Author: Catholic Candle

It is a Good Thing to Ask for Tears of Compunction

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Objective truth series – Reflection #19

  “With fear and trembling work out your salvation.” (Phil. 2; 12).

In our last reflection, we addressed what it means to have an eternal perspective of life, namely, to live for our last end.  We must work out our salvation every day, and at no waking moment can we stop laboring at this crucial task. 

But what in particular do we think about when considering the salvation of our soul?  It would seem that if we really penetrated the reality that we can lose our souls, we would tremble and quake.   This reality is what St. Paul is admonishing us about in his Epistle to the Philippians.  We simply cannot take our salvation for granted.

We speak of fear and trembling.  One can speak of two kinds of fear—servile fear and filial fear.  Servile fear is the fear of being punished for an evil we’ve done, i.e., as a slave’s fear of his master.  Filial fear is the fear a son has towards his father because the son does not want to displease his father. Filial fear is based on love.

As Catholics we are taught from our childhood to fear hell as a place of punishment and torment.  However, God expects us to have filial fear of Him and that we will want to please Him always.

We know that we owe God everything, and that we owe Him gratitude for everything He has done for us.  We further know that we do not fear God’s Justice enough and we do not love God as we ought.  For example, St. John Chrysostom when referring to the sins of rash judgment, anger, and detraction as being such general vices among men, says, “What hopes of salvation remain for the generality of mankind, who commit without reflection, some or other of these crimes, one of which is enough to damn a soul?”[1]

This quote gives one pause and invokes fear.  What hope do we have of salvation when we are so guilty of so many crimes against Our Dear Lord?  Naturally, compunction should seize our hearts.  Compungere, which means the sting of conscience, should be what we want in order to weep for our sins.  We should consider these words of Our Lord, “Many sins are forgiven her, because she has loved much,” which refer to St. Mary Magdalene who was washing His feet with her tears [St. Luke 7; 47].  This quote, coupled with St. Peter’s words, “Charity covereth a multitude of sins,” [1st St. Peter 4:8] should make us want to weep for our sins in order to console Our Lord and Our Lady for the many sins and insults we have committed against them.

Especially in these times of the great apostasy and chastisement, we should want to pray and weep for the offenses that are continually being hurled against Our Lord and Our Lady.  We know that we deserve the punishments of a chastisement for our sins.  Our Lord and Our Lady have told us of the necessity of penance.   Our Lady of Fatima insisted on us praying the Rosary and performing sacrifices for the conversion of sinners and for peace to be obtained through the Consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart.   

Our Lady’s remedy is not unlike what St. John Chrysostom recommended during his times. As Alban Butler summarizes St. John Chrysostom’s books On Compunction, he notes how St. John prescribes a life of mortification and penance as an essential condition for maintaining a spirit of compunction.  Butler refers to St. John Chrysostom’s analogy that water and fire are not more contrary to each other than a life of softness and delights is opposed to compunction.  In the same vein, Butler relates how Chrysostom states that a love of pleasure renders the soul heavy and altogether earthly; but compunction gives the soul wings, by which she raises herself above all created things.  St. John Chrysostom mentions, too, how Our Lord blesses those who mourn for their sins.

With all of the above in mind, let us not forget to turn to Mary, our Mother of Sorrows, and ask her to teach us about the malice of sin and how much pain we have caused her Divine Son.  She, better than all mankind put together, understands the massive weight of sin that her Beloved Son bore.  Her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart was pierced with a sword of sorrow.  She was a first-hand witness of the sufferings of Our Lord.  This is why tradition teaches that she is the Co-Redemptrix and the Queen of Martyrs because she stood at the Foot of the Cross offering herself in union with her Divine Son.

So, begging Our Lord through Our Lady for the gift of tears of compunction, we pray that our hearts can melt.  If we ponder the Passion of Our Lord, the innocence of Our Lady, and how we have both afflicted Our Lord and Our Lady, perhaps our cheeks would be moistened as we say the following:

Oh, if only we could full keep,

The love of Our Lord and Lady deep,

In our minds, each day and night,

How would we bear the sight?

 

Of so much grief, for this blest pair,

For their sorrow, beyond compare,

Attend and see if there like be,

Sorrow that pierced the heart of she,

 

Who was chosen to watch her Son,

And stay with her, beloved One,

While journeyed He, each step with pain,

The ground covered, with precious Stain

 

If tears could well up, as we see,

Each awful wound endured by Thee,

But could our hearts melt like wax,

Tears of Thee, Lord, would we dare ask?

 

Yeah, Lord Thy heart did yield wax-like,

 Poured out like water, without dike,

The nails dug deep, Thy wrist and feet,

With growing love, could our hearts beat?

 

If tears could flow in rivers too,

But woe to us they are so few,

Beg we do now, for an increase

And weeping let us, never cease.

 

Our sins have caused Thee, pain so great,

We cannot full appreciate,

 What our malice has done to Thee,

And the price of, iniquity.

 

And with fear then, do let us quake,

Seeing what Thou, bore for our sake,

 Not displease Thee, in any way,

Working to save, our souls each day. 

 

Mary, our Mother of sorrow,

 Assist us with each new morrow

Without thee, we cannot endure,

And our love cannot, be pure.

 

Mary, us, with compunction fill,

With melted hearts our tears can spill,

 Such a gift, we do not deserve,

From the right path, let us not swerve!


[1]           Of course, our catechism teaches us that the three conditions for mortal sin are: 1) it must be a serious matter or considered to be a serious matter; 2) sufficient reflection; and 3) full consent of the will.  See, e.g., Baltimore Catechism #3, Q.282.  St. John Chrysostom here alludes to sinners becoming callous to their grievous vices.

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Words to Live by – from Catholic Tradition

 

The Voice of Christ:

 

What more do I ask than that you give yourself entirely to Me?  I care not for anything else you may give me, for I seek not your gift but you.  Just as it would not be enough for you to have everything if you did not have Me, so whatever you give cannot please Me if you do not give yourself.

 

The Imitation of Christ, by Thomas à Kempis, Book IV, ch. 8 (emphasis added).

The N-SSPX tells of a journey from apostasy to liberalism

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Long ago, the SSPX’s Angelus magazine used to do good work in helping souls understand Tradition.  Although always enjoying a somewhat undeserved reputation for “hard-hitting articles”, in reality, most of its articles even in the good days were too short and lacked sufficient substance to warrant that praise.  But it may be the magazine kept the articles short because that was precisely what its audience wanted.

In November, 2020, the Angelus Online did not hesitate to print a particularly poisonous piece called An Apostate’s Journey Back.[1] Its author is a certain John McFarland, father of SSPX priest Mark McFarland (about whose scandals as an SSPX priest we could write a separate article).  In this article, Mr. McFarland, a self-described fighter against the Resistance,[2] first describes his journey to “Tradition”.  It is, however, clear from what he tells of his story, that he never truly found Tradition, but instead, only a softened, watered-down idea of who Archbishop Lefebvre really was, and thus a false “Tradition”.

First, to his credit, early in his “conversion”, Mr. McFarland correctly identifies the problem.  He says,

I didn’t go more than 50-75 pages into [a book called] “Iota Unum” before I recognized the crucial fact: the Church’s terrible problems did not stem primarily from Rome’s being disobeyed.  They stemmed from Rome’s being followed [by Catholics] in its failure to oppose and its supporting the modernist offensive during and after the Council.

McFarland, who tells us that he is an amateur philosopher and a lawyer, then began to assist at Fr. Ringrose’s St. Athanasius chapel in Northern Virginia.  [To our readers: Fr. Ringrose was a long-time friend of the SSPX until the SSPX’s liberalism and treachery became very apparent.  He broke with the “new” SSPX afterwards, and the “new” SSPX condemned him for it.  He now is affiliated with Bp. Williamson’s group.]

McFarland goes on to say that his newly-ordained son was home in 2012 when he and his son learned of Fr. Ringrose’s signing what McFarland calls the “foundational document” of the Resistance.   McFarland’s reaction was to immediately stop attending that chapel:

He [newly-ordained Fr. McFarland] was home on vacation when I came home from Holy Name Sunday Mass and discovered online its [i.e., The Resistance’s] foundational document, whose signatories included the pastor of St. Athanasius. I told [my son, newly-ordained] Father, he said “Well, you can’t go back there [i.e., to Fr. Ringrose’s chapel].”

