Saint Thomas Aquinas

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

The Protestant Revolt: Should Catholics Commemorate 500 Years of Divorce and Heresy?

It is my opinion that the most detrimental destruction to the Sacrament of Marriage over the past 500 years has been the result of the Protestant revolt. Unfortunately the horrific event of the revolt is about to celebrated by the Protestants as well as many ignorant Catholics. Some Catholic churches and Cathedrals are being opened to Protestants so they can celebrate their 500 years of heresy within their walls. This would make the Saints of old cringe in horror! We have entered a new era of an open door policy to the horrors of Protestant error. The assault on marriage today by numerous clergy in the Church reeks of the Protestant acceptance of divorce. 

The consequences of divorce are numerous. While the separated spouses seek to enjoy life with a new "partner" children are left in the dust of loneliness, confusion, anger, resentment, guilt and often times deep depression. Divorce has been the catalyst for countless confused and lost souls. God created marriage first for procreation and the education and raising of children. The bond from the Sacrament of matrimony implies an obligation to one another and a right to one another's body. This is clear from Sacred Scripture and unanimous testimony of the Church Fathers, Saints and papal statements. For example, the Ecumenical Council of Florence states clearly,
"The seventh is the sacrament of matrimony, which is a sign of the union of Christ and the church according to the words of the apostle: This sacrament is a great one, but I speak in Christ and in the church. The efficient cause of matrimony is usually mutual consent expressed in words about the present. A threefold good is attributed to matrimony. The first is the procreation and bringing up of children for the worship of God." (Session 8—22 November 1439)
Thus it seems rational that when the marital bond is broken it is the children who often suffer the most. Children from divorced marriages often find themselves also later in life committing the same mistake of their parents. As we know, sin begets sin! In our modern culture with a divorce rate well over 50%, we see that many of our children are like rudderless ships on a stormy sea, giving themselves over to many types of vice looking for worldly things to give their lives meaning. They are becoming violent, distant and often isolated. They are more likely to post pictures and contact friends on pathetic social media applications such as Facebook rather than developing social skills in person to person contact. As a result they form few lasting bonds with others, and their relationships with their family members often grow cold. Often their view of the Catholic faith grows cold as they see the hypocrisy in their own families, which are the source of scandal. It is no mystery then that revolt against the teachings of Christ is corrupting the youth in our age.



The secondary end or purpose of marriage is the bond of mutual assistance and a remedy for concupiscence. The spouses help one another to live holy lives by mutual correction, encouragement and help one another in moral and material matters. By the very fact that marriage is indissoluble it offers the spouses a glimpse into the eternal bond with God. As the couple remains faithful to one another they also overcome their weakness in concupiscence.  "...if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt. But to them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband." (1 Cor 7:9-10)  Thus the companionship, the unitive bond and mutual help is often strengthened as a result of the first end, the begetting of children, but can obviously exist without children. However, when the spouses separate and enter into an unlawful union with someone who is not their spouse, they then heap grave consequences upon their heads and their children by committing the mortal sin of adultery.

Those who live in a state of adulterous relations have been forbidden from receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist. (Familiaris Consortio, 84) Being that the bond of marriage is indissoluble no man can break that bond, not even the Church.
...whatever marriage is said to be contracted, either it is so contracted that it is really a true marriage, in which case it carries with it that enduring bond which by divine right is inherent in every true marriage; or it is thought to be contracted without that perpetual bond, and in that case there is no marriage, but an illicit union opposed of its very nature to the divine law, which therefore cannot be entered into or maintained."
And if this stability seems to be open to exception, however rare the exception may be, as in the case of certain natural marriages between unbelievers, or amongst Christians in the case of those marriages which though valid have not been consummated, that exception does not depend on the will of men nor on that of any merely human power, but on divine law, of which the only guardian and interpreter is the Church of Christ. However, not even this power can ever affect for any cause whatsoever a Christian marriage which is valid and has been consummated, for as it is plain that here the marriage contract has its full completion, so, by the will of God, there is also the greatest firmness and indissolubility which may not be destroyed by any human authority.
(Casti Connubii 31st day of December, of the year 1930)
The Church's teaching here is clear, either there is no marriage, or there is an indissoluble marriage. There is no in between state. If a declaration of nullity is declared then no marriage existed, and this must be decided by the Church authority and no one else including the spouses themselves. Pope Leo the Great famously demanded that a women who thought her spouse had died in war who married another man demanded that she return to her true spouse once he returned and was found to be alive. He also said that the women would have to return to her true spouse and sever herself from the unlawful marriage under the pain of excommunication. (Sacra Theologiae Summa IVB, 213)

Martin Luther being the madcap he was, creating his own religion at will famously decried, "Matrimony not only is thought to be a sacrament with no support of Scripture, but the tradition on which it is claimed to be a sacrament is nothing but a mockery." (De Captivitate Babylonica Ecclesiae) It is also known that Luther thought polygamy was morally acceptable. This made Luther more akin to the pagans that to the Christians. What part of Christ's words, "So they are no longer two but one" did he miss? Did Christ say the three or four are now one? I think not. Like minded charlatans such as Calvin also denied that Christ established marriage as a sacrament. Being deceitful fools they were unable to see meaning of Matthew 19:3-6 and Ephesians 5:22-32. As a result of these mountebanks the Sacrament of Marriage was destabilized and the Protestant tradition of adultery spread like wildfire everywhere the population fell prey to their malicious heresies.



Luther helped create the snowball that would grow larger and larger by those who followed him. In 1522 Luther brilliantly decided that divorce was acceptable under certain conditions, and that one could marry another if infidelity or abandonment occurred. He also foolishly wanted these decisions to be held in the hands of the secular governments. As a result others such as Zwingli in Zurich established divorce courts and concocted divorce laws. Zwingli also decided that other reasons could also justify divorce and remarriage. This madcap theological invention has thus lead many to commit grave sinful acts of adultery yet thinking they are following Scripture. We all know the tale of the impious adulterer Henry VIII who started his own Church, founded directly on his vice of adultery.  This degenerate tradition is one that continues on in all of its retrograde glory in the Anglican Church. Protestantism then did not make the family stronger as many historians have claimed, it has weakened the state of marriage as a result of its heretical theological claims.

What a scandal it is then to see bishops of our Holy Church celebrating the impious madness of the the pretended reformers. What an abomination it is to see our clergy participating in Protestant worship! How can they allow Protestants to celebrate or commemorate their revolt in our churches and cathedrals? This is a madness that papal statements have condemned. As faithful Catholics we also must condemn these actions within our proper boundaries within the Church. Most of us can choose where we go to Mass and where we give our money and time. We can all petition God and the Saints for these sacrilegious acts to stop. We can inform our fellow Catholics of the perennial teachings of the Church with charity and clarity. Finally we can tell our Protestant neighbors about Christ and His one and only Church, the Catholic Church. As Catholics we do not harbor ill will towards Protestants today, but we long for their return to the Church and the renunciation of the errors of their heresiarchs. Although for many their culpability today is not the same as their founders, we do not want to confirm them in their error nor pretend that all is well. Why pretend that Luther, Calvin and others were upstanding men and thus falsely communicate the idea that we endorse their harmful doctrines?  This would be an act of cruelty. Nor would it be an act of charity to lead Catholics to believe their malicious errors.

For these reasons then the Church teaches:

 The 1917 Code of Canon Law " It is not permitted at all for the faithful to assist in any active manner at or to have any part in the worship of non-Catholics." (Canon 1258)
"Is it permitted for Catholics to be present at, or to take part in, conventions, gatherings, meetings, or societies of non-Catholics which aim to associate together under a single agreement everyone who, in any way, lays claim to the name Christian? In the negative!... It is clear, therefore, why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics, There is only one wav in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by furthering the return to the one true Church of Christ those who are separated from her. " (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos)
"How does a Catholic sin against faith? A Catholic sins against Faith by Apostasy, heresy, indifferentism and by taking part in non-Catholic worship."(Catechism of the Council of Trent)
"If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meeting-houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion If any Bishops or Priest or Deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion"
(Third Council of Constantinople.)
"I will not pray with you, nor shall you pray with me; neither will I  say 'Amen' to your prayers, nor shall you to mine"
(Saint. Margaret Clitherow before she was pressed to death by the Protestant heretics.)


Some Catholics are making the case that we are not really celebrating the Reformation but "commemorating" it. They claim we are commemorating reconciliation with them and that we are recognizing the great achievements of the Reformation. What achievements would those be? What reconciliation? Finally, many Catholics are justifying common prayer together with the Protestants claiming that the prayers are prepared in order to be applicable to both Catholic and Protestant beliefs. This however can never be justified. Just because there is nothing in the prayers that are against Catholic beliefs does not justify a participation with those who are not of the same believing, worshiping community, the Church.

Father Thomas Crean, OP explains,
Now to consider the second alternative : a proponent of ecumenical worship might well accept that such worship was not formally Catholic, yet go on to argue that it remains nevertheless untouched by pre-conciliar strictures against forbidden communicatio in sacris. Such strictures, he might say, apply only to those forms of non-Catholic worship which manifest adherence to a non-Catholic religion. Ecumenical worship, he might add, may indeed not express adherence to the Catholic religion; yet nor does it express adherence to a non-Catholic religion – for it does not express adherence to any religion. It is precisely designed to allow different Christians to worship God together without expressing adherence to a common understanding of Christianity. It is therefore legitimate.
Such a view is plausible; but is it tenable ? Can there really be a public, divine worship which manifests adherence to no definite religion ?
Let us consider what a human being, whatever his religion, seeks by engaging in a religious act. He is seeking to put himself or to maintain himself in a right relation with the Deity: that is what makes his act religious. He is not seeking merely to express certain convictions about God, as someone might do by filling in a questionnaire – he is seeking to come into the presence of God, and to be ‘ordered’ to God as God Himself wills. So by engaging in a given religious act, a person expresses his desire to be in a right relationship with God by means of it. But now let us assume that the religious act in question is a public act, i.e. the act of a community. By engaging in this essentially public act, the person would now be expressing his desire to be in a right relationship with God in or by means of this community. For since it is the community which is the subject of the religious act in question, by becoming a part of the acting community, he signifies that it has, for him, the power to perform a properly religious act, that is, to put him in a due relation to God. He may not in fact believe this – but it is what his act, as such, signifies.
Common worship need not imply a complete agreement on all matters concerning God and man. Thus within the Catholic Church, a Scotist and a Thomist may happily worship together. But if the foregoing reasoning is correct, common worship does imply an agreement that the community which thus worships together is a community in which God wills to be worshipped, and which is able to put one in a due relation with Him. In this sense, common worship does imply a common religion.
The Catholic, however, believes that it is in the visible Catholic Church, and only there, that God wills to be worshipped and that he can save his soul. He does not believe that any other community can bring him into a right relationship with God or maintain him in such a relation, except the Church. By engaging in ecumenical worship, therefore, he would seem to be in a contradictory position; he would be manifesting a religious commitment to a community which he believes has for him no salvific power, no power to put him in a due relationship with God. His act, as a public religious act, implies that he attributes such a religious power to the community; his faith forbids him to believe this. For he believes that if he left the Catholic Church, even to engage in exclusively ecumenical worship, he would lose his soul.

For a detailed explanation of the illegitimacy of Catholics participating in non-Catholic forms of worship I recommend the Dominican theologian Thomas Crean's article,  'Praying With Non-Catholics — Is it Possible?'


Should Catholics then be engaged in anyway shape or form in commemorating or celebrating the Protestant revolt? Should we be causing scandal by allowing them to pray in our churches? Should we pray in common with them as if our difference in beliefs do not matter? I think the answer is clearly no, we should not. We should be working to bring the Protestants back into the Church, not by acting as if our commonalities are the most important reality, but by making it clear that their existence outside the unity of the one Catholic Church is the true topic of concern. This is what true charity consists, willing the good of the other, not obscuring the good of the other. We cannot expect to win souls over to the Church while pretending to honor or commemorate division, or even give the appearance of such.
We must mention another fruitful cause of evil by which the Church is afflicted at present, namely: Indifferentism, that vicious manner of thinking which mushrooms on all sides owing to the wiles of malicious men, and which holds that the eternal salvation of the soul can be obtained by the profession of any faith, provided a man's morals be good and decent ... Let them beware who preach that the gates of Heaven are open to every religion! Let them seriously consider the testimony of the Savior that some are against Christ because they they are not with Christ, that they scatter who do not gather with Him, and therefore without doubt they will perish in eternity unless they hold to the Catholic faith and observe it whole and inviolate. (Pope Gregory XVI)
 This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say.21 When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit"22] is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws..
(Pope Gregory XVI, On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism)



Sunday, October 29, 2017

The Mosaic Covenant Revoked Or Fulfilled? Aquinas Answers

We often hear many theologians today claiming that the Jewish Mosaic covenant was never revoked. Most theologians making this claim then go on to assume that this means the Jews can continue to practice the Jewish religion and obtain salvation by doing so. For example, Cardinal Kasper sends the wrong message in his 2002 reflection concerning the Church's relations with the Jews, "This does not mean that Jews in order to be saved have to become Christians; if they follow their own conscience and believe in God’s promises as they understand them in their religious tradition they are in line with God’s plan, which for us comes to its historical completion in Jesus Christ." Statements like these only provide the Jews with an out to becoming Christians. An interesting observation is that the Jews today no longer even  practice what the Jews practiced in the time of Christ. That being said, neither the Jews today nor those of Jesus' time exempt from the New Covenant.

In order to understand the Church's relation to the Jews and the Old Covenant is to see the Old Covenant as being "fulfilled and transformed" in Christ. The Old Covenant is indeed special having come through the Jews, making the world ready for the coming Messiah, Jesus Christ. Thus the Old Mosaic Covenant was not revoked, it was in effect absorbed, fulfilled and transformed when Christ came and established the New Covenant. Thus when Christ became incarnate, suffered, died, resurrected and established the New Covenant through His one and only Church, the Jew as well as the Gentile was obliged to enter into this Covenant. This is the only way made possible for the Jews to remain in a Covenant with God. 

One may ask, what about the Ten Commandments, aren't they absorbed and transformed along with the Jewish ceremonial laws? Aquinas distinguishes between the moral laws and ceremonial laws. The moral laws given by God are immutable, or unchangeable, but God Himself can and did change ceremonial laws to reflect a change in the covenants. Thus the old ceremonial laws were only imperfect prefigurements of what was to come through Christ. For example, God brought us the Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass thus making the old sacrificial ceremonial laws obsolete, and thus non-efficacious nor pleasing to God. In fact, the old ceremonial laws would now be an insult to God since Christ's sacrifice is perfect in Himself as God, while the old ceremonial laws were imperfect and only foreshadowing the perfect to come. Thus Thomas says it would be a mortal sin to practice these old ceremonies because it would demonstrate the sin of unbelief of what God had revealed through Christ. For example, one would not sacrifice a goat to God while believing that Christ was the perfect Sacrifice made present in the Mass. The old ceremony after the coming of Christ is simply contrasting belief in what God has revealed in the Incarnation of Christ. 



In reference to the Ten Commandments, were they also transformed or done away with? The answer is in a way they were transformed being that man is now given grace through Christ to live the Commandments in true charity. So the Commandments do not change in what they teach, they are now not mere suggestions or ideals, but they are now able to be lived in a perfected manner made possible through grace. Only with the coming of Christ and the sending of the Holy Spirit in the Church through her Sacraments is this achievable. It is not achievable in any other way, including practicing variations of Judaism. It is interesting that Aquinas differentiates the Ten Commandments being written on stone while the other laws were given orally, demonstrating the unchanging Commandments of God and the eventual changing of the other laws. So while the Ten Commandments under the Old Law were necessary to direct the Jews to avoid evil, they lacked the means to orient the Jews on how to live virtuously in the love of God. It was possible then to obey the Commandments and still not love God and neighbor. Through the New Covenant the Commandments now are still to be followed but in a new spirit of grace and charity. 

In summary, the Old Covenant and the New Covenant have an intrinsic relationship. God gave the Jews the same Ten Commandments to give them a moral structure to aid their fallen nature in avoiding evil. The Old Law and its ceremonies are also important in understanding salvation history and the preparing for the coming of Christ. In this sense then we have a special relationship with what was given to us through the Mosaic Covenant. What is also important to understand is that Christ fulfilled and transformed the Mosaic Covenant effectively ending it by perfecting it, not merely revoking it. God Himself did this by giving us the New Covenant through Jesus Christ. So I think it is important to see this distinction between "revoking"and "fulfillment and transformation". Thomas Aquinas saw the Church, the Sacraments and everything that Christ offers through His Church as still carrying on in perpetuity the Old Covenant. It was not then revoked, but transformed into the New, thus making it obligatory for the Jews after His coming to enter into the New in order to still be a part of what was established in the Old. So it is necessary for the Jews today to convert to Catholicism if they are to have a covenantal relationship and inherit eternal. There is no way for them to receive eternal life through the practice of what they perceive to be Judaism. There is no need to discuss theological possibilities such as invincible ignorance. We are talking here of the objective necessity for the conversion of the Jews to Catholicism. 

Much of the information here was taken from Matthew Levering's book 'Christ's Fulfillment of Torah and Temple: Salvation according to Thomas Aquinas.' I highly recommend it! 


Saturday, October 28, 2017

Evangelizing Those In The Church

"All the while unbelievers laugh; men of weak faith are shaken; faith is uncertain; souls are drenched in ignorance, because adulterators of the word imitate the truth. The mouths of true believers are dumb, while every blasphemous tongue wags free; holy things are trodden under foot..."
In many of today's homilies and talks given in Catholic parishes seem to follow the theme of the "New Evangelization." Of course this new evangelization has yet to really take place, since it is not aimed at converting anyone to anything other than what they already following. The reason for this I believe is that the old way of evangelization, that is the way of the apostles and the Church before the modern changes, had a method that worked, and those in power today don't want that "old way" taking place anymore. The Gospel was fist believed, it changed lives and caused people to live for Christ instead of themselves. They converted from the world and instead became living members of the Body of Christ. In turn the Gospel was passed along through the Church by living and preaching the Gospel to the world.



What is fundamental in all of this is the fact those who were preaching the Gospel, evangelizing those of the world, actually believed in the true Gospel that was passed on to them. They actually desired the good for another and wanted them to experience God as a living, believing member of the Church. If one is not a true believer they simply offer nothing in the way of evangelization. You know, its the old, "you can't give what don't have". The problem in the Church is today is that many involved in this "new evangelization" do not have anything to give. They do not believe what Christ taught, and they are not living members of the Church. If we do not start teaching people what Christ actually taught and passed down, and allow Christ to start living in us, there is nothing to pass down to anyone, other than the world! 

It is up to those who believe the perennial teaching of the Church, who have allowed the Holy Trinity to change them into living disciples to first convert those in the Church. This must start first with the bishops and priests who are true believers. They in turn can involve the faithful laity to help them in beginning to foster a true change in the Church. Those who claim to be Catholic and refuse to be converted by the Holy Trinity, which involves believing everything God teaches them through Divine Revelation, need to be removed from teaching positions in the Church. This can be done by the faithful bishops and priests first. There need be no heretical teachers in RCIA programs, or heretics giving lectures in any parishes. I know this goes against the modernist notion that we must include everyone with any opinion whatsoever. I know this will ruffle the feathers of the modernists who want to eliminate "rigidity"from the Church. The fact is,  this removal must happen if we are going to be doing any real evangelizing through the Church. This mentality that all opinions must be heard and synthesized into the Church is what is crippling it. The world has evangelized a large population of the Church thus those in the Church are not bringing anyone into the Church. 

Those in the Church must be first be evangelized into living members of the Body of Christ if we are to make any progress. Only those who are true converts must be allowed to teach. For the laity, the best remedy is to pray often, visit the Sacrament of Confession often, attend the Latin Mass when possible, read Sacred Scripture, read theology books written before the modernists began to take over Catholic publishing (before the 1960s), read the papal encyclicals written before the 1960s, become familiar with Saint Thomas Aquinas and reliable Thomistic theologians, and finally begin to push for removing those in the Church who are obstinately rejecting the Church's perennial teaching. As more and more of us begin to learn the true faith and pass it to others in the Church we can then begin to bring those in the world into the Body of Christ. As long as we have obstinate defectors in the Church in high levels teaching heresy, we are not going to be evangelizing anyone. The world already has its disciples, they don't need a Church to convert them to something they already are, followers of the world. 



Saint Basil's letter to the Italians and Gauls could have been written yesterday for us as it was during the Arian heresy. The word "modernists" can be substituted for "Arius." The letter is sent to those in Church authority who have not succumbed to the heresy. 

To the Italians and Gauls

... we do beseech you to be roused both to zeal for the truth and sympathy for us. We implore you to put on bowels of mercy, to lay aside all hesitation, and to undertake the labour of love, without counting length of way, your own occupations, or any other human interests.
2. It is not only one Church which is in peril, nor yet two or three which have fallen under this terrible storm. The mischief of this heresy spreads almost from the borders of Illyricum to the Thebaid. Its bad seeds were first sown by the infamous Arius; they then took deep root through the labours of many who vigorously cultivated the impiety between his time and ours. Now they have produced their deadly fruit. The doctrines of true religion are overthrown. The laws of the Church are in confusion. The ambition of men, who have no fear of God, rushes into high posts, and exalted office is now publicly known as the prize of impiety. The result is, that the worse a man blasphemes, the fitter the people think him to be a bishop. Clerical dignity is a thing of the past. There is a complete lack of men shepherding the Lord's flock with knowledge. Ambitious men are constantly throwing away the provision for the poor on their own enjoyment and the distribution of gifts. There is no precise knowledge of canons. There is complete immunity in sinning; for when men have been placed in office by the favour of men, they are obliged to return the favour by continually showing indulgence to offenders.
Just judgment is a thing of the past; and everyone walks according to his heart's desire. Vice knows no bounds; the people know no restraint. Men in authority are afraid to speak, for those who have reached power by human interest are the slaves of those to whom they owe their advancement. And now the very vindication of orthodoxy is looked upon in some quarters as an opportunity for mutual attack; and men conceal their private ill-will and pretend that their hostility is all for the sake of the truth. Others, afraid of being convicted of disgraceful crimes, madden the people into fratricidal quarrels, that their own doings may be unnoticed in the general distress. Hence the war admits of no truce, for the doers of ill deeds are afraid of a peace, as being likely to lift the veil from their secret infamy. All the while unbelievers laugh; men of weak faith are shaken; faith is uncertain; souls are drenched in ignorance, because adulterators of the word imitate the truth. The mouths of true believers are dumb, while every blasphemous tongue wags free; holy things are trodden under foot; the better laity shun the churches as schools of impiety; and lift their hands in the deserts with sighs and tears to their Lord in heaven. Even you must have heard what is going on in most of our cities, how our people with wives and children and even our old men stream out before the walls, and offer their prayers in the open air, putting up with all the inconvenience of the weather with great patience, and waiting for help from the Lord.
3. What lamentation can match these woes? What springs of tears are sufficient for them? While, then, some men do seem to stand, while yet a trace of the old state of things is left, before utter shipwreck comes upon the Churches, hasten to us, hasten to us now, true brothers, we implore you; on our knees we implore you, hold out a helping hand. May your brotherly bowels be moved toward us; may tears of sympathy flow; do not see, unmoved, half the empire swallowed up by error; do not let the light of the faith be put out in the place where it shone first.
By what action you can then help matters, and how you are to show sympathy for the afflicted, you do not want to be told by us; the Holy Ghost will suggest to you. But unquestionably, if the survivors are to be saved, there is need of prompt action, and of the arrival of a considerable number of brethren, that those who visit us may complete the number of the synod, in order that they may have weight in effecting a reform, not merely from the dignity of those whose emissaries they are, but also from their own number: thus they will restore the creed drawn up by our fathers at Nicæa, proscribe the heresy, and, by bringing into agreement all who are of one mind, speak peace to the Churches. For the saddest thing about it all is that the sound part is divided against itself, and the troubles we are suffering are like those which once befell Jerusalem when Vespasian was besieging it. The Jews of that time were at once beset by foes without and consumed by the internal sedition of their own people. In our case, too, in addition to the open attack of the heretics, the Churches are reduced to utter helplessness by the war raging among those who are supposed to be orthodox.
For all these reasons we do indeed desire your help, that, for the future all who confess the apostolic faith may put an end to the schisms which they have unhappily devised, and be reduced for the future to the authority of the Church; that so, once more, the body of Christ may be complete, restored to integrity with all its members. Thus we shall not only praise the blessings of others, which is all we can do now, but see our own Churches once more restored to their pristine boast of orthodoxy. For, truly, the boon given you by the Lord is fit subject for the highest congratulation, your power of discernment between the spurious and the genuine and pure, and your preaching the faith of the Fathers without any dissimulation. That faith we have received; that faith we know is stamped with the marks of the Apostles; to that faith we assent, as well as to all that was canonically and lawfully promulgated in the Synodical Letter.

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

Pope Pius IX on Converting Those Outside the Church (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore)

This time in Church history is an important time to recover the documents of the pre-Vatican II popes. In reading Pope Pius IX's encyclical 'Quanto Conficiamur Moerore' (On Promotion Of False Doctrines) we see the clear teaching of the Church concerning salvation for those outside the Church as well as the necessity of their conversion. When is the last time you have heard this preached? Below are paragraphs six through nine of the document. We must as Catholics be prepared to deal with the modernists now found in every corner of the Church trying to deceive the faithful.



6. Now, since our Apostolic Office demands we carefully and zealously defend the cause of the Church committed to us by Christ, we condemn those who attack and despise the Church itself, its sacred laws, ministers, and this Apostolic See. Hence, with this letter, once more we confirm, proclaim and condemn totally and singly that which in many consistorial allocutions and in our other Letters we have been forced to deplore, declare and condemn.[3]

7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

8. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff, to whom “the custody of the vineyard has been committed by the Savior.”[4] The words of Christ are clear enough: “If he refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you a Gentile and a tax collector;”[5] “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects him who sent me;”[6] “He who does not believe will be condemned;”[7] “He who does not believe is already condemned;”[8] “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.”[9] The Apostle Paul says that such persons are “perverted and self-condemned;”[10] the Prince of the Apostles calls them “false teachers . . . who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master. . . bringing upon themselves swift destruction.”[11]

9. God forbid that the children of the Catholic Church should even in any way be unfriendly to those who are not at all united to us by the same bonds of faith and love. On the contrary, let them be eager always to attend to their needs with all the kind services of Christian charity, whether they are poor or sick or suffering any other kind of visitation. First of all, let them rescue them from the darkness of the errors into which they have unhappily fallen and strive to guide them back to Catholic truth and to their most loving Mother who is ever holding out her maternal arms to receive them lovingly back into her fold. Thus, firmly founded in faith, hope, and charity and fruitful in every good work, they will gain eternal salvation.

Sunday, October 22, 2017

The Seven Arrows Through the Heart of Modernism: Documents You Need To Read!

Every day now we are seeing high raking officials in the Church claiming that doctrine and dogma need to be changed or updated to conform with modern man. Just yesterday it was announced that "the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome is hosting a series of talks from October until May aimed at considering the “transformations, needs and hopes” of the family 50 years after Humanae Vitae." Further one of the speakers claimed, "there is a need for a change in the moral paradigm, adding that the magisterium is dynamic, not static and set for a certain time, and that the Church’s teaching “evolves.” He did not think that contraception was the major reason for the crisis in the family today."


This idea that man is in a state of change and that there are no absolute "static" or unchanging teachings of the Church has been condemned many times over by several popes in several encyclicals and other documents. Despite the naysayers that the Gospel does not mandate absolute moral teachings for all men, we know that God does not lie. The Ten Commandments have never been nor will ever be The Ten Suggestions. Here is a list of documents that I suggest all Catholics sit down in prayer and read. They all directly address what is going on right now in the Church with the Amoris debacle, the Capital Punishment debacle and the upcoming war on Humanae Vitae. These men of the world are trying to redefine what the development of doctrine consists. By their definition there can be no such thing as change, you can say anything and call it a "development." Just in case you are wondering, a development is where the core teaching is the exact same, you just understand the teaching more fully. A change is exactly that, the core teaching is no longer what it was. This idea that man is in a state of change and the Church must adapt its teaching to the current state of the changing man is based on modern philosophical principles that are not compatible with the Catholic faith. The popes have called this heresy modernism. These documents are in my eyes the seven arrows that fatally pierce through the heart of modernism. There is no time like the present to read these documents. You will be thankful you took the time to do so.

Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris (August 4, 1879)

Pope Pius X, Lamentabili Sane (July 3, 1907)

Pope Pius X, Pascendi Domenici Gregis (September 8, 1907)

Pope Pius X, Oath Against Modernism (September 1, 1910)

Pope Pius X, Doctoris Angelici (June 29, 1914)

Pope Pius XI, Studiorum Ducem (June 29, 1923)

Pope Pius XII, Humanis Generis (August 12, 1950)





The "Buts" Of Sacrosanctum Concilium

The "Buts" Of Sacrosanctum Concilium 

Sacrosanctum Concilium is another example of the poorly written documents of the Second Vatican the Council. First off it cannot be used as a standalone document to teach us the foundation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass . This is the error I see reoccurring repeatedly by today’s bishops and theologians, as if this document is the beginning and the end of our theology on the Mass. The document was written in the spirit of "aggiornamento" that is to update, but as we will see, few of the primary recommendations of the document, especially those concerning the Latin language were not followed because of so many exceptions made in each of its “practical norms.” I will outline the document and briefly show that the design of the document failed to establish any concrete norms concerning language, and much of the norms established in other areas ended up being detriments to the celebration of the liturgy.

In the introduction the document states its purpose. “that practical norms should be established.” The document refers to the Eastern Rites where applicable, but the document tends to focus on the Roman Rite.

Chapter one goes over the nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, especially in reference to Christ being present, “ under the Eucharistic species.” It also explains how man becomes sanctified through the Liturgy. One of the most famous lines from the document rightfully says, “the liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows.” The document also was sure to point out that one must receive Christ worthily, “it is necessary that the faithful come to it with proper dispositions.” These are all important concrete norms for approaching the Mass and thus sets a good foundation. As we know there are many now challenging the notion of receiving Christ worthily.

Chapter two focuses on “active participation.” This in my eyes is where the failures of the document become apparent, being that it never really explains what this participation entails. It does say, “pastors of souls must promote the liturgical instruction of the faithful, and also their active participation in the liturgy both internally and externally.” As we know however, the external participation since the Council have extremely overshadowed the internal participation, prayer. An emphasis on the laity doing the readings, being extraordinary Eucharistic ministers for example, have been promoted to the detriment of teaching the importance of praying the Mass, which is of first importance concerning active participation. Try meditation on anything at the average parish Novus Ordo Mass.

Next we have the reform of the liturgy. What I find fascinating is that the document talks about reforming but never seems to say anything about creating a new Mass. It later talks about overhauling the rites of the Sacraments, but never the Mass itself. One can make an argument that the creation of the new Mass goes against what the document states explicitly, “…care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.” As we know the new Mass was not to be an organic development, it was a complete overhaul. We know that the old Mass was not the foundation for the new, so how can one say it was organically developed? Its name actually tells us it was new. In other words, there were reforms in 1962, it is essentially the same Mas with changes, but the same cannot be said for the Novus Ordo. So is it not then logical to say that Bugnini's Concilium in creating the new Mass went directly against the prescribed norm here?

Some other norms are then established, but as we will see, most of these norms were never to be realized, and the ones that were adhered to ended up being detriments to liturgical practice in the Church. The first of these being the loss of the symbolic rubrics in the Mass which explained the nature of the Mass so richly. Instead we lost these mysteries of prayer and symbolism in the Mass through what were perceived as useless repetitions. Anyone who has studied the ancient form of the Mass should have understood that there were no “useless repetitions” in the old Mass. This was explained in extreme detail by the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa. Thus we saw that the new Mass was stripped of many of the prayers that for so long enriched the Roman Liturgy. Various symbols and rubrics were removed. The reading of Scripture was then emphasized as well as preaching on the Scriptures. As we know there were added Scripture readings to the new Mass following the document. For example, we know have Old Testament readings. There are also many options for readings as well. Its funny how there was so much emphasis on having options, but if one goes to a Mass in France for example, good luck figuring out whats going on because who knows what readings they using! For all of the emphasis on Scripture, it seems little progress has been made in understanding it.

The next section we see the “this, but” format become the leitmotif of the remaining “norms” made in reference to the Latin language. The norms are frequently followed with a “but” accompanied by a completely different norm which always seems to replace the originally stated “norm.” For example, we have stated in 36. 1. the following plain statement, “Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.” Everyone knows this is not followed as a general norm of the Church. Instead we get the “but” of the document, “But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants…” As we know the “but” is now the rule.

The document continues and speaks of some liturgical adaptations, which as we know have gone far beyond anyone’s imagination in some cases. The bishop is also mentioned as being at the center of liturgical celebration. We then see another complex issue developed concerning the liturgical commissions, “to promote studies and necessary experiments whenever there is question of adaptations to be proposed to the Apostolic See.” As we know, the liturgical commission that created the new Mass was not a competent commission. Also, the regional commissions ended up plaguing the pope to go along with their “experiments.” As a result there were many “experiments” made that should have never been entertained that became “norms”, Communion in the hand being one of them.

The next section of the document rightfully expounds upon the nature of the Mass and Christ as the center. It refers to Him as “the eucharistic sacrifice of His Body and Blood.” However, in paragraph 50 we see a place for the liturgical experts to take advantage when they indeed overhauled the Mass. “…the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance.” Indeed, the rite was “simplified” but it can be argued that the substance was not adequately preserved being that important parts of the Mass were completely removed. For example, the important references made to the essence of sacrifice and salvation through the Mass were completely discarded such as the Offerimus Tibi Domini, “We offer unto Thee, Lord, the saving chalice, beseeching Thy clemency: that it may go up with an odour of sweetness in sight of Thy Divine Majesty, for our and the whole world's salvation.” Likewise, the Veni Sanctificator was eliminated, “Come, O almighty and eternal God, the Sanctifier, and bless this Sacrifice, prepared for the glory of Thy Holy Name.” Unfortunately, nothing was put in their place to preserve these important theological foundations of the Mass. Thus simplicity trumped the preservation to substance.

Article 55 is a paragraph that seems to have been skipped over, “The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent remaining intact, communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit.” As we know, the bishops now disregard the general principles of Trent since everyone now receives under both species. The “think fit” trumps the principles of Trent being that Trent emphasized Christ being present totally under each species and thus developed Canons that emphasized this fact, as well as justifying the practice of receiving under one species’. If any one saith, that the holy Catholic Church was not induced, by just causes and reasons, to communicate, under the species of bread only, laymen, and also clerics when not consecrating; let him be be anathema.” (Canon II on Communion) It can be argued that the receiving of both species since the liturgical overhaul has over time contributed to the loss of belief in the Real Presence of Christ in totality under each individual species.

Concelebration is then discussed in which the bishops are the ultimate arbiters concerning its practice. The Sacramentals are then covered, and again the solution of simplicity is applied in the upcoming reforms. Even the rites of marriage, baptism and confirmation were not able to escape the overhauling with simplicity being the motivating factor. As we know many prayers were removed from the Sacrament rite of Baptism. Compare the old with the new sometime.

Next the revision of the Divine Office is addressed and we see several changes to be made including the removal of the hour of Prime. The “this and that” leitmotif resumes in the norms given to reciting the divine office in Latin. First we have the “norm” which is never now the norm, “In accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office.” Seems clear, right? Wait for it, then comes the real norm, the “but”, “But in individual cases the ordinary has the power of granting the use of a vernacular translation to those clerics for whom the use of Latin constitutes a grave obstacle to their praying the office properly.” I guess this “but” was to be a self-fulfilling prophesy being that soon every priest under every bishop in the known world was to be under the “certain cases” clause where Latin was an obstacle to their praying the office properly. Sacred music is also given the “this, but” treatment, first the norm, which is never followed, “The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.” Then the “but” that becomes the real norm, “But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action.” By now we can begin to see how this document in the way it was written was not terribly efficacious to celebration of the Mass.

Chapter VII covers sacred art and sacred furnishings. The document rightly speaks correctly of sacred art, “Holy Mother Church has therefore always been the friend of the fine arts and has ever sought their noble help, with the special aim that all things set apart for use in divine worship should be truly worthy, becoming, and beautiful, signs and symbols of the supernatural world.” As we know however, soon after the Council, this passage was forgotten and much of the beautiful church art was destroyed or replaced with inappropriate images. The directives given were to ensure that art in the churches were to remain in good taste. As we know this ends up falling into the realm of subjectivity much of the time, and one cannot really fault the document in this case.

The document opens a can of worms once again in stating the following concerning church architecture, “when churches are to be built, let great care be taken that they be suitable for the celebration of liturgical services and for the active participation of the faithful.” Is this implying that the great majority of the churches built before this time were not built for the “active participation” of the faithful? What we see in much of our church architecture after the Council was in fact not conducive to the active participation of the people, being that prayer is the primary active participation of the faithful. Hence, being a spectator is what happens, turning active participation into a concert hall type experience where everyone must focus their attention on the priest. We see churches then being primarily built in the round and the reverent cruciform architecture discarded to the dustbins of time. Again, this active participation is never really explained in any detail, and seems to be understood in a new theological manner than traditionally taught. Isn't it ironic that many in the Vatican II only crowd complain that they are only spectators in the Extraordinary From, when really their Mass in the round is the true spectator event? The document closes with an appendix concerning a new calendar. Although this document contains some valuable information on the Mass as stated above, in my estimation it has ultimately failed to achieve its end, which was to help people understand and participate more fully in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Not only has it not achieved its intended end, it has caused confusion and has in some cases been a detriment to the celebration of the Mass. 

Today's active participation.
True participation




Saturday, October 21, 2017

Edward Feser Answers the Defenders of Pope Francis Concerning Death Penalty

If you are interested in Pope Francis' latest debacle on his statements concerning the death penalty, I suggest you read this article by Edward Feser. I also recommend you pick up his new book on Capital Punishment. Enjoy!


Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Francis' "New Things": Death Penalty Now Inhumane? Pius XII a Promoter of Inhumane Acts?


 Lets translate the current Catechism into modernistic Francis language everyone can understand, it should have said "the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the inhumane measures of the death penalty."
Today pope Francis has announced his method of spreading confusion across the Church like wildfire. Francis communicates to us something that has never been a part of preaching the Gospel. He said,
"It is not enough to find a new language in which to articulate our perennial faith; it is also urgent, in the light of the new challenges and prospects facing humanity, that the Church be able to express the “new things” of Christ’s Gospel, that, albeit present in the word of God, have not yet come to light.  This is the treasury of “things old and new” of which Jesus spoke when he invited his disciples to teach the newness that he had brought, without forsaking the old (cf. Mt 13:52)." 
Francis has now invented his own Gospel. He says it is not enough to ensure we are preaching the perennial faith with sufficient language to meet our time, but that now we must express, "new things"! Now we are supposed to be finding things in the Word of God that we have never heard of? Did Jesus speak of this in Matthew 13:52?  I think not. Lets look at the passage.
He said unto them: Therefore every scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven, is like to a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure new things and old.
Jesus here according to Saint Thomas is speaking about the sacred teaching itself which Jesus was communicating to his followers which he also calls scribes. Why was he calling them scribes? Because they would be similar to the scribes of old, they would teach the Gospel instead of the old law. They can discuss the the kingdom of God and Sacred teaching, wherein things new and old are contained. "Behold I send you prophets, and wise men and scribes." Dan 12:10 They are also called scribes because they are Christ's secretaries. Jesus taught them in parables so they would see the fulfillment of the Old Law in the New. Thomas says according to Gregory, the old things refer to all those things which are attributed to sin, and the new to those things which are attributed to the grace of Christ and eternal life. (Taken from St Thomas' Commentary on Matthew)

How on earth does this refer to "new things" that we have never heard of over the past 2000 years the Church has been preaching the Gospel? Francis is simply inventing new teaching. As we all know, Divine Revelation closed with the death of the last apostle. We can only delve deeper into the existing, perennial teaching that we have been given at the outset. So yes, it is enough to articulate our perennial faith to the world, because like God it is the same today and forever.

Then Francis then drops one of his "new things" on us. He invents a new teaching out of thin air! Brace yourselves!
I would like now to bring up a subject that ought to find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church a more adequate and coherent treatment in the light of these expressed aims.  I am speaking of the death penalty.  This issue cannot be reduced to a mere résumé of traditional teaching without taking into account not only the doctrine as it has developed in the teaching of recent Popes, but also the change in the awareness of the Christian people which rejects an attitude of complacency before a punishment deeply injurious of human dignity. It must be clearly stated that the death penalty is an inhumane measure that, regardless of how it is carried out, abases human dignity.  It is per se contrary to the Gospel, because it entails the willful suppression of a human life that never ceases to be sacred in the eyes of its Creator and of which – ultimately – only God is the true judge and guarantor. 
So the "new thing" is now condemning 2000 years of Christian teaching which teaches that the death penalty is a legitimate form of punishment. What Francis is really saying is that the Church taught and upheld an act which was contrary to human dignity, contrary to the Gospel, and he is the one who is going to correct it. If it goes against the Gospel, then the Catholic Church has been teaching something contrary to the Gospel for 2000 years! We all know this is an impossibility. Better yet, he is calling Pope Pius XII and many other popes monsters who were promoting heinous acts against human dignity! His predecessors were promoting an act as being a legitimate form of punishment that was really contrary to the Gospel! Is Pope Pius XII so far removed from our advanced society that he did not realize this? If you think so I have ocean front property to sell you in Kansas. Do we see what this kind of thinking leads us? This is modernism at its finest! He is claiming that this is a development. Does he know the definition of development? Development means the teaching is the same, we just understand it more fully. Development is not that we overturn the teaching and then label it a development.

Everyone who came before Francis was wrong, and he is right. This is the leitmotif of his papal occupation. Francis knows better than all the popes who came before him. Francis knows the "new things" that no one else ever knew! Almost sounds like the Gnostics no? As for me, the Church teaching is what it is. For now the Catechism teaches, "Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty..." Guess what, if the act was contrary to the Gospel, this could never have been said in the Catechism! Lets translate this into modernistic Francis language everyone can understand, it should have said "the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the inhumane measures of the death penalty."  I feel ashamed for anyone who falls for this "new thing." Do you think we are idiots? As you can tell I am a bit miffed at this whole debacle.


 Above: Pope Pius XII now according to Francis a monster who promoted inhumane acts against human dignity!

Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life. 
(Pius XII, Address to the First International Congress of Histopathology
of the Nervous System, 14 September 1952, XIV, 328)