Welcome, Guest |
You have to register before you can post on our site.
|
Online Users |
There are currently 197 online users. » 1 Member(s) | 193 Guest(s) Applebot, Bing, Google, PaxetBonum2024
|
Latest Threads |
Interview with the Editor...
Forum: The Recusant
Last Post: Stone
5 hours ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 52
|
Purgatory Explained by th...
Forum: Resources Online
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 09:03 AM
» Replies: 37
» Views: 3,327
|
Fr. Ruiz: Renewal of the ...
Forum: Rev. Father Hugo Ruiz Vallejo
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 08:58 AM
» Replies: 14
» Views: 1,076
|
Last Sunday after Penteco...
Forum: Pentecost
Last Post: Stone
Yesterday, 08:57 AM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 11,615
|
Livestream: Twenty-sevent...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
11-23-2024, 10:30 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 68
|
Fr. Hewko's Sermons: Feas...
Forum: November 2024
Last Post: Stone
11-23-2024, 10:27 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 93
|
The Catholic Trumpet: Whe...
Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
Last Post: Stone
11-23-2024, 07:06 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 73
|
Bishop appointed by Commu...
Forum: Socialism & Communism
Last Post: Stone
11-22-2024, 04:57 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 84
|
Dr. Marian Horvat: The Tw...
Forum: General Commentary
Last Post: Stone
11-22-2024, 04:52 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 101
|
German [District] Superio...
Forum: The New-Conciliar SSPX
Last Post: Stone
11-22-2024, 04:48 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 115
|
|
|
Fr. Hewko: 2020 Sermons on Communism |
Posted by: Stone - 12-12-2020, 01:59 PM - Forum: Sermons by Date
- No Replies
|
|
A Small Collection of Sermons about the Dangers of Communism
Some Facts About Communism - May 10, 2020
Communism: Many Masks, Same Beast - May 19, 2020
Communism, Full Force! - June 28, 2020
|
|
|
Catechsim on the Apostolic Mandate of Pope St. Pius X |
Posted by: Stone - 12-12-2020, 12:33 PM - Forum: Catechisms
- No Replies
|
|
While, strictly speaking, this is a sermon and not a conference, Fr. Hewko's "A Crash Course on 'Our Apostolic Mandate' of St Pius X" is too important not to receive special attention. It is powerful! This sermon/lesson covers many of the doctrinal and moral issues of our present time, all the while providing guidance and direction in approaching those issues as a Catholic should.
|
|
|
Catechism on Auctorem Fidei |
Posted by: Stone - 12-12-2020, 12:09 PM - Forum: Catechisms
- Replies (1)
|
|
Ambiguity Condemned by Pope Pius VI in 1794
A Short Catechism by Fr. Hewko: Auctorem Fidei - The Author of the Faith
Transcript
I would like to cover briefly with you this great encyclical Auctorem Fidei written by Pope Pius VI. It is a Bull. Why he wrote it was that in 1786 there was in Italy the town of Pistoia there was a Council held by a Bishop, and he introduced novel ideas, he introduced heretical ideas in this Council that he held.
So it was kind of like an advertiser of Vatican II way back in 1786. So Pope Pius VI got wind of it. He tried to appeal to this Bishop to change, to denounce the errors of this Council and the Bishop delayed, delayed, delayed. So Pope Pope Pius VI says I have waited long enough. The wolves are attacking the flock, I must act now. He pulled out the twenty odd six gun and he started shooting at those wolves and the errors that oppose Catholic teaching.
He begins this Bull written in 1794, August 28th just right after the French revolution. Right at the outbreak - in fact during 1974 there were big wars going on in the Vendee, and in Flanders, the Freemason armies are marching in trying to crush the Catholic Church. They've got the clergy, the priests who took the constitution... they say the Latin Mass in all the parish Churches but the Catholic people will not go to those Latin Masses because they know they are said by priests who compromise the faith. And that is a lesson for us, we don't go to Masses - to priests who, in any way accept Vatican II and the new Mass. You cannot go.
So:
Quote:"Pius, Bishop Servant of the servants of God greetings, and my apostolic blessings to all the Christian faithful. The Apostle Paul commands us, who look on Jesus as the author and finisher of the faith, to consider diligently the nature and magnitude of the opposition against Him."
Then he goes on to say that there is a huge conspiracy against the Catholic Church and there always will be a conspiracy to destroy the work of Our Lord Jesus Christ. So the Pope says a greater zeal is upon me to look after the flock. This is a really great Pope who loves the Church. Loves our Lord Jesus Christ. He's protecting the flock. Not like these Vatican II Popes who allow the wolves to tear up the whole flock of our Lord and drag them to hell by their jaws.
Then he says:
Quote:"In fact, when a leader of God's holy Church under the name of priest turns the very people of Christ away from the path of truth. (He's talking about this bad bishop in Pistoia) toward the peril of erroneous belief and when this occurs in a major city then clearly the distress and anxiety is multiplied."
In other words, the Pope is saying: this Bishop is teaching heresy and holding a council against our will and causing havoc in the Catholic Church. Well his errors must be condemned.
And then he goes on and he says:
Quote:"So, the Pope says a greater zeal is upon me to look after the flock."
He is a really great Pope. And then he goes on and he says 'This bishop - at first he was good. We entrusted him with this diocese and then he turned evil. and he embarked on confusing, destroying and utterly overturning this diocese by introducing troublesome novelties under the guise of a sham reform.'
[...] Remember, novelties in Catholic language - whenever you hear of a novelty it is equivalent to heresy. When you deal with the Catholic faith if anything is new it equals heresy in Catholic language. St. Thomas Aquinas says the same thing. 'Anything that is novel is heretical because in the Catholic church nothing is new, nothing. It's always beautiful. Always the same. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever.'
And so he continues and then the Pope quotes St. Zosimus, a former pope:
Quote:"..those things that of great importance call for a weighty examination."
So now this Pope steps into the boxing ring and he's going to clean house. Here he goes. Listen to this:
Quote:"They knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception."
So, these are artful. This bishop and these catholic clergy are slippery snakes he says:
Quote:"In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, the innovators sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith that is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error."
This is powerful. This condemns Vatican II. This condemns the doctrinal declaration of April 15th, 2012 signed by a Bishop (Fellay). It condemns double meaning language and fuzzy weasel-words. It condemns that when you talk about the Catholic faith. This also condemns those five Eleison Comments (of Bishop Williamson's) that say the new Mass gives grace. It is the same slippery language that is used to insinuate error.
Listen to this: Pope Pius VI - again this is 1794 condemning Vatican II doctrinal declaration [...]
Quote:"Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it."
See the confusion, there is traditional language, then there's novelty, then there's traditional language again, so people can read it and say well, 'It has a Catholic meaning'. You've got a double tongue here. Scripture says God hates the double tongue. Bishop Fellay admitted that the Doctrinal Declaration can be doubly interpreted. And Bishop Williamson also makes comments defending that the new Mass gives grace and Eucharistic miracles. We have to say it is gravely misleading. It is causing a civil war among many traditional Catholics over a question that shouldn't be an issue. Whether the new Mass gives grace or not is a dead issue. A bad tree gives bad fruit. And then Vatican II - the bishops at Vatican II, with Cardinal Ratzinger among them, they admitted that 'we used ambiguous language deliberately' so that afterwards we can take the phrases, run with the ball - that is implement the errors of Vatican II's heresies.
Pope Pius VI continues:
Quote:"It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor St. Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity."
Anybody remember the heresy of Nestorius? He said Mary is not the Mother of God. He said Mary is the mother of the MAN of Jesus Christ but not God. This heresy is that there are two Persons in Christ. The truth is that there are two natures in Christ and only one person. The attack was Mary who was the Mother of God. He was condemned by St. Celestine.
Quote:"Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed. In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements that disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged."
We can take the Eleison Comments and do the same. Camouflaged language to say the new Mass gives grace, has Eucharistic miracles. It is deadly for souls. If the new Mass gives grace what are we doing telling people to stay away from it? It is very misleading. And Bishop Fellay also in the Doctrinal Declaration accepts Vatican II; accepts the new Mass; accepts the new profession of faith that. Archbishop Lefebvre condemned, the new Mass, the new sacraments and rejects the new Mass is legitimate. If you say the new Mass is legitimate, you're saying that it's good for souls. [....] So, don't be surprised if the new Mass is being said in an SSPX chapel. Of course, the priest says he will never say the new Mass. The Campos priests in Brazil in 2003 they also said the same thing. Oh, we're never going to say the new Mass. Now today those same priests are saying the new Mass with altars facing the people. Giving communion in the hand. It can happen, it has happened, and it will happen again in the future.
The Pope quotes:
Quote:"For we, along with Augustine and the Fathers of Milevis, prefer and desire that men who teach perverse things be healed in the Church by pastoral care rather than be cut off from Her without hope of salvation, if necessity does not force one to act."
So this good pope is saying 'Ok, but with this Bishop Nestoria, we tried to be patient, we tried to appeal to him, to condemn this heresy, to revoke his heresies and no nothing came, so now I'm have to act ...and pull out the rifle. It is not a matter of the danger of only one or another diocese. This is very important because people were saying, well its just one diocese the diocese of Nestoria, so just clean up the mess with Nestoria.' But this Pope says,
Quote:“Any novelty at all assails the Universal Church.”
Any novelty at all attacks the Catholic church. Its universal. That's why no bishop or priest can sit back when there is heresy being taught. Archbishop Lefebvre - remember he stood up to defend the Catholic Faith and all the modernist clergy attacked him; tried to tear him to pieces. They attacked the seminary in Écône because the enemies of Christ did not want priests in the line of the traditional popes in the mind of Archbishop Lefebvre. They don't want that. There is such a fierce hatred of OLMC in Kentucky. All we want to do is continue the work of Archbishop Lefebvre and hold his position. Tell the pope to come back to tradition. It's our job. It's very clear. The Virgin Mary sealed this when she prophesied his (Archbishop Lefebvre's) coming 300 years beforehand.
Now for a long time, from every side, the judgment of the supreme Apostolic See has not only been awaited but earnestly demanded by unremitting, repeated petitions. The good priests are begging 'Do something, Holy Father, this is a heresy that is leading souls astray'. God forbid that the voice of Peter ever be silent in that See, where, living and presiding perpetually, he presents the truth of the faith to those in search of it. A lengthier forbearance in such matters (in other words - any delay in condemning these heresies in such matters) is not safe, because it is almost just as much of a crime to close one’s eyes in such cases, as it is to preach such offenses to religion.
In other words, I will be sinning if I close my eyes to this. I think of these five Vatican II popes closing their eyes to the heresies of Vatican II....all the damage...
Quote:"Therefore, (says Pius VI,) such a wound must be cut away, a wound by which not one member is hurt, but the entire body of the church is damaged."
So this is one of the arguments that St. Thomas Aquinas would use ....if you've got a leg that's gangrene, the gangrene is spreading until it kills the whole body. What does the doctor do? He amputates the leg to save the body. So this good pope (Pius VI) is amputating this bad bishop (of Pistoia) to save the whole universal church.
Quote:"And with the aid of divine piety, We must take care that, with the dissensions removed, (that is the fighting removed) the Catholic faith be preserved inviolate, and that those whose faith has been proved may be fortified/strengthened` by our authority once those who defend perverse teachings have been recalled from error."
And then the good Pope adds in this Encyclical saying that:
Quote:"We have resolved to condemn and reprove several propositions, doctrines, and opinions of the acts and decrees of the Council of Nestoria, either those expressly taught or those conveyed through ambiguity, with their own appropriate notes and censures for each of them (as was said above), just as we condemn and reprove them in this our constitution, which will be valid in perpetuity - until the end of the world. They are as follows."
And now follows is a list of 83 condemned heresies and errors [See Denzinger, beginning with #1501]. So this is a Pope acting and doing his duty. Some day there will be a good Pope condemning the heresies and errors of Vatican II. He is going to condemn the whole thing because the whole thing is poison. Archbishop Lefebvre, in his great declaration said, 'Even though not every word and not every sentence of the documents of Vatican II may be heretical or formally heretical the whole thing is poison. It is saturated, marinated in the modern heresies'.
So there is this little brief summary of this great encyclical - this great Bull: Auctorem Fidei.
Archbishop Lefebvre quotes it very often. He says, how do we know Rome will come back to tradition? When the pope professes the teaching of Auctorem Fidei, the Syllabus of Errors, Pascendi, and Toleransibus condemning ecumenism, and all the other great encyclicals.
* * *
Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794
“[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation.
This manner of dissimulation and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstance under which it is used. For very good reason it can never be tolerated in a Synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error. Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up to the personal inclinations of the individual--such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.
It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions which are published in the common language for everyone's use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity.
Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed. In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required then the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.”
Adapted from: Source
See also a short description of Auctorem Fidei in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia.
|
|
|
In your kindness, please pray for Mr. Don H. |
Posted by: Stone - 12-12-2020, 11:49 AM - Forum: Appeals for Prayer
- No Replies
|
|
Dear friends,
In your charity and kindness, please keep Mr. Don H. in your prayers. He is very ill in the hospital. Mr. H. is the father of a dear friend to many of us and also a member of The Catacombs.
In charity, let us offer our fervent prayers and sacrifices in honor of the Holy Virgin of Guadalupe, that she may intercede on behalf of Mr. H. and obtain for him the special graces needed for a full recovery. The family is most grateful for all of our prayerful support.
Almighty and Everlasting God, the eternal salvation of those who believe in You, hear us on behalf of Your servants who are sick, for whom we humbly beg the help of your mercy, so that, being restored to health, they may render thanks to you in your Church. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
|
|
|
Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe - December 12th |
Posted by: Stone - 12-12-2020, 10:34 AM - Forum: Our Lady
- Replies (5)
|
|
Our Lady of Guadalupe: She Who Smashes the Serpent
Pope Pius XII gave Our Lady of Guadalupe the title of “Empress of the Americas” in 1945. Since December 12 is the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, this is a propitious moment to recall how she reigns over our nation from Heaven, protecting and guiding us with motherly solicitude and tenderness. The constant miracle memorialized on Saint Juan Diego’s tilma and the context of the apparitions remind us that Our Lady is victorious over the serpent, intervenes in history and is eager to intercede for those who seek her intercession in this vale of tears.
How Our Lady Intervened in History
The oldest reliable source of the apparitions of the Mother of God to Saint Juan Diego was written in Náhuatl by Antonio Valeriano. He was a contemporary of Saint Juan Diego and Bishop Juan de Zumárraga. Mr. Valeriano’s account was published in 1649 and is known as the Nican Mopohua.
On December 9, 1531, Juan Diego was on his way to attend Mass in what is today Mexico City. It was dawn as he approached Tepeyac Hill, a few miles from his destination. Juan Diego was no ordinary Indian, but the grandson of King Netzahualcoyotl,[1] and the son of King Netzahualpilic and Queen Tlacayehuatzin, who was a descendant of Moctezuma I.
As Juan Diego neared the hill’s summit, something extraordinary happened. Unseen birds began to sing in a supernatural way. The birds would pause while others responded, forming a heavenly duet. He thought he was perhaps dreaming and pondered how unworthy he was to witness something so extraordinary.
The heavenly symphony stopped and a sweet voice called him from the summit, “Juanito. Juan Diegito.” Hearing this, he happily ascended the hill. What he found upon reaching the source of the voice changed his life forever. There, on a rock, stood a beautiful lady. Everything around her was transformed. Her clothing was as radiant as the sun. The rock she stood upon seemed to emit rays of light. She was surrounded with the splendors of the rainbow. Cacti and other plants nearby looked like emeralds. Their spines sparkled like gold and their leaves were like fine turquoise.
Juan Diego bowed before her in ceremonious respect. A tender dialogue between Our Lady and Juan Diego followed, “Listen, xocoyote mio,[2] Juan, where are you going?”
Rejoicing, he happily responded, “My Holy One, my Lady, my Damsel, I am on my way to your house at Mexico-Tlatilulco; I go in pursuit of the holy things that our priests teach us.”
The celestial lady revealed to him that she was indeed the Mother of God, telling him of her desire to have a church built, where she might bestow all her love, mercy, help and protection. She showed overflowing love to Juan Diego, “and to all the other people dear to me who call upon me, who search for me, who confide in me; here I will hear their sorrow, their words, so that I may make perfect and cure their illnesses, their labors and their calamities.”
Then Our Beloved Lady, respecting the authority established by God, sends the noble Juan Diego with this message to the bishop-elect of Mexico. She tells him to accomplish the mission diligently, promising to reward his services. He bows, telling her that he will go straightaway to fulfill her wishes, and departs.
Friar Juan de Zumárraga was one of the first twelve Franciscan missionaries to go to Mexico and the first bishop of that new land. When Juan Diego reached the bishop’s palace, he promptly announced he wished to deliver a message for the bishop. The servants made Juan Diego wait before allowing the audience. Obediently, and with great enthusiasm, he told the bishop what he had seen and heard. Bishop Zumárraga listened attentively, but told Juan Diego to return when they could discuss the matter at greater length. After all, how did he know the story was true?
Juan Diego returned to Tepeyac Hill. As he approached the hill, Our Lady was waiting for him. He drew near and knelt. With sadness, he told Our Lady that he failed in his mission. The marvelous dialogue continues, “My Holy One, most noble of persons, my Lady, my xocoyota, my Damsel….”
Juan Diego explained why he failed, how unworthy he was for such a mission and how the bishop was suspicious. Our Lady listened tenderly and patiently as he suggested she send one of the well-known and respected lords of the land. Then, he thought, her message would be believed.
Our Lady was not persuaded. She wanted him to accomplish the mission, and said, “I pray you, my xocoyote, and advise you with much care, that you go again tomorrow to see the bishop and represent me; give him an understanding of my desire, my will, that he build the church that I ask….”
Juan Diego did not fear the difficulties of the mission, he was only afraid the mission would not be accomplished. However, he told Our Lady he would fulfill her command and return the following evening with the bishop’s reply.
“And now I leave you, my xocoyota, my Damsel, my Lady; meanwhile, you rest.” Juan Diego suggested that Our Lady rest! It is impressive that she not only allowed him to treat her this way, but also loved his candidness.
The next day, he traveled to Mass. Afterward, he went directly to the bishop’s palace, fell on his knees and repeated all that Our Lady had told him. The bishop, in turn, asked questions about the lady. Not entirely convinced, however, the bishop told Juan Diego that he could not affirm that the apparition was Our Lady and asked for a sign of reassurance from Our Lady to build a church.
Juan Diego confidently stated he would ask Our Lady for a sign. The bishop agreed, and sent a few servants to follow Juan Diego and report on everything he did. But they lost him and could not find him. They returned annoyed, speaking poorly of him to the bishop. They even resolved to seize and punish Juan Diego when he appeared again.
Juan Diego should have returned with the sign on Monday, but when he returned home, his uncle Juan Bernadino was seriously ill. His health worsened throughout Monday night, and on early Tuesday morning asked Juan Diego to call a priest. The nephew obediently went, making sure his route did not pass near Tepeyac Hill as he feared Our Lady would see him and persuade him to continue the mission she entrusted to him. So he took a shortcut he thought concealed him from Our Lady.
Stealthily advancing along, he was discovered by Our Lady, who descended the slope and asked, “Xocoyote mio, where are you going? What road is this you are taking?”
Caught red-handed, Juan Diego replied diplomatically, “My daughter, my xocoyota, God keep you, Lady. How did you waken? And is your most pure body well, perchance?” Then he explained his predicament, “My Virgin, my Lady, forgive me, be patient with me until I do my duty, and then tomorrow I will come back to you.” One cannot help but smile while imagining Juan Diego, in his simplicity, asking Our Lady to wait until he returned the next day after helping his dying uncle.
The Mother of God responded affectionately, “Do not be frightened or grieve, or let your heart be dismayed; however great the illness may be that you speak of, am I not here, I who am your mother, and is not my help a refuge?”
She told him his uncle was already cured. Juan Diego rejoiced, and asked her to give him the sign that the bishop wanted. She told him to go to the hilltop and cut the flowers he would find. Then, he was to bring them back to her. It was December, and only cacti and a few other sparse plants grew on the hill. However, Juan Diego found Castilian roses in abundance there and delighted in their fragrance. He carefully cut several, wrapping them in his tilma or cloak made of cactus fiber. He returned to Our Lady and she tenderly arranged them inside his tilma with her own hands, and commanded him to go to the bishop and show him the sign he was waiting for. She also told him not to open his tilma for anyone but the bishop.
He made haste to Bishop Zumárraga, confident now that he would accomplish Our Lady’s designs. Along the way, the wonderful fragrance of the roses pleased him. At the bishop’s palace, he was left waiting for a long time. The servants saw him as a nuisance and made him wait until it was very late, and even demanded to see what was in his tilma. Because he refused to show them, they pushed and knocked him about. When he perceived he would not see the bishop unless he showed them something, he let them peek in the tilma. Seeing and smelling the celestial roses, the servants made three attempts to take some. At each attempt, the roses miraculously became part of the tilma as if they were painted. With this, they ushered Our Lady’s ambassador in to see the bishop. Juan Diego knelt down and began to explain all he saw and heard from Our Lady. The bishop listened intently. To prove what he said was true, he untied his tilma and let the roses fall to the ground. Those watching fell to their knees in silent amazement. Miraculously imprinted on the tilma was Our Lady’s perfect image. Recalling their disbelief and mistreatment of the Blessed Mother’s ambassador, the servants were shamed.
Bishop Zumárraga tearfully took the tilma from Juan Diego, placed it in his private chapel, and entreated Juan Diego to stay with him for the night in the palace. The next day, with a crowd following behind them, the two went to the site where Our Lady wanted her church built. Juan Diego gave a detailed account of the apparitions. Then they went to see Juan Bernadino and check on the state of his health.
She Who Smashes the Serpent
Juan Bernadino was surprised to see his nephew accompanied by the bishop and a crowd of admirers. Naturally, he asked what was happening. The miracle was told again and Juan Bernadino acknowledged that he was cured. Our Lady appeared to him and cured him. She told him of her desire to be called Santa María de Guadalupe. Guadalupe in Spanish corresponds phonetically to Coatlaxopeuh in Náhuatl, which means “I smashed the serpent with the foot.”
The bishop then displayed the tilma in the Cathedral of Mexico for public veneration, and called on all to help in the construction of the new church, which was completed on December 26, 1531. On that day, a great procession was made from the cathedral to the new church. Spaniards and Indians, ecclesiastical and imperial officials alike, accompanied Our Lady of Guadalupe to her new shrine. The Indians performed war dances in her honor, and covered the whole path to Tepeyac Hill with flowers.
Amid the festive rejoicing, an overzealous Indian fired an arrow, mortally piercing the throat of another Indian. There were cries and sobs over the dead Indian. Then, inspired by grace, all began to ask that his lifeless body be placed in front of the tilma. As everyone began to invoke Our Lady of Guadalupe’s help, the dead Indian came back to life, his throat instantly healed. Everyone cheered as he rose to his feet. Strengthened by the miracle, the procession resumed and the image was placed in the new shrine.
Miracles That Defy Science
Since the tilma is made of cactus fiber, it should have disintegrated after 20 years. However, it has survived from 1531 until the present day without cracking or fading. Scientists cannot explain how this is possible. In the 18th century, Dr. José Ignácio Bartolache had two copies of the image made and placed where the original was. After several years, the two copies deteriorated.
Over time, the faithful have tried to “embellish” the tilma. A crown was painted on Our Lady’s head and angels in the clouds. However, unlike the tilma, these additions have worn away and are no longer visible. The rays of the sun, for example, were coated with gold and the moon plated with silver. These embellishments also faded away. In fact, the silver-plated moon turned black.
Scientists are baffled how the image was imprinted on the tilma. There are no brush strokes or sketch marks on it. Richard Kuhn, a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, ascertained that Our Lady of Guadalupe’s image does not contain natural, animal or mineral pigments. The tilma defies natural explanation.
At the Guadalupe shrine in Mexico City, a stone sail ship monument is visible near the chapel on the hill. The landmark commemorates a miracle that took place in 1565 when General Miguel López de Legazpi was returning from the Philippines and his ship was engulfed by a tempest. On the verge of sinking, the crew in desperation made a vow to Our Lady of Guadalupe; if she saved them, they would carry their last remaining sail to her on pilgrimage. The storm abated and they fulfilled their promise.
The greatest miracle was that eight million Indians converted in only seven years following the apparitions. The early Franciscan and Dominican missionaries were busy night and day baptizing and administering the Sacraments. On average, over three thousand Indians a day were baptized throughout the seven years.
Symbolism of the Tilma
The miraculous tilma is like a catechism class for the Mexican Indians. Our Lady, as she appears, eclipses the sun, showing her superiority over the Aztec sun god. She stands on the moon, trampling the Aztec moon god under foot. She is surrounded by clouds and attended by an angel, showing that she is not of this earth. Yet her hands are folded in supplication and her head is tilted in a position of humility, thus showing that while she tramples the pagan gods, she is not God. Around her neck, she wears a brooch with a cross, leading mankind to the Supreme Being, the God of the Christians.
May the goodness and tenderness Our Lady showed to Saint Juan Diego encourage our readers to have more devotion to her. Like every good mother, she is also the implacable foe of those who inflict harm on her children. Therefore, she is our special aid in the struggle against evil today. Let our battle cry be “¡Viva la Virgen de Guadalupe!” (“Long live Our Lady of Guadalupe!”)
Adapted from here.
|
|
|
Hillaire Belloc: The New Paganism |
Posted by: Stone - 12-12-2020, 10:24 AM - Forum: Articles by Catholic authors
- No Replies
|
|
The New Paganism
by Hillaire Belloc
Our civilization developed as a Catholic civilization. It developed and matured as a Catholic thing. With the loss of the Faith, it will slip back not only into Paganism, but into barbarism with the accompaniments of Paganism, and especially the institution of slavery. It will find gods to worship, but they will be evil gods as were those of the older savage Paganism before it began its advance towards Catholicism. The road downhill is the same as the road up the hill. It is the same road, but to go down back into the marshes again is a very different thing from coming up from the marshes into pure air. All things return to their origin. A living organic being, whether a human body or a whole state of society, turns at last into its original elements if life be not maintained in it. But in that process of return there is a phase of corruption which is very unpleasant. That phase the modern world outside the Catholic Church has arrived at.
We call Paganism an absence of the Christian revelation. That is why we distinguish between Paganism and the different heresies; that is why we give the name of Christian to imperfect and distorted Christians, who only possess a part of Catholic truth and usually add to it doctrines which are contradictory of Catholic truth. Moreover, the word "Christian" though so vague as to be dangerous, has this much reality about it, that there is something different between the general atmosphere or savor of any society or person or literature which can be called Christian at all and those which are wholly lacking in any part of Christian doctrine. For a Christian man our society is one that has some part of Catholicism left in him. But when every shred of Catholicism is lost, we call that state of things "Unchristian."
Now, it must be evident to everybody by this time that, with the attack on Faith and the Church at the Reformation, the successful rebellion of so many and their secession from United Christendom, there began a process which could only end in the complete loss of all Catholic doctrine and morals by the deserters. That consummation we are today reaching. It took a long time to come about but come about it has. We have but to look around us to see that there are, spreading over what used to be the Christian world, larger and larger areas over which the Christian spirit has wholly failed; is absent. I mean by "larger areas" both larger moral and larger physical areas, but especially larger moral areas. There are now whole groups of books, whole bodies of men, which are definitely Pagan, and these are beginning to join up into larger groups. It is like the freezing over of a pond, which begins in patches of ice; the patches unite to form wide sheets, till at last the whole is one solid surface. There are considerable masses of literature in the modern world, of philosophy and history [and especially of fiction], which are Pagan and they are coalescing-----to form a corpus of anti-Christian influence. It is not so much that they deny the Incarnation and the Resurrection, not even that they ignore doctrine. It is rather that they contradict and oppose the old inherited Christian system of morals to which people used to adhere long after they had given up definite doctrine.
This New Paganism is already a world of its own. It bulks large, and it is certainly going to spread and occupy more and more of modern life. It is exceedingly important that we should judge rightly and in good time of what its effects will probably be, for we are going to come under the influence of those effects to some extent, and our children will come very strongly under their influence. Those effects are already impressing themselves profoundly upon the Press, conversation, laws, building, and intimate habits of our time.
There are two ways in which this is happening; according to whether the New Paganism is at work in a Catholic or a non-Catholic country. It is happening in Catholic countries by the separation of a Pagan set from the rest of the citizens. In those countries the full body of Christian doctrine, that is, Catholicism, puts up a permanent and successful resistance. Its consequences in morals are accepted by masses of people who do not practice the Catholic religion or who are indifferent to its doctrines, and this resistance shows no sign of weakening; not everywhere are the governments of Catholic countries in sympathy with Catholic tradition, however vague, but in these countries the laws defending morals and the general habits of people outside the Pagan set may properly be called anti-Pagan.
But though the way in which the New Paganism is establishing itself differs according to whether the society in which it takes root was originally Catholic or Protestant, it is everywhere of much the same tone, and its effects are very similar, whether you find them in Italy or in Berlin, in an English novel or a French one; and the marks peculiar to Paganism are very clearly apparent in all.
Of these marks the two most prominent are, first, the postulate that man is sufficient to himself, that is, the omission of the idea of Grace; the second [a consequence of this], despair.
The New Paganism is the resultant of two forces which have converged to produce it: appetite and the sense of doom. Of the forces which impelled it into being, the appeal of the senses to be released from restriction through the denial of the Faith is so obvious that none will contest it, the only controversy being upon whether this removal of restriction upon sensual enjoyment, declining every form of reticence and exercising the fullest license for what is called "self-expression," is of good or of evil effect upon the individual and upon society. The Christian scheme is still close enough even to the most Pagan of the New Pagans to be familiar, and the social atmosphere which it created still endures as a memory, or as a rejected experience, in their lives. That social atmosphere insisted on a number of restrictions. Of course, no society could exist in which there were not a great number of restrictions, but the restrictions imposed by Christian morals were severe and numerous, and most of them are meaningless to those who have abandoned Christian doctrine, because morals are the fruit of doctrine.
It is not only in sexual matters [the first that will be cited in this connection], but in canons of taste, in social conduct, traditional canons of beauty in verse, prose, or the plastic arts that there is outbreak. The restriction and, therefore, the effort necessary for lucidity in prose, for scansion in poetry and, according to our tradition, for rhyme in most poetry-----the restrictions imposed by reverence for age, for certain relationships such as those between parent and child, for the respect of property as a right, and all the rest of it are broken through. A license in act and a necessarily more extended license in speech are therefore the mark of the New Paganism.
But to this negative force must be added a positive one to explain what is happening, and that positive one is a philosophy which may be called Monist, or Fatalist, or Determinist, or by one of any number of names all signifying either the absence of conscious Will from the universe or the presence of only one such Will therein.
The true origin of this attitude of mind in modern times is the powerful genius of Calvin, though those who most suffer his influence would most strenuously deny their subjection to it, partly because they have never read him, much more because they do not see it in their daily papers, and most of all because Calvin is vaguely mixed up in their minds with an interest in theology, which science is thought to have exploded-----there is also perhaps some little distaste for Calvin because he was a Frenchman, but as that deplorable fact is never emphasized it cannot count for much. Calvin, then, is at the fountainhead of this new sense of Doom. But behind Calvin the fatalist attitude is an attitude as old, of course, as the hills. It is a temptation to which the human intellect has yielded on important occasions from as far back as we can trace its recorded experience and definitions. To the mind in that mood all things are part of an unchangeable process following from cause to effect immutably.
What else may have produced this positive force of fatalism, itself a main factor in the new Paganism, I will not here discuss; I have said more about it in my essay on "Science as the Enemy of Truth." I am here only concerned with observing its presence; but I will say this much: that one very powerful agent in producing this mood is the desire to be rid of responsibility.
A direct consequence of this philosophy, though again it is a consequence furiously denied by its victims, is the elimination of right and wrong. Our actions do not depend upon our own wills; those who think that they proceed from an act of the will suffer an illusion; human action, from what used to be called the noblest self-sacrifice to the basest commercial swindling, is the inevitable result of forces over which the perpetrator has no control-----or, as Dean Swift has admirably put it in that great masterpiece, The Tale of a Tub, "It was ordained some three days before the Creation that my nose should come against this lamp post."
It is true that the professors of this creed are illogical; for no one gives louder vent to moral indignation than themselves, especially when they are denouncing the cruelties or ineptitudes of believers in moral responsibility, but then, as the denial of the human reason is also part of their creed, or, at any rate, the denial of its value as the instrument for the discovery of truth, they will not be seriously disturbed by the incongruity of their outbursts; for what is incongruous or illogical is not to them blameworthy or ridiculous-----rather in their mouths does the word "logical" connote something absurd and empty.
Now, it is with this element of Monism that there enters a highly practical consideration in our survey of the New Paganism. It is this: the New Paganism is in process of building up a society of its own, wherein will be apparent two features novel in what used to be Christendom. Those two features have already appeared and will spread each in its own sphere, the one in the sphere of law-that is, of coercive enactment-the other in the sphere of status, that is, in the organization of society.
In the first sphere, that of positive law, the New Paganism has already begun to produce and cannot but produce more and more a mass of restrictive legislation. It is a paradox, of course, that such restrictive legislation should be bred from a mood which proceeded originally from rebellion against restriction, but the fact is undoubted, it is before all our eyes. With the denial of the will there necessarily appears the questioning of any content to the word "freedom." In a Christian society you were free to do a number of acts, for some of which you could be punished under Christian laws, for others of which no state or other authority could punish you, but which were opposed to the social atmosphere in which you lived. But the New Paganism will tend, not to punish, but to restrain with fetters; to prevent action, to impose coercive bonds. It will be at issue more and more with human dignity. It has already, in certain provinces [the Calvinist canton of Vaud in Switzerland is an example], enacted what is called "the sterilization of the unfit" as a positive law. It has not yet enacted, though it has already proposed and will certainly in time enact, legislation for the restriction of births. Not only in these, but in many other departments of life, one after another, will this mechanical network spread and bind those subject to it under a compulsion which cannot be escaped.
In the sphere of social texture, the New Paganism must also inevitably and of its nature, wherever it gives its tone to society, reintroduce that status of slavery from which our civilization sprang and which only very gradually disappeared under the influence of the Christian ethic.
This revival of slavery must not be confused with the spread of mechanical restriction applicable to all. They are cousins, but they are not identical. Slavery is the compulsion of one man or set of men to work for the benefit of others. It is a compulsion to work, backed by the arms of the State. The way has been prepared for it by that already half-Pagan thing-----industrial capitalism, of which I write on a later page; and the steps whereby the New Paganism will achieve slavery develop naturally from industrial capitalism. It is a thesis I have developed at greater length in my book, The Servile State; I here only touch on it as a main social result to which the New Paganism will give birth. That this novel status will bear the name "slavery" I doubt; for it is in the nature of mankind, when they are proceeding to call that good which once, they called evil, to avoid the old evil name. In the same way fornication is not called fornication but "companionate marriage."
Probably slavery, when it comes, will be called "permanent employment"; and a century hence, a rich man will say to his friends, talking of his new gardener: "He's a permanent. Paid for him at the Bureau only last Thursday."
In the form of security and sufficiency for the men who labor to the profit of others, and in the form of registering and controlling them in the form of an organized public supervision of their labor, slavery is already afoot. When slavery shall succeed it will succeed through the acquiescence of those who will be enslaved, for they will prefer sufficiency and security with enslavement, to freedom, responsibility, insecurity and the threat of insufficiency.
As yet, during the transition, there is an illogical, and therefore an ephemeral mixture of the old and the new. The old freedom sufficiently survives in the mind of the wage earner to give him the illusion that, while accepting insurance and maintenance from the capitalist state, he can still be a full citizen. He thinks he can have his cake and eat it too. He is mistaken. The great capitalists who procured these regulations from the politicians knew what they were at. They were catching their proletariat in a net, and now they hold it fast.
The New Paganism will then, I say, give us, in those societies over which it shall obtain the control of the mind, increasing restriction against general freedom and increasing restriction against the particular freedom which left some equality between the man who worked and the man who exploited him under a contract-----it will replace that idea of contract by the older idea of status. In saying this, my object is to point out that the discussion of the New Paganism is not a mere academic discussion, but, as I have called it, one of immediate practical importance. If we adopt it, we must be prepared for its consequences; if we abhor those consequences, it is our business to fight the New Paganism vigorously.
And here I have, as on so many other points, a quarrel with those moderns who will make of religion an individual thing [and no Catholic can evade the corporate quality of religion], telling us that its object being personal holiness and the salvation of the individual soul, it can have no concern with politics. On the contrary, the concern of religion with politics is inevitable. Not that the Christian doctrine and ethic rejects anyone of the three classical forms of government democracy, aristocracy or monarchy, or any mixture of them but that it does reject certain features in society which are opposed to the Christian social products and are opposed to them because they spring from a denial of free will.
The battle for right doctrine in theology is always also a battle for the preservation of definite social things [institutions, habits] following from right doctrine; nor is there anything more contemptible intellectually than the attitude of those who imagine that because doctrine must be stated in abstract terms it therefore has no practical application nor any real fruit in the real world of real men. Contrariwise, difference in doctrine is at the root of all political and social differences; therefore, is the struggle for or against true doctrine the most vital of struggles.
But apart from these aspects of the New Paganism there is another which I confess I happen to feel myself closely concerned with. It is the connection between the New Paganism and that lure of the antique world, which is of such power over all generous minds, and especially upon those who are in love with beauty.
It is in my judgment an argument which has certainly been of powerful effect in the immediate past, and will continue for some time longer, even in our declining culture, to be of powerful effect, that Paganism is to be sought, respected and achieved because our race, before the advent of the Catholic Church, wrote what it did, built what it did, chiseled what it did, and everywhere created the loveliness to which we Christians are the heirs. Yet this attraction of the antique world I conceive to be a dangerous decoy, leading us on to things very different from and very much worse than that classic Paganism from which we all descend.
I know that to affirm the connection between the New Paganism and a wistfulness for the Old will sound in most modern ears fantastic, because most modern people who fall into the New Paganism know nothing about the Paganism of antiquity; there never was a time when educated men had a larger proportion among them ignorant of Latin and Greek, since first Greek was taught in the universities of Western Europe; and there was certainly never a time during the last two thousand years when the mass of people, the workers, were given less knowledge of the past and were less in sympathy with tradition.
Nonetheless, it is true that the idea of Pagan antiquity as a model runs through the whole new movement. With a few scholars it is at first-hand, with most people at second, third, fourth or fifth; but it is there with everyone. There is a general knowledge that men were once free from the burden of Christian duty, and a widespread belief that when men were free from it, life was better because it was more rational and directed to things which they could all be sure of and test for themselves, such as the health of the body and physical comforts and pleasant surroundings, and the rest. To direct life again to these objects, making man once more sufficient to himself and treating temporal good as the supreme good, is the note of the New Paganism.
Now what seems to me by far the most important thing to point out in this connection is that the underlying assumption in all this is false. The New Paganism differs, and must differ radically, from the Old; its consequences in human life will be quite different; presumably much worse, and increasingly worse.
The reason of this is that you cannot undo an experience. You cannot cut off a man or a society from their past, and the world of Christendom has had the experience of the Faith. When it moves away from the Faith to return to Paganism again it is not doing the same thing, not producing the same emotions, not passing through the same process, not suffering the same reactions, as the old Paganism did, which was moving towards the Faith. It is one thing to go south from the Arctic towards the civilized parts of Europe; it is quite another thing to go north from the civilized parts of Europe to the Arctic. You are not merely returning to a place from which you started, you are going through a contrary series of emotions the whole time.
The New Paganism, should it ever become universal, or over whatever districts or societies it may become general, will never be what the Old Paganism was. It will be another because it will be a corruption. The Old Paganism was profoundly traditional, indeed, it had no roots except in tradition. Deep reverence for its own past and for the wisdom of its ancestry and pride therein were the very soul of the Old Paganism; that is why it formed so solid a foundation on which to build the Catholic Church, though that is also why it offered so long and determined a resistance to the growth of the Catholic Church. But the New Paganism has for its very essence contempt for tradition and contempt of ancestry. It respects perhaps nothing, but least of all does it respect the spirit of "Our fathers have told us."
The Old Paganism worshipped human things, but the noblest human things, particularly reason and the sense of beauty. In these it rose to heights greater than have since been reached, perhaps, and certainly to heights as great as were ever reached by mere reason or in the mere production of beauty during the Christian centuries.
But the New Paganism despises reason and boasts that it is attacking beauty. It presents with pride music that is discordant, building that is repellent, pictures that are a mere chaos, and it ridicules the logical process, so that, as I have said, it has made of the very word "logical" a sort of sneer.
The Old Paganism was of a sort that would be open, when due time came, to the authority of the Catholic Church. It had ears which at least would hear and eyes which at least would see; but the New Paganism not only has closed its senses, but is atrophying them, so that it aims at a state in which there shall be no ears to hear and no eyes to see.
The one was growing keener in its sight and its hearing; the other is declining towards a condition where the society it informs will be blind and deaf, even to the main natural pleasures of life and to temporal truths. It will be incapable of understanding what they are all about.
The Old Paganism had a strong sense of the supernatural. This sense was often turned to the wrong objects and always to insufficient objects, but it was keen and unfailing; all the poetry of the Old Paganism, even where it despairs, has this sense. And you may read in those of its writers who actively opposed religion, such as Lucretius, a fine religious sense of dignity and order. The New Paganism delights in superficiality and conceives that it is rid of the evil as well as the good in what it believes to have been superstitions and illusions.
There it is quite wrong, and upon that note I will end. Men do not live long without gods; but when the gods of the New Paganism come, they will not be merely insufficient, as were the gods of Greece, nor merely false; they will be evil. One might put it in a sentence, and say that the New Paganism, foolishly expecting satisfaction, will fall, before it knows where it is, into Satanism.
Taken from ESSAYS OF A CATHOLIC, TAN Books, originally published in 1931.
|
|
|
Vatican Unveils Hideous Nativity Scene in Saint Peter’s Square |
Posted by: Stone - 12-12-2020, 08:16 AM - Forum: General Commentary
- Replies (1)
|
|
Vatican Unveils Hideous Nativity Scene in Saint Peter’s Square
Breitbart - secular source | 11 Dec 20200
ROME — The Vatican uncovered its 2020 manger scene in Saint Peter’s Square Friday, leaving onlookers scattered, scandalized, and scornful.
Observers shoveled abuse upon the unfortunate spectacle, rivaling each other to come up with the most appropriate epithets to describe the appalling scene.
“Mummified Mary,” “Weeble Jesus” (after the ovate children’s toys launched by Hasbro in the 1970s), “Martians,” “toilet paper rolls,” and “astronauts” were some of the comparisons made to the cylindrical figures meant to represent the Holy Family, the Magi, and the shepherds at Bethlehem.
As one irate Italian wrote on social media of the Vatican manger scene, “Ugliness is the first thing you notice, followed by a lack of familial warmth and the distancing guaranteed by the cylindrical figures. If you wish to judge harshly, the cylinders call to mind the sacred poles of Satanic cults condemned in the Bible.”
Traditionally, a manger scene is intended to evoke feelings of piety and devotion — not pity and revulsion — over the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, and thus this particularly regrettable work offends not only aesthetic sensibilities, but also the religious reverence of the faithful.
The Vatican said the Nativity scene exhibited in St. Peter’s Square was created by the students and faculty of the FA Grue Art Institute, a state-run high school for design, which in the decade of 1965-1975 devoted its scholastic activity to the theme of Christmas.
“We believe that this year’s experience of a Nativity scene donated by an Artistic High School is really a powerful summons for everyone to invest more in the training of the new generations both at the level of middle and high schools and for the university world,” said Bishop Lorenzo Leuzzi in a statement guaranteed to garner broad consensus.
Nativity scene from Saint Peter’s Square
Elizabeth Lev, an American art historian living and teaching in Rome, told Breitbart News she thinks the choice was a poor one.
“The Nativity celebrates the Incarnation, God who comes into the world as flesh, not in a totemic form,” Dr. Lev declared. “At the end of this extremely difficult year people are looking for beauty, for something to elevate, inspire, and unite them, and the scene offered in Saint Peter’s Square gives them something else altogether.”
“The misshapen figures in the Nativity scene lack all the grace, proportion, vulnerability, and luminosity that one looks for in the manger scene,” she said. “The entire point of this holiday is the second person of the Holy Trinity taking human form, born as a baby of flesh and blood, and there is nothing particularly human about the forms we see before us.”
“Context is also important and these works are surrounded by Bernini’s majestic colonnade, capped with the monumental figures of the saints, with Saint Peter’s Basilica in the background containing a thousand years of beautiful statuary,” Lev continued.
“It has been a dark year and many have had their faith challenged. Perhaps it would have been better to give them a symbol to rally round rather than an object of mockery,” she said. “This scene leads people to heap derision upon an icon representing the Holy Family. It is unfortunate we couldn’t find something to inspire at least tenderness if not full-on reverence.”
Moreover, Lev concluded, “In the context of last year’s polemics over the Pachamama statue, it seems ill considered to use images that will confuse people and further a sense of division.”
|
|
|
|