We have seen this knee-jerk reaction before, in otherwise-good men who continue to support the liberal “new” SSPX, and will hear nothing of the Resistance’s claims that the SSPX has become increasingly liberal.  We think such men long ago made the tremendous mistake of placing their loyalty firstly in particular men or organizations (such as the SSPX or particular priests they admire), instead of giving unwavering loyalty first to uncompromising, unadulterated Catholic Tradition.  This principle is exemplified in McFarland’s case, where he did not ask Fr. Ringrose (who had a better “nose” for liberalism than McFarland) to carefully explain his decision for his break with the SSPX.  The McFarlands seem instead to have simply left because Fr. Ringrose objected to their group, viz., the SSPX.  If the McFarlands did give Fr. Ringrose a chance to explain, McFarland does not mention it, and thus leaves off all of Fr. Ringrose’s substantial reasons, which in justice he should have mentioned.

McFarland goes on to say he got involved in polemics with Resistance websites, and that the Resistance was, in general, uncharitable.  McFarland does not give any evidence to support this claim but, of course, it is always possible for individuals to overstep civility or charity.  In any case, the Angelus Online article allows McFarland to vent his poison by going on to say,

Most of those who consider themselves traditional Catholics and attack the SSPX refer to themselves as the Resistance. From the time that I first learned about them, it was obvious that they had no proof and that their thinking was incoherent.

Even Bishop Williamson, who must have a great deal of SSPX internal information from before his break with the Society, has never offered testimony for any of the charges against Bishop Fellay circulating in the Resistance.

In regards to thinking [sic], in 2012 Bishop Williamson condemned what he styled the SSPX’s wishing to put itself under the authority of the pope.  But if Bishop Williamson does not accept the authority of the pope, then His Excellency and those of his followers who agree with him look to be schismatics.

 

Let us take three of McFarland’s assertions, in the order he makes them.


McFarland’s first assertion:

1.    “From the time that I first learned about them [viz., the Resistance], it was obvious that they had no proof and that their thinking was incoherent.”

Is it not rash (and uncharitable) for McFarland to conclude it was “obvious” at his first learning about the Resistance, that they had “no proof” and that their “thinking was incoherent”?  How often does it ever happen that when receiving the initial information about any group, a person can prudently conclude that it is “obvious” that the group as a whole both has no evidence and also is illogical?

Further, McFarland’s hasty conclusion of “no proof” is shown by his overlooking a very long catalog of proof either because he failed to look deeply or he is too liberal to recognize the “new” SSPX’s own liberalism.  For example:

  Isn’t it liberal for the “new” SSPX to reverse its position on abortion-connected vaccines in order to now conclude they are acceptable?[3] 

➢  Isn’t it liberal for the N-SSPX to call the new mass “Catholic worship”?[4]

➢  Isn’t it liberal for the N-SSPX to promote a conciliar speaker who is an expert favorably promoting Pope John Paul II’s heretical “Theology of the Body”?[5]

➢  Isn’t it liberal for the N-SSPX to accept the post-conciliar popes as saints?[6]

➢  Isn’t it liberal for the “new” SSPX to urge its followers to join the pope in praying with false religions?[7]

For anyone who wants additional concrete evidence of the “new” SSPX’s increasing liberalism, click on the “Society of St. Pius X” tab at this link: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/#gsc.tab=0


McFarland’s second assertion:

2.   Bishop Williamson and the Resistance cannot support “the charges against Bishop Fellay circulating in the Resistance.”

Again, McFarland fails to look deeply or he is too liberal to recognize Bishop Fellay’s own liberalism.  Here are a few examples of it:

❖  Bishop Fellay promotes the new mass as good and holy;[8]

❖  Bishop Fellay denies that there are any errors in the documents of Vatican II;[9] and

❖  Bishop Fellay claims that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty “is a very, very limited one: very limited!” although Vatican II itself says that religious liberty is entirely unlimited as long as society does not erupt in violence.[10]

For anyone who wants additional concrete evidence of Bishop Fellay’s liberalism, click on the “Society of St. Pius X” tab, subtab “Bishop Fellay”, found at this link: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/#gsc.tab=0


McFarland’s third assertion:

3.    Perhaps the worst of McFarland’s nonsense however, is his attempted smearing of the Resistance as schismatic or sedevacantist.  He says, “In regards to thinking [sic], in 2012 Bishop Williamson condemned what he styled the SSPX’s wishing to put itself under the authority of the pope.  But if Bishop Williamson does not accept the authority of the pope, then His Excellency and those of his followers who agree with him look to be schismatics” (emphasis added).  

 

We emphasize those parts of that remark which show how McFarland grossly misrepresents and over-simplifies the true position of Resistance Catholics; and he does this not once, but twice.  McFarland implies that Bp. Williamson (and Resistance Catholics) have since 2012 wrongly condemned the SSPX for putting itself “under the authority of the pope”.  That is, he implies that Resistance Catholics think that Catholics should reject the pope’s authority outright, simply speaking.  If the situation were really as simple as McFarland paints it, then yes – Bp. Williamson and others who hold that view would indeed have committed the mortal sin of schism (as today’s avowed sedevacantists indeed have).  Such however, is not the case. 

 

McFarland (knowingly or unknowingly) ignores critical distinctions which separate true Traditional Catholics from men like himself, as well as those outside the Church (sedevacantists and other schismatics).[11]   The truly Traditional Catholic attitude has always been to both acknowledge the authority of the pope as the supreme head of the Catholic Church, and to protect oneself and one’s loved ones by refusing to obey sinful commands from that superior (that is, those commands that are against Faith and Morals).  This is true obedience and this principle applies whether the superior is ecclesiastical, political, or familial.   

 

But it is true that in the last 50 years, almost every command from conciliar church authorities has posed a serious danger to faith and morals, and thus, Catholics in practice refuse to obey almost everything their superiors command.  Yet those same Catholics know the men issuing these evil commands continue to be their superiors.   

 

It is precisely this attitude of true filial obedience coupled with caution and prudence that sedevacantists (on the one hand) and liberals like John McFarland (on the other) lack.  But this very balancing act is what Archbishop Lefebvre understood and “walked” every day.  It is true that in the earlier days (1970s) he was not yet certain of what Modernist Rome’s intentions were, and wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt.  But after the mid-1980s, he became completely convinced that Modernist Rome had no other intention but to destroy Catholic Tradition.   

Bishop Williamson (despite his own serious liberalism on various matters)[12] clearly understands all of the above distinctions, as he has repeatedly, clearly, and publicly shown.  Yet McFarland, who implies he has engaged many times in serious polemics with the Resistance, as well as having spoken with Bp. Williamson, mentions none of this.

Conclusion:  The N-SSPX continues to print poison such as McFarland’s article so as to continue to corrupt its readers as well as faithful Traditional Catholics everywhere.  Not only is the N-SSPX no longer Traditional Catholic, but also it works directly AGAINST Catholic Tradition by misrepresenting, smearing, and silencing those who try to sound the alarm concerning its own liberalism.


[1]           This Angelus article is available here:      http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=4367

[2]           McFarland calls those opposing the SSPX’s liberalism “the Resistance”.  As such, he would probably call Catholic Candle part of “the Resistance” because it points out the “new” SSPX’s liberalism.  However, we don’t tend to call ourselves “the Resistance” but instead simply focus on striving to be completely uncompromising Traditional Catholics.

[3]           See part 3 of this article: https://catholiccandle.org/2021/01/01/reject-the-covid-vaccines/

[11]         Sedevacantism is wrong and is schismatic.  Read this short book: https://catholiccandle.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/sedevacantism-material-or-formal-schism.pdf  Concerning our duty to recognize the pope’s authority but resist his evil commands, read chapter 7 of this book.


[12]         See, e.g., the articles found at this link: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/#gsc.tab=0  Click on the “Bishop Williamson” tab.

 

Pope Francis stands condemned by Catholic Tradition for promoting unnatural impurity

Posted on by Catholic Candle


Q:        What should I say when people tell me that the Catholic Church now accepts unnatural “lifestyles” because the pope does not condemn them and he says “Who am I to judge?”

