeding his sheep, but also the goats; therefore no power in the world, however great it may be, can deprive of the pastoral office those whom the Holy Ghost has made Bishops in order to feed the Church of God.
|
|
|
Short Catholic Homilies: The Catholic Home |
Posted by: Stone - 04-05-2021, 09:32 AM - Forum: Church Doctrine & Teaching
- No Replies
|
 |
An Excerpt from:
Priests of the Congregation of St. Paul. Five Minute Sermons for Low Masses on All Sundays of the Year.
Vol. 2. [S.l.]: Catholic Publication Society, 1886. Print. starts pg 67-69
Short Catholic Homilies: The Catholic Home
(Click on Here to Listen to Audio of the Sermon)
Jesus went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them. . . . And Jesus advanced in wisdom and age, and grace with God and men. —Luke 2:52
In these few words, my brethren, the sacred writer raises the veil that conceals the mysteries of our Lord’s hidden life, and gives us an insight into the domestic concerns of the Holy Family at Nazareth. Jesus lived with Mary and Joseph. He was obedient and subject to them, and so he advanced in age and wisdom and grace with God and men. The door of the holy house is opened to us, but only for a moment, so that we might get a glimpse of the domestic life of a model family. Joseph, the father, day by day works at his trade to support the family. He rises in the morning ; gives his soul to God in prayer. He toils through the day. He comes home at night to enjoy his rest in the company of Jesus and Mary. He meets with trials, but he is patient; he is tempted, but he sins not; he leads a busy life, but he still finds time to pray. Mary, the mother, tends the household duties, with care and precision, and by her sweet, kind ways diffuses an air of peace and contentment throughout the home. Jesus, the child, is affectionate and submissive to his parents in everything. Here is the model of a true Christian home. Its ground work is the love of God; it is surrounded by an atmosphere of virtue, and to its members it is the holiest and dearest spot on earth. Such should our homes be.
The true Christian home is to society what the sanctuary is to the church of God. The parents are the priests in this sanctuary. It was God who ordained them priests when they stood before the altar with clasped hands and promised that they would be faithful to each other while life lasts. The Blessed Sacrament of this sanctuary is the Sacrament of Matrimony. It is the great treasure-house of supernatural strength to the married couple. The perpetual presence of our Lord in this sanctuary is by his grace, which is never wanting. The altar in this sanctuary is the hearthstone around which the family gathers. The communion-rail in this sanctuary is the family table, from which are dispensed the necessities of life.
There is about the sanctuary in the church of God an atmosphere of piety and reverence. It has a sanctity that no stranger dare violate; it has a privacy which no one but he who has a right dare invade. Such an atmosphere should be about the sanctuary of home. A priest would never allow a heretic or an infidel to sit in the sanctuary of God. He would never allow a corrupt man to stand on the altar of God. Take care, then, Christian parents, how you violate the sanctity of your homes. Take care what heretical or infidel books you allow to pass the gate of that sanctuary. Take care what bad newspapers you allow within its sacred precincts. Take care of the persons whom you allow to stand around your family altar. *Take care of the Movies and entertainments your family watches, that they respect God, his Holy Name, his Church and that they do not destroy the innocence of your children. It is one thing, you-know, to be obliged to meet a man in everyday life; it is a far different thing to invite him to your home, and permit him to violate its sanctity.
It is the duty of a priest on the altar of God, by his good example, to edify his flock; to stand at all times before his people a bright, shining light of Christian virtues. So, too, it is your duty, priests at the family altar, to be a model of all virtues to your children, so that they might learn from you what it is to be a Christian. Would it not be horrible for a man to come in on the altar and utter repeated curses? Would it not be fearful to see him stagger up to the altar of God in the state of intoxication? It happened once while Mass was going on, during the Elevation, while all heads were bowed in humble adoration, a drunken man rushed into the church, and in a loud voice uttered a horrible oath. It made the hearts of the good Catholic people stand still, and their blood ran cold in their veins. Is it any the less horrible for a father to come home intoxicated to the household sanctuary, or a mother, when anything goes wrong in the house, to give vent to her wrath in harsh language and sometimes even cursing?
See to it, then, dear parents ; make your homes holy places—real sanctuaries, where you can do your duty as priests of our All-Holy God. Keep from them all evil influences, so that they might be places where even the Child Jesus would not be ashamed to dwell.
|
|
|
Short Catholic Homilies: Forgiving Injuries |
Posted by: Stone - 04-05-2021, 09:22 AM - Forum: Church Doctrine & Teaching
- No Replies
|
 |
An Excerpt from: Priests of the Congregation of St. Paul. Five Minute Sermons for Low Masses on All Sundays of the Year.
Vol. 2. [S.l.]: Catholic Publication Society, 1886. Print. pg 462-464
Short Catholic Homilies: Forgiving Injuries
Shouldst not thou then have had compassion on thy fellow-servant, even as I had compassion on thee (Matthew, 18:33)
These words of today’s Gospel are spoken by our Lord to everyone who has been wanting in charity to his neighbor. Each one of us, as a servant of God, as a steward of the gifts, both temporal and spiritual, which he has entrusted to us that we may use them for the furtherance of his honor and glory, is a heavy debtor to the divine justice. But his mercy and love are always ready to temper his justice, if only we show the proper dispositions, if only we bend our rebellious wills to the condition he requires of us, without which it is impossible for us to obtain forgiveness.
This condition is found in the oft-repeated but little thought of petition of the Lord’s Prayer : “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those that trespass jigainst us.” The servant in the parable received forgiveness from his lord for the sum of ten thousand talents (a very large sum of money), yet he was unmerciful to his fellow-servant, who owed him a hundred pence. The difference between these sums is by no means so great as the difference between our offences against Almighty God and those of onr brethren against us. If we could only realize who it is that we have offended, and then reflect as well upon our ingratitude in offending him, as upon the innumerable benefits he has showered upon us, we might form some faint idea of the gravity of our sin, and of the immense debt that we owe to his justice. We could not then refuse forgiveness to our neighbor for the trifling, and perhaps merely fancied, injuries that we may have suffered from him. “With what measure you shall mete, it shall be measured to you again.” “If you forgive not every one his brother from your hearts,” you cannot hope for pardon from God.”
How, then, can we best practise this forgiveness which is so necessary for us? In the first place, it must be earnest and sincere forgiveness. It must be “from your hearts,” as our Lord says. No mere outward show of forgiveness will be enough, for God sees the heart, and no appearances will satisfy him. But, on the other hand, the forgiveness will not be real and earnest unless it be shown outwardly. Many profess their willingness to forgive who yet show resentment and a spirit of revenge in many little ways, by looks, words, and actions which prove that there is no real forgiveness in the heart. Then again we find persons who, when they are urged to forgive some wrong, answer: “Well, father, I suppose I must forgive, if you tell me so.” It is plain that this is but a very unwilling and faint-hearted forgiveness, which, will not answer before God. Why will not the generosity of God towards us lead us to show a like spirit towards our brethren?
We should strive to forgive offences the moment they are committed against us. Our natural impulse when any insult is offered to us is to resent it at once, and pay back in the same coin. How different is this from the example set us by our Lord, ” Who, when he was reviled, did not revile; when he suffered, he threatened not.” We should check the first uprisings of resentment, and keep back the angry reply, in imitation of our Blessed Lord’s silence before his accusers and tormentors. By the practice of this Christian silence many a feud of long continuance would be prevented.
We must also “lay aside all malice,” and be ready, when an injury has been done, to be reconciled with our offending brother. This is often very hard for us to do, and very repugnant to our natural inclinations, but it is, nevertheless, absolutely necessary. If we bear malice towards anyone, we are not worthy of the name of Christians, or followers of Christ.
Try, then, to put in practice the teaching of this day’s Gospel, and forgive from your heart those who have offended you, showing your forgiveness by your words and acts. There is nothing more scandalous and injurious to the Christian name than constant quarrels and long-continued animosities between those who go regularly to the sacraments. Follow, then, the injunction of St. Paul : “Let all bitterness, and anger, and indignation, and clamor, and blasphemy be taken away from you, with all malice. And be ye kind to one another, merciful, forgiving one another, even as God has forgiven you in Christ.”
|
|
|
The blood of murdered unborn children cries to God from abortion-tainted vaccines and medicines |
Posted by: Stone - 04-05-2021, 07:33 AM - Forum: Abortion
- No Replies
|
 |
The blood of murdered unborn children cries to God from abortion-tainted vaccines and medicines
Bishop Athanasius Schneider on abortion-tainted vaccines and the culture of death.
April 1, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Anti-Christian world powers that promote the culture of death are seeking to impose on the world’s population an implicit — though remote and passive — collaboration with abortion. Such remote collaboration, in itself, is also an evil because of the extraordinary historical circumstances in which these same world powers are promoting the murder of unborn children and the exploitation of their remains. When we use vaccines or medicines which utilize cell lines originating from aborted babies, we physically benefit from the “fruits” of one of the greatest evils of mankind — the cruel genocide of the unborn. For if one innocent child had not been cruelly murdered, we would not have these concrete vaccines or medicines. We should not be so naive as not to see that these vaccines and medicines not only offer a health benefit but also promise to promote the culture of death. Of course, some argue that even if people do not take these vaccines, the abortion industry will still continue. We may not reduce the number of abortions if we stop taking such vaccines or medicines, but this is not the issue. The problem lies in the moral weakening of our resistance to the crime of abortion, and to the crime of the trafficking, exploitation and commercialization of the body parts of murdered unborn children. The use of such vaccines and medicines in some way morally – albeit indirectly — supports this horrible situation. Observing the response from the Catholic Church, abortionists and those responsible for biomedical research will conclude that the hierarchy has acquiesced to this situation, which includes an entire chain of crimes against life and indeed can aptly be described as a “chain of death.” We have to wake up to the real dangers, consequences and circumstances of the current situation.
Theories justifying the use of abortion-tainted vaccines
The documents of the Holy See (from 2005, 2008 and 2020) that deal with vaccines developed from cell lines originating from murdered unborn children are not infallible decisions of the Magisterium. The arguments put forth in the aforementioned documents regarding the moral licitness of the use of abortion-tainted vaccines are ultimately too abstract. We need to approach this problem in a more profound way, and not remain in a juridical positivism and formalism of abstract theories of cooperation with evil, benefiting from the evil deeds of others, double effect or whatever one wishes to call such justifying theories.
We have to go deeper, down to the root, and consider the aspect of proportionality. This concrete chain of horrible crimes — of murdering, harvesting tissue and body parts from murdered unborn children, and commercializing their remains through the manufacturing and testing of vaccines and medicines — is out of all proportion to other crimes, e.g. benefitting from slave labor, paying taxes, etc. Even the most apparently impressive historical examples, which are sometimes adduced to justify the moral licitness of the use of abortion-tainted vaccines, are incomparable to the issue before us. Indeed, due to the gravity of abortion, and the current reality of an ever-expanding abortion and biomedical research industry, which involves the trafficking and exploitation of aborted baby body parts, the principle of material cooperation, or other similar theories, cannot be applied in this case. It is, therefore, highly anti-pastoral and counterproductive to allow the use of abortion-tainted vaccines in this historical hour. The souls of the murdered babies, from whose body parts people are now benefiting through these medicines and vaccines, are living and have a name before God.
When one uses an abortion-tainted vaccine, one is standing directly and very personally before the vaccine syringe. In paying taxes, one is not directly and personally confronting the process of a specific abortion. A government is not asking you concretely to give your money to “this” concrete act of abortion now. The government often uses our money against our will. Therefore, the use of an abortion-tainted vaccine is a much more personal confrontation, and a much closer meeting, with the monstrous crimes involved in its production, than for instance paying taxes or benefiting from the evil acts of another person. Should the government tell a citizen directly and personally, “I am taking your money to pay for this concrete abortion,” one has to refuse, even if it means confiscation of one’s home and imprisonment.
In the first centuries, Christians paid taxes to a pagan government, knowing that it would use a portion of the tax revenue to finance idol worship. However, when the government asked Christians personally and individually to participate in the crime of idolatry, by burning just a small grain of incense before the statue of an idol, they refused even at the price of being martyred for bearing witnesses to God’s First Commandment.
The exceptionally grave and unique character of abortion-tainted vaccines and medicines
How can we, with a maximum of determination, be and proclaim to be against abortion, when we accept abortion-tainted vaccines — when their origin lies in the murder of a child? Both logic and common-sense demand that we not accept such vaccines or medicines. In difficult times of great confusion, God often uses the simple and the little ones who tell the truth while the majority swims with the tide. Unfortunately, many people in the Church, and even some Catholic pro-life organizations, are swimming with the tide on the specific question of abortion-tainted vaccines and medicines. It seems that many theologians, and even the Holy See, as well as the vast majority of bishops, are also swimming with the tide, and there remains only a minority in the Church of our day which is saying, “Stop. This is not good. This is a danger!” As Christians, it is our duty to bear witness to the world by not accepting these vaccines and medicines.
One might ask the proponents of the moral licitness of the use of abortion-tainted vaccines or medicines the following question, “If you traveled back in time and witnessed the gruesome murder of an unborn child, the dismemberment of his body, the harvesting of his tissue, and his cells then processed in the lab, even if there were hundreds of chemical processes involved with that particular vaccine or medicine, could you with a clear conscience receive such a vaccine or medicine into your body? It is hard to imagine that you could, as you would have before your eyes the scene of a child being dismembered and you now physically benefiting from the use of his cells.”
Vaccines that utilize cell lines originating from aborted fetuses only for testing
The distinction is made between the direct presence of fetal cell lines originating from the murder of an unborn child in a vaccine and their use in testing, and certainly the latter is objectively less grave. But we still cannot accept the use of these cell lines even for testing, as it brings us closer to the crime of marketing the cells from murdered babies. In this case, too, there is an accumulation of horrible crimes. The first crime is to have killed a child. The second is to have used and processed these cell lines. To then use these cell lines for testing is yet another crime. We cannot collaborate in this accumulation of crimes and we cannot benefit in any way from their “by-products.”
The obligation to resist
Let us imagine the possibility of abortion being entirely forbidden worldwide. Were this the case, the medical and pharmaceutical industries would then have to seek out alternatives to develop a vaccine, and God will provide them if we observe His law, specifically the Fifth Commandment. However, God will punish us if we use the cell lines originating from murdered babies to manufacture and test vaccines and medicines! We have to open ourselves to a more supernatural perspective. We have to resist the myth that there is no alternative — and by using these vaccines or medicines, we cooperate in further propagating this myth. Yet, there are alternatives! The anti-Christian world powers will surely not admit that alternatives exist, and will continue to push abortion-tainted vaccines. But we must resist. Even if there is only a small minority of faithful, priests and bishops who do so, ultimately the truth will prevail. History will look back and say that even some good Catholics yielded, even high-ranking prelates responsible for the governance of the Holy See yielded to an expanding biomedical and pharmaceutical industry that used cell lines originating from the murder of unborn children to produce and test vaccines and medicines. History will say they allowed themselves to be blinded by abstract theories of remote material cooperation, benefiting from the evil acts of others, or other similar theories.
We have to follow the truth. Even if we lose all our friends, we should follow our conscience, as did Saint Thomas More and Saint John Fisher. It is also a sign of the end times that even good people are confused about this important matter. Let us recall the words of Our Lord, who said that even the elect will be also seduced (cf. Mt. 24:24). A time will come when God will reveal to people in the Church, who now defend the morality of using abortion-tainted vaccines, some of the consequences of this choice. Their eyes will be opened, because the truth is so powerful. We have to live for the truth and for eternity.
To remain silent and to acquiesce to the already widespread use of aborted baby body parts for biomedical research, and to argue away this injustice with an abstract theory of “remote material cooperation,” or whatever one may call such a justifying theory, is a spiritual blindness and grave omission at a dramatic historical moment when Christians instead should stand up and proclaim to the whole world, “We will never acquiesce to this injustice, even if it is already so widespread in medicine! It is not allowed to treat unborn children, the lives of the weakest and most defenseless people in the whole world, in such a degrading way, so that the stronger, those already born, may receive a temporal health benefit from their use.”
Ivan Karamazov in Dostoyevsky’s famous novel “The Brothers Karamazov” asks the fatal question:Quote: “Tell me straight out, I call on you—answer me: imagine that you yourself are building the edifice of human destiny with the object of making people happy in the finale, of giving them peace and rest at last, but for that you must inevitably and unavoidably torture just one tiny creature, that same child who was beating her chest with her little fist, and raise your edifice on the foundation of her unrequited tears—would you agree to be the architect on such conditions?“
Memorable are the words with which Pope John Paul II forcefully condemned any experimentation on embryos, declaring:
Quote: “No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church. This evaluation of the morality of abortion is to be applied also to the recent forms of intervention on human embryos which, although carried out for purposes legitimate in themselves, inevitably involve the killing of those embryos. This is the case with experimentation on embryos, which is becoming increasingly widespread in the field of biomedical research and is legally permitted in some countries. Although ‘one must uphold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but rather are directed to its healing, the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival,’ it must nonetheless be stated that the use of human embryos or fetuses as an object of experimentation constitutes a crime against their dignity as human beings who have a right to the same respect owed to a child once born, just as to every person. This moral condemnation also regards procedures that exploit living human embryos and fetuses-sometimes specifically ‘produced’ for this purpose by in vitro fertilization — either to be used as ‘biological material’ or as providers of organs or tissue for transplants in the treatment of certain diseases. The killing of innocent human creatures, even if carried out to help others, constitutes an absolutely unacceptable act.” (Encyclical Evangelium vitae, 62-63)
The blood of murdered unborn children cries to God from vaccines and medicines which utilize their remains in any manner whatsoever. We have to make reparation for the accumulated crimes involved in their production. We have to ask pardon not only from God, who searches the reins and hearts (cf. Rev. 2:23), but also from the souls of all murdered unborn children, who have a name before God. We must especially ask pardon from those children whose body parts are used in such a degrading way for the health benefit of the living. It is incomprehensible how churchmen, with the aid of abstract theories from moral theology, can tranquilize the conscience of the faithful, by allowing them to use such vaccines and medicines.
The blood of the murdered unborn children cries to God from abortion-tainted vaccines and medicines! May the Lord have mercy on us! Kyrie, eleison!
+ Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana
|
|
|
Victimae paschali laudes |
Posted by: Stone - 04-05-2021, 07:02 AM - Forum: Easter
- No Replies
|
 |
Latin
Victimae paschali laudes
Immolent Christiani.
Agnus redemit oves:
Christus innocens Patri
Reconciliavit peccatores.
Mors et vita duello
Conflixere mirando:
Dux vitae mortuus,
Regnat vivus.
Dic nobis Maria,
Quid vidisti in via?
Sepulcrum Christi viventis,
Et gloriam vidi resurgentis:
Angelicos testes,
sudarium, et vestes.
Surrexit Christus spes mea:
Praecedet suos in Galilaeam.
Scimus Christum surrexisse
A mortuis vere:
Tu nobis, victor Rex, miserere.
Amen.
English
Christians, to the Paschal victim
offer your thankful praises!
A lamb the sheep redeemeth:
Christ, who only is sinless,
reconcileth sinners to the Father.
Death and life have contended
in that combat stupendous:
the Prince of life, who died,
reigns immortal.
Speak, Mary, declaring
what you saw, wayfaring:
"The tomb of Christ, who is living,
the glory of Jesus' resurrection;
"Bright angels attesting,
the shroud and napkin resting.
"Yea, Christ my hope is arisen;
to Galilee he will go before you."
Christ indeed from death is risen,
our new life obtaining;
have mercy, victor King, ever reigning!
Amen.
Season: Octave of Easter
Use: Sequence, at Mass
The Victimae Paschali Laudes is the Sequence of Easter, an extension, as it were, of the Alleluia verse before the Gospel. Our Alleluia, which has been silent during Lent, sounds anew with this hymn to the risen Christ on Easter! We sing Christ's victory over death, the empty tomb, the announcement to the women by the angels, adding our own gratitude and petition.
|
|
|
Easter Week [Monday thru Saturday] |
Posted by: Stone - 04-05-2021, 06:57 AM - Forum: Easter
- Replies (8)
|
 |
Hæc dies quam fecit Dominus; exsultemus et lætemur in ea!
This is the day which the Lord hath made; let us be glad and rejoice therein!
So ample and so profound is the mystery of the glorious Pasch, that an entire week may well be spent in its meditation. Yesterday, we limited ourselves to our Redeemer’s rising from the tomb, and showing Himself, in six different apparitions, to them that were dear to Him. We will continue to give Him the adoration, gratitude, and love, which are so justly do to Him for the triumph, which is both His and ours; but it also behooves us respectfully to study the lessons conveyed by the Resurrection of our divine Master, that thus the light of the great mystery may the more plentifully shine upon us, and our joy be greater.
And first of all, what is the Pasch? The Scriptures tell us that it is the immolation of the lamb. To understand the Pasch, we must first understand the mystery of the lamb. From the earliest ages of the Christian Church, we find the lamb represented, in the mosaics and frescoes of the basilicas, as the symbol of Christ’s sacrifice and triumph. Its attitude of sweet meekness expressed the love wherewith our Jesus shed His Blood for us; but it was put standing on a green hill, with the four rivers of Paradise flowing from beneath its feet, signifying the four Gospels which have made known the glory of His name throughout the earth. At a later period, the lamb was represented holding a cross, to which was attached a banner: and this is the form in which we now have the symbol of the Lamb of God.
Ever since sin entered the world, man has need of the lamb. Without the lamb he never could have inherited heaven, but would have been, for all eternity, an object of God’s just anger. In the very beginning of the world, the just Abel drew down upon himself the mercy of God by offering on a sod-made altar the fairest lamb of his flock: he himself was sacrificed, as a lamb, by the murderous hand of his brother, and thus became a type of our divine Lamb, Jesus, who was slain by His own Israelite brethren. When Abraham ascended the mountain to make the sacrifice commanded him by God, he immolated, on the altar prepared for Isaac, the ram he found amidst the thorns. Later on, God spoke to Moses, and revealed to him the Pasch: it consisted of a lamb that was to be slain and eaten. A few days back, we had read to us the passage from the Book of Exodus where God gives this rite to His people. The Paschal Lamb was to be without blemish; its blood was to be sprinkled as a protection against the destroying Angel, and its flesh was to be eaten. This was the first Pasch. It was most expressive as a figure, but void of reality. For fifteen hundred years was it celebrated by God’s people, and the spiritual-minded among the Jews knew it to be the type of a future Lamb.
In the age of the great prophets, Isaias prayed God to fulfill the promise He made at the beginning of the world. We united in this his sublime and inspired prayer, when, during Advent, the Church read to us his magnificent prophecies. How fervently did we repeat those words: “Send forth, O Lord, the Lamb, the ruler of the earth!” This Lamb was the long-expected Messias; and we said to ourselves: Oh what a Pasch will that be, wherein such a lamb is to be victim! What a feast wherein He is to be the food of the feasters!
“When the fulness of time came and God sent His Son” upon our earth, this Word made Flesh, after thirty years of hidden life, manifested Himself to men. He came to the river Jordan, where John was baptizing. No sooner did the holy Baptist see Him, than he said to his disciples: “Behold the Lamb of God! Behold Him who taketh away the sin of the world!” By these words the saintly Precursor proclaimed the Pasch; for he was virtually telling men that the earth then possessed the true lamb, the Lamb of God, of whom it had been in expectation four thousand years. Yes, the lamb who was fairer than the one offered by Abel, richer in mystery than the one slain by Abraham on the mount, and more spotless than the one the Israelites were commanded to sacrifice in Egypt, had come. He was the lamb so earnestly prayed for by Isaias; the lamb sent by God Himself; in a word, the Lamb of God. A few years would pass, and then the immolation. But three days ago we assisted at His sacrifice; we witnessed the meek patience wherewith He suffered His executioners to slay Him; we have been laved with His precious Blood, and it has cleansed us from all our sins.
The shedding of this redeeming Blood was needed for our Pasch. Unless we had been marked with it, we could not have escaped the sword of the destroying Angel. It has made us partake of the purity of the God who so generously shed it for us. Our neophytes have risen whiter than snow from the font, wherein that Blood was mingled. Poor sinners, that had lost the innocence received in their Baptism, have regained their treasure, because the divine energy of that Blood has been applied to their souls. The whole assembly of the faithful are clad in the nuptial garment, rich and fair beyond measure, for it has been “made white in the Blood of the Lamb.”
But why this festive garment? It is because we are invited to a great banquet: and here again, we find our lamb. He Himself is the food of the happy guests, and the banquet is the Pasch. The great Apostle St. Andrew, when confessing the name of Christ before the pagan proconsul Ægeas, spoke these sublime words: “I daily offer upon the altar the spotless lamb, of whose flesh the whole multitude of the faithful eat; the lamb that is sacrificed, remains whole and living.” Yesterday, this banquet was celebrated throughout the entire universe; it is kept up during all these days, and by it we contract a close union with the Lamb, who incorporates Himself with us by the divine food He gives us.
Nor does the mystery of the lamb end here. Isaias besought God to “send the lamb” who was to be “the ruler of the earth.” He comes, therefore, not only that He may be sacrificed, not only that He may feed us with His sacred Flesh, but likewise that He may command the earth and be King. Here, again, is our Pasch. The Pasch is the announcement of the reign of the lamb. The citizens of heaven thus proclaim it: “Behold,the lion of the tribe of Juda, the root of David hath conquered!” But if He be the lion, how is He the lamb? Let us be attentive to the mystery. Out of love for man, who needed redemption, and a heavenly food that would invigorate, Jesus deigned to be as a lamb: but He had, moreover, to triumph over His own and our enemies; He had to reign, for “all power was given to Him in heaven and in earth.” In this His triumph and power, He is a lion; nothing can resist Him; His victory is celebrated this day throughout the world. Listen to the great deacon of Edessa, St. Ephrem: “At the twelfth hour, He was taken down from the Cross as a lion that slept.” Yea, verily, our lion slept; for His rest in the sepulcher “was more like sleep than death,” as St. Leo remarks. Was not this the fulfillment of Jacob’s dying prophecy? This patriarch, speaking of the Messias that was to be born of his race, said: “Juda is a lion’s whelp. To the prey, my son, thou art gone up! Resting thou hast couched as a lion. Who shall rouse him?” He has roused Himself, by His own power. He has risen; a lamb for us, a lion for His enemies; thus uniting, in His Person, gentleness and power. This completes the mystery of our Pasch: a lamb, triumphant, obeyed, adored. Let us pay Him the homage so justly due. Until we be permitted to join, in heaven, with the millions of Angels and the four-and-twenty Elders, let us repeat, here on earth, the hymn they are forever singing: “The lamb that was slain, is worthy to receive power, and divinity, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and benediction!”
Formerly, the whole of this week was kept as a Feast, with the obligation of resting from servile work. The edict, published by Theodosius in 389, forbidding all law proceedings during the same period, was supplementary to this liturgical law, which we find mentioned in the Sermons of St. Augustine, and in the Homilies of St. John Chrysostom. The second of these two holy Fathers thus speaks to the newly baptized: “You are enjoying a daily introduction during these seven days. We put before you a spiritual banquet, that thus we may teach you how to arm yourselves and fight against the devil, who is now preparing to attack you more violently than ever; for the greater is the gift you have received, the greater will be the combat you must go through to preserve it … During these following seven days, you have the word of God preached to you, that you may go forth well prepared to fight with your enemies. Moreover, you know it is usual to keep up a nuptial feast for seven days: you are now celebrating a spiritual marriage, and therefore we have established the custom of a seven days’ solemnity.”
So fervently did the faithful of those times appreciate and love the Liturgy, so lively was the interest they took in the newly-made children of holy mother Church, that they joyfully went through the whole of the Services of this week. Their hearts were filled with the joy of the Resurrection, and they thought it but right to devote their whole time to its celebration. Councils laid down canons, changing the pious custom into a formal law. The Council of Mâcon, in 585, thus words its decree: “It behoves us all to fervently celebrate the Feast of the Pasch, in which our great High Priest was slain for our sins, and to honor it by carefully observing all it prescribes. Let no one, therefore, do any servile work during these six days (which followed the Sunday), but let all come together to sing the Easter hymns, and assist at the daily Sacrifice, and praise our Creator and Redeemer in the evening, morning, and mid-day.” The Councils of Mayence (813) and Meaux (845) lay down similar rules. We find the same prescribed in Spain in the 7th century, by the edicts of kings Receswind and Wamba. The Greek Church renewed them in her Council in Trullo; Charlemagne, Louis the Good, Charles the Bald, sanctioned the in their Capitularia; and the canonists of the 11th and 12th centuries, Burchard, St. Ivo of Chartres, Gratian, tell us they were in force in their time. Finally, Pope Gregory IX inserted them in one of his decretals, in the 18th century. But their observance had then fallen into desuetude, at least in many places. The Council held at Constance, in 1094, reduced te solemnity of Easter to the Monday and Tuesday. The two great liturgists, John Belethus in the 12th, and Durandus in the 13th century, inform us that, in their times, this was the practice in France. It gradually became the discipline of the whole of the western Church, and continued to be so, until relaxation crept still further on, and a dispensation was obtained by some countries, first for the Tuesday, and finally for the Monday.
In order fully to understand the Liturgy of the whole Easter Octave (Low Sunday included), we must remember that the neophytes were formerly present, vested in their white garments, at the Mass and Divine Office of each day. Allusions to their Baptism are continually being made in the chants and Lessons of the entire Week.
At Rome, the Station for today is the basilica of St. Peter. On Saturday, the catechumens received the Sacrament of regeneration in the Lateran basilica of our Savior; yesterday, they celebrated the Resurrection in the magnificent church of St. Mary; it is just that they should come, on this third day, to pay their grateful devotions to Peter, on whom Christ has built His whole Church. Jesus our Savior, Mary Mother of God and of men, Peter the visible head of Christ’s mystical Body, these are the three divine manifestations whereby we first entered, and have maintained our place in, the Christian Church.
Mass.—The Introit, which is taken from the Book of Exodus, is addressed to the Church’s new-born children. It reminds them of the milk and honey which were given to them on the night of Saturday last, after they had received holy Communion. They are true Israelites, brought into the Promised Land. Let them, therefore, praise the Lord, who has chosen them from the pagan world, that He might make them His favored people.
Introit
Introduxit vos Dominus in terram fluentem lac et mel, alleluia: et ut lex Domini semper sit in ore vestro. Alleluia, alleluia.
The Lord hath brought you into a land flowing with milk and honey, alleluia: let then the law of the Lord be ever in your mouth. Alleluia, alleluia.
Ps. Confitemini Domino et invocate nomen ejus: annuntiate inter gentes opera ejus. ℣. Gloria Patri. Introduxit.
Ps. Praise the Lord, and call upon his name: publish his works among the Gentiles. ℣. Glory, &c. The Lord, &c.
At the sight of Jesus, her Spouse, now freed from the bonds of death, holy Church prays God that we, the members of this divine Head, may come to that perfect liberty of which the Resurrection is the type. Our long slavery to sin should have taught us the worth of that liberty of the children of God which our Pasch has restored to us.
Collect
Deus, qui solemnitate paschali, mundo remedia contulisti: populum tuum quæsumus, cœlesti dono prosequere: ut et perfectam libertatem consequi mereatur, et ad vitam proficiat sempiternam. Per Dominum.
O God, who by the mystery of the Paschal solemnity, hast bestowed remedies on the world; continue, we beseech thee, thy heavenly blessings on thy people, that they may deserve to obtain perfect liberty, and advance towards eternal life. Through, &c.
Epistle
Lesson from the Acts of the Apostles. Ch. X.
You know the word which hath been published through all Judea: for it began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached, Jesus of Nazareth: how God anointed him with the Holy Ghost, and with power, who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. And we are witnesses of all things that he did in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed, hanging him upon a tree. Him God raised up the third day, and gave him to be made manifest, Not to all the people, but to witnesses preordained by God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he arose again from the dead; And he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is he who was appointed by God, to be judge of the living and of the dead. To him all the prophets give testimony, that by his name all receive remission of sins, who believe in him.
Quote:St. Peter spoke these words to Cornelius, the centurion, and to the household and friends of this Gentile who had called them together to receive the Apostle whom God had sent to him. He had come to prepare them for Baptism, and thus make them the first-fruits of the Gentile world, for up to this time, the Gospel had been preached only to the Jews. Let us take notice how it is St. Peter, and not any other of the Apostles, who throws open to us Gentiles the door of the Church, which Christ has built upon him, as upon the impregnable rock. This passage from the Acts of the Apostles is an appropriate Lesson for this day, whose Station is in the basilica of St. Peter: it is read near the Confession of the great Apostle, and in presence of the neophytes, who have been converted from the worship of false gods to the true faith. Let us observe, too, the method used by the Apostle in the conversion of Cornelius and the other Gentiles. He begins by speaking to them concerning Jesus. He tells them of the miracles He wrought; then, having related how He died the ignominious death of the cross, he insists on the fact of the Resurrection as the sure guarantee of His being truly God. He then instructs them on the mission of the Apostles, whose testimony must be received—a testimony which carries persuasion with it, seeing it was most disinterested, and availed them nothing save persecution. He, therefore, that believes in the Son of God made Flesh, who went about doing good, working all kinds of miracles; who died upon the cross, rose again from the dead, and entrusted to certain men, chosen by Himself, the mission of continuing on earth the ministry He had begun—he that confesses all this is worthy to receive, by holy Baptism, the remission of his sins. Such is the happy lot of Cornelius and his companions; such has been that of our neophytes.
Then is sung the Gradual, which repeats the expression of Paschal joy. The Verse, however, is different from yesterday’s, and will vary every day till Friday. The Alleluia-Verse describes the Angel coming down from heaven, that he may open the empty sepulcher, and manifest the self-gained victory of the Redeemer.
Gradual
Hæc dies, quam fecit Dominus: exsultemus, et lætemur in ea.
This is the day which the Lord hath made: let us be glad and rejoice therein.
℣. Dicat nunc Israel, quoniam bonus: quoniam in sæculum misericordia ejus.
℣. Let Israel now say, that the Lord is good: that his mercy endureth for ever.
Alleluia, alleluia.
Alleluia, alleluia.
℣. Angelus Domini descendit de cœlo: et accedens revolvit lapidem, et sedebat super eum.
℣. An Angel of the Lord descended from heaven; and coming he rolled back the stone, and sat upon it.
The Sequence, Victimæ Paschali, is from Easter Sunday.
Gospel
Sequel of the holy Gospel according to Luke. Ch. XXIV.
And behold, two of them went, the same day, to a town which was sixty furlongs from Jerusalem, named Emmaus. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. And it came to pass, that while they talked and reasoned with themselves, Jesus himself also drawing near, went with them. But their eyes were held, that they should not know him. And he said to them: What are these discourses that you hold one with another as you walk, and are sad? And the one of them, whose name was Cleophas, answering, said to him: Art thou only a stranger to Jerusalem, and hast not known the things that have been done there in these days? To whom he said: What things? And they said: Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet, mighty in work and word before God and all the people; And how our chief priests and princes delivered him to be condemned to death, and crucified him. But we hoped, that it was he that should have redeemed Israel: and now besides all this, today is the third day since these things were done. Yea and certain women also of our company affrighted us, who before it was light, were at the sepulchre, And not finding his body, came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, who say that he is alive. And some of our people went to the sepulchre, and found it so as the women had said, but him they found not. Then he said to them: O foolish, and slow of heart to believe in all things which the prophets have spoken. Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him. And they drew nigh to the town, whither they were going: and he made as though he would go farther. But they constrained him; saying: Stay with us, because it is towards evening, and the day is now far spent. And he went in with them. And it came to pass, whilst he was at table with them, he took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him: and he vanished out of their sight. And they said one to the other: Was not our heart burning within us, whilst he spoke in this way, and opened to us the scriptures? And rising up, the same hour, they went back to Jerusalem: and they found the eleven gathered together, and those that were staying with them, Saying: The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. And they told what things were done in the way; and how they knew him in the breaking of the bread.
Quote:Let us attentively consider these three travelers on the road to Emmaus, and go with them in spirit and affection. Two of them are frail men like ourselves, who are afraid of suffering; the cross has disconcerted them; they cannot persevere in the faith unless they find it brings them glory and success. O foolish and slow of heart! says the third: ought not Christ to have suffered, and so to enter into His glory? Hitherto, we ourselves have been like these two disciples. Our sentiments have been more those of the Jew than of the Christian. Hence our love of earthly things, which has made us heedless of such as are heavenly, and has thereby exposed us to sin. We cannot, for the time to come, be thus minded. The glorious Resurrection of our Jesus eloquently teaches us how to look upon the crosses sent us by God. However great may be our future trials, we are not likely to be nailed to a cross between two thieves. It is what the Son of God had to undergo: but did the sufferings of the Friday mar the kingly splendor of the Sunday’s triumph? Nay, is not His present glory redoubled by His past humiliations?
Therefore, let us not be cowards when our time for sacrifice comes; let us think of the eternal reward that is to follow. These two disciples did not know that it was Jesus who was speaking to them; and yet, He no sooner explained to them the plan of God’s wisdom and goodness, than they understood the mystery of suffering. Their hearts burned within them at hearing Him explain how the cross leads to the crown; and had He not held their eyes that they should not know Him, they would have discovered from his words that their instructor was Jesus. So will it be with us, if we will allow Him to speak to us. We shall understand how the disciple is not above the Master. Let us, this Easter, delight in gazing at the resplendent glory of our risen Lord, and we shall exclaim with the Apostle: No! “the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, that shall be revealed in us.”
Now that the efforts made by the Christian for his conversion are being recompensed with the honor of approaching the holy banquet clothed in the nuptial-garment, there is another consideration that forces itself upon our attention, from the reading of today’s Gospel. It was during the breaking of bread that the eyes of the two disciples were opened to recognize their Master. The sacred Food which we receive, and whose whole virtue comes from the word of Christ, gives light to our souls, and enables them to see what before was hidden. Yes, this is the effect produced in us by the divine mystery of our Pasch, provided we be of the number of those who are thus described by the pious author of the Following of Christ: “They truly know their Lord in the breaking of Bread, whose heart burneth so mightily within them from Jesus’ walking with them.” Let us, therefore, give ourselves unreservedly to our risen Jesus. We belong to Him now more than ever, not only because of His having died, but also for his having risen for us. Let us imitate the disciples of Emmaus, and, like them, become faithful, joyful, and eager to show forth by our conduct that “newness of life” of which the Apostle speaks, and which alone befits us, seeing that Christ has so loved us as to wish His own Resurrection to be ours also.
The reason for the choice of this Gospel for today is that the Station is held in the basilica of St. Peter. St. Luke here tells us that the two disciples found the Apostles already made cognizant of the Resurrection of their Master: He hath, said they, appeared to Simon! We spoke yesterday of the favor thus shown to the Prince of the Apostles, which the Roman Church so justly commemorates in today’s Office.
The Offertory consists of a text from the holy Gospel, referring to the circumstances of our Lord’s Resurrection.
Offertory
Angelus Domini descendit de cœlo, et dixit mulieribus: Quem quæritis surrexit sicut dixit, alleluia.
An Angel of the Lord came down from heaven, and said to the women: He whom you seek, is risen, as he told you, alleluia.
In the Secret, the Church prays that the Paschal Sacrament may be to her children a food nourishing them to immortality, and may unite them as members to their divine Head, not only for time, but even for eternity.
Secret
Suscipe, quæsumus Domine, preces populi tui cum oblationibus hostiarum: ut paschalibus initiata mysteriis, ad æternitatis nobis medelam, te operante, proficiant. Per Dominum.
Receive, O Lord, we beseech thee, the prayers of thy people, together with the offerings of these hosts: that what is consecrated by those Paschal mysteries, may, by the help of thy grace, avail us to eternal life. Through, &c.
During the Communion, the Church reminds the faithful of the visit paid by the Savior, after his Resurrection, to St. Peter. The faith of his Resurrection is the faith of Peter, and the faith of Peter is the foundation of the Church, and the bond of Catholic unity.
Communion
Surrexit Dominus, et apparuit Petro, alleluia.
The Lord hath risen, and appeared to Peter, alleluia.
In the Postcommunion, the Church again prays that her children, who have been fellow-guests at the feast of the Lamb, may have that spirit of concord which should reign among the members of one and the same family, whose union has been again cemented by this year’s Pasch.
Postcommunion
Spiritum nobis, Domine, tuæ charitatis infunde: ut quos Sacramentis paschalibus satiasti, tua facias pietate concordes. Per Dominum.
Pour forth on us, O Lord, the spirit of thy love; that those whom thou hast filled with the Paschal Sacrament, may, by thy goodness, live in perfect concord. Through, &c.
VESPERS
The “Vespers are the same as yesterday, with the exception of the Magnificat- Antiphon and the Collect.
ANTIPHON OF THE MAGNIFICAT
ANT. What are these discourses that ye hold one with another, and are sad? Alleluia.
LET US PRAY
O God, who by the mystery of the Paschal solemnity hast bestowed remedies on the world; continue, we beseech thee, thy heavenly blessings on thy people, that they may deserve to obtain perfect liberty, and advance towards eternal life. Through, etc.
Let us glorify the Son of God for his having, on this the second day of the Creation, made the firmament, and divided the waters that were under from those that were above it. The Holy Fathers have, in commenting these mysterious words, preferred the spiritual to the material sense. Here we recognize the powerful hand of God, who strengthened his work, and established an equilibrium between those elements which lay confounded together in chaos. The Mozarabic Liturgy gives us the following beautiful Prayer, wherewith to praise our Creator in this portion of his work.
CAPITULA
O Christ, our God, who, by creating the firmament on the second _ day, didst prefigure the solidity of the Scriptures on which rests thy Church; and who, by separation of the waters from the waters, didst designate the separation of the heavenly choirs of Angels from the weak and inferior-creation, — man: O thou, the Author of the two Testaments, who didst fulfill the figure of the ancient sacrifice by the new covenant of the immolation of thy Body: grant, that by understanding and wisdom, we may be associated to the angelic Powers, as to the Waters that are above us, and may ever tend to heavenly things. May the solidity of the two Laws be so fixed in our hearts, that the power of thy Resurrection may lead us to infinite joy.
Let us close the day with two Prefaces on the mystery of the Resurrection. The first is the one used, by the Ambrosian Liturgy, on Easter Sunday.
PREFACE
It is truly meet and just, right and available to salvation, that we should give thanks and devout praise to thee, O holy and Almighty God, adorable Father, Author and Creator of all things! for that Christ Jesus, thy Son, though the Lord of majesty, did deign to suffer the Cross for the redemption of mankind. It was this that Abraham, so many ages past, prefigured in his son; it was this that the Mosaic people typified by the immolation of a spotless lamb. This is he of whom sang the holy Prophets, who was to bear upon him the sins of all men, and wipe away their crimes. This is the Pasch, ennobled by the Blood of Christ, which makes the Faithful exult with especial devotion. O mystery full of grace! O ineffable mystery of God’s munificence! O ever to be honoured Feast of feasts! whereon Christ gave himself to men that they might slay him, and this that he might ransom slaves. O truly blessed Death, which loosed the bonds of death! Now let the prince of hell feel that he is crushed; now let us, who have been snatched from the abyss, rejoice that we have been exalted to the kingdom of heaven.
The following Preface is the one used by the ancient Church of Gaul, in celebrating the mystery of our Paschal Lamb.
IMMOLATIO
It is right and just, that we give thanks to thee, Almighty and Eternal God, through Jesus Christ thy Son, our Lord; by whom thou gavest life to mankind, and wouldst have thy servants Moses and Aaron celebrate the Pasch by the sacrifice of a lamb. This same rite thou didst command to be observed and remembered in after times, even to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, who was led like a lamb to the slaughter. He is the spotless Lamb, that was slain by God’s first people, when they kept their first Pasch in Egypt. He is the ram taken from the thorns on the top of a high mountain, destined for sacrifice. He is the fatted calf, slain under the tent of our father Abraham, that it might be served up to his guests. We celebrate his Passion and Resurrection; we look forward, with hope, to his last coming.
And now let us warm our hearts to the Paschal mystery, by this admirable Sequence of Adam of Saint-Victor:
SEQUENCE
Hail, thou Day of days! happy Day of Jesus’ victory! Day worthy of ceaseless joy! O first of days!
It was on this Day, that the divine Light gladdened the blind with its brightness: that Christ robbed hell of its spoils, conquered death, and made peace between heaven and earth.
The sentence of the Eternal King concluded all under sin, that the weak might be made strong by heavenly grace.
And when the whole world was going headlong to the abyss, the Power and Wisdom of God softened his anger by his Mercy.
The old enemy, the author of sin, insulted us in our misery, for that there was no hope left us of the pardon of our sins.
The world despaired of a remedy: when lo! whilst all things were in quiet silence, God the Father sent his Son to them that had no hope.
The greedy thief, the hellish monster, saw the Flesh, but not the snare: he grasped at the hook, and was caught.
We were restored to our former dignity by Jesus, whose Resurrection now gladdens us.
He, the restorer of mankind, rose again free from the dead; he carried his sheep, on his shoulders, back to heaven.
Peace is made between angels and men; the heavenly ranks are filled up: praise, eternal praise is due to our triumphant Lord.
Let the voice of Mother Church blend in harmony with that of heaven; let the Faithful sing now, without ceasing, their Alleluia.
A triumph has been won over the power of death; let us rejoice in the triumph. Peace on earth, and jubilee in heaven! Amen.
|
|
|
|