| Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
| Online Users |
There are currently 334 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 332 Guest(s)
Bing, Google
|
| Latest Threads |
Oratory Conference: The M...
Forum: Conferences
Last Post: Deus Vult
11 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 25
|
Oratory Conference: "Lib...
Forum: Conferences
Last Post: Deus Vult
11 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 25
|
Oratory Conference: Holy...
Forum: Conferences
Last Post: Deus Vult
Yesterday, 03:40 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 31
|
Fr. Ruiz Sermons: 2025 04...
Forum: Fr. Ruiz's Sermons April 2025
Last Post: Deus Vult
Yesterday, 03:35 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 27
|
Oratory Conference: "The...
Forum: Conferences
Last Post: Deus Vult
Yesterday, 03:27 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 35
|
Apologia pro Marcel Lefeb...
Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:43 AM
» Replies: 14
» Views: 1,970
|
New Archbishop of Detroit...
Forum: Vatican II and the Fruits of Modernism
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 06:40 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 59
|
Oratory Conference: April...
Forum: Conferences
Last Post: Deus Vult
04-15-2025, 07:24 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 82
|
Oratory Conference: "Voca...
Forum: Conferences
Last Post: Deus Vult
04-15-2025, 03:36 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 97
|
The Holocaust, Vatican II...
Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
Last Post: Stone
04-15-2025, 07:21 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 119
|
|
|
| The Woman Clothed with the Sun |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-11-2025, 07:01 AM - Forum: Our Lady
- No Replies
|
 |
A gem is not appreciated until it is dug out and polished. The twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse is such a gem. In the past dozen years a great increase of interest and study has been devoted to it.1 This interest sprang both from the endeavour to ascertain the evidence of Holy Writ for the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Mother,2 and to a great extent from the present day study of Mariology in general. Our problem is to identify the Woman and to find out the meaning of the chapter.
Literary Structure and Content of the Vision
Even from a literary point of view, the twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse has artistic balance and beauty. It is like a drama in three acts, with the action moving swiftly. The eighteen verses of the chapter fall neatly into three parts with six verses to each part.3
Act I: verses 1-6
Brilliant is the vision with which the act opens. It is a great symbolic sign or portent. The setting is heaven.4 A Woman is engulfed in the dazzling brightness of the sun itself, as in a garment of light;5 her feet tread on the moon.6 She is radiant with the celestial ornament of twelve stars which form her royal crown. And she is Mother! That is the one occupation mentioned of her: child-bearing, with all the care and pain of child-bearing, all the ardour and labour of bringing forth: “And she was with Child and cried out in the pangs of birth and in pain to be delivered” (verse 2).
But at once another sign or portent appears on the scene: a great red Dragon. His colour is one of fire and war, his appearance one of wordly might and power.7 Seven heads he has, each one crowned with a diadem. Ten horns of power are upon those heads. But the occupation mentioned of him is that of ruthless destruction. For “his tail swept down one-third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth” (verse 4).
Stars crown the Woman; stars are swept down by the Dragon. The Woman is in the act of giving life to the world; the Dragon is in the act of destroying a great part of it. Thus the two great figures of this scene are ushered in, described separately at first, as just mentioned, but then immediately in relation to each other.
The Dragon is the sworn enemy of the Woman: “And the Dragon stationed himself before the Woman who was about to be delivered, so that when she was delivered he might devour her Child” (verse 4). Not satisfied with destroying the third part of the heavens, he is all out to devour the Woman’s offspring. Why this hatred against the Woman and her Child? Why this desire to make an end of the Child? The reason is given as the action proceeds.
Now the scene changes and we are on earth. The Child is no other than the Lord of the world: “And she gave birth to a son, a male,8 who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her Child9 was caught up to God and His throne. Then the Woman fled to the desert, where she has a place prepared by God, that there they might nourish her for 1260 days.’’10
Notice that what is said of the Woman and her Child spells a twofold defeat for the Dragon, namely, the failure to devour or harm the Child, for “he was caught up to God and His throne”; and the further failure to inflict harm on the Woman, for she hid herself and was cared for by God.
That ends the first act. The Woman and her Child disappear from the scene unharmed, unconquered. No wonder the Dragon wanted to snuff out the life of the Child, for, with all his power of seven heads, ten horns and seven diadems, the Dragon was but a usurper of world power. Here was the true Lord of the world.
Act II: verses 7-12
Again the setting is heaven. There is war and a battle: “And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels going forth to make war with the Dragon; and the Dragon and his angels fought, and did not prevail, nor was their place found anymore in heaven” (verses 7-8). Why were they cast out? There is no offence mentioned, other than the one given in the first part of the first act, where the setting was also heaven, namely, the Dragon had refused submission to the Lord of the world, the rightful heir of all.
But the action proceeds. The Dragon was cast down to the earth. Now the sacred writer tells us who the Dragon is: “He is the ancient Serpent (ὁ ὄφις ὁ ἀρχαῖος: Gen. 3:14-15 LXX) who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world” (verse 9). He will deceive men and blind them to the truth.
There follows a hymn of victory, sung in heaven. It sings the downfall of Satan, and the triumph of God’s Anointed, the Christ. It sings further the triumph of martyrs, who, one with Christ, conquer the Dragon, namely, by choosing to die with Christ in testimony of the truth: “They have conquered him [the Dragon] because of the Blood of the Lamb and because of the utterances of their testimony. And they clung not to their life even when facing death” (verse 11). Thus it was the death of the Lamb that enabled these martyrs to triumph over the deceiver of the world.
But the voice from heaven continues: “Woe to the earth and to the sea. Because the Devil has descended to you in great fury, knowing that he has but a short time” (verse 12). A woe is pronounced on the earth, the third of the woes mentioned in 11:14: “Lo, the third woe shall come quickly.”11
Act III: verses 13-18
Again the scene is on earth and the action between the Dragon and the Woman is resumed. Now it is the Woman alone who is the object of his fury: “And when the Dragon saw that he was cast down to the earth, he went in pursuit of the Woman who had given birth to the son, the male. And the two wings of the great eagle were given to the Woman so that she might fly into the desert to her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times and half a time,12 away from the presence of the Serpent” (verses 13-14). So the Dragon fails to harm the Woman because she has God’s special protection, symbolized by the wings of the eagle (as can be inferred from Ex. 19:4; Deut. 32:11).
A second attempt is made by the Dragon-Serpent (the Dragon is now called the Serpent by the Sacred writer) to overthrow the Woman. Then the Serpent vomited water from his mouth like a river after the Woman, that he might cause her to be carried away by the stream” (verse 15). This time help comes again to the Woman and it is from the side of the earth which opened its mouth and sucked up the river vomited from the mouth of the Serpent. So whatever may be tried, the Dragon-Serpent was foiled. He was unable to harm the Woman who remained inviolable against his attacks.
The final action of the Dragon in this chapter is his resolve to wage war on the remainder of the Woman’s offspring. They are characterized as those who observe the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus (verse 17).13
Chapter 12 ends with the Dragon stationing himself on the shore of the sea to invest with his power and with his throne and with all his authority the Beast which comes up out of the sea (chapter 13). By its very appearance, the Beast is recognized as the Dragon’s offspring.
From this mere literary analysis certain points are clear:
The Dragon is Satan, who is the Enemy to the Lord of the world and to the one who bore the Lord of the world.
The Lord of the world is, first of all, Christ the Messias. St. John14 takes special pains to show that:
He describes him with a quotation taken from a psalm that is admittedly messianic:15 “You shall rule the nations with a rod of iron” (Psa. 2:9). For no one else but the Messias does the Old Testament claim such world-rule.
In explicit terms this is expressed in Apocalypse 19:11-16: “His Name is called Word of God… He shall rule the nations with a rod of iron… He has upon His robe and upon His thigh a Name: King of kings and Lord of lords.”
In order that no one will miss the point, St. John inserts in our present verse (12:5) the word “all”: “He shall rule all the nations with a rod of iron.” There can be no reasonable doubt then, that the Woman’s offspring is Christ, the Messias, the Lord of the world and universal King.
The Lord of the world in this same verse also designates the members of Christ’s mystical body. This follows:
From the grammatical context: The Woman brings forth a son, a male (υἱόν, ἄρσεν). There is no other mention of the Woman’s bringing forth than this. Yet in the same chapter that offspring (υἱόν, ἄρσεν) is both individual and collective:16 individual, when it is designated as “the Child” (τὸ τέκνον: verses 4 and 6); collective, when referred to as “the remainder of her seed” (λοιπῶν τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῆς: verse 17). Thus “the Child” and “the remainder of her seed” are both included in the “son, the male” (υἱόν, ἄρσεν) born of the Woman, as Lord of the world.17
This also follows from the parallel text of Apocalypse 2:27, where the members of Christ are given a share in the rule of the world: “To the victor and to him who guards my words to the end, I will give authority over the nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron.”
It is likewise the teaching of the earliest Fathers who comment on this chapter 12 of the Apocalypse. For St. Hippolytus, the son, the male, is Christ the perfect man, Head and members.18 St. Methodius19 and St. Victorinus of Pettau20 likewise.
The Woman gives birth to Christ, Head and members, in one and the same act. Who is this woman, the object of Satan’s fury, decked out as Queen of the Heavens, in the great throes of Motherhood in order to give to the world its rightful heir and king, and what role has she to play at this juncture of the apocalyptic visions, placed as she is before the reign of the Beast in chapter 13? From the foregoing is not the impression received that she is a concrete and individual personality? What prevents us from stating that the Woman symbolizes the Blessed Mother?
Objections to the Woman’s Symbolizing Mary
Formerly it was a frequent objection that the description of the Woman is incompatible with the Blessed Mother. Here are the chief points:
First objection: the birth-pangs.
Several satisfactory solutions can be given to reconcile the birth-pangs with the Virgin-Mother who suffered no such birth-pangs in bringing forth Christ, the Messias:
To be born in pangs of birth (ὠδίνω) does not necessarily refer to physical pangs of child-bearing. St. Paul tells the Galatians (4:19) that he is in the pains of child-birth again (ὠδίνω) until Christ be formed in them. But he cannot mean the physical pangs of child-birth. In Romans 8:22 he says that all creation groans and agonizes until now (συν ὠδίνω). In both cases there is a question of sufferings in general or sufferings of soul.
Likewise the expression “to be in pain to be delivered” (βασανίζω) is used in the New Testament either for physical or spiritual suffering.21 Thus the picture of the Woman in the throes of child-bearing can represent spiritual sufferings, cares and anxieties, or even persecution. In Jeremias 30:6 it is a symbol of the sufferings of exile. For the earliest Fathers22 it is the symbol of persecution or of the anguish of intense desire.
Consequently the picture can represent the universal Mother in her anguish of desire to bring forth Christ in the hearts of all men, or the spiritual sufferings which were the price of Motherhood of the whole Christ.
Second objection: The Woman has other children (verse 17) and this is said to militate against Mary’s perpetual virginity.
It is surprising that this objection is still made today.23 Even a superficial examination of the use of the word Offspring (σπέρμα) in Scripture shows that it can stand both for physical offspring of carnal descent, and for those who are born in a spiritual manner of someone. In Galatians 3:29 Abraham’s offspring (σπέρμα) are the Gentiles who believe, and thus become the spiritual sons of Abraham, but are not his sons by carnal descent. Scripture speaks of the seed of Satan, the Serpent (Gen. 3:15) and of the seed of God (1 John 3:9). So in Apocalypse 12:17, too, there can be a question of the spiritual progeny of the Woman and hence the dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity would be left intact.
Third objection: The Woman in chapter 12 is a symbol. Hence it cannot refer to an individual.
This statement is not borne out by the Scriptural use of a symbol. The Lamb in Apocalypse 5 with seven horns and seven eyes is a symbol and yet it surely does refer to Christ the individual (see also Dan. 8:21-22).
Fourth objection: The Apocalypse is written long after Mary’s departure from this earth. According to its author it is a prophecy (22:18) and consequently deals with the future. Thus it cannot refer to things that happened to the Blessed Mother in the past.
A proper understanding of the nature of the apocalyptic books satisfies this objection. Such books were common in the centuries immediately preceding the Christian era. Symbols were used to signify events partly accomplished and partly to be fulfilled. The Apocalypse itself gives evidence of this. The Lamb in 5:6 is depicted as slain, and yet is about to execute the contents of the sealed scroll. The angel in 17:9 has the same to say about the seven heads of the Beast: “Five are fallen, one is, and the other is not yet come.” Chapter 12, then, can refer to past events in Mary’s life and still be prophetic of something in the future.
Fifth objection: The detail of the flight into the desert for 1260 days does not fit the Blessed Mother.
To this it may be said that it could be a literary device of the author to express the Woman’s exemption from all diabolical influence. Moreover, also from a historical standpoint, it is not incompatible with the life of Mary, even if nothing is known to correspond to it. But precisely this detail will be taken up further on.
Far from the description of the Woman being incompatible with the Blessed Mother, it lends itself admirably to any number of truths of Mariology:
Mary’s fullness of divine graces and gifts, symbolized by being clothed with Christ, the Light of the world.
Her exalted position in heaven where the entire body of the elect form her crown of glory, twelve being the number for universality.
The divine Motherhood of her whose Son is Messias, Universal King and Son of God (verse 5).
Spiritual Motherhood of the faithful by reason of which she suffered the birth-pangs of Calvary long before it became a reality (Luke 2:35).
Her complete exemption from all diabolical influence so as to remain unconquered by Satan in every way.
Yet the minds of many remain unconvinced that all this is anything more than apt accommodation. It does not prove sufficiently that the Holy Spirit, the author of Scripture, intended the Woman to symbolize the Blessed Mother, so that such is the true scriptural sense of the symbol. We must proceed further, then, with our study.
Is Mary Intended by the Holy Spirit in the Literal Sense?
It must be kept in mind that chapter 12 is a revelation given by God to St. John in a vision. Moreover, the Apocalypse is a prophecy (22:18). The Seer describes the symbolic vision as clearly as he can, but the full meaning of it is known to him only if it pleases God to make it known (cf. Dan. 7:16). God’s meaning of the symbol in question, if not given by the sacred writer, will have to be ascertained by ruling out whatever the analogy of faith shows to be incompatible with the symbol; and at the same time by applying the other norms of Catholic exegesis (either literary or doctrinal as laid down by Pius XII in “Divino Afflante Spiritu”) if they help clarify the issue.
The Woman is not the Israel of the Old Testament, taken by itself. Some authors contented themselves with saying: “The Woman is the Chosen People of God, Israel, represented as a single person. From Israel the Messias sprang according to the flesh amid heavy birth-pangs.” The following reasons militate against such an assumption.
Israel can never be said to be mother both of Christ (verse 6) and of Christ’s followers or members (verse 17). If circumcision and the Law were necessary for Christians, as some early Judaizers advocated, this view could have some backing. But just the opposite is the case. Not by any connection with Judaism or the Synagogue did one become a disciple of Christ, but by Baptism, an entirely new institution of Christ. And in becoming a member of Christ in Baptism, one by no means became a member of Israel. Israel, then, is not the Woman who begets Christ the Head and His members.24
A picture of a woman in birth-pangs may well represent Israel amid many sufferings giving the Messias to the world, but the glorious Woman in verse 1 is poles apart from the reality of unfaithful Israel with her many failures and transgressions as the prophets depict her for us (cf. Isa. 1:4-6; Ez. 16; etc.).
Israel was never mother to Christians (verse 17). She persecuted them from the very beginning of Christianity.
Israel’s whole purpose was to give the Messias to the world. If John had Israel in mind, his emphasis upon the Woman after the birth of the Child (verses 13 to 17) is meaningless, To imagine that it refers to a special protection of God for the unbelieving Jewish people in the Christian era does not fit into the picture.25
The Woman is not the Christian Church founded by Christ, taken by itself.
The Church may well be depicted as the mother of Christians, the members of Christ, but never of the personal Christ Himself. It is certain that the Woman’s Child in verse 5 (and the following verses) includes the personal Christ, so it is against all the rules of symbolism to designate as His Mother the very institution that He founded, which is rather symbolized as the New Eve coming forth from His side on the cross. The Church is the Spouse of Jesus Christ.
Nor can we simply say that we have here a figure of speech which is elastic. First of all, a figure of speech is not identical with a symbolic vision. Moreover, a figure of speech has to correspond to the rules of thought. Would anyone ever think of calling the United States of America the mother of George Washington? Likewise it is incorrect to call the Church the Mother of Jesus.
The Woman is not the personified People of God, the Community of the Just of both Testaments, both faithful Israel out of which the Messias took flesh and spiritual Israel, the Church, considered as one. This is St. Augustine’s interpretation, who holds that the Woman is the City of God from the just Abel down to the last Saint; and it is the opinion of several notable authors today.26
Against this we must note the following. No one doubts that in heaven the just of all times form one People of God, one Kingdom of God and His Christ, one Communion of Saints; no one doubts that the People of God in the Old Testament can well be represented by the symbol of a woman (as in the prophets) and that the People of God in the New Testament can well be represented by the figure of a woman (as in St. Paul and the Fathers of the Church). But it is quite another thing to say that the same identical symbol can represent at the same time both the People of God in the Old Testament and those of the New Testament in their sojourn on earth. Their images are related to each other as type and antitype, figure and fulfilment; they have a different origin, organization, program of action, extension in time and place, and it is difficult to see how they can be blended together under one and the same symbol. If the observations concerning the υἱόν, ἄρσεν hold good, as was explained earlier in the literary analysis of Apocalypse 12, namely, that the Woman is Mother simultaneously of the personal Christ and His members, the Woman is not the Community of the just of both Testaments.27
The Woman is not Mary, taken alone. Despite the fact that the symbolic vision of chapter 12 has been shown to correspond to many truths of Mariology, an adequate explanation of the flight into the desert for 1260 days (verses 6 and 14) is not forthcoming. This detail evidently connects the chapter with the foregoing (11:2-3) and the following chapter (13:5). It brings us to the final possibility.
The Woman Is Simultaneously an Individual and a Collectivity
If we examine the symbols in the book of Daniel we find that they allow a certain amount of fluctuation in the objects they symbolize. Not that they fluctuate between designating various objects, but rather between a collective body and the chief representative of that collective body. The golden head of the statue in Daniel 2 refers to Nabuchodonosor in person and at the same time, the Babylonian Empire in its entirety.28 The two-horned ram in chapter 8 (verses 3 and 20), according to the tenor of the angel’s explanation, symbolizes the Medo-Persian Empire and at the same time its chief representative who fought the Greeks. Similarly with the he-goat in the same chapter. The son of man in chapter 7 symbolizes both the Holy One of Israel29 and His people, the holy ones of God (verses 14, 21 and 27). In all these cases God intended to symbolize both the collective body and its chief representative by one and the same symbol, and in both cases we are dealing with the Scriptural sense of the symbol. There need be no question of a double literal sense, for the collective body and its chief representative do not form two diverse objects, but one organic unity. They really are one.
Let us apply this to Apocalypse 12. The Woman signifies an individual,30 and no other individual can be meant but Mary, for Mary alone became Mother simultaneously of the personal Christ and of those who are His members.31 The Woman signifies, at the same time, a collective body that is organically one with Mary, namely, the Church, which is born of Mary, and is truly the fruit of her womb, and of which she is truly Mother and Ideal.32 This double signification of the symbol of the Woman was already considered common view in the fifth century in the West33 and is represented by a steady line of interpreters down to our own day.34
Yet I think that the Woman (Mary) represents something more than precisely the Church in general here, and that is the Church in its final stage of perfection on earth, when the Ideal of the Perfect Woman which God always had in mind, has worked itself out perfectly in the Church, namely, when the Church of the Consummation has acquired the full likeness of the Ideal Virgin-Mother. I say the Church in its final stage on earth, for that is where chapter 12 fits into the Apocalypse, to wit: “when the mystery of God achieves its full perfection, in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he is about to sound” (10:7; 11:15). That, however, is bound up with the return of Israel to Christ (chapter 11), at the time of the Antichrist (chapter 13).35
The Meaning of Chapter Twelve
The salient features of chapter 12 can now be pointed out. But first of all let us recall that chapter 12 and 13 are intimately connected (cf. 12:6; 12:14; 13:5). If chapter 13 is the reign of the Beast, then chapter 12 is the setting of the stage for that event. And in that capacity, chapter 12 has a wide perspective. Prophecies, and eschatological prophecies in particular, often project the first and last phase of a given reality onto one and the same field of vision, the intervening interval being passed over. The prophet Joel gives us a good example of this when in one and the same vision he describes the first and the last phase of the Messianic era.36 Our Lord does the same in the eschatological prophecy of the doom of Jerusalem and the doom of the world (Matt. 24) which has been characterized as the first and last phase of the coming Judgment.
The Apocalypse, interpreted eschatologically, gives the same picture. It is the Grand Finale of the Kingdom of God on earth, the mosaic of all prophecies in a final synthesis.37 Chapters 1-3 are the first phase of Christ’s Kingdom on earth, the Son of man in the midst of the seven Churches, dictating the seven letters to the Church contemporary with St. John.38 Chapters 4-20 is the last phase of Christ’s Kingdom on earth, the Lamb executing the decrees of the sealed scroll, down to the last trumpet sound of the seventh angel, the third great woe, which is the reign of the personal Antichrist (the first Beast) in chapter 13.39
Yet just before that scene unfolds before the eyes of the Seer, another vision is introduced which gives the background and the deeper reason for chapter 13. It is that of the Woman and Dragon in their implacable enmity, seen in vision according to the same prophetical pattern of the first and last phase.
The very first phase when God unfolded His ineffable mystery of Mary, the perfect Woman, and her Divine Offspring before the gaze of the angels, and Satan refused to bow (verses 1 to 4). The very last phase of that enmity when the mystery of God achieved its full perfection (10:7 and 11:15) in the Marian Church of the Consummation, which, as the perfect double of the Virgin-Mother, brings forth the man child in great sufferings, by begetting Israel in the latter days as members of Christ; and for these very reasons, the object of the full wrath and fury of Satan (verses 5 to 6).
It shows us also the first and last phase of the defeat of Satan: the first phase when his pride was punished by his being thrown out of heaven (verses 7 to 9); the last phase when he is defeated by the humility and faith of the martyrs under Antichrist, who lay down their lives with the Crucified Lamb, whose death spelled Satan’s defeat on Calvary (verses 10 to 12).40 In both the first and the last phase St. Michael the Archangel plays an important role (see Dan. 12:1).
And finally it shows us the first and last phase of the Victory of the Woman and Child. The first phase is the prodigy of the Virgin-Mother and the Divine Child inviolable against all the cunning and attacks of Satan (verse 6). The last phase, the prodigy of the inviolable Marian Church of the Consummation, after the return of Israel, miraculously protected by God from harm during the reign of Antichrist, as was Israel of old in Egypt (Ex. 9:16; 10:23; 12:13).41 This is the flight of the Woman into the desert (verses 6, 13 to 16). Once the Redemption has been accomplished, Christ is identified with His members and Mary with the Church. This view does seem to satisfy best the various details of chapter 12.
The glorious Woman of chapter 12 is the Blessed Mother of God and our Mother, clothed with Christ, the Light, Queen of the Universe, Conqueror over all her adversaries, God’s chosen ideal for all the redeemed,42 the sign of salvation for the sons of God, the sign of defeat to Satan and hell. The ever Blessed Mary symbolizes simultaneously (in this picture) God’s prodigy of the latter times, the Church modelled on the Ideal Mother, giving birth to Israel as members of Christ, protected by God from the fury of Satan in the impending reign of Antichrist, when the mystery of God has achieved its full perfection.
Throughout the Scriptures, the Woman and her Child are the prodigy of God, the sign of man’s supernatural salvation and divinization. That explains the fury of Lucifer in heaven (Apoc. 12:3) in his refusal to agree to this plan of God. At the very moment that he had defeated our first parents, the prodigy of the Woman and Child was proclaimed to Satan to be his eventual undoing and defeat (Gen. 3:14-15). Simultaneously the Woman and Child were the sign of salvation and victory given to mankind, the object of their faith and hope until the sign became a reality.
Thousands of years later, when God’s own people were on the brink of spiritual bankruptcy under King Achaz, the same prodigy of the Woman and Child was shown to Isaias as a guarantee of God’s plans for His people (Isa. 7:14). Micheas, too, saw the wonder. For him it was the Great Mother for whom all were waiting that she bring forth (Mich. 5:12). Nor were these the only prophets who were given to see the prodigy of God. But it was Elizabeth who, under the impulse of the Holy Spirit, recognized the prodigy in reality, and proclaimed with a loud voice: Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb (Luke 1:42). And every child of God on earth repeats that phrase daily.
Isaias and Micheas saw the prodigy in vision before it became a reality. Both recognized a true Child and a true Mother (see Matt. 1:22). After the vision had been fulfilled, after the Redemption had been accomplished, after the Virgin-Birth of Christ and the divine Motherhood of Mary had been clearly set forth in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, the prodigy of the Woman and Child was seen again in vision, this for the last time, by the Beloved Disciple. Was it not a psychological necessity for him to recognize the Woman and the Child, the same prodigy of God, the same sign of supernatural salvation? But now from another angle. Now Calvary is past. Now the Woman can be seen in her great role of Mother of all the living, the role which wed her to suffering.43 Does St. John need to tell us who she is, after he has brought out the similarity with Genesis 3:15 so strikingly?44 And as if to forestall all doubt, he will tell us who she is, in the very last of his great writings, the Gospel (for the Gospel is written after the Apocalypse). There he will show us the Mother of all the living, the Mother of the sons of God. Christ Himself makes her known: Behold, this is thy Mother"45 (John 19:26) in the force of the Greek particle (ἴδε). That completes the Mosaic which the Beloved Disciple had been constructing all through his writings.46
But for John in the Apocalypse, the Woman and Child are not only a reality, they are also a symbol. Christ and Mary are seen in their all-embracing relation to redeemed mankind, the Church as the Body of Christ, the Church as the fruit of Mary’s womb.
He to whom it was given to see at the very outset of the apocalyptic visions, the dazzling vision of Christ in the midst of the Church (the lamp stands, chapter 1), which is the vision of the first phase of Christ’s kingdom on earth, was also given to see in chapter 12 the brilliant vision of Mary and the Church, the last phase of Christ’s Kingdom on earth, the Church in which the Ideal has been realized, the Church in which the supernatural has blossomed to perfection. On that Church Satan vents his full fury for it is identified with the Woman whom he hates. But even the Beast, invested with all the power of hell, will never succeed in destroying the Woman, for she is God’s prodigy also in the latter times, and the whole world will witness that her Bridegroom is Emmanuel, God-with-us.
With superb brevity, St. John has set forth in this chapter a grand prophecy. He describes what God wants His Church to be: a double of His Mother.47 It is evident, then, why the Catholic Church has given such prominence to devotion to the Blessed Mother. There is more than an external motivation in it, there is an inner, vital and necessary relation.
For our times God has reserved the revelation made by the Blessed Mother, in which she requests the consecration of the whole world, the entire Church and every member in that Church, to her Immaculate Heart. Our gloriously reigning Pontiff has expressed his will that this consecration be carried out in every country, diocese, parish, and family. But a consecration is not merely the reciting of a formula; it implies a remodelling of heart and mind and ideals, an identifying of ourselves with the Mother who gave us Life. The Blessed Mother herself, then, has shown the way how the prophecy of Apocalypse 12 will be realized. She herself is gradually preparing the Church for the Age of Mary.48
- Bernard J. LeFrois, S.V.D.
Saint Mary’s Seminary
Techny, Illinois
1. G. M. Perrella, C.M., “Sensu mariolog. dell’ Apoc. 12” in Div. Thom., 43 (1940), 215-22; A. Rivera, C.M.F., “Inimicias ponam” et “Signum magnum apparuit” in Verb. Dom., 21 (1941), 113-22; 183-9; L. di Fonzo, O.F.M., “Interno al senso mariolog. dell’ Apoc. c. 12” in Marianum, 3 (1941), 248-68; J. Sickenberger, “Die Messiasmutter in 12 Kap. des Apok.” in Theol. Quart., 126 (1946), 357-427; J. F. Bonnefoy, O.F.M., “Les interpretations ecclesiologues du ch. 12 de l’Apoc” in Marianum, 9 (1947), 208-222; E. Druwé, S. J., “La Mediation Universelle de Marie” in Maria, Etudes, I, 472; J.-M. Bover, S.J., “Marie, L’Eglise et le Nouvel Israel” in Maria, Etudes, 1, 661- 74; D. Unger, O.F.M.Cap., “Did St. John See the Virgin Mary in Glory?” in C.B.Q., 11 (1949), 249-62, 392-405, 12 (1950), 75-83, 155-61, 292-300, 405-15; R. Murphy, O.C., “Allusion to Mary in the Apoc.” in Th. Stud., 10 (1949), 565-73; D. Unger, O.F.M.Cap., “Cardinal Newman and Apoc. 12” in Th. Stud., 11 (1950), 356-67. ↩︎
2. A comprehensive bibliography is given in AER, 125 (1951), 257-63. Important of Apoc. 12 in this regard are: L. da Fonseca, S.J., “Assunzione di Maria nella S. Ser.” in Bibl., 28 (1947), 321-62: J. Coppens, “La definibilité de l’‘Assomption” in Eph. Th. Louv., 23: (1947), 17-19; I. Filiograssi, S.J., “De definibilitate Assump. B.V.M.” in Greg., 29 (1948), 34; M. Jugie, A.A., “La Mort et I’Assomption de la S. Vierge” in Studi e Testi, 144; Idem, “Assomption de la S. Vierge” in Maria, Etudes, 1, 627-31; L. Poirier, O.F.M., “La ch. 12 de l’Apoc., fait-il allusion a l’‘assomption?” Vers le Dogme de l’assomption (Montreal: Fides, 1948) ; G. Bissonette, “The twelfth ch. of the Apoc. and our Lady’s Assumption” in Marian Studies, 2 (1951), 172. The Holy Father confined himself to the following statement regarding Apoc. 12: “The Scholastic Doctors have recognized the Assumption of the Virgin Mother of God as something signified, not only in various figures of the Old Testament, but also in that Woman clothed with the Sun, whom the Apostle contemplated on the island of Patmos” St. John (Munificentissimus Deus, AER, 124 (1951), 10. ↩︎
3. Cf. J.-M. Bover, S.J., “El cap. 12 del Apoc. y el 3 del Gen.” in Estud. Eccles., 1 (1922), 319-36. ↩︎
4. The expression “ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ” is used fourteen other times in the Apocalypse and each time it means “heaven”, i.e. the abode of God. See Apoc. 4:1, 8:1, 11:15, 11:19; 12:7 f.; 12:10; 13:6; 14:17; 15:1; 15:5; 19:1; 19:14. ↩︎
5. Clothed with a garment is the idea conveyed by “περιβεβλημένη” as the parallels show: Apoc. 7:9; 7:13; 10:1; 11:3; 17:4; 18:16; 19:8; 19:13; Yahweh is clothed with light as with a garment: “ἀναβαλλόμενος φῶς …” (Psa. 103[104]:2). ↩︎
6. In N.T. Greek: “ὑποκάτω” is interchangeable with “ὑπο”, “under”: (Apoc. 5:3; 5:13; 6:9). But in every instance where the entire expression “ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν” is found in Scripture, it has the meaning of subjection: Psa. 8:7 (also quoted in Hebr. 2:8); Mal. 4:3 (Hebr. 3:21); in Psa. 109[110]:1 “ὑποκάτω” is also used when quoted by Mark 12:36 in B W D, 28 (1542) sys gg co. An apparent exception is Mark 6:11, “Shake off the dust from beneath your feet.” But the figure is evidently different, and Matthew uses “ἐκ”. ↩︎
7. In Apoc. 6:4 the same adjective is used for the symbol of war. But its substantive “πυρ” is chiefly used in N.T. to denote hell-fire. How this Dragon can said to be in heaven will be shown later. ↩︎
8. Spencer translates “a Male Child.” The Greek has “ἔτεκεν υἱόν, ἄρσεν”. ↩︎
9. Both here and in v. 4 the Greek has “τὸ τέκνον”. ↩︎
10. A symbolic number. 1260 days is the same amount of time as 42 months (11:2-3; 13:5) or 3 and a half years. This latter expression seems to be that intended in 12:14: “a time [year] and times [dual form of time, i.e. 2 years] and half a time [half a year],” as we find it in the Aramaic part of Dan. 7:25. Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar z. N.T., 4, 996 ff. ↩︎
11. Apoc. 8:13 mentions three woes to come upon the earth, Two are pronounced as accomplished in 9:12 and 11:14. The third is announced in 11:14 and evidently refers to the reign of the Beast (chapter 13). Thus Apoc. 12:12 connects the chapter with the following scenes in chapter 13. ↩︎
12. See note 10, supra. ↩︎
13. Observing the commandments of God and holding fast to the testimony of Jesus are the two marks by which one can tell the sons of God according to St. John’s own elaboration in 1 John 3-5. See also Apoc. 14:12. ↩︎
14. St. John the Apostle is author of the Apocalypse according to the traditional view. Cf. J. Steinmueller, Companion to Scr. Stud., 3, 388 ff. But see also the article by P. Gaechter, S.J., in Th. Stud., 9 (1948), 419-52. ↩︎
15. Its messianic character is frequently borne witness to in the N.T.: Acts 4:25-8; 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5. Such world dominion was not fulfilled in anyone but the Messias. ↩︎
16. St. John must have meant to convey something by his deliberate use of the singular τὸ τέκνον twice (verses 4 and 6), the general υἱόν, ἄρσεν twice (verses 5 and 13) and the other collective terms: οἱ λοιποί (verse 17). The explanation given here does no violence to the text, but flows from it naturally. The Beloved Disciple surely knew the doctrine of the Mystical Body for he wrote long after St. Paul, and moreover he has given us the same truth in the Vine and the Branches (John 15). The Mystical Body of Christ is not a figure of speech, but a reality, and it can be described in different ways. ↩︎
17. The expression ἔτεκεν υἱόν, ἄρσεν hearkens back to Isa. 66.7 (ἔτεκεν ἄρσεν) where the male child refers to the New Israel, taken collectively. But see note 44, infra. ↩︎
18. Hippolytus, De Antichristo, 3 and 61; CGS Berol.; Hippol. 1, 2 pp. 6 and 41 f. The English translation in Roberts (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 5, 204 and 217) is inferior and inexact in these passages. ↩︎
19. Methodius, Symposium, 8, 4.18; CGS 85, 18 ff.; Roberts 6, 336. ↩︎
20. Victorinus, in Apoc.: CSEL 49, 113; MGL 5, 336. It will be interesting to see what the recent microfilming of manuscript both on Mt. Sinai and in the Vatican library brings to light with regard to this and similar points. ↩︎
21. In Matt. 8:6 it is physical: “Lord, my boy is lying in the house paralysed in dreadful agony.” In 2 Pet. 2:8 it is spiritual: “Lot, that just man, had his upright soul tormented from day to day with the lawless doings of the people.” The same expression (βασανίζω) is found four more times in addition in the Apocalyse. but each time it is used for torments in general (9:5; 11:10; 14:10; 20:10). ↩︎
22. St. Hippolytus, l.c., considers it a picture of the persecution under Antichrist; St. Victorinus, a picture of the anguish of desire of the ancient church, to bring forth the Messias. ↩︎
23. E.g. among others, A. Wikenhauser, Offenbarung des Johannes (Regensburg, 1949), p. 82. These same authors, however, do take the phrase as spiritual progeny, for they speak of the “spiritual progeny of the Church.” Wherein then lies the difficulty of considering these children as the spiritual progeny of Mary? ↩︎
24. These reasons are summarized from the excellent article of J. F. Bonnefoy, as mentioned in note 1. Attention can also be called to the fact mentioned above, that this mother, by one and the same act of motherhood, gives birth to both the personal Christ and the members of Christ, which can never be said of Israel. Cf. also J. Lortzing, “Die innere Beziehung zw. John 2 and Offb. 12” in Theol. u. Gl., 29 (1937), 509 ff. ↩︎
25. Cf. M. Meinertz, Theologie des N.T. (Bonn, 1950), p. 329. A different angle is to consider the Woman as the Church at the end of time when Israel shall have come into the fold. This will be taken up further on. ↩︎
26. E. B. Allo, O.P., St. Jean, l’Apocalypse (Paris, 1933), pp. 193 f.; A. Gelin, La sainte bible (Paris, 1946), 12, 629; A. Wikenhauser, op. cit., p. 82; M. Meinertz, op. cit., p. 329; F. Gigot, O.P., Westminster version to the Apoc.; R. Murphy, op. cit., p. 569. ↩︎
27. Does not the metaphor of the olive tree (Rom. 11:16-17) prove that one and the same symbol can symbolize both Old and New Covenants simultaneously? I do not think so. A real difficulty is encountered in understanding the root to be Abraham and the patriarchs. De facto, the branches do not derive their holiness from Abraham but from Christ. Abraham’s holiness is likewise derived from Christ. Only after the Incarnation and the refusal of the Jewish nation to accept Christ was that nation rejected (temporarily) and the “branches cut off.” It is Christ, then, who is the root that sanctifies the whole tree, if the branches are grafted on it. The olive tree, would be another metaphor for the Mystical Body of Christ as Origen already noted in his Commentary to Romans, 8, 11 (MPG 14, 1193). But the opposite view prevails today. See M. Bourke, A Study of the Metaphor of the Olive Tree (Washington, D. C., 1947). ↩︎
28. Daniel tells Nabuchodonosor that the statue he saw in the dream had a head of gold, breast and arms of silver, etc. (2:32-34). But Daniel himself gave the interpretation: “Thou art a king of kings, Nabuchodonosor. Thou art the head of gold. But after thee shall rise up another kingdom, inferior to thee, of silver, and another of brass, etc.” (2:37-40). But several kings succeeded Nabuchodonosor before the Babylonian “kingdom” was succeeded by another “kingdom.” Thus Nabuchodonosor alone could not have been symbolized by the head of gold, but rather the Empire with him as its most important representative. This fluctuation has been well demonstrated by M. Gruenthaner, S.J., “The Four Empires of Daniel” in C.B.Q., 8 (1946), 73. See also Apoc. 17:9 for a double signification of a symbol (Confrat. Comment. p. 671). ↩︎
29. That the Son of man symbolizes Christ is evident from the world power that is fulfilled only in the Messias (7:14; Luke, 1:33). ↩︎
30. The demands of the context corroborate this explanation of the symbol, for if the Dragon and the Male-child signify, first of all, individuals, so should the Woman. ↩︎
31. “In the same holy bosom of His most chaste Mother, Christ took to himself flesh, and united to himself the spiritual body formed by those who were to believe in him. Therefore, all we who are united to Christ … have issued from the womb of Mary like a body united to its head. Hence, though in a spiritual and mystical fashion, we are all children of Mary and she is mother of us all.” Bl. Pius X, Ad Diem Illum (ASS, 36 [1903-4]), 455. “Our Savior was constituted the Head of the whole human Family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin.” Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (NCWC ed., p. 19). ↩︎
32. The intimate relations of Mary and the Church is set forth by M. Scheeben, Die Dogmatik, 3, n. 1531; idem, Mariology (Herder, 1947), 1, 211; 2, 66 f.; also by D. Unger, in C.B.Q., 12 (1950), 407 ff.; G. Montagne, S.M., “The Concept of Mary and the Church of the Fathers” in AER, 123 (1950), 331-7. An excellent article dealing with the patristic treatment of this theme is that of H. Rahner, S.J., “Die Gottesgeburt” in Z. f. K. Th., 59 (1935), 333-418. ↩︎
33. “There is no one of you who doesn’t know that the Woman signifies the Virgin Mary who bore our inviolate Head, herself inviolate, who also showed forth in herself the ideal of Holy Church, so that as she remained a Virgin through giving birth to a son, so also the Church brings forth his members throughout all time, but does not lose her virginity.” (Brev. Rom., Vig. Pent. Lect. 5); words of St. Quodvultdeus c. 450, or a contemporary of his (De symbolo [MPL, 40, 661]). The wording of this testimony argues for a rather general acceptance of this view at that time. As to the Fathers in the East, Epiphanius (who spent 50 years in Palestine) comments already in the middle of the 4th century on Apoc. 12, and takes it for granted that the Woman signifies Mary (Haeres., 78, 11 [MPG, 42, 716]). Andrew of Caesarea (between 500 and 600) also testifies that some before him interpreted the Woman to be Mary, but because of the “birth-pangs” he himself prefers to hold the view of St. Methodius (c. 312) that the Church is meant (MPG, 106, 320). These facts show that the patristic testimony of the Marian interpretation is not at all so late as some would have us think, but rather quite early. ↩︎
34. The history of this tradition is given by H. Rahner, op. cit., pp. 397 ff.; far more comprehensively by A Rivera in Verb. Dom., 21 (1941); still more detailed by D. Unger in C.B.Q., 1949-1950 (see note 1, supra). That the Woman refers to Mary and the Church is held by far more authors than is generally supposed. ↩︎
35. The most ancient patristic commentary on chapter 12 is that of St. Hippolytus (+ 237), loc. cit., who is very clear in stating that the Woman represents the Church at the time of the persecution of Antichrist. In the above view, then, both lines of patristic interpretation of the Woman flow together, namely, the one that (in both East and West) designates the Woman as Mary, and the most ancient that designates the Woman as the Church at the time of Antichrist. ↩︎
36. Joel 2:28-32 (Heb. 3:1-5): “And it shall come to pass after this that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy … and I will show wonders in heaven; and in earth, blood, and fire and vapour of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness … before the great and dreadful day of the Lord come.” St. Peter (Acts 2:16-21) states that these words of Joel were fulfilled on Pentecost day, when the first phase of that prophecy was fulfilled. ↩︎
37. It is worthy of note that at the very opening of the Apocalypse (1:8) our Lord says: “I am the Alpha and Omega,” which means I am the first and the last, the beginning and the consummation. Is this a clue given to St. John to understand the visions granted to him according to the pattern of first and last phase, beginning and consummation of Christ’s Kingdom on earth? ↩︎
38. That the seven Churches represent the universal Church is proven from the symbolism of the number seven, from the plural “Churches” at the end of each promise (2:7, etc.) and from the conviction of the early Fathers. ↩︎
39. Today it is generally admitted that this Beast is not merely the pagan Roman Empire, but also the personal Antichrist and his empire of the latter days. Again we have the application of the principle of first and last phase: Antichrist in the first phase of Christ’s Kingdom on earth (the pagan Roman Empire), and Antichrist in the last phase of that Kingdom (personal Antichrist and his empire). ↩︎
40. When prophecy focusses various events on a field of vision, chronological sequence is known to be neglected in many cases. The same can hold good here. If the woe in verse 12 is mentioned after the victory of the martyrs in verse 11, it does not follow that such is the order of things in time. Prophecy simply shows the connection between events. ↩︎
41. Worthy of note is Victorinus of Pettau’s interpretation, loc. cit. For him the 144,000 who were sealed from harm by God (7:4) are identical with the Woman protected from harm in 12:14. It is remarkable that the 144,000 turn up again after chapter 13 as sharers of the Lamb’s name and power in 14:1-5. ↩︎
42. As God’s chosen ideal for His family on earth, Mary is also the Ideal Israel. She summed up in herself all the perfection of the Old Testament saints. Cf. J. Fenton, “Regina Patriarcharum” in AER, 122 (1950), 146-9; idem, “Our Lady Queen of Prophets” in AER, 124 (1951), 381-6; J.-M. Bover, S.J., “Marie, L’Eglise et le Nouvel Israel,” op. cit. For another interesting angle of this ideal representation see L. Welserscheimb, S.J., “Das Kirchenbild der griecheschen Vaterkommentare” in Z. f. k. Th., 70 (1948), 448. ↩︎
43. Cf. A. Mullaney, O.P., “The Mariology of St. Thomas” in AER, 123 (1950), 197. ↩︎
44. The foundation for this assertion is verse 9, an undeniable reference to Gen. 3:15. Other points of identity are too evident to be overlooked. Nevertheless, L. Poirier, O.F.M., op. cit., thinks that St. John is not referring to Gen. 3:15 but to Isa. 66:7 in this chapter: “Before she was in travail she brought forth, before pangs came upon her she gave birth to a man-child” (Kissane, Isaias). St. John is referring undoubtedly to Isa. 66:7 also. But let us remember that Isa. 66:7 depicts a virgin-birth for the man-child as Kissane notes very clearly: “Before she travailed. The subject is not Sion, but indefinite (a woman) and there is an implied comparison of Sion to a woman who gives birth to a son without having to endure the pains of child-birth” (Isaias, 2, 324). Irenaeus himself used this text of Isaias to prove the Virgin-birth of Christ: Quoting Isaias 66:7 Irenaeus continues: “Thus he showed His birth from the virgin was unforeseen and unexpected” (The Demonstrations of Apostolic Preaching, translated by J. A. Robinson [New York, 1920], p. 118). Thus both Isaias 66:7 and Apoc. 12:4 give us the same picture: God’s prodigy, the wonderful rebirth of Israel from a Virgin-Mother. ↩︎
45. Cf. T. Gallus, S.J.. “Mulier, ecce filius tuus” in Verb. Dom., 21 (1941), 289-97; J. Leal, S.J., “Beata Virgo Omnium Spiritualis Mater ex Jn. 19:26- 27” in Verb. Dom., 27 (1949), 65-73. ↩︎
46. It is characteristic of the Semitic mind to develop its theme gradually, by frequently coming back to it, and only in the end is the mosaic complete. See U. Holzmeister, S.J., “Steigernde Wiederholungen in den Schriften des N.T.” in Theol. Pr. Quartalschr., 90 (1937), 85-92. ↩︎
47. It is not without interest to note that wherever Apoc. 12 is used in the liturgy (in some 15 passages), the reference is to Mary and to no one else. Pius XII has made Apoc. 12:1 the introit for the new Mass formula of the Assumption. He does not take it precisely as a direct scriptural argument for the Assumption (as can be seen from the words of the encyclical given in note 2, supra). Yet, the truth of our Lady’s Assumption can well be contained in the picture of that perfect Woman, God’s ideal for the redeemed (12:1), whose destinies are so intimately bound up with those of her divine Son. Cf. J. B. Carol, O.F.M. in his analysis of the encyclical in AER, 125 (1951), 264. ↩︎
48. Cf. R. Knopp, S.M., “Apostolic Consecration to Mary” in AER, 122 (1950), 350 f.; J. O’Maloney, O.F.M. Cap., “Sign in the Heavens” in Orate Fratres, 25 (1951), 532-41. ↩︎
|
|
|
| Ignatian Retreats 2025 - US |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-09-2025, 07:05 AM - Forum: Event Schedule
- Replies (2)
|
|
IGNATIAN RETREATS 2025
Fr. Hewko is planning again to hold Ignatian Retreats (a week for the men and a week for the women) this year. The dates are as follows:
- Women’s Retreat will be Monday, June 23rd (beginning at 12:30 PM) through Saturday, June 27th (ending after lunch).
- Men’s Retreat will be Monday, June 30th (beginning at 12:30 PM) through Saturday, July 4th (ending after lunch).
The venue will be the same as last year - at the Red Rock Guest Ranch in Soldier, Kansas, USA.
More details to follow.
May many graces flow from these powerful retreats!
Please email the following address to register sspxmariancorps@gmail.com or with any questions.
*Fr. Hewko is also asking for generous souls to assist with the cooking for any portion of time during those two weeks!
|
|
|
|
| Fr. Hesse: Against the ‘Popesplainers’ |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-08-2025, 10:20 AM - Forum: Add'nl Clergy
- Replies (2)
|
|
Father Gregor Hesse: Against the ‘Popesplainers’
Part I
CFN [Emphasis mine] | October 30, 2024
Editor’s Note: The following is an edited transcript of a lecture given by Father Hesse at the Fatima 2000 Conference in Rome titled ‘Discernment of Spirits’, Nov. 18-24th. To our knowledge, this is the first time that the content of this presentation has been published on the internet. This conference in particular is especially relevant for our time, with Father Hesse identifying certain errors made by defenders of the post-conciliar revolution that are now quite common in polemical debate.
The title of my presentation is “The Discernment of Spirits”. It will treat of how to distinguish if some statement has been made by Our Lord or by the devil … if some statement bears the truth or is just a lie.
The only metaphysical certitude we can have (that is, absolute safety in knowing that we are presented with the truth) is, of course, in Revelation and Sacred Tradition. Everything else has to be examined in accordance with Divine Revelation and Sacred Tradition.
In his Spiritual Exercises, St. Ignatius points out that the devil first gives good thoughts, then more good thoughts and then he lets the bad thoughts creep in. The devil will tell you a lot of truths. He will continue for a long time to tell you the truth and then he will start to let the errors and the lies creep in.
About the discernment of spirits, the famous Jesuit theologian, Scaramelli, says that one of the best ways to find out if something corresponds to the truth or not is by checking it against the Church Magisterium (with the teaching of the Catholic Church). The same is said by Cardinal Bona, who wrote a book on the discernment of spirits. He said that whenever the devil talks, you have 90 percent truth and 10 percent lie. And it is the 10 percent lie that causes all the havoc, confusion and loss of souls.
Two Principles
How do we know if something is true or not?
There are two principles.
The first principle is that we have to check it against the teaching of the Church.
The second principle is contained in Our Lord’s words “a tree is recognized by its fruits”. You watch for awhile, see what is happening and then you will find out if the source of everything has been divine or evil. Don’t forget that Our Lord talked about the wolves in sheep’s clothing. And St. Thomas said, “The worst wolves in sheep’s clothing are the heretics and then, bad prelates.”
Why did he say the bad prelates? He was talking about the bishops who enable heretics to spread their lies. Because if a heretic is silenced by a bishop, then the heretic is finished (of course, we are talking about the old days when there was no mass communication). The problem was that all too often, the bishops did not silence the heretics. They just listened or they didn’t care.
St. Thomas, who noted that the divine truth never changes, and who also noted that Our Lord warned “Fear ye not them that kill the body … but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell,” concluded that capital punishment for heretics could be justified, because it is our souls that are at stake here, and not our bodies.
I do not fear a murderer, I fear a subtle, intelligent heretic.
Two Mistakes
I said that one of the best ways to find out if some statement is coming from the devil or from God is to compare it with the teaching of the Church.
Now, what exactly do the words “teaching of the Church” mean? What has to be understood by the term “Magisterium of the Church”? There are two basic errors in understanding this.
The first mistake is to believe that only a defined Dogma is binding in the faith. The second mistake is to think that everything the Pope says and does, and everything the bishops say and do has to be repeated or followed. This of course, is ridiculous. A speech or sermon given by the Pope is not ordinary teaching (Magisterium). It is simply a sermon given by the bishop of bishops.
Humani Generis
Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis made very clear what is to be understood under the term of ”binding” teaching of the Church. Precisely, Pope Pius XII taught that nobody should suppose that whatever is said or written in the encyclicals does not demand consent just simply because the Popes in writing encyclicals do not exercise their extraordinary teaching.
Those encyclicals are statements with the power of ordinary teaching of the Church. Ordinary does not mean vulgar or base, ordinary simply means “according to the rules.” And he quotes the Lord saying “He who hears you hears Me.” Pius XII further explains that, most of the time, what a Pope says in one of his encyclicals has been said before …either by a council, by a predecessor of the reigning Pope, or even by an encyclical of the same Pope.
So Pius XII underlines the fact that the teaching of the Church has to be obeyed even if it is not extraordinary teaching defining a dogma. It is sufficient to have a Papal Encyclical, it is sufficient to have a Papal Bull.
How About Contradictions?
Now, lets suppose that you find contradicting lines between two different encyclicals. Let’s say that Pope “A” says “yes” to something and Pope “B” says “no” to something. What do you do? Well in that case, you choose what has been said previously and choose what is consistent with the traditional teaching of the Church. You follow this course for the very simple reason that the Pope is the supreme person in the Church. He is not the supreme principle. The supreme principle of the Church is the truth, and the truth is laid down in the faith. The basis of the faith (as the Dogmatic Constitution of the First Vatican Council entitled Dei Filius says) is based on Revelation and Tradition. And those two cannot change, cannot be changed, and cannot be “updated” to the times.
Liturgy
The unchangeableness of Liturgy reflects this. Liturgy is a source of the faith in the sense that liturgy has to contain everything the Church believes. This is why I will quote from the Pope St. Pius V’s famous Bull Quo Primum, the first document you find in the old Missal. Pope Pius V declares that “this decree is valid from now on until forever”. Now this was said on July 14, 1570 and he says that this missal that he is publishing with Quo Primum must never be changed. It must never be changed by whomever. That means his successors too. This is not just the ordinary phrase used in every papal document saying “this has value from now on forever”. He specifies, that nobody, whoever it may be would ever be able to abolish this, his decree. Otherwise, he would have just utilized the usual formulations. But he says explicitly, this document can never be recalled or reduced by whomever. And that binds his successors who have indeed sworn the Coronation Oath to be found in the Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum which is one of the- oldest collections of Papal decrees – probably put together in the 9th Century with texts that contain centuries of tradition. And in this Coronation Oath, the Pope swears an oath and says that he will never change what he has inherited from his God-willed predecessors.
Intellect and Will
I mentioned the wolves in sheep’s clothing. How do they operate? How do they spread their error? To understand how easy it is to spread error, we just have to consider the following facts.
First of all, a complete collection of church teachings containing only important Papal decrees is so massive that it is something no human being can memorize. So we have one source of error, lack of memory.
Second, it would be absolutely naive to believe that every single member of the Church is a holy person and always speaks the truth. It is all too common with human beings to make their wishes father of their thoughts. And it is all too common for them to want to spread certain ideas simply because it suits their own purpose. This is the second source of errors and heresies.
You see the human soul has two faculties, the intellect and the will. So you can sin against the truth in your intellect and/or your will.
You can sin against the truth in your intellect by just simply forgetting some truth and saying something different. You can sin against the truth in your will by just simply not wanting to tell the truth. An example of this is to be found in some of the official heretics of our day (mind you there are thousands who are not official heretics but there are others, like Hans Kung, whose teachings have been formally declared heretical by the official Magisterium).
When you ask them what they think, they will give you a different answer every year. They don’t want to tell the truth or maybe they just have bad memories. Both are sources of confusion.
Pascendi
On September 8, 1907, St. Pius X published probably his most important encyclical, Pascendi. He talks about the teachings of the modernists. The name modernists has been given to them by St. Pius X himself. In 1907, the modernists where neither new nor original.
Basically, the characteristic of the modernist is not to be explicitly, clearly a heretic, but implicitly and subtly. The modernist will not necessarily tell you that he does not believe in the Immaculate Conception. He will tell you that the term “Immaculate Conception” has to be understood in a different way today than it would have to be understood in 1854 when the Dogma was pronounced by Pope Pius IX.
The modernists will not directly deny the Divinity of Christ. No. The modernists will tell you everything about Our Lord’s human nature, about Our Lord being a man, about Our Lord being the man, about Jesus of Nazareth being the man who saved the world, about Jesus of Nazareth being the man on whom everything is concentrated. He will not say, “Jesus was not God”, but he will not speak anymore about the fact that Jesus was and is God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity become man.
Calculated Unclarity
He will deliberately clothe the content of his speech in sheep’s clothing, in the clothes of “charity and understanding”, and in the clothes of being nice and wanting happiness. He will not speak about saving our souls. He will not mention the fact that everything Christianity is about is to save our souls for the greater glory of God. He will never speak about the greater glory of God. But he will constantly remind us that we have to be kind and nice. So he will do the negative by saying the positive.
It is like the famous American phrase, “think positive!” This is exactly what the modernists want us to do. Think positive, be kind, be charitable, be nice, be happy, smile. The modernists will repeat, until we can’t even stand it anymore, all the “niceties” of the faith, but will never mention the threat of eternal condemnation, the trouble that heresy will bring and the problem of sin.
St. Pius X says the modernist is deliberately ambiguous in his terminology. To make sure that you cannot hunt him down as a heretic, he will not pronounce his heresies as such, but will simply leave out the essentials.
But this is not all. There are two groups of modernists. See, to make things more confusing, you have to have two groups of modernists. You have to have the conservatives, so in case a liberal comes up you can point out a conservative modernist, and you have to have the progressive ones so in case a conservative comes up, you are able to point out a progressive modernist.
And believe it or not, all that I am saying here has been prophesied by St. Pius X in 1907, when he explains that the easiest way to understand the modernists is to reduce their evolution to the battle between two forces, the one that tends towards “progress” and the other one that tends away from “progress” by being conservative. If you’ll pardon a personal comment, this is why I don’t like to be called a conservative, because I do not believe I am a modernist, I am a traditionalist.
St. Pius X says that, the “conservative” influence is dominating in the Church because it is contained in tradition. Keep in mind, this is what the modernists believe, not what the Church, St. Pius X or I believe. The modernists contend that “the conserving force exists in the Church and is found in tradition; tradition is represented by religious authority”, and this is quite natural, because it is in the essence of authority to guard tradition. They also hold that authority is quite remote to real life, removed from reality. They say that authority resists the force that wants to move it towards progress. In essence, “conservative” modernists do not speak about an unchangeable truth. In their view, truth does not bind because it is unchangeable, but because it comes from authority.
Now this is nonsense
Authority on its own, never makes the truth, never changes the truth, and never can take anything away from the truth. Remember Our Lord said “I am the truth.” He is the truth, and His truth is contained in the Gospel and in Sacred Tradition… a Sacred Tradition that does not know “progress” as we have heard somewhere recently, but Sacred Tradition that has been concluded forever with the death of the last apostle. This is what Vatican I defines. So they say the conservatives are conservatives because they don’t understand anything about real life and because they have simply been endowed with a lot of authority and they want to defend their own authority.
Opposed to this, the “progressive” modernists hold that there is a force that tends towards progress, and this progress corresponds to the “innermost needs of the consciousness of the laity.” This is the literal translation of what St. Pius X says. He is speaking about the modernist desire to adapt truth and to adapt the teaching of the Church, to the “innermost needs of the consciousness of the laypeople.” In fact, you will find the term “consciousness,” substituting many truths of the Magisterium in our day.
The one who came up with the idea that everything is “consciousness” was a German philosopher, and this idea was later on adapted to medicine by the famous Sigmund Freud. Well, according to my knowledge, Sigmund Freud has never been granted Church authority, has never been made a member of the Church Hierarchy, and has never been quoted as Church teaching. However, you will frequently find his terminology in today’s sermons, pastoral letters and other documents.
Quite frankly, the “innermost needs of the consciousness of the laity” are not interesting to the Church or Christ. Our Lord Jesus Christ wants us to be saved, that means He wants us to make our innermost needs correspond to His teaching – that same teaching of which no single jot can ever be lost – that same teaching of which He said “Heaven and earth shall pass away but My words would be for ever.” He wants this innermost need to correspond to His will. In fact, our innermost needs are to fulfill the will of Christ, to listen to His Mother at Fatima and not to listen to the modernists who want to destroy our souls.
So, “the consciousness of the laity” is something the Church is simply, plainly not interested in. Because the consciousness of the laity is either some self-appointment to authority never granted or it is the conformation of the individuals will with the will of Christ. In other words, either we obey what Our Lord says or the Church has no interest in our consciousness.
St. Pius X further warned, “and in this, reverend brethren, We see this dangerous and destructive teaching which proclaims the laity as the seed of progress in the Church”.
Not a “Church of the Laity”
You see, this is the point. The Church by definition, by it’s own definition is essentially a priestly Church. And if I would want to bore you, I could give you some 50 quotations from Denzinger Schonmetzer on that point – quoting the popes and councils, especially the Council of Trent and Vatican Council I. The Church is not a church of lay people. The Church has been founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ whose power has been vested in His Vicar on earth. It is the Vicar of Christ who grants jurisdiction of this power to His most reverend Cardinals, bishops and priests. If there has ever been a vocation of the laity, this vocation comes from the priests and the bishops. The Church is governed by the Pope the Cardinals and the bishops, not by a democratic agreement of the laity. “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church.” Peter was not a layman. St. Peter was one of the first bishops and he was the first Pope. The fact that John Paul II, and before him all the other 263 popes were successors of St. Peter is a dogma of the faith. It is not an agreement of the faithful, or by the faithful.
On Papal Infallibility
On July 18, 1870, Pope Pius XI together with the Vatican Council I, pronounced the Dogma of Papal Infallibility. In this dogma however he made clear what this means.
First of all he says St. Peter was truly pope, St. Peter was truly the Vicar of Christ and St. Peter was definitely and truly not the last Vicar of Christ. He then explains that all the successors of St. Peter, all the popes throughout history have been the Vicars of Christ – the supreme teachers on earth, the supreme pastors and the supreme judges.
This is why, not so long ago, the Popes used to wear the tiara with the three crowns, for the three priestly offices.
Pius IX and Vatican Council I then say that St. Peter having been the supreme teacher – and his successors having been the supreme teachers – they therefore have the right and the power to come to a final decision binding their successors, and binding all the faithful on earth for ever._And in the 4th chapter of this decree of Vatican I, Pius IX defines and says who does not believe this does not belong to the Church.
However, he also defines that the Holy Spirit has not been given to St. Peter or his successors to define a new doctrine. It has been given to St. Peter and his successors so that they may guard tradition and explain tradition.
So Pius IX binds his successors too. He binds his successors to safeguard the tradition. By proclaiming this dogma of infallibility, Pius IX did not empower his successors to do what they want. On the contrary, the same Puis IX approved with his own signature a letter written by the German bishops in 1871 to Bismark and to some others who had trouble with this new dogma. Pius IX explained that this does not mean that the pope can do whatever he wants, but that the pope is the only one on earth who can solve a problem that has not yet been solved with absolute certainty and forever. He is the only one who can answer a theological question that has not yet been answered definitely and forever.
But the same document explains that this does not mean that the pope has the right to change the tradition or to proclaim something new. In fact, Puis IX is very strict with his successors. For example, he doesn’t say that if a bishop does not fulfill his duty, the pope may act. No, Pius IX says, in agreement with the German bishops that if a bishop does not fulfill his duty, the Pope has to act. Pope Pius IX says this twice in a document that bears his own signature.
I remind you again of the Coronation Oath where the pope says, ”We put under strict exclusion from the church anybody who wants to change tradition be it somebody else or We”. So you see the Papal duty to keep to tradition, the duty to explain the faith the way it has always been done. Pius IX also used the phrase eadem sententia eodem sensu (the same sentence in the same sense). That means, if somebody tries to explain to me that the dogma of the Trinity has to be understood in a different way at the Council of Nicea than it has to be understood today, I will say right in his face that he is not a Catholic.
The Dogma of Transubstantiation is the Dogma which says that at the moment of consecration at Mass the bread and wine are changed substantially into the Body and Blood of Our Lord. If somebody tries to tell us that this was something to be understood differently at the Council of Trent than it has to be understood today, then I’m sorry, whoever says this is a heretic.
And to show you how serious these things are I mention one point that I will developed later on.
In 1794, Pope Pius VI condemned the so-called Synod of Pistoia. This was a few dozen bishops assembling at Pistoia here in Italy, and pronouncing some new so-called “doctrines”. Eight years after this synod, Pope Pius VI, having examined every line that had been published, condemned several of those lines and condemned the whole Synod of Pistoia as such.
Pius VI explained that those who participated in this Synod knew the tricky art of betraying the faith the way the modernists do. He didn’t actually call them modernists, but “renewers”. Because they are afraid of hurting Catholic ears, they try to throw out their nets by covering their words and making them ambiguous. By this, they hide the error contained in their words so as to allow it to enter souls.
Pius VI then said that the purpose of a Synod is not to be ambiguous, but to avoid ambiguities and to clarify what is obscure, clear up any kind of confusion and to make sure the doctrine is explained explicitly.
The purpose of the Council of Trent was to do away with the error of the Protestants, not to create new ambiguities, not to create new errors.
In fact, until the 20th Century, there was never an ecumenical council that had been called for anything but defining doctrine – that means, turning ambiguous terms into certain terms. And only one of those ecumenical councils, the Council of Lyon, for historic reasons, did not manage to define Dogma, the others did. And the only reason they were called was to make sure that the doctrine of the Church was clear, understandable and corresponding to the wisdom of Our Lord.
And this is why I quote this. It is relevant to our times because the greatest source of confusion in our day is the ambiguities and errors of the Second Vatican Council of which I will treat in Part II.
|
|
|
|
| Archbishop Viganò warns that McCarrick’s followers ‘remain in power’ |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-08-2025, 09:55 AM - Forum: Archbishop Viganò
- No Replies
|
|
Archbishop Viganò warns that McCarrick’s followers ‘remain in power’
'They still remain in power, in America & in the Vatican, those whom McCarrick shamelessly called 'my nephews,'' Archbishop Viganò wrote.
Apr 7, 2025
VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) — Reacting to the death of Theodore McCarrick, former U.S. papal nuncio and whistleblower Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has warned about the remaining influence the ex-cardinal still has on those in high-ranking positions, particularly in America.
The April 3 death of ex-cardinal Theodore McCarrick was revealed to the world on Friday, as the highly influential American died at the age of 94.
He was expelled from the College of Cardinals in 2018, and was laicized in 2019, becoming the most senior cleric in history to be laicized for sexual misconduct.
Though numerous journalists and clergy have attested to knowledge of McCarrick’s homosexual predation being widespread even in the 1980s, public testimony against him had to wait until 2018.
Archbishop Viganò emerged as a key figure in the ensuing McCarrick scandal, after he famously accused Pope Francis of knowing about McCarrick’s serial predation, about the restrictions imposed on McCarrick by Benedict XVI, and of deliberately repealing such restrictions.
Viganò’s 2018 testimony took the Church and much of the world by storm, with the 11-page text naming numerous prominent prelates and accusing Francis of making McCarrick “his trusted counselor.”
In a statement issued to this correspondent following McCarrick’s death, Viganò opined on what the death of the ex-cardinal portends for the Church:
Quote:The death of Theodore McCarrick, whose horrendous crimes & perversions I have denounced since 2006 & whom I have also publicly called to repentance & conversion, leaves behind dozens, hundreds of victims to whom neither the canonical nor civil courts have ever accorded justice.
Indeed, though McCarrick was laicized by the Vatican, he had never been found guilty in courts in the civil sphere, despite cases brought against him. Court cases brought against him in his final years of life ended up being dropped after the court decided that the ex-cardinal was not fit to stand trial in August 2023 due to his claim of having dementia.
Viganò also pointed to the “protégés” of McCarrick who remain in situ in a number of high-ranking offices, including current Washington, D.C. Cardinal Archbishop Robert McElroy:
Quote:They still remain in power, in America & in the Vatican, those whom McCarrick shamelessly called ‘my nephews,’ promoted to the episcopate & cardinalate, as corrupt & blackmailable as himself.
He remains unpunished on the Throne of Peter the usurper of the Papacy, who owes his election to McCarrick. Remains rampant the plague of sodomy, the main cause of moral decay & corruption in the ecclesiastical Hierarchy.
In his 2018 testimony, Viganò said that McCarrick helped Francis in key appointments in the United States, including that of Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago, whom Pope Francis previously tasked with organizing a Vatican summit on clerical sexual abuse.
Viganò also attested that McElroy was aware of McCarrick’s abuses, and that Viganò was instructed by Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin to keep the San Diego episcopate open for McElroy. He, said the former nuncio, was just one of many prelates who owed their rise to McCarrick.
Public pressure on the Vatican following the breakout of the McCarrick scandal eventually led to the publishing of the much anticipated “McCarrick report” in the fall of 2020. Though containing certain detailed aspects of the ex-cardinal’s life, the report was criticized by lay Catholics for what it lacked, particularly given that it sought to excuse Pope Francis from any culpability and lay all blame on Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
The McCarrick report also sought to blame Archbishop Viganò for part of the affair. Viganò responded by describing the report as presenting “unfounded accusations” against him.
The former U.S. Nuncio was declared guilty of “schism” and automatically excommunicated by the Vatican last July – a verdict he has consistently rejected.
McCarrick’s predatory homosexual abuse and the public scandal has also highlighted the uncomfortable aspect of how many in the hierarchy knew of his actions but refused to take action. Indeed, it has become the pin-up example for ecclesial cover-up.
Veteran journalist and author Rod Dreher recalled the widespread network of determined silence amongst clerics and journalists when it came to the subject of McCarrick’s abuse.
“Uncle Ted’s influence continues beyond the grave. The past isn’t even past,” he commented:
Quote:If the mission of the Church depends on rolling over innocent victims of its perverted clergy, marginalizing them, attacking their families, well, too bad for the victims. The guilt here lies primarily with the hierarchy. But it also lies with lower clergy (people like [Father Benedict] Groeschel) and Catholic laity, and non-Catholics too, who knew what was happening, or should have known, but instead preferred to protect their own peace of mind.
Many of McCarrick’s protégés and friends are indeed at work today, including influential individuals like Cardinals McElroy and Farrell.
Though the former D.C. cardinal has died, the Church continues to live with the consequences of his actions, and senior figures at the Vatican must learn swiftly the lessons that the scandal has to teach.
|
|
|
|
| The Catholic Trumpet: 200 Years Without Sacraments: Japan’s Martyrs and the Resistance |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-08-2025, 08:19 AM - Forum: The Catholic Trumpet
- No Replies
|
|
200 Years Without Sacraments: Japan’s Martyrs and the Resistance
![[Image: rs=w:1280]](https://img1.wsimg.com/isteam/ip/df55e1a9-c854-4d0b-a2a9-94177954436c/IMG_2795.png/:/cr=t:0%25,l:0%25,w:100%25,h:100%25/rs=w:1280)
The Catholic Trumpet | April 7, 2025
For over two centuries, the Japanese martyrs endured unimaginable suffering—living without the sacraments, enduring torture, and remaining faithful under the threat of death. Their uncompromising devotion to Christ in the face of total isolation remains a profound testimony to the indestructible strength of the Catholic Faith.
Their sacrifice is a living witness to those of us today who stand firm in the face of the modern crisis of the Church. Though the world has embraced compromise, and Rome has allowed the Faith to be diluted, the Faith remains, undiminished by time, persecution, or apostasy.
In this video, we see the connection between the martyrs resistance and the ongoing battle of the SSPX Resistance, who, though deprived of the sacraments and facing a Church gone astray, refuse to compromise. Just as the Japanese martyrs held fast to the truth, so must we, standing firm in the unshakable faith passed down through the centuries. Christ the King remains, and His victory is assured for those who fight for His truth.
|
|
|
|
| On The Conformity Of Mary To The Divine Will During Her Whole Life |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-08-2025, 07:30 AM - Forum: Our Lady
- No Replies
|
|
Preached on the feast of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Quinimmo, beati qui audiunt verbum Dei, et custodiunt illud. Luke xi. 28.
“Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it.”
Introduction.
Happy beyond all doubt is she to whom in preference to all mortals was granted the great honour and favour of bearing Jesus, the Son of God, for nine months in her womb, and bringing Him forth for the salvation of the world; therefore with good reason did that woman in the gospel of today say to Our Lord: “Blessed is the womb that bore Thee.”
But, according to the testimony of Christ, he alone is really blessed who hears the word of God, and keeps it; that is, as I have explained on another occasion, who knows the will of God, and fulfils it in all circumstances with contented heart; for of such a one Jesus Christ says in the Gospel of St. Matthew: “Whosoever shall do the will of My Father that is in heaven, he is My brother, and sister, and mother,”1 no matter who he may be; that is, I will hold him in as great esteem as if he were My own brother, or sister, or mother.
But, my dear brethren, is Mary, then, excluded by those words, so as to be less esteemed by Christ? Not at all. But He wished to show the chief reason why Mary is the most happy of all; for she is most dear to Him, not so much because she is His Mother, but rather because amongst all men on earth and angels in heaven there was none found who so well knew the will of God, and fulfilled it so readily, as she did.
And so it is in reality; from her earliest years, when as a child three years old she offered herself in the temple to the perpetual service of the Lord, her will was united completely, in the most perfect manner, with the divine will, as I shall now show.
Plan of Discourse.
Mary is the most perfect image of the most perfect conformity with and resignation to the will of God. Such is the whole subject of this panegyric.
Most Blessed Virgin! profit enough shall we have from it if we only endeavour to follow thee even afar off in the practice of this virtue. Obtain for us the grace to do so from thy divine Son, through the hands of our holy angels, that we, too, may be in the number of those of whom thy dear Son has said: “Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it.”
Mary did the will of God most perfectly in all things.
That the Blessed Virgin during her whole life was of all mere creatures the most perfect model of conformity with the divine will, namely, that in every circumstance she fulfilled the known will of God in the most perfect manner: that is so clear that we need not spend much time in examining the question or proving it; for it is certain that Mary, the holiest of all the saints, never acted against the will of God, even by the least venial sin or the least imperfection.
Nay, as theologians say, on account of the great light and knowledge with which that illustrious soul was endowed by God, on account of the superabundance of graces by which she was strengthened, on account of the intensity of the love of God which inflamed her above all the seraphim, it was for her a moral impossibility to do anything which she might suspect as being even remotely contrary to the divine will. Hence it is a damnable error of heretics to affirm that the Blessed Virgin committed any faults, that she had to repent of them and confess them to the apostle St. John. No, she was never capable of receiving the sacrament of penance, for she never did anything that she could be sorry or do penance for.
Moreover, she was always in conformity with the will of God: when the Incarnation was announced to her.
Today I wish to speak only of the complete conformity and resignation of her will to the will of God. “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word;” such was the expression by which she gave herself entirely to divine will and pleasure. And what power this offering of herself had! For then that truth was fulfilled: “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” So that two most wonderful, and, for us mortals, most beneficial mysteries—the incarnation of God and the redemption of the world—were the effects of Mary’s resignation to the will of God.
But we shall not dwell long on this; otherwise you might in thought object, and say: What wonder is it that she should agree to cooperate in such a beneficent ordination of the Almighty? It was an easy thing for her to agree to become the Mother of God; there was not a virgin or woman of her time who would not have gladly accepted the same honour. We have far more bitter morsels to swallow, that Divine Providence has prepared for us; and it is a far more difficult matter to accept them and be resigned to them readily and willingly. True, my dear brethren; but after all, had the Mother of God no hardship to suffer, in bearing which she showed the conformity of her will with that of God? Let us consider her life, although the least part of it is known to us.
When Joseph was thinking of putting her away.
Was it not hard for her to see how Joseph, her spouse, knowing her to be pregnant, and not understanding the cause, had determined on abandoning her, a fact that could not have been concealed from her, for she must have remarked his agitation? One word from her would have sufficed to set matters right, if she had been willing to reveal the divine mysteries; but she did not wish to give so much consideration to herself; she left all to the arrangement of Providence. “Be it done,” she doubtless said to herself; happen what may, as long as the will of God be done; let Joseph think of me what he pleases; let him leave me, if such is the will of God.
But, most holy Virgin! if Joseph had really carried out his intention of abandoning thee, what would have been the result? Thou shouldst have been regarded by all decent people as a dishonoured woman, a guilty adulteress, and wouldst have lost thy good name! No matter; let it be so, if such is the will of God! And, according to the law, which was not unknown to thee, thou shouldst probably have been stoned to death publicly! “Be it done!” I am a handmaid of the Lord, ready for all He may decree for me; let the will of God be done in me; I resign myself to His decrees, and give my self into His hands, come of it what may!
When her Son was born in the stable.
Was it not a hard thing for that tender virgin, in the depth of winter, to set out on that weary journey to Bethlehem; and, when she arrived in that town, to be shut out of all the inns, and be forced to seek shelter in a stable in the open field, or, as others maintain, in a cave of wild beasts, where there was neither fire nor hearth, bed nor bedding; and there she had to dwell for some time? Consider how disagreeable it is for a traveller who has lost his way to be obliged to take shelter in the hut of a poor peasant, where he cannot find, even for money, a piece of good bread or a drink of fresh water. And yet his discomfort lasts but one night. How, then, must it have been with that poor virgin under the circumstances? And yet the one thought, It is the will of God, was more than enough to make her endure it all with joy of heart, and to force her to say: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to His holy will!
When she had to fly with Him to Egypt.
Was it not a hard thing for her, later on, to learn that even this wretched shelter was not to be granted to her only-begotten, most beloved, and divine Son, and that Herod sought Him out to put Him to death? Thus she was obliged to set out in the middle of the night with her child, and, ignorant as she was of the road, to go away into the strange land of Egypt, where she could not hope to find a soul who knew her; where the inhabitants were all idolaters, who served the devil, and from whom, nevertheless, she would be forced to ask for some corner for shelter. Nor did she know how long she would have to remain there, or how she was to return.
What would you think, my dear brethren, if a mother were thus banished from her native town with her little ones, and sent, I will not say into Turkey, among the infidels, but into another Christian, Catholic country, where she is utterly unknown, and has not a foot of ground she can call her own? Would it not be a great thing for her to imitate the resignation of Mary, and to submit to her fate with full conformity to the divine will?
When He was made to suffer and die so cruelly.
But all we have hitherto seen is nothing compared to the trial that Divine Providence caused the Blessed Virgin to endure when she was obliged to look on at the passion and death of her Son. Who can describe the anguish that then tortured her motherly heart!
The Prophet Jeremias compares it to the salt sea: “Great as the sea is thy destruction.”2 The aged Simeon calls it a sharp sword, which should even pierce her soul, as he prophesied to her in the temple: “Thy own soul a sword shall pierce”3
Nor could it be otherwise; for if we must judge of the compassion and pity in one who loves by the greatness of the love and the knowledge of the pain suffered by the loved one, as experience teaches, and as all who truly love well know (we do not feel troubled at the sorrows of another if we have no affection for him; and our trouble is in proportion to our love; nor does the affliction of another cause us any grief if we know not of it; and the clearer our knowledge of that affliction, the greater is our grief thereat), then, indeed, the sufferings of the Blessed Virgin must have been incomparably and incomprehensibly great. For who can understand the greatness of her love! All motherly affection must yield to hers in intensity; no mother can ever love her child as this Mother loved her divine Son; for there can never be a more beautiful or amiable child than Jesus, nor a better or more tender-hearted mother than Mary. What grief, then, must have arisen out of that love on account of the almost infinite sufferings of such a son!
She knew of and saw all this.
If she had known nothing of those sufferings, or had but a doubtful, uncertain knowledge of them, then fear and trouble would not have transfixed her heart with such great pain. But great as her love was, equally clear was her knowledge of what, how, when, and at whose hands her dearest Son was so cruelly tortured.
She herself had seen with her own eyes, and heard how they dragged Him along, bound with ropes and chains like a murderer or robber, in a most unmerciful manner, through the public streets, urging Him on with blows; how He was given over to the wantonness of the rabble for a whole night, who out of diabolical malice blindfolded Him, tore out His hair, spat upon Him, and gave Him one buffet in the face after another.
Judge, my dear brethren, if you can, of her anguish when she heard, or, we may say, felt in herself, the cruel stripes inflicted on Him, which mangled and tore her own flesh and blood, that is, the most tender body of her Son, for such a long time; imagine you behold that almost infinitely loving Mother, standing in the court of Pilate’s house, looking at her own Son streaming with blood, crowned with thorns, His whole body one wound, clothed with miserable rags, no longer bearing the aspect of a human being, and exhibited as a spectacle to the people from an elevated place, and presented to them by Pilate with the words: “Behold the Man!” in the hope of moving the embittered Jews to mercy.
Sorrowful Virgin! Suffering Mother! What were thy feelings on the occasion? Behold the Man! Dost thou still know who He is? Behold the Man! Is He thy Son? Anguish! And what more will they do to Him? Hear the ungrateful people crying out into thy ears: “Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!” See how sentence is pronounced on Him, and He is given over to the death of the cross!
When He was crucified.
Humanly speaking, the Blessed Virgin must have lost consciousness, and died with grief, had not the mighty hand of God preserved her for greater sufferings. These we can form some idea of, if we accompany her in spirit as she goes with the multitude of people to see the end. For a mother, and such a mother, to see her son, and such a son, so cruelly treated, that even the rocks and stones were rent with pity; to see Him carrying His own cross, and falling down exhausted under the weight of it; to see Him bound hand and foot, and fastened with coarse nails to the cross; and not to be able to help Him! To see her Son hanging on the gibbet, mocked at and blasphemed, and not to be able to whisper a word of consolation to Him! To hear Him complain of thirst, and to be able to offer Him nothing but her salt tears, and that, too, from a distance! To hear the last words with which He said adieu to her, with bleeding lips and glassy eyes, giving her over and recommending her to another! To see the only consolation of her eyes, closing His, and giving up the ghost, and finally lying in her lap as a mangled corpse!
Sorrow, let him who can understand thee! Holy Virgin, Mother of Sorrows, well art thou called the Queen of Martyrs, for all that thy divine Son suffered in His body thou didst suffer in thy soul, and to such a degree that St. Bernard does not hesitate to say: “So great was the sorrow of the Virgin, that if it were divided among all creatures they would die at once.”4
All of which pain Mary suffered with complete resignation.
But how did Mary bear this incomprehensible martyrdom? Afflicted souls, turn your eyes to her in all attacks of adversity that the divine decree sends you! From her you may learn how to bear them, and to resign your will to them! Although she had never merited the least suffering, never had the least share in original sin, and had always been the most innocent and holy among all mere creatures; yet she accepted her trials with humble and most ready acquiescence to the will of God, always repeating in her heart her favourite words: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word!” My sorrow is vast as the sea; my sufferings more bitter than death; a sword has pierced my soul; be it done to me, Lord, according to Thy will! If my Son wishes to drink the bitter chalice, I am no better than He, and therefore I do not wish to have my share of it taken from me.
With the utmost weakness and patience.
She suffered with the utmost patience and meekness, nay, with the desire of feeling more and more the sufferings of her Son. In similar circumstances, if their children were being led out to death, other mothers would have concealed themselves at home; either through shame, if they belonged to a respectable family, or through excessive grief, and would have found it impossible to be present at the execution of their children.
This we see in many cases: if there is question of opening a small ulcer, or otherwise operating on a child, the mother runs out of the room at the first appearance of the doctor, so as not to add to her sorrow by witnessing the pain suffered by her child.
Mary, on the contrary, did not wish to spare herself so far; she stood in the midst of the torturers who treated her Son so cruelly; she followed Him as He was dragged along the streets; she went with Him to the summit of the mountain, and kept at His side when He came to the place of execution: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His Mother,”5 as St. John says. She did not turn her eyes away from Him, and considered attentively all His wounds, that she might thus have in her soul a livelier image of the sufferings of her Son. Many other mothers, if obliged to be present at such a spectacle, would either lose consciousness, or fill the place with their moans and lamentations, tearing their hair and giving every sign of despair.
How a mother weeps and wails if her little child dies suddenly, although she has more reason to rejoice, since she knows that the little one is in heaven!
But “there stood by the cross of Jesus Mary, His Mother,” immovable; except her tears and silent sighs, there was in her no sign of murmuring, no inordinate movement, no loud wail of sorrow; she was completely wrapped up in her sentiments of love and compassion for her Son. And for that reason those painters make a great mistake who represent her as falling into a faint in the arms of St. John at the foot of the cross; the Evangelist tells us the contrary: she stood, and did not fall down. Many other mothers, if they could avenge their child in no other manner, would have assailed the executioners with reproaches, revilings, and curses. We see that to be the case if the father sometimes wishes to chastise his child, even when the little one deserves it; the mother at once begins to shout and cry louder than the child himself; do you mean to kill the child? she says; do you want to put an end to him?
How did Mary act towards the murderers and torturers of her Son? Did she call on the eternal Father to punish those cruel, wicked, and ungrateful men with a sudden death? No; she rather prayed with her Son: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”6 Nay, says St. Antoninus, the Blessed Virgin was so united with the will of God in the sufferings of her Son that, if the heavenly Father had required it for the redemption, and given her but a sign of His pleasure to that effect, she herself would have been ready, as Abraham was with his son Isaac, to set to work with her own hands, and although to her great grief, nail her Son to the cross, and sacrifice Him.
What do you think of it now, my dear brethren? Was not that a bitter morsel that Divine Providence gave her to swallow? Could it well have been more bitter? And therefore could she have given greater proof of her conformity with the will of God?
This conformity she showed after the death of her Son until the end of her life.
Why, then, should we inquire into the later life of the Blessed Virgin? There is no doubt that it was hard for her to see Jesus, her Son, ascending into heaven with the great multitude of the elect, among whom was the soul of St. Joseph, her spouse, and for her to be obliged to part from Him and to remain in the world. It must have been very hard, I say, when we consider all the circumstances of the case. Her burning love for her Son and ardent desire to be always with Him, coupled with the necessity of being separated from Him for such a long time, must have been very hard for a soul that had such a clear knowledge of God as the Blessed Virgin possessed; and the pain she felt must have been much greater than we poor mortals can imagine; it is a pain similar to that which makes the souls in purgatory suffer so much. To be left behind in the world, the vale of tears, which is only a land of misery, to where the children of Adam are banished for a time to pay the debt contracted by sin, a debt in which Mary had not the slightest share; to be still banished from heaven, which she had merited countless times from the first moment of her conception, and that for so many years; for the Mother of God (if it be true, as authors say, that she was seventy years old) must have lived twenty-five years on earth after the death of her Son; that, I repeat, must have been hard indeed!
How did not the apostle Paul sigh and moan: “I am straitened… having a desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ.”7 “Unhappy man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?”8 And how other pious souls sighed in the words of David to depart soon for the heavenly country: “When shall I come and appear before the face of God?”9
Is it likely, then, that this holy virgin, who was filled with ardent charity, should feel less of a desire to come to her God? Could not Christ have taken her with Him at once in His ascension? Could not Mary have asked that favour of her Son, either to accompany Him at once, or to go to Him soon after His departure from this world? And if she had made such a request, can we imagine that such a son would have denied it to such a mother? But she had learned from her Son to pray in another fashion: “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven;” “Not as I will, but as Thou wilt.”10 If I have to remain banished still longer in this vale of tears, be it done to me according to thy word; I do not wish to be released unless when and as it may please Thee, my God!
And thus puts our spirit of discontent to shame.
O Mary, most perfect model of conformity with and resignation to the will of God, how we must feel ashamed when we consider thee!
Thou, the Queen of heaven and earth, the Mother of the Most High, the holiest and most innocent of all the angels and men that God has created, thou didst resign thyself to the divine will in such hard and bitter trials; and we poor sinners, who know that we have deserved all the chastisements of the world, nay, the eternal fire of hell, for our sins, we try to persuade ourselves that a great wrong is done us if the hand of God chooses to try us with a cross!
Thou, the Gate of heaven, hast not been able to enter heaven without suffering, and suffering grievously; nor hast thou wished to enter otherwise; and we, the children of reprobation, dare to imagine that we can enter the same heaven on a path strewn with roses, without feeling any thorns!
Thou hast borne thy grievous trials with ready resignation of thy will to Divine Providence, and hast suffered patiently till death; we often cannot and will not submit to a slight contradiction, and murmur at and complain of it, as if we were innocence itself!
Thou couldst, if thou hadst wished, have freed thyself from much suffering, and have done it by one word, yet, without a syllable of opposition, thou hast allowed the divine will to rule and order thee as it pleased; and we are not willing for the sake of God and heaven to bear patiently the sufferings that we know we cannot avoid with all our efforts!
Ah, how unlike such a mother we, her children, are!
Prayer to Mary to obtain conformity with the will of God.
What else, then, have we to do but by humble and daily prayer to beg of her to obtain this necessary virtue for us? Oh, beseech, then, thy divine Son to grant us true conformity of our will with His, that in all things we may do what God wills, when He wills, as He wills, because He wills; so that in all circumstances and events, be they sweet or sour, we may, after thy example, satisfied with the divine ordinance, think and say: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to Thy word. Behold in me a servant of the Lord; may His holy will be done in me! May the will of God be done in me in health and sickness, in joy and sorrow, in good fortune and adversity, in wealth and poverty, in life and death, on earth and in heaven! Thy will be done, O Lord, in and by me, as Mary, the Mother of Thy Son, always fulfilled it!
Amen.
1. Quicumque fecerit voluntatem Patris mei qui in coelis est, ipse meus frater, et soror, et mater est. Matt. xii. 50.
2. Magna est velut mare contritio tua.—Lam. ii. 13
3. Tuam ipsius animam pertransibit gladius.—Luke ii. 35.
4. Tantus fuit dolor Virginis, quod si in omnes creaturas divideretur, omnes subito interirent.
5. Stabant juxta crucem Jesu mater ejus.—John xix. 25.
6. Pater, dimitte illis, non enim sciunt quid faciunt.—Luke xxiii. 34
7. Coarctor… desiderium habens dissolvi, et esse cum Christo.—Philipp. i. 3
8. Infelix ego homo! Quis me liberabit de corpore mortis huus?—Rom. vii. 34.
9. Quando veniam et apparebo ante faciem Dei?—Psa. xli. 3.
10. Non sicut ego volo, sed sicut tu.—Matt. xxvi. 39.
|
|
|
|
| Fr. Michael Müller: The Church and Her Enemies |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-05-2025, 07:54 AM - Forum: Resources Online
- No Replies
|
|
The word of God, in the First Commandment, is: “I am the Lord thy God.” By this commandment all men are obliged to believe in God as the Infinite Being, Who is essentially good and just, the sovereign Author and Lord of all things, Who has an absolute authority over all, an authority which He can exercise either directly by Himself, or through an angel, a prophet, or one or more of His reasonable creatures. God, therefore, has a right to command the human understanding to admit certain truths, the human will to perform certain duties, the senses to make certain sacrifices. Nothing can be more reasonable than to submit to such a command of God. This submission is called Faith, which, as St. Paul says, “bringeth into captivity every understanding to the obedience of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:5) As soon, then, as man hears the voice of his Maker, he is bound to say, “Amen: it is so.” I believe it, no matter whether I understand it or not.
But Protestants have no regard for God when He says, “I am the Lord thy God. I have a right to tell you what you must believe and do, in order to be saved, and you are bound to submit to My Will, and practice the religion which I have established.” The Protestant answers: “Of course, I believe that thou art the Lord of Heaven and earth, but I believe only what I choose to believe”, thus defying the Almighty to prescribe a religion for him. Protestants, therefore, live constantly in violation of the First Commandment.
They also transgress the Second Commandment of God, which says: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” By this commandment God forbids all men to blaspheme Him or any of His saints, or to ridicule religion. Yet, what is more common among Protestants than to blaspheme Jesus Christ in His Mother and other saints; what more common than to ridicule the religion of Christ and its holy practices? Are not Protestant books, sermons, tracts, and conversations, filled with abusive language, invectives, mockeries against Christ, His religion and His saints?
Protestants also transgress the Third Commandment of God, which says: “Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath day.” By this commandment God commands all men to worship Him in the manner which He has prescribed. From the beginning of the world, God wished to be worshipped by the offering of sacrifices; but Protestants have done away with the worship of the Sacrifice of the Mass, which Christ commanded to be offered up by His priests and all Christians. They refuse to give God the honour of adoration; that is, to honour Him as the sovereign Lord of all creatures, and to acknowledge their entire dependence on Him, by offering the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of His divine Son, Jesus Christ, in holy Mass. Instead of thus honouring and worshipping Him, they blaspheme Christ by calling this Holy Sacrifice a superstitious ceremony or abominable idolatry, whilst their own worship is a false worship, which is an abomination in the sight of God.
Protestants transgress the Fourth Commandment, by refusing obedience to the lawful ecclesiastical superiors.
They transgress the Fifth Commandment, by refusing to make use of the means of grace—the sacraments—to obtain God’s grace, and preserve themselves in His holy friendship.
They transgress the Sixth and the Ninth Commandments, which forbid adultery, [also contraception and sterilisation, ed.] and even the desire to commit it. Jesus Christ says: “I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.” (Matthew 19:9) “No,” says Protestantism to a married man, “you may put away your wife, get a divorce, and marry another.”
God says to every man: “Thou shalt not steal.” “No,” said Luther to secular princes, “I give you the right to appropriate to yourselves the property of the Roman Catholic Church.” And the princes, from that day to this, have been only too happy to profit by this pleasing advice.
Jesus Christ says: “Hear the Church.” “No,” says Protestantism, “do not hear the Church; protest against her with all your might.”
Jesus Christ says: “If any one will not hear the Church, look upon him as a heathen and publican.” “No,” says Protestantism, “if any one does not hear the Church look upon him as an apostle, as an ambassador of God.”
Jesus Christ says: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against My Church.” “No,” says Protestantism, “’tis false; the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church for a thousand years and more.”
Jesus Christ has declared St. Peter, and every successor to St. Peter—the pope—to be His Vicar on earth. “No,” says Protestantism, “the pope is Anti-Christ.”
Jesus Christ says: “My yoke is sweet, and My burden is light.” (Matthew 11:30). “No,” said Luther and Calvin, “it is impossible to keep the commandments.”
Jesus Christ says: “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” (Matthew 19:17). “No,” said Luther and Calvin, “faith alone, without good works, is sufficient to enter into life everlasting.”
Jesus Christ says: “Unless you do penance, you shall all likewise perish.” (Luke 3:3) “No,” says Protestantism, “fasting and other works of penance are not necessary, in satisfaction for sin.”
Jesus Christ says: “This is My body.” “No,” said Calvin, “This is only the figure of Christ’s body; It will become His body as soon as you receive It.”
The Holy Ghost says in Holy Scripture: “Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love or hatred.” (Ecclesiastes 9:1) “Who can say, My heart is clean, I am pure from sin?” (Proverbs 20:9); and, “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.” (Philippians 2:12) “No,” said Luther and Calvin, “but whosoever believes in Jesus Christ is in the state of grace.”
Saint Paul says: “If I should have faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.” (I Corinthians 13:2) “No, said Luther and Calvin, “faith alone is sufficient to save us.”
Saint Peter says that in the Epistles of Saint Paul there are many things “hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as also the other Scriptures, to their own perdition.” (II Peter 3:16) “No,” says Protestantism, “the Scriptures are very plain, and easy to be understood.”
Saint James says: “Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the Lord.” (James 5:14) “No,” says Protestantism, “this is a vain and useless ceremony.”
Protestants being thus impious enough to make liars of Jesus Christ, of the Holy Ghost, and of the Apostles, need we wonder if they continually slander Catholics, telling and believing worse absurdities about them than the heathens did? What is more absurd than to preach that Catholics worship stocks and stones for gods; set up pictures of Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and other saints, to pray to them, and put their confidence in them; that they adore a god of bread and wine; that their sins are forgiven by the priest, without repentance and amendment of life; that the pope or any other person can give leave to commit sin, or that for a sum of money the forgiveness of sins can be obtained? To these and similar absurdities and slanders, we simply answer: “Cursed is he who believes in such absurdities and falsehoods, with which Protestants impiously charge the children of the Catholic Church. All those grievous transgressions are another source of their reprobation.”
But there are other reasons still, why Protestants cannot be saved. Jesus Christ says: “Except you eat the Flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you.” (John 6:54) Now, Protestants do not receive the Body of Our Lord, because their ministers are not priests, and consequently have no power from Jesus Christ to say Mass, in which, by the words of consecration, bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ. It follows, then, clearly that they will not enter into life everlasting, and deservedly so, because they abolished the holy Sacrifice of the Mass; and by abolishing that great Sacrifice they robbed God the Father of the infinite honour which Jesus Christ renders Him therein, and themselves of all the blessings which Jesus Christ bestows upon those who assist at this holy Sacrifice with faith and devotion: “Wherefore the sin of the young men (the sons of Heli) was exceeding great before the Lord, because they withdrew men from the sacrifice of the Lord.” (1 Kings 2:17) Now, God the Father cannot admit into Heaven these robbers of His infinite honour; because if those are damned who steal the temporal goods of their neighbour, how much more will those be damned who deprive God of His infinite honour, and their fellow-men of the infinite spiritual blessings of the Mass!
Again, no man is saved who dies in the state of mortal sin, because God cannot unite Himself to a soul in Heaven who by mortal sin is His enemy. But Protestants are enemies of God, committing, as they do, other mortal sins besides those already mentioned; for, if it is a mortal sin for a Roman Catholic willfully to doubt only one article of his Faith, it is also, most assuredly, a mortal sin for Protestants wilfully to deny not only one truth, but almost all the truths revealed by Jesus Christ. On account of the sins of apostasy, blasphemy, slander, etc., they remain enemies of God, as long as they do not repent, and receive absolution of these sins. Jesus Christ assures us that those sins which are not forgiven by the absolution of His apostles or their successors, will not be forgiven: “Whose sins you retain, they are retained.” (John 20:23) But Protestants are unwilling to confess their sins to a Catholic bishop or a priest, who alone has power from Christ to forgive sins: “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them.” They generally have an utter aversion to confession; they die in their sins, and are lost; for sins, unrepented and unatoned for, stand through all eternity.
Again, no grown person can enter the kingdom of Heaven without good works. On the great day of judgment Jesus Christ will say to the wicked: “Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire. For I was hungry, and you gave Me not to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me not to drink,” etc. (Matthew 25:41,42) It is true that many regular, naturally good Protestants practice good works, make long prayers, fast, give alms, and perform other works of natural virtue, all of which are, indeed, laudable actions. But all these works are destitute of one essential thing, viz., docility to faith, without which there is neither merit nor recompense. For merely natural virtues there are natural rewards. But works, to be meritorious of Heaven, must be performed in the state of grace; they must proceed from, and be vivified by, divine faith, to deserve an eternal reward; for then it is that they proceed, as it were, from God himself, and from His divine Spirit, Who lives in us, and urges us on to the performance of good works.
Hence, as faith without works is dead, so also works without faith are dead, and cannot save the doer from destruction. Splendid, but barren works! Apparently delicious fruit, but rotten within! In vain, then, shall they glory in these works. The Gospel will always tell them that he “who does not believe, is already judged.” (John 3:18) The apostle will ever declare to them that “without faith it is impossible to please God.” (Hebrews 11:6) Jesus Christ Himself will ever command us to look upon “him as the heathen and the publican, who will not hear the Church” (Matthew 18:17), though otherwise he should be as severe in his life as an anchoret, as enlightened in his understanding as an angel. “In the Catholic Church,” says Saint Augustine, “there are both good and bad. But they who are separated from her, as long as they remain in their opinion against her, cannot be good; for, although a kind of laudable conversation seems to show forth some of them as good, the separation itself makes them bad, the Lord saying: ‘He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who gathereth not with Me, scattereth’” What, then, will be the astonishment, sorrow, and despair of those who, void of faith, and separated from the Church, will one day present themselves before God, and imagining to have heaped up treasures of merits, will appear in His sight with their hands empty?
In the history of the foundation of the Society of Jesus, in the Kingdom of Naples, is related the following story of a noble youth of Scotland, named William Ephinstone, who was a relative of the Scottish king. Born a heretic, he followed the false sect to which he belonged; but enlightened by divine grace, which showed him his errors, he went to France, where, with the assistance of a good Jesuit father, who was also a Scotchman, he at length saw the truth, abjured heresy, and became a Catholic. He went afterward to Rome, joined the Society of Jesus, in which he died a happy death. When at Rome, a friend of his found him one day very much afflicted, and weeping He asked him the cause, and the young man answered that in the night his mother had appeared to him, and said “My son, it is well for thee that thou hast entered the true Church; I am already lost, because I died in heresy. " (Saint Liguori, “Glories of Mary “)
We read, in the Life of Saint Rose of Viterbo, that she was inflamed with great zeal for the salvation of souls. She felt a most tender compassion for those who were living in heresy. In order to convince a certain lady, who was a heretic, that she could not be saved in her sect, and that it was necessary for salvation to die a true member of the Catholic Church, she made a large fire, threw herself into it, and remained in it for three hours, without being hurt. This lady, together with many others, on witnessing the miracle, abjured their heresy, and became Catholics.
When the Emperor Valens ordered that Saint Basil the Great should go into banishment, God, in the high court of heaven, passed, at the same time, sentence against the emperor’s only son, named Valentinian Galatus, a child then about six years old. That very night the royal infant was seized with a violent fever, from which the physicians were unable to give him the least relief; and the Empress Dominica told the emperor that this calamity was a just punishment of heaven for his banishing the bishop, on which account she had been disquieted by terrible dreams. Thereupon Valens sent for the saint, who was about to go into exile. No sooner had the holy bishop entered the palace, than the fever of the child began to abate. Saint Basil assured the parents of the absolute recovery of their son, on condition that they would order him to be instructed in the Catholic Faith. The emperor accepted the condition, Saint Basil prayed, and the young prince was cured. But Valens, unfaithful to his promise, afterward allowed an Arian bishop to baptize the child. The young prince immediately relapsed and died. By this miraculous cure of the child, God made manifest the truth of our religion; and by the sudden death of the child, which followed upon the heretical baptism, God showed in what abomination He holds those who profess heresy.
But is it not a very uncharitable doctrine to say that out of the Church there is no salvation? If we desire that all those who are not members of the Catholic Church should cease to deceive themselves as to the true character of their belief, and propose to them considerations which may contribute to that result, it is certainly not from enmity to their persons, nor indifference to their welfare. As long as they remain victims of a delusion as gross as that which makes the Jew still cling to his abolished synagogue, and which only a miracle of grace can dispel, they will probably resent the counsels of their truest friends, but why do they take us for enemies? “The Christian,” as Tertullian said, “is the enemy of no one,” not even of his persecutors. He hates heresy because God hates it, but he has only compassion for those who are caught in its snare. Whether he exhorts or reproves them, he displays not malice, but charity He knows that they are, of all men, the most helpless; and his voice of warning is most vehement, he is only doing what the Church has done from the beginning. His voice is but the echo of hers. We are told that, before the Council of Nicea, she had already condemned thirty-eight different heresies; and in every case she pronounced anathemas upon those who held them. And she was as truly the mouthpiece of God in her judicial as in her teaching office.
The Church is, indeed, uncompromising in matters of truth. Truth is the honour of the Church. The Church is the most honourable of all societies. She is the highest standard of honour, because she judges all things in the light of God, Who is the Source of all honour. A man who has no love for the truth, a man who tells a wilful lie or takes a false oath, is considered dishonour. No one cares for him; and it would be unreasonable to accuse one of intolerance or bigotry because he refuses to associate with a man who has no love for the truth. It would be just as unreasonable to accuse the Catholic Church of intolerance, or bigotry, or want of charity, because she excludes from her society, and pronounces anathema upon, those who have no regard for the truth, and remain wilfully out of her communion.
If the Church believed that men could be saved in any religion whatever, or without any at all, it would be uncharitable in her to announce to the world that out of her there is no salvation. But, as she knows and maintains that there is but one Faith, as there is but one God and Lord of all, and that she is in possession of that one Faith, and that without that Faith it is impossible to please God and be saved, it would be very uncharitable in her, and in all her children, to hide Christ’s doctrine from the world.
We have seen that there is no salvation possible out of the Roman Catholic Church. It is therefore very impious for one to think and to say that “every religion is good.” To say every religion is good, is as much as to say: The devil is as good as God. Hell is as good as Heaven. Falsehood is as good as truth. Sin is as good as virtue. It is impious to say, “I respect every religion.” This is as much as to say: I respect the devil as much as God, vice as much as virtue, falsehood as much as truth, dishonesty as much as honesty, Hell as much as Heaven. It is impious to say, “It matters very little what a man believes, provided he be an honest man.” Let such a one be asked whether or not he believes that his honesty and justice are as great as the honesty and justice of the Scribes and Pharisees. These were constant in prayer, they paid tithes according to the law, gave great alms, fasted twice in every week, and compassed sea and land to make a convert, and bring him to the knowledge of the true God. Now, what did Jesus Christ say of this justice of the Pharisees? “Unless,” he says, “your justice shall exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.” (Matthew 6:20)
The righteousness of the Pharisees, then, must have been very defective in the sight of God. It was, indeed, nothing but outward show and ostentation. They did good only to be praised and admired by men; but, within, their souls were full of impurity and malice. They were lewd hypocrites, who concealed great vices under the beautiful appearance of love for God, charity to the poor, and severity to themselves. Their devotion consisted in exterior acts, and they despised all who did not live as they did; they were Strict in the religious observances of human traditions, but scrupled not to violate the commandments of God. No wonder, then, that this Pharisaic honesty and justice were condemned by Our Lord. To those, therefore, who say, “It matters little what a man believes, provided he be honest,” we answer: “Your outward honesty, like that of the Pharisees, may be sufficient to keep you out of prison, but not out of Hell. It should be remembered that there is a dishonesty to God, to one’s own soul and conscience, as well as to one’s neighbour.”
You say, it is enough to be an honest man. What do you mean by an honest man? The term, honest man, is rather a little too general. Go, for instance, to that young man whose shameful secret sins are written on his hollow cheeks, in his dull, lacklustre eye: ask him if one can be an honest man who gratifies all his brutal, shameful passions. What will be his answer? “Why,” he will say, “these natural follies and weaknesses do not hinder a man from being honest. To tell the truth, for instance, I am somewhat inclined that way myself, and yet I would like to see the man that would doubt my honesty.”
Go to that covetous shop-keeper, who sells his goods as if they were of the finest quality; go to that tradesman, that mason, that bricklayer, or carpenter, who does not work even half as diligently when he is paid by the day as when he is paid by the job; go to these men that have grown rich by fraudulent speculation, by cheating the public or government; go to the employers that cheat the servant and the poor labourer; ask them if what they do prevents them from being honest people, and they will answer you coldly that they are merely tricks of trade, shrewdness in business; that they do not by any means hinder one from being an honest man.
Go, ask that habitual drunkard, ask that man who has grown rich by selling liquor to drunkards: ask them whether these sins do not hinder them from being honest, and they will tell you, “By no means. They are honest men, very honest men.”
Go, ask that man or that woman who sins against the most sacred laws of nature; go, ask that doctor who murders the poor helpless babe before it can see the blessed light of day: ask them if those who are guilty of such foul deeds are honest gentlemen, and they will tell you, with the utmost assurance, that such trifles do not hinder one from being a gentleman—from being a respectable lady!
True faith requires obedience, humility, and childlike simplicity; it excludes pride, self-will, clinging to our own ideas, and that unwillingness to obey which hurled the angels from heaven, and cast our first parents out of Paradise. Faith is a duty which God requires of us, and unless we fulfil this duty sincerely, we can never enter the kingdom of Heaven. One may say: “To submit to the yoke of faith is to submit to spiritual and moral tyranny; it is to lose one’s liberty.” There is liberty, and there is license. To be the slave of vile passions, and seek to satisfy them always, and at any cost, is not true liberty. Surely God is free. But God cannot sin. It is, therefore, no mark of liberty to be under the power of sin; on the contrary, it is the very brand of slavery. The power of sin implies the possibility of becoming a slave of sin and the devil. Those, then, who are greatly under the power of sin, and so go to hell, cannot truly be called free men. They are blinded and brutalized by satisfying the promptings of their brute nature, and thus renounce their glorious freedom, to sell it for a bestial gratification.
He only is truly free who wills and does what God wishes him to do for his everlasting happiness. Now, as we have seen, God wishes that all should be saved in the Roman Catholic Church. Those, therefore, who believe and do what the Church teaches, do not lose their liberty; on the contrary, they enjoy true liberty, and make the proper use of it. Hence, the greater our power of will is, and the less difficulty we experience in following the teaching of the Church, the greater is our liberty. Accordingly, Catholics, who live up to the teaching of the Church, enjoy greater liberty, and peace, and happiness, than Protestants and unbelievers, because they are the children of the light of truth, that leads them to Heaven; whilst those who live out of the Church are the children of the darkness of error, which leads them, finally, into the abyss of Hell.
If no one, then, can be saved except in the Roman Catholic Church, all those who are out of it are bound to become members of the Church. This is what common sense tells every non-Catholic. In worldly affairs, Protestants never presume to act without good advice. They never compromise their pecuniary interests or their lives, by becoming their own private interpreters and practitioners of law or medicine. Both the legal and the medical books are before them, written by modern authors, in clear and explicit language, but they have too much practical common sense to attempt their interpretation. They prefer always to employ expert lawyers and physicians, and accept their interpretations, and act according to their advice. Now, every non-Catholic believes that every practising member of the Catholic Church will be saved. Hence, when there is question about eternal salvation and eternal damnation, a sensible man will take the surest way to Heaven.
It was this that decided Henry IV of France to abjure his errors. An historian relates that this king, having called before him a conference of the doctors of either Church, and seeing that the Protestant ministers agreed, with one accord, that salvation was attainable in the Catholic religion, immediately addressed a Protestant minister in the following manner: “Now, sir, is it true that people can be saved in the Catholic religion?” “Most assuredly it is, sire, provided they live up to it.” “If that be so,” said the monarch, “prudence demands that I should be of the Catholic religion, not of yours, seeing that in the Catholic Church I may be saved, as even you admit; whereas, if I remain in yours, Catholics maintain that I cannot be saved. Both prudence and good sense tell me that I should follow the surest way, and so I propose doing.” Some days after, the king made his abjuration at Saint Denis.
Christ assures us that the way to everlasting life is narrow, and trodden by few. The Catholic religion is that narrow road to Heaven. Protestantism, on the contrary, is that broad way to perdition trodden by so many. He who is content to follow the crowd, condemns himself by taking the broad way. A man says: “I would like to believe, but I cannot.” You say you “cannot believe.” But what have you done, what means have you employed, in order to acquire the gift of faith? Why are heretics lost? Heretics, that is to say, baptized persons who choose such doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church as please them, and reject the rest, are lost for the reason given by Saint Paul the Apostle, who says: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid; knowing that he who is such an one is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.” (Titus 3:10,11)
Let us consider the two following anecdotes together, if we wish to know a little of the spirit of Saint John. Saint Jerome, in the Lections in the Breviary for Saint John’s day, says, “When he was living in extreme old age at Ephesus, and could scarcely be carried into the Church, and was unable to say many words at a time, he used often to say nothing but this, ‘My little children, love one another.’ But the brethren grew weary of always hearing the same words, and said to him, ‘Master, why do you always say this?’ The answer was worthy of John, ‘It is the commandment of Our Lord, and, alone, it is enough.’”
Saint Irenaeus says that he heard from Saint Polycarp this story: “The Apostle John, going into a bath and finding Cerinthus there, immediately rushed out of the house, because he could not bear to be under the same roof with such a heretic. He exhorted his companions to do the same, saying, ‘Let us hasten out, lest the bath fall on us in which is Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth.’”
Would to God that we had more of this spirit of Saint John amongst us; more brotherly love, and more hatred of heresy. It is impossible for any one to have too fierce a hatred of every distortion of the Faith. Heresy destroys the souls for which Jesus died. It is in every way a foul and a loathsome thing. Outside the Roman Church there is nothing but heresy, or infidelity, or paganism in some of its countless forms. Every Christian sect is heretical, whether it be in the East or the West, for they all deny the personal infallibility of the Vicar of Christ. And it is of very small consequence whether they deny much or little of Revelation, if they deny the authority of the one Church of God. That Church is Catholic and Roman. “Now whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all.” You ought to hate mortal sin with all your souls, whether it be in the intellectual or moral order. I do not say that you have to hate heretics; you ought to love them and pray for them, as you love and pray for those of the Church who are in mortal sin; but I do say that you can not have too strong and fierce a hatred of heresy.
|
|
|
|
| The Most Anti-Catholic Elements of the ITC’s New Document on the N |
|
Posted by: Stone - 04-05-2025, 07:50 AM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
- No Replies
|
|
Surveying the Most Anti-Catholic Elements of the International Theological Commission’s
New Document on the Nicene Creed
Robert Morrison, Remnant Columnist | April 3, 2025
On April 3, 2025, the International Theological Commission released a document on the Council of Nicea, "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour: 1700th Anniversary of the Ecumenical Council of Nicea (325-2025)". As its preliminary note states, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández and Francis approved the document’s publication in late 2024. Although we learned from Fiducia Supplicans to expect dangerous heresies from any document approved by these two men, the new document goes well beyond even the worst expectations. As we can see from the following survey of some of the document’s most egregious passages, this may actually be the most heretical effort from Francis’s hostile occupation of the papacy.
All Christians Have Adequate Faith
Given the false ecumenism so evident with the Synod on Synodality, it should come as no surprise to find that the new document related to the Council of Nicea would attempt to reduce the requisite content of the Faith to the Nicene Creed:
Quote:“Ultimately, every Christian, making the sign of the cross upon himself, expresses in an adequate and full manner the heart of the Trinitarian and Paschal faith. The People of God in its entirety must give an account of its faith and its hope (cf. 1Pt 3:5): in this sense they are all theologians.”
It is self-evidently preposterous to imagine that “every Christian” expresses that “the heart of the Trinitarian and Paschal faith” in an “adequate and full manner.” The clear purpose of this passage is to achieve what Pope Pius XII warned against in his 1950 encyclical “concerning some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine,” Humani Generis:
Quote:“In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.”
The Marks of the Church Encompass Non-Catholic Religions
Naturally, the heterodox authors of the new document needed to attack the marks of the Catholic Church identified in the Nicene Creed: “I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.” They did so by effectively making the Church invisible, which obviously renders the entire concept of the marks nonsensical:
Quote:“The Church is one beyond its visible divisions, holy beyond the sins of its members and the errors committed by its institutional structures, catholic and apostolic beyond the identity and cultural retreats and the doctrinal and ethical torments that ceaselessly agitate it.”
As expressed in this way, the marks of the Catholic Church would also encompass the non-Catholic religions separated from it. This is an obvious mockery of what the Catholic Church has always taught.
The Interpretation of the Faith Must Evolve Over Time
Paragraph 113 of the document comes close to affirming that Catholic truth cannot evolve over time:
Quote:“This does not mean to affirm that the truth of faith is historical and changeable: it means rather that the recognition of the truth and the deepening of its understanding constitute a historical task of the one subject-Church.”
Since we know from painful experience that the progressives carrying out the Vatican II revolution actually do believe that the faith is historical and changeable, this statement comes as a surprise. However, the key to understanding this passage resides in understanding the wide scope of “the recognition of the truth and the deepening of its understanding.” The “deepening” of the understanding is what, in practice, allows the heterodox theologians to completely change the religion to fit historical circumstances, while insisting that nothing is changing.
The document elaborates on this process of “deepening” understandings, which involves “creative fidelity to Revelation”:
Quote:“Believing with the Church means for each generation to participate in its incessant efforts for a deeper and more complete understanding of the faith. The obligation of fidelity cannot be reduced to a form of passive docility alone: it is an obligation of active appropriation for all disciples, with the support and under the supervision of the living magisterium of the college of bishops. The latter, when they agree, have the authority to decide in a binding way whether or not a theological interpretation is faithful to the source – Christ and the apostolic Tradition. The Magisterium adds nothing to the Revelation accomplished in Christ and attested in the Scriptures, except the clarifications of dogmatic development, since the Church exercises there her role as authentic interpreter of the Word of God through acts of creative fidelity to Revelation: 'Thus, the judgment regarding the authenticity of the sensus fidelium belongs in the final analysis not to the faithful themselves nor to theology, but to the Magisterium.’”
One can certainly glean from this passage a condemnation of the Traditional Catholic (i.e., Catholic) practice of accepting what the Church has always taught: “The obligation of fidelity cannot be reduced to a form of passive docility alone.” What those who would change the Church need instead is a “creative fidelity” to Tradition, through which contradictions are seamlessly reconciled, and common sense is obliterated.
Heretical Sects Help Us Discover New Aspects of Revelation
Consistent with Vatican II’s notion that the “Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using [non-Catholic religions] as means of salvation” (Unitatis Redinegratio), the new document posits that heretical sects can help us discover new aspects of Christian revelation:
Quote:“The light shed by the assembly of Nicaea on Christian revelation allows us to discover an inexhaustible richness that continues, through the centuries and cultures, to find depth and to manifest itself in ever more beautiful and new aspects. These different facets are highlighted especially by the prayerful and theological rereading that most Christian traditions make of the Symbol, each on the basis of a different relationship with the fact that a Symbol of faith exists. It is also an opportunity, for each and every one, to rediscover or even discover its richness and the bond of communion between all Christians that this Symbol can constitute.”
Entirely missing from this is the truth that Our Lord has entrusted to His Catholic Church with the immutable Faith which we must follow to please Him and save our souls. Rather, according to the new document, the Catholic Church needs to follow the ecumenical path so that Catholics can develop a better understanding of the religion based on enrichment from heretical sects:
Quote:“We have already emphasized how the insistence of the different Christian traditions allows us to enhance the riches of the text of the Creed (cf. supra § 17). The common celebration of Nicaea could be an ecumenical path of mutual enrichment that will offer, along the way, a better understanding of the mystery, a greater communion between ecclesial traditions and a stronger attachment to the common profession of the Christian faith.”
All of this fits with the work to reduce the true Christian religion to the lowest common denominator of beliefs held by all the baptized.
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the new document about the Nicene Creed is its strange focus on the Jewish religion. In the document, there is a claim that the covenant with the people of Israel was irrevocable.
God’s Covenant With the Jewish People Was Not Revoked
Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the new document about the Nicene Creed is its strange focus on the Jewish religion. Here, for example, the new document suggests that a fuller statement of the Catholic religion should have stated that Jewish people are still God’s elect people:
Quote:“Despite its insistence on history, the Creed does not explicitly mention or evoke a large part of the content of the Old Testament, nor, in particular, the election and history of Israel. Obviously, a Creed must not be exhaustive. Nevertheless, it is useful to underline that this silence in no way signifies the transience of the election of the people of the old covenant.”
Elsewhere in the document, there is a similar claim that the covenant with the people of Israel was irrevocable:
Quote:“The election of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the irrevocable covenant with the people of Israel already reveal the covenant that God wishes to establish with all nations and with every human being in an indestructible fidelity.”
By all means, a Jewish publication might understandably insist that Christianity is wrong and that the Jewish religion is still in full force. But this new document is from the International Theological Commission, which purports to be Catholic, even though it seems fairly evident that no Catholic was involved in drafting or reviewing the document.
Interestingly, the new document does not cite Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate (which dealt with the Jewish religion) on these points, even though Nostra Aetate is cited elsewhere in the new document. We can likely find the reason for this by reflecting on the relevant passage from Nostra Aetate:
Quote:“Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God's saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham's sons according to faith — are included in the same Patriarch's call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people's exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles. Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself."
There is no suggestion here that the old covenant remains in effect — if the pro-Jewish authors of Nostra Aetate believed that it was, they most certainly would have said so plainly. Yes, according to Catholicism, God still loves the Jewish people and has blessed them with many gifts, but it is absolutely anti-Catholic to believe that there are parallel covenants today, as though the Jews please God by remaining in the Jewish religion. Again, it is perfectly reasonable for Jewish organizations to argue otherwise, but it is impermissible for Catholics to do so.
Tellingly, Cardinal Augustin Bea — the primary architect of Nostra Aetate, who is still widely revered by Jewish leaders — had this to say in his The Church and the Jewish People:
“Quote:Evidently it is true that the Jewish people is no longer the people of God in the sense of an institution for the salvation of mankind. The reason for this, however, is not that it has been rejected, but simply that its function in preparing the kingdom of God finished with the advent of Christ and the founding of the Church.” (p. 96)
Thus, the new document (following Francis) goes well beyond what Vatican II’s most ardent supporters of the Jewish position had to say on these points.
Those who have the patience and stomach to read the new document from the International Theological Commission would readily find many other heterodox passages. There is no effort to conceal the anti-Catholic heresy, which provides us yet another indication that the spiritual battle has reached a point where the prince of lies has more power than ever. But we know how this ends: even though it looks as though the enemies will prevail against the Mystical Body of Christ, they will meet their demise at the moment in which it seems as though all is lost. In the meantime, we must remain with Our Lady of Sorrows at the foot of the Cross.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
|
|
|
|
|