A:      Although Pope Francis is our pope, he is a bad pope.  He is our father, but is a bad father.  He is reconciling himself with modern licentious, unnatural, and debauched views.  It is true that he scandalized the world with his refusing to condemn “lifestyles” of unnatural impurity, saying: “who am I to judge?”.  But this is merely the tip of the iceberg.  He has a long history of supporting and fostering the unnatural lifestyle itself.  For example, he suggested that those engaging in the unnatural vice as a pair should be given legal status and rights: “‘What we have to create is a civil union law.  That way they are legally covered,’ Francis said in the documentary, ‘Francesco,”[1]   He has issued many other such scandalous statements.[2]

But Sacred Scripture condemns the unnatural vice in over twenty places.  Here are just a few:

·         “For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.  And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.”  Romans, 1:26-27.

·         “Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate … shall possess the kingdom of God.”   1 Corinthians, 6:9-10

·         Genesis narrates the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha and the cities around these, and shows clearly that it was in punishment for the unnatural vice, which God says is “very grave”.  Genesis 18:20-21, 19:1-15.

Catholic catechisms take note of such exceptionally strong condemnations of certain sins in Scripture, including this one, and label these as the sins “crying to heaven for vengeance”.

Besides Sacred Scripture, however, countless writings from early Church Fathers, popes, saints, and Church Doctors are in unanimous agreement in condemning this vice.  The quotes would be too numerous to list, but they share the strength of quotes like these:

·         “No sin in the world grips the soul as the accursed sodomy; this sin has always been detested by all those who live according to God ….  Deviant passion is close to madness; this vice disturbs the intellect, destroys elevation and generosity of soul, brings the mind down from great thoughts to the lowliest ….  They become blind and, when their thoughts should soar to high and great things, they are broken down and reduced to vile and useless and putrid things, which could never make them happy ….  Just as people participate in the glory of God in different degrees, so also in hell some suffer more than others ….  for this is the greatest sin.  St. Bernardine of Siena, Sermon XXXIX in Prediche volgari, pp. 896-897, 915.

·         "If all the sins of the flesh are worthy of condemnation because by them man allows himself to be dominated by that which he has of the animal nature, much more deserving of condemnation are the sins against nature by which man degrades his own animal nature….”  St. Thomas Aquinas, Super Epistolam B. Pauli ad Romanos, Cap. 1, Lec. 8.

Pope Francis appears to think all the above “was then, but this is now”.  But truth does not change, and he is condemned by the infallible condemnation in Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors:

Condemned statement #80:

The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.

Pope Francis appears to consider the above-quoted condemnations to be changeable and “subject to progress”, but this is condemned by Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors:

Condemned statement #5:

Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the advancement of human reason.


[2]           For example:

·         Pope Francis told a man who openly lived an unnaturally impure “lifestyle” in Chile, “You know Juan Carlos, that does not matter.  God made you like this.  God loves you like this. The Pope loves you like this and you should love yourself and not worry about what people say.”    https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/21/europe/pope-francis-gay-comments-intl/index.html

·         Through an interpreter, he told another man who openly lived an unnaturally impure “lifestyle”, “Giving more importance to the adjective rather than the noun, this is not good.  We are all human beings and have dignity.  It does not matter who you are or how you live your life, you do not lose your dignity.  There are people that prefer to select or discard people because of the adjective – these people don’t have a human heart.”  https://cruxnow.com/church-in-uk-and-ireland/2019/04/pope-francis-tells-gay-man-you-do-not-lose-your-dignity-on-bbc-show/   

 

The pope’s claim that one cannot lose his dignity no matter what a person does, is a conciliar error in direct opposition to Traditional Catholic teaching – which states that man retains his dignity only by obeying God’s laws and the natural law, but loses his dignity through sin. 

 

St. Thomas Aquinas lucidly explains how man loses his dignity through sin:

By sinning, man departs from the order of reason, and consequently falls away from the dignity of his manhood, insofar as he is naturally free, and exists for himself, and he falls into the slavish state of the beasts ….  Hence, although it is evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserves his dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast.  For a bad man is worse than a beast, and is more harmful, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 1 and Ethic. vii, 6).

 

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.64, a.2, ad 3 (emphasis added).

 

For a further treatment of this Catholic principle, read the explanation in Lumen Gentium Annotated, by the editors of Quanta Cura Press, © 2013, p.73, footnote 48.  This book is available:

➢  for free at: https://catholiccandle.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Lumen-Gentium-Annotated.pdf


and

➢  sold at cost on Amazon.com at this link: https://www.amazon.com/Lumen-Gentium-Annotated-examination-revolution/dp/1492107476/ref=sr_1_1

Revolution is in the air

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Revolution seems to be “in the air” and this has been true during much of 2020.  There were riots, burning, destruction, and looting across the U.S. (and in other places in the world) especially in the Summer 2020. 

Here is one account of the leftist demonstrations in Seattle on January 20, 2021, the day Joe Biden was sworn in as U.S. president:

The demonstrators, mostly clad in black, spray-painted anarchy symbols on buildings, broke windows and marched under a banner that read, “We are ungovernable.”

“We don’t want Biden – we want revenge for police murders, imperialist wars, and fascist massacres,” read another banner that the group marched under.  …  The crowd called for the abolition of ICE[1] and, outside the federal immigration court, several people set fire to an American flag ….[2]

There was not only burning and looting during the leftist riots in 2020 but anarchists even established a long-term violent occupation of part of Seattle, Washington, excluding police from the area, and re-naming the captured territory “the Capital Hill Autonomous Zone” (a/k/a “CHAZ”).

Further, six men reportedly planned to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer, the leftist governor of Michigan who was infamous for her abusive lockdowns of her state.[3]

Also, the mainstream media, the Democrats, and some others blame then-President Trump for inciting a supposed “coup attempt” on January 6, 2021.[4]  They blame Trump, despite him telling his followers that day to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”[5] about the election fraud.  

On January 6, 2021, while Trump was speaking to his supporters at a different location, some hooligans already began some lawless activity at the U.S. capitol building.[6]  It appears that leftist activists[7] led the violence and successfully got a tiny percentage of Trump supporters to follow their lead, e.g., following those leftists into the Capitol building through a smashed window.  One of the Black Lives Matter founders had previously put out a call on her Twitter feed telling her followers that they should disguise themselves as Trump supporters at post-election events.[8]

All these events raise the general question:

Is it ever permissible for Catholics to be revolutionaries?

Let us examine the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on this question.


We must distinguish between resisting and revolting. 

When someone in authority commands something evil, we must never “obey” that evil command.[9]   But it is one thing to resist that evil command (as we must) and it is a further step to use that evil command as a basis for rejecting the ruler’s lawful authority as such.  This further step is to revolt.

For example, the American revolutionaries considered it evil that King George III imposed taxes on them without their consent, and that he did many other things to which they objected.  But the American revolutionaries not only resisted such commands of King George but also used the commands as a (purported) “justification” for their revolution. 

In their Declaration of Independence, the revolutionaries objected to many things such as their king “quartering large bodies of armed troops among us”; “imposing taxes on us without our consent”; and “depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury”.

After listing their grievances, the American revolutionaries then did what all revolutionaries do: they said that their ruler was to blame for their own revolution because his conduct caused him to lose his status as their king.  The American revolutionaries declared that King George III, “whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”[10]

The American revolutionaries did what revolutionaries always do: they declared that their ruler had lost all authority over them.  Here are their words:

[T]hese United Colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved.[11]

Finally, the American revolutionaries then did something else which revolutionaries always do: they declared that it was their right and duty to revolt:

[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations … evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is [the colonies’] right, it is their duty, to throw off such government.[12]

This is what it is to be a revolutionary: to reject and resist not just particular (perhaps evil) commands but to also reject the very authority of his ruler.

The American revolutionaries followed the same pattern as countless other revolutionaries, e.g., in France, Russia, and Latin America.[13]  In all human history there is not even one revolution[14] which the Catholic Church recognizes to have been praiseworthy and not sinful.[15]

In summary, revolutionaries follow a common pattern:

1.    they assert that their ruler committed wrongs (whether actual wrongs or merely imagined); and then

2.    they use such wrongs as a basis to declare that their ruler’s own conduct has resulted in his losing his authority to rule them.


The Cristeros were Not Revolutionaries

On a superficial level, a person might have the false impression that the Mexican Cristeros were revolutionaries because they took up arms against the anti-Catholic Mexican government in the 1920s.  But the Cristeros’ goal was to defend their priests, their churches, and the Catholicism of their families.  The Cristeros resisted the many wrongs committed by their anti-Catholic, Masonic government.  By successfully taking up arms, the Cristeros prevented the anti-Catholic government from further harming them unjustly (arresting them, killing them, etc.). But unlike persons who are revolutionaries, the Cristeros never used their government’s wrongs as a basis to declare that their government had lost all authority over them.[16]  Instead, by taking up arms, the Cristeros merely prevented their lawful but anti-Catholic government from doing the harm it intended.

The American Revolutionaries could have – but did not – take the same approach as the Cristeros.  That is, the American Revolutionaries could have resisted even by force of arms any wrongs that were severe enough while still acknowledging King George of England as their rightful king.


Revolution is Always Wrong

It is un-Catholic to be a revolutionary.  All authority comes from God, regardless of the method by which a ruler is chosen to wield civil or religious power.  Here is how St. Paul teaches this truth:

[T]here is no power but from God:  and those [powers] that are, are ordained of God.  Therefore, he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.  And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation.  …  For [the ruler] is God’s minister.  …  Wherefore, be subject of necessity, not only for [the ruler’s] wrath, but also for conscience’s sake. 

Romans, ch.13, vv. 1-2 & 4-5 (emphasis added).[17]

Pope Pius IX faithfully echoed St. Paul:

[A]ll authority comes from God. Whoever resists authority resists the ordering made by God Himself, consequently achieving his own condemnation; disobeying authority is always sinful except when an order is given which is opposed to the laws of God and the Church.

Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846, §22.

Pope Pius IX taught this same doctrine in his infallible condemnation of the following proposition:

It is permissible to refuse obedience to legitimate rulers, and even to revolt against them.

Quanta Cura, proposition #63 (emphasis added).[18]

Pope Leo XIII taught the same doctrine as St. Paul and Pope Pius IX:

If, however, it should ever happen that public power is exercised by rulers rashly and beyond measure, the doctrine of the Catholic Church does not permit rising up against them on one’s own terms, lest quiet and order be more and more disturbed, or lest society receive greater harm therefrom.[19]

Because it is sinful to even willfully desire to sin, Pope Leo XIII taught that even the “desire for revolution” is a “vice”.  Auspicato Concessu, §24. 

Although revolution is forbidden, Pope Leo XIII gave us the remedies of patience, prayer, and resistance to the particular evil commands of a bad ruler.  Here are his words:

Whenever matters have come to such a pass that no other hope of a solution is evident, [the doctrine of the Catholic Church] teaches that a remedy is to be hastened through the merits of Christian patience, and by urgent prayers to God. 

But if the decisions of legislators and rulers should sanction or order something that is contrary to divine and natural law, the dignity and duty of the Christian name and the opinion of the apostles urge that “we ought to obey God, rather than men” (Acts 5:29).[20]

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Church, offers the same remedy to persons who suffer the evil of a bad ruler:

[S]ometimes God permits evil rulers to afflict good men.  This affliction is for the good of such good men, as St. Paul says above [ch.8, v.28]: “All things work for the good, for those who love God.”[21] 


The Example of the Saints shows Revolution is Wrong

Look at the example of Catholics, including great saints like St. Sebastian, who served bravely and faithfully even in the army of the pagan emperors of Rome.  They did not revolt, even when their emperor openly sought to kill all Catholics (although, of course, those soldier-saints did not aid in the persecution of Catholics). 

Here is Pope Gregory XVI’s praise for those Roman soldier-saints, who were faithful to God first, but also to their emperor (whenever the emperor’s commands were not themselves evil):

[T]he early Christians … deserved well of the emperors and of the safety of the state even while persecution raged.  This they proved splendidly by their fidelity in performing perfectly and promptly whatever they were commanded which was not opposed to their religion, and even more by their constancy and the shedding of their blood in battle. “Christian soldiers”, says St. Augustine, “served an infidel emperor.  When the issue of Christ was raised, they acknowledged no one but the One who is in heaven.  They distinguished the eternal Lord from the temporal lord, but were also subject to the temporal lord for the sake of the eternal Lord.” 

St. Mauritius, the unconquered martyr and leader of the Theban legion had this in mind when, as St. Eucharius reports, he answered the emperor in these words: “We are your soldiers, Emperor, but also servants of God, and this we confess freely . . . and now this final necessity of life has not driven us into rebellion.”  … 

Indeed, the faith of the early Christians shines more brightly, if we consider with Tertullian, that since the Christians were not lacking in numbers and in troops, they could have acted as foreign enemies.  “We are but of yesterday”, he says, “yet we have filled all your cities, islands, fortresses, municipalities, assembly places, the camps themselves, the tribes, the divisions, the palace, the senate, the forum.  …  For what war should we not have been fit and ready even if unequal in forces – we who are so glad to be cut to pieces – were it not, of course, that in our doctrine we would have been permitted more to be killed rather than to kill?  …  [Y]ou have fewer enemies because of the multitude of Christians.”

These beautiful examples of the unchanging subjection to the rulers necessarily proceeded from the most holy precepts of the Christian religion.[22]


Summary of this article so far

As shown above, it is Catholic dogma that revolution is always wrong but that resisting the particular evil commands of our ruler is permitted and is sometimes necessary.  When resisting is just, such resistance might include taking up arms and fighting the government soldiers who seek to enforce the ruler’s evil orders.  The Cristeros did this in Mexico.

If the evil is great enough, the resisters may even place themselves beyond the reach of the harm which the ruler seeks to unjustly inflict on them.  The Cristeros did this, succeeding in defending three-quarters of Mexico from the anti-Catholic harm attempted by Mexico’s Masonic government.[23]

However, even when strong resistance is justified by the greatness of the evil attempted by the ruler, those persons resisting the evil are not permitted to revolt, i.e., to declare that the ruler has ceased to be their ruler.  The ruler does not lose his authority in principle, even when the resisters prevent him by force of arms from accomplishing in practice the evil he wishes to do.  This is the meaning of Quanta Cura’s infallible condemnation of the assertion that “It is permissible … to revolt”.  (See above.)

Regarding the early soldier-saints fighting in the Roman army (see above) even while the emperor martyred Catholics: those Catholic soldier-saints served their emperor faithfully in honorable activities but never aided the Roman persecution of Catholics.  In those quotations above, St. Augustine, Pope Gregory XVI, and the other authorities praise those soldier-saints for not revolting but do not address the option of armed resistance since those soldier-saints of Rome did not choose to do what the Cristeros did, viz., defend themselves by force of arms, (although without revolting). 

A note about a different but related issue: determining whether a ruler is the legitimate ruler

Above, we see that Catholics must never revolt against their legitimate ruler (although they must resist his evil commands).  However, a person can ask: “how do we know when a ruler is legitimate?”

This article does not lay out principles from which we can know in all cases if a ruler is legitimate (and thus has authority over us).  There are many ways a ruler might not be the legitimate ruler.  Here is an easy case of a ruler being illegitimate:

When the head of a foreign, attacking army first lands on a country’s soil and immediately declares himself the legitimate ruler of the country simply because he is there and is strong, it is easy to see that he is a usurper and not a rightful, legitimate ruler of the country he is attacking.  The people of that country can justly deny his authority over them and fight against him to try to expel him from their country.


Is Biden our legitimate president (with authority over us)?

The legitimacy of a ruler is currently a very pertinent question because there is much evidence from which to conclude that Joe Biden and the leftists stole the 2020 presidential election from President Trump.[24]  So then is Joe Biden the legitimate U.S. president wielding the executive authority of the presidency?

That is a difficult question, involving many facts of which we have incomplete knowledge.  However, it seems that he is the U.S. president, wielding the authority of a president because:

➢  A person becomes president by being sworn in as provided by the U.S. Constitution.  Joe Biden has been sworn in as president.

➢  Even with the apparent election fraud, it seems more accurate to say that Biden has become president through fraudulently stealing the election, rather than that he is an imposter who falsely poses as president.

➢  If Biden weren’t the president, then who would be president?  Trump does not claim to be president and does not claim that Biden is not president.  Rather, Trump claims (apparently correctly) that Biden stole the presidency (i.e., he became president) through fraud. 

Further, whatever Biden does while acting as president would be enforced and implemented by other, lower government officials who do have lawful authority over us.  We would have to recognize their lawful authority (when they are not commanding something sinful, of course).


Conclusion

Faithful and informed Catholics are not revolutionaries.  We must obey those in authority over us when they command something which is not sinful.

Any abuse we cannot avoid from our legitimate authorities we should face with prayer, patience, and our best efforts to vote, stay informed, instruct our children and fellow citizens, as well as work in other ways to improve the quality of our leaders.

However, our obedience extends only to those who legitimately have authority over us.  We do not have to obey those who falsely claim to have authority.

Even though Biden (apparently) stole the 2020 presidential election, he is apparently still the legitimate U.S. president, wielding the authority of the U.S. presidency.

May God help us!


[1]           “ICE” in an acronym standing for the U.S. agency Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
 

[9]           For a careful examination of true and false obedience, read this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/the-false-obedience-of-cowardly-and-confused-catholics.html

 

[10]         Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

[11]         Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

[12]         Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

[13]         To read how Masonic revolution swept throughout Latin America, read the sketches of the political histories of the individual countries, in this book: Latin America: A Sketch of its Glorious Catholic Roots and a Snapshot of its Present, by the Editors of Quanta Cura Press, ©2016.

[14]         Generally, political revolt is called by the name “sedition”, whereas revolt against the Catholic Church is called “schism”.  But at the root of all such revolts, there is the same “non serviam!” which echoes that of Satan, the father of all revolutionaries.

 

[15]         If there could ever have been a place and circumstances where revolution could have appeared justified, it would have been a civil revolution by Catholics in newly-apostate England, where the English government inflicted horrors and injustices of every type upon the Catholics.  The torture, imprisonment, extreme suffering, and martyrdom inflicted on Catholics and the outrageous confiscation of Catholic property seemed to many as something impossible to bear.  See, e.g., Chapters 1-3 of Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot, by Fr. John Gerard, S.J., Quanta Cura Press.  This book is a fascinating contemporaneous account of the Anglican and Puritan persecutions of Catholics during the reign of King James I, which is the context of the Gunpowder Plot.

 

Because of the Anglicans’ and Puritans’ shocking treatment of Catholics, Guy Fawkes and a few other Catholics devised the Gunpowder Plot to blow-up the Parliament Building when King James I was there with the rest of England’s political leaders.  However, the two consecutive popes of the time, as well as all of the Jesuit superiors and priests in England all strongly forbade Catholics to take part in such plots or otherwise to revolt against their rightful (but bad) king, James I. 

 

In his contemporaneous account of the Gunpowder Plot and the savage persecutions leading up to this plot, Fr. John Gerard explains:

 

All Catholics received strict commandment from the See Apostolic, that in no case they should stir or attempt anything against His Majesty [viz., King James I of England] or the State [viz., England], and this both from Pope Clement VIII, of pious memory, and from Paulus Vtus [viz., Pope Paul V] that now sitteth in the Chair, who both before and since his assumption to that supreme dignity of governing the Church of Christ, hath showed [sic] himself most earnest to procure the quiet, safety, and security of our Sovereign [viz., King James I], … [and by ordering] that no Catholic people should go about to interrupt or trouble the same [viz., King James I of England] by their impatient proceedings ….

 

Id., page 120 (bracketed words added for clarity; note: In this quotation, Fr. Gerard uses “Vtus” which is the Roman numeral “V” (five) plus the last three letters of the Latin word “Quintus”, meaning “fifth”).                                                             

[16]         To read more on the Cristeros resistance to their anti-Catholic government’s oppression, read Latin America: A Sketch of its Glorious Catholic Roots and a Snapshot of its Present, by the Editors of Quanta Cura Press, pp. 40-42, ©2016.

[17]         God also declares: “By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things; by Me princes rule, and the mighty decree justice.”  Proverbs, 8:15-16.

 

[18]         Pope Pius IX used his ex cathedra (infallible) authority to condemn this error as part of a list of errors contained in the syllabus of Quanta Cura.  Regarding these condemnations, the pope said:
 

We, truly mindful of Our Apostolic duty, and especially solicitous about our most holy religion, about sound doctrine and the salvation of souls divinely entrusted to Us, and about the good of human society itself, have decided to lift our voice again.  And so all and each evil opinion and doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe and condemn; and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected, proscribed and condemned by all the sons of the Catholic Church.

Thus, Pope Pius IX’s condemnation fulfills the conditions for infallibility set out in Vatican I’s document, Pastor Aeternus, because the pope was: 1) carrying out his duty as pastor and teacher of all Christians; 2) in accordance with his supreme apostolic authority; 3) on a matter of faith or morals; 4) to be held by the universal Church.


[19]         Encyclical, Quod Apostolici muneris, December 28, 1878, §7 (emphasis added).

 

[20]         Quod Apostolici muneris, December 28, 1878, §7 (bracketed words added to show context).

[21]         St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Romans, ch.13, lect.1.

 

[22]         Encyclical Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832, §§ 18-19 (emphasis added), quoting and relying on the teaching of St. Augustine (Doctor and Father of the Church), as well as St. Mauritius, and Tertullian (a Father of the Church).

[23]         To read more on the Cristeros resistance to their anti-Catholic government’s oppression, read Latin America: A Sketch of its Glorious Catholic Roots and a Snapshot of its Present, by the Editors of Quanta Cura Press, pp. 41, ©2016.

If You Can Say the Our Father without Distraction, I Will Give You My Horse

Posted on by Catholic Candle

“Our Father Who art in heaven hallowed be Thy name … The saddle and the bridle also?”

I’m certain that most of you have heard that story told of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and his offer to a man who boasted he was never distracted in prayer.  The story relates how that man was distracted during his prayer by the scope of St. Bernard’s offer. 

I remind you about this to point out that distraction in prayer is the work of Satan, and a big problem for all of us.  How can we correct the problem and give greater significance and meaning to our prayers?  After praying on the problem, I had an idea that could help.

Now if distraction during prayer is not a problem for you, you are one in a million and you can stop reading now.  But if you do have a problem, read on.  I believe praying with energy and “hand action” demonstrates where your heart and thoughts are.  Much the same as when we make the Sign of the Cross.  Our hands go from head to heart to shoulders, demonstrating our thoughts and devotion to the Crucifixion of Our Lord.  Why not use the same energy and attention-provoking action when praying … say, the Rosary?

At Fatima Our Lady stated there will come a time when you will have only the Rosary and her Immaculate Heart.  She could be referring to now as we suffer through the great crisis in the Church.

The action I am suggesting should be “hidden”.  You wouldn’t want to distract others praying with you.  If you can, schedule your prayer at a time when no outside noise and activity will distract you.

Let’s start with the Rosary.  Pray all prayers except the Hail Marys with your hands open, facing up, about one foot apart, forming a “holy channel” to heaven, much as the priest does saying some parts of the Mass.  The Rosary is in one hand, keeping track of your progress.  At the Hail Marys, your hands are back to the usual position, but at the words "Fruit of thy womb, Jesus" you bow your head and your free hand touches your chest when you say “Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death,” demonstrating you are a sinner and that the Blessed Mother’s prayers now and at the hour of our death are most necessary.

Praying with this thought-provoking extra effort and energy, and with your attention for sure on the significance of each Mystery, should reduce your thoughts drifting to the distracting events in your life.   

Keep in mind that you are talking to your Creator, and that distraction calls for an additional effort to keep your mind focused.  While visiting Fatima and a friend who moved there with his family, I recall him saying, “when the Blessed Mother asked us to pray the Rosary, she meant all 15 Mysteries each time”, or so he believed.

When you pray the rosary and other prayers, I recommend that you try this method to help you pray more earnestly and with more recollection.  You will see your efforts have borne fruit when your prayers are a more intimate conversation with Our Lord and His Mother.

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Words to Live by – from Catholic Tradition

 

Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church, depicts the fight between good and evil at the end of the world, quoting the Father of the Church, Theophylactus:

 

In the persecution by the Anti-Christ, let no one seek to protect his own life, for he will lose it.  But he who exposes himself to danger and death will save his soul, never submitting himself to the tyrant, out of love for his life.

 

Catena Aurea on St. Luke’s Gospel, Ch.17, §9.

 

Let us face the tyranny of our times with this same firm resolution!

CC in brief — January 2021

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note: Catholic Candle normally examines particular issues thoroughly, at length, using the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and the other Doctors of the Church.  By contrast, our feature CC in brief, gives an extremely short answer to a reader’s question.  We invite readers to submit their own questions.

 

 

CC in brief

 

Q.  Why does the SSPX now lean liberal with its followers?

 

A.  If traditional Catholic individuals or groups don’t fight against liberalism every day, gradualism will take over and they will become liberal over time.  The “new” SSPX no longer fights against liberalism daily as Archbishop Lefebvre did.  They might merely mention the problem of liberalism, but they do not fight against it. 

 

 

Catholic Candle note: Here are some articles cataloging some of the liberalism of the “new” SSPX:

 

➢  https://catholiccandle.org/category/resources-for-priests/society-of-st-pius-x/

 

➢  https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/#gsc.tab=0  (from this page on our old website, click on the folder labeled “Society of St. Pius X”).

 

Reject the COVID vaccines!

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note:  This article is about the particular COVID-19 vaccines which have been researched, produced, or tested in some way by using human cells obtained from an abortion.

As Catholic Candle showed in a previous article, the corona “pandemic” is overblown and is in the “same ballpark” as a bad annual flu.[1]  Therefore, a COVID vaccine, if a moral and safe one were available, would only be a good idea for those for whom a flu vaccine would be a good idea, e.g., someone with multiple co-morbidities.

We must not accept the COVID vaccines which are being offered to us.  Below, we present five aspects of the COVID-19 vaccine issue:

1.    The first part of this article concerns the sinfulness of all abortion-connected vaccines as a general principle;

2.    The second part examines the current COVID-19 vaccines in particular and shows that the current COVID-19 vaccines are all abortion-connected and so they are sinful;

3.    The third part surveys the approval given by the Vatican and several conferences of Catholic (supposed) “bishops” and also contrasts the N-SSPX’s new position concerning abortion-connected vaccines and how the N-SSPX’s new position contradicts its old position;

 

4.    The fourth part examines the grave health risks presented to the recipients of the current COVID-19 vaccines and so, in addition to those vaccines being sinful because they are abortion-connected, those vaccines would also seem to be a sin against prudence because they are too risky to our own health; and

5.    The fifth part examines the lack of lasting immunity obtained from these vaccines.

In the remainder of this article, we examine each of these aspects.

 

Part 1: The Evil of using Vaccines made through the Murders of Babies

We live in a godless society and there are countless evils around us.  For example, in some places, for some diseases (like chickenpox), a person can only obtain vaccines whose manufacturers used cell lines from murdered babies, to develop the vaccines or as disease cultures for manufacturing them.[2]

The conciliar church is lax and liberal and approves receiving vaccines which come from the cell lines of murdered babies, unless there is an alternative vaccine which does not use murder.  But there are three reasons it is wrong to accept these vaccines developed or manufactured using the cell lines of murdered babies:

1.    Using those vaccines promotes future murders.

2.    Using those vaccines rewards persons connected with the murders.

3.    We incur guilt for those murders, by our consenting to use those vaccines.

Below, we discuss each of these reasons.

1.   Using abortion-connected vaccines promotes future murders.

Using the cell lines from murdered babies encourages future murders whenever pharmaceutical companies deem it to be convenient and profitable to commit more murders for use in vaccine research or production. 

Because people did not refuse vaccines coming from the 1960s-era cell lines taken from murdered babies, drug companies, labs, and researchers felt “free” to commit more murders to create new cell lines.  For example, a new cell line from a new murdered baby, was announced in 2015.[3] 

Accepting those vaccines manufactured through murdered babies, promotes future murders (and every murder of an innocent human is a murder too many)!  Thus, when you use a vaccine produced through murder, the drug companies are encouraged to commit additional murders to keep vaccine production high.

2.   Using those vaccines rewards persons connected with the murders.

It is wrong to use vaccines produced from murdered babies because using these vaccines enables manufacturers to profit through the murders.  We should not help drug companies make wickedness profitable!

3.   We incur guilt for the babies’ murders by our consenting to use those vaccines.

We become culpable for someone else’s sin by consenting to it.[4]  When St. Paul teaches us this truth about sharing someone else’s sin by consent, he mentions murder in particular.  Here are his words:

Being filled with … murder, …  they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

Romans, 1:29-32 (emphasis added).[5]

St. Paul shows that consenting to murder is a grave sin and shows this by teaching that such consent makes us “worthy of death”.

A person is guilty of a murder by his consent when he acquiesces[6], even passively[7], or accedes, even reluctantly,[8] to the murder.  When we use vaccines which come from murder, we are (at least) passively accepting – i.e., giving in[9] to – the murders that make those vaccines available. 

A person can incur guilt by consenting even after the murder.

Some ways of sharing in someone else’s sin can only occur before the sin is committed, e.g., commanding or advising that the sin should be committed.  See, the above list (from The Penny Catechism) of ways to share someone else’s sin. 

However, consent to the sin is different.  A person can consent to (i.e., acquiesce in) a murder either before or after it is committed, and so can incur guilt either way.

St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church, teaches that a person can incur guilt by consenting to a murder which has already been committed.  He applies this principle (of guilt through post-murder consent) to a person who joins the Jewish religion after Christ’s murder.  Here are St. Thomas’ words:

When a person becomes a Jew, he becomes a participant in the killing of Christ. 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Lectures on St. Matthew’s Gospel, ch.23, §1861 (emphasis added).

By using those vaccines manufactured through the murders of babies, a person thus incurs guilt by consenting to (i.e., acquiescing in) the murders of those babies even though those murders were already committed.


The passage of time does not make it no longer sinful to consent to those murders.

A superficial objection could be raised that the vaccines were made from murdered babies more than five decades ago and surely that is “so long ago” that we should disregard the murders because they are too distant in time.

That is wrong.  God does not cease to treat a murder as murder merely because of the passage of time.[10]  Those who commit murder and those that consent to it, remain culpable.  The mere passage of time does not remove the inherent guilt.  The punishments of hell are forever because the damned do not repent and the simple passage of time does not erase guilt (even a billion years in hell).

Just as God does not overlook culpability for murder simply because of the passage of time, man does not do so either.  In the civil society, there is typically no statute of limitations for murder.[11]  In other words, no murder is ever so remote in time that it is no longer culpable and punishable.

The murdering of the babies which was committed in order to “harvest” their cell lines, was premeditated and is first degree murder.  The passage of time does not change the guilt of those murders and does not eliminate the guilt of a person who consents to them.

No matter how much time passes, faithful and informed Catholics will never accept a vaccine developed through the murder of a baby!


The end does not justify the means

Another superficial objection could be raised that vaccines do much good and that they save so many lives that this “outweighs” the murders through which the vaccines are produced.  However, faithful and informed Catholics must never be complicit in evil because of “good” that can come from it.  The end does not justify the means!


Discerning God’s Will through standing up for principle.

A similar, superficial objection is that without receiving these sinful vaccines, I will

lose some opportunity, for example, the chance to enter (or send my dependents to) a particular school.  Again, the end does not justify the means!

If, despite your best efforts, you cannot receive a “conscience waiver” or “religious exemption” to attend (or send your dependents to) the school without receiving a sinful vaccine, that merely shows you that God does not want you to attend that particular school, etc. 


We are not justified in consenting to even the smallest of sins, much less, consenting to murder.

The evil at issue here is murder.  That is a very grave evil.  But even if a person were to suppose that receiving vaccines derived from the cell lines of murdered babies were “only” a venial sin, even the very smallest sin is an infinite evil in three ways.[12]  We should be ready to die rather than commit any sin. 

Here is how St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, warns against committing even the smallest sin:

A single venial sin is more displeasing to God than [i.e., outweighs] all the good works we can perform.

St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Uniformity with God’s Will, §6 (bracketed word added for clarity).

Here is how St. John of the Cross, Doctor of the Church, warns us that the road to hell begins with small sins:

Our Lord said in the Gospel: “He that is unfaithful in little will be unfaithful also in much.”  For he that avoids the small sin will not fall into the great sin; but great evil is inherent in the small sin, since it has already penetrated within the fence and wall of the heart; and as the proverb says: Once begun, half done.

Ascent of Mount Carmel, Book III, ch.20, section 1.

Here is how John Henry Cardinal Newman declares that the smallest sin is worse than all the physical suffering in the world:

The Catholic Church holds it better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions on it to die of starvation in extremest agony, as far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one willful untruth, or should steal one poor farthing without excuse.

 Apologia Vita Sua, by John Henry Cardinal Newman, Image Books, Doubleday, Garden City, New York, © 1956, p.324.


Conclusion of this section

In summary, some vaccines are produced through cell lines obtained from murdered babies.[13]  There are three reasons getting these vaccines is a sin:

1.    Using these vaccines promotes future murders.

2.    Using these vaccines rewards those connected with the murders.

 

3.    We become culpable for the murders, by our consent.

We should stand up for Christ and reject these sinful vaccines.  We should also urge others to stand against these vaccines which break God’s Law (including the Natural Law).  At our Judgment we would want to have done so!

Part 2: The Currently Available COVID-19 Vaccines are all Abortion-Connected and are all sinful to receive.

➢  The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is tested using the HEK293 cell line.[14]  The abbreviation “HEK293” refers to “Human Embryonic Kidney 293, identifying the organ of the particular murdered baby, who in this case was a baby girl aborted in the Netherlands in the 1970s.[15]  Although each “cell line” is from a particular murdered baby, the cell line production process requires many babies dissected alive without anesthetic to successfully obtain a single such human “cell line”.[16]

➢  The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine used the parts grown from the same kidney from the same murdered baby girl.[17]

➢  The Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine used the parts of the same kidney from the same murdered baby girl.[18]

 

➢  The coming Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine which is being developed, uses the PER.C6 cell line.  This is the body of a different murdered baby.  This vaccine uses the retinal tissue of an 18-week baby boy who was murdered in the Netherlands in 1985.[19]

➢  The coming COVID-19 vaccine being developed by Sanofi/Translate Bio uses the parts of the kidney from the murdered baby girl identified as HEK293.[20]

Catholics would commit a serious sin by accepting any of these COVID-19 vaccines because they were developed using abortion.


Part 3: The Vatican and several conferences of Catholic (so-called) “bishops” approve of the abortion-connected vaccines and the N-SSPX contradicts its prior rejection of abortion-connected vaccines.

The Vatican[21]  and the national conferences of Catholic (so-called) “bishops”[22] for the U.S. [23], Canada,[24] and the UK[25] all approve receiving the COVID-19 vaccine based on the false reasoning that a few decades passage of time makes it acceptable to cooperate and consent to these murders by accepting these abortion-connected vaccines.  Those conciliar leaders also assert the evil argument that the end justifies the means, i.e., we need to accept the abortion-connected vaccines because our health is so important.  These false arguments were answered above. 

Pope Francis even went so far as to assert that Catholics have a moral duty to receive one of the abortion-connected vaccines.  Here are his words, as quoted in a news report:

“I believe that, ethically, everyone should take the vaccine,” he said, according to a transcript released in advance of the airing of the interview.[26]

Although the vast majority of the conciliar hierarchy accepts the abortion-connected COVID-19 vaccines, a few members of the hierarchy do stand for the truth and oppose the COVID-19 vaccines.  Among these are three cardinals (Mueller, Zen, & Pujats)[27] and five (so-called) “bishops”.[28]  One of them declared (correctly) that we must accept martyrdom rather than accept any of the current COVID-19 vaccines.[29]  He added that:

The crime of abortion is so monstrous that any kind of concatenation[30] with this crime, even a very remote one, is immoral and cannot be accepted under any circumstances by a Catholic once he has become fully aware of it.[31]

These cardinals and (so-called) “bishops” are conciliar, not traditional.[32]  They are in “good standing” in the conciliar church and all of them accept various conciliar errors, e.g., religious liberty for false religions.  However, even they clearly see the sinfulness of these abortion-connected vaccines, in contrast to the liberal N-SSPX (as shown next).


The N-SSPX’s approval of the abortion-connected vaccines

In its recent statement which approves using the abortion-connected COVID-19 vaccines, the N-SSPX merely parroted the conclusory “justifications” of the Vatican, and the conciliar “bishops” conferences of the U.S., Canada and the UK.

The N-SSPX starts out by disparaging its own prior position (viz., that all abortion-connected vaccines are sinful) as supported by “rumor”.  Here are the N-SSPX’s words:

[M]any rumors circulate about those vaccines that suggest a moral impossibility to use them [viz., using the COVID-19 vaccines now available].[33]

Because no one wants to act based on “rumors”, the N-SSPX tries in this way to undermine its readers’ resistance to accepting the current COVID-19 vaccines.

Concerning all of these abortion-connected COVID-19 vaccines, the N-SSPX then concludes that “it is possible … to use such a vaccine.”[34]

One of the flaws in this liberal N-SSPX article, is that it focuses only on the sinfulness of actually taking part (in one way or another) in the actual abortion itself.  The N-SSPX article does not explicitly consider the sin committed by consenting to this sinful act (murder) already committed.  See above, the nine ways a person can share in someone else’s sin. 

Another flaw in the article is that the N-SSPX simply declares the conclusion that the abortion used in the development of the vaccine was too long ago (“remote”) to be sinful, but fails to make any comparison between:

·         the length of time since these abortions only a few decades ago;

and

·         other murders – even hundreds of years ago – where passage of time has still not removed the sinfulness of cooperation with those ancient murders.[35] 

A third flaw in the N-SSPX’s current position is that the N-SSPX fails to address the continued compensation of all of those persons (e.g., the pharmaceutical companies) who are continually profiting from these murders.

A fourth flaw in the N-SSPX’s current article is that it does not address the fact that the profitability of using the bodies of murdered babies gives researchers the incentive to murder more babies.

Twenty years ago, the SSPX used to teach the Catholic truth about abortion-connected vaccines.  In a June 2000 Angelus Magazine article, the SSPX stated: “Consequently, it would be immoral to use a vaccine that one knew was developed in fetal cells, no matter how great the advantage to be procured.”[36]  In other words, the SSPX’s older article correctly warns that the end does not justify the means.

This earlier SSPX article condemns using all abortion-connected vaccines, but specifically warns about the evil of accepting the abortion-connected rubella vaccine.  Now, however, the N-SSPX’s new article specifically justifies accepting this same abortion-connected rubella vaccine (a bad means) because of a good end (avoiding birth defects caused by rubella).  Here are the N-SSPX’s words in 2020 advocating the end justifying the means:

A young woman who is to get married can thus receive the rubella vaccine, although such a vaccine is almost always prepared on fetal cells obtained by abortion.  The reason is the danger for the child: if a woman contracts rubella during pregnancy, especially during the first trimester, the risk of birth defects – eye, hearing or heart – are [sic] significant.  These malformations are permanent.[37]


Part 4: The grave health risks of the current COVID-19 vaccines would seem to make receiving this vaccine a sin against prudence because those vaccines are too risky to our own health.

In addition to the COVID-19 vaccines being mortally sinful because recipients of the vaccines consent to their development through use of murdered babies, these vaccines would seem to also be a sin against prudence because they are a grave risk to the health of those receiving the vaccines.

The U.S.’s chief scientific adviser for the American COVID-19 vaccine rollout admitted that the number of adverse reactions is higher than he expected it would be.[38]  So far, severe adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines occur at a rate about 8.5 times higher than for flu vaccines.[39] 

One of the severe reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine is anaphylactic shock, suffered even by people who never previously had an allergic reaction to anything.[40]  This anaphylactic shock can occur as a reaction to other vaccines, but it occurs 22 times more frequently in the COVID-19 vaccine.[41]  Because of the unexpectedly high rate of dangerous reactions, the British medicines regulator (the MHRA) recommends that locations administering these vaccines have emergency resuscitation facilities on site.[42]  One news report includes video footage of a nurse collapsing after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine, as she stepped up to the podium to tell people how great it was to receive the vaccine.[43]

In addition to anaphylactic shock, the U.S. FDA’s warning of severe adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine, includes, but is not limited to:

➢  strokes[44];

 

➢  convulsions and seizures[45];

➢  heart attacks[46];

➢  “Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis,” which is a “rare inflammatory condition that affects the brain and spinal cord”[47];

➢  “Transverse myelitis” which is a neurological disorder which inflames the spinal cord, causing “pain, muscle weakness, paralysis, sensory problems, or bladder and bowel dysfunction.”[48]

➢  auto-immune disease[49]; (One such disease is “Guillain-Barré syndrome,” described as “a rare disorder in which your body’s immune system attacks your nerves.”  The syndrome has “no known cure,” and its mortality rate is “4% to 7%.”)[50]

➢  birth defects[51];

➢  harm to nursing babies[52];

➢  infertility of an indefinite duration[53];

➢  Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in children[54];

➢  facial paralysis, (Bell’s Palsy) [55]; and

➢  Kawasaki disease.[56]  

There are also other severe risks as well as common, less severe side effects from receiving the COVID-19 vaccines.[57]

Here is one catalog of less severe side effects, together with their likelihood of occurring with any single injection of the COVID-19 vaccine:

In clinical studies, the adverse reactions in participants 18 years of age and older were pain at the injection site (92.0%), fatigue (70.0%), headache (64.7%), myalgia (61.5%), arthralgia (46.4%), chills (45.4%), nausea/vomiting (23.0%), axillary swelling/tenderness (19.8%), fever (15.5%), swelling at the injection site (14.7%), and erythema at the injection site (10.0%).[58]

As of December 18, 2020, hundreds of people have been admitted to the emergency rooms shortly following their receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine[59] and thousands of people have suffered adverse reactions.[60]  There has also been unexplained deaths of people believed to be healthy before receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.[61]


The novelty and lack of testing of this vaccine presents possibly-grave additional risks.

The current COVID-19 vaccines have been rushed out without the usual vaccine testing and trial periods.  The vaccines have been approved only for “emergency use”.[62]  The vaccine makers are immune from legal liability no matter how much harm is done by their poorly tested vaccines.[63]

The current COVID-19 vaccines are a completely new type of vaccine never tried before.  All previous vaccines introduced a weakened or neutralized part of the disease-causing substance into the body and the body of the recipient then “learned” to fight this substance so that it would be prepared to fight a virulent form of this same disease.[64] 

The new COVID-19 vaccines are much different.  They use “messenger RNA” to change the “commands” or “instructions” given to our bodies’ own cells to cause those cells to produce spike proteins that they would never naturally produce, so that our own bodies would then fight these spike proteins produced by our bodies.[65]  Moderna, one of the COVID-19 vaccine makers, likens this overriding of our bodies’ cellular processes to introducing a new software program into a computer.[66]

This is a revolutionary and invasive procedure and has had only months of testing, skipping much of the normal, much-longer testing process usually used to help assure the vaccine is safe.[67]  What are the long-term effects?  We don’t know.  No one knows.  Among many other grave potential harms, is the harm of a fatal, exaggerated immune reaction when encountering the “wild” virus itself.[68] 

Yet the world is injecting this vaccine into hundreds of millions (or even billions) of people.  Should we trust the pharmaceutical companies to be honest with us?  Hardly.  Those companies are:

❖  earning trillions of dollars selling whatever COVID-19 vaccine they can come up with;

❖  using a brand-new technology;

❖  after an extremely short and inadequate testing process; and

❖  shielded from legal liability no matter how much harm they cause to us by these vaccines.

The imprudence of trusting the pharmaceutical companies entirely leaves aside the past history of pharmaceutical companies violating health and safety laws, and/or committing massive fraud.[69]

The mainstream media declares that COVID-19 is an extreme emergency and so the media tells people how “alarming” it is that so many “frontline” workers refuse to accept the vaccine.  For example:

➢  About 60% of Ohio nursing home workers refuse this vaccine.[70]

➢  About 50% of frontline workers in Riverside County, California, refuse it.[71]

➢  Over 50% of New York firefighters reject the vaccine.[72]

For all of the above reasons in this section, the COVID-19 vaccines are too risky even if it were not a mortal sin to receive them because they were developed using murdered babies. 


Part 5: The Immunity obtained from the COVID-19 Vaccine is likely of short duration.

All viruses constantly change.[73]  The viruses’ continual mutations is one reason why there is no permanent vaccine for the flu (or colds) and why vaccines even for the current version of the flu are only partially successful – because the flu vaccine is being developed months ahead of time and, before the flu season even begins, the flu virus is already changing away from the current version of the flu at which the current vaccine was targeted.[74]

Another reason a single injection of the flu vaccine does not give lasting, multi-year immunity, is because our bodies’ immunity does not last even against the same strain of the flu.[75]  That is why coronavirus immunity from either contracting COVID-19 or from a vaccine is called “transient immunity”, because the immunity does not last.[76]

Therefore, whatever coronaviruses are presently spreading will continually change and whatever immunity we have through having contracted this (generally mild) disease or through a vaccine, will probably not last long.[77]


Conclusion

It is a mortal sin to accept any vaccine developed using murdered babies.  The current COVID-19 vaccines are of this type and are gravely wrong to receive, consent to, or to cooperate with.  Further, these vaccines gravely endanger many people because of their many grave and less-grave side effects.  Those vaccines are revolutionary and are invasive in a way never before tried because they change the instructions used by our own cells.  These vaccines have unknown long-term side effects and provide an immunity which probably does not last long.



[2]           Here is a list of vaccines connected with murder and a list of ethical alternatives, if they exist: https://cogforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/vaccineListOrigFormat.pdf

 

[4]              Here is summary of this basic truth from a common catechism:

 

328. When are we answerable for the sins of others? 

We are answerable for the sins of others whenever we either cause them, or share in them, through our own fault. 

329. In how many ways may we either cause or share the guilt of another’s sin? 

We may either cause or share the guilt of another’s sin in nine ways:

 

1.    By counsel.

 

2.    By command.

3.    By consent.

4.    By provocation.

5.    By praise or flattery.

6.    By concealment.

7.    By being a partner in the sin.

8.    By silence.

9.    By defending the ill done.

 

Quoted from The Penny Catechism, Nihil Obstat, Joannes M.T. Barton, S.T.D., L.S.S., Censor deputatus, Imprimatur, Georgius L. Craven, Epus Sebastopolis, Vicarius Generalis, Westmonasterii, die 20a Junii, 1958, p.57 (emphasis added).

 

[5]           Here is the longer quote from St. Paul:

 

Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.  Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

 

Romans, 1:29-32

 

[6]           One of the definitions of consent is: “acquiescence to or acceptance of something done or planned by another”.  https://www.thefreedictionary.com/consent

[7]           One of the definitions of acquiescence is: “passive assent or agreement without protest”.  https://www.thefreedictionary.com/acquiescence

 

[8]           Two of the definitions of accede are: “to consent” and “to give in”.  https://www.thefreedictionary.com/accede

[9]           Two of the definitions of accede are: “to consent” and “to give in”.  https://www.thefreedictionary.com/accede

[10]         St. Thomas Aquinas teaches the principle that a person is culpable for consenting to a murder even when that murder had been committed many centuries earlier.  St. Thomas applies this principle to a person who joins the Jewish religion long after Christ’s murder.  Here are St. Thomas’ words:

 

When a person becomes a Jew, he becomes a participant in the killing of Christ. 

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, Lectures on St. Matthew, ch.23, §1861.

 

Thus, St. Thomas teaches that even the passage of a long, long time (1200 years, in St. Thomas’ time) after the murder, does not remove the culpability for consenting to it.  In other words, there is no “end date” for culpability by consenting to murder after it was committed. 

 

Note also regarding St. Thomas’ own example, that he places culpability upon consent to the murder of Christ (through conversion to Judaism), not upon ethnic lineage of a person.  Thus, this culpability does not touch the Apostles or any other ethnically Jewish persons who did not (do not) consent to the murder of Christ.

 

[11]            Here is how one legal commentary summarized the state of the law:

 

               Some crimes have no statutes of limitations.  As an example, murder typically has

               none.

 

https://resources.lawinfo.com/criminal-defense/criminal-statute-limitations-time-limits.html

 

Here is how the New York courts explain that murder does not become a non-prosecutable crime because of the passage of time:

 

Statutes of limitations are laws which say how long, after certain events, a case may be started based on those events.  If the statute of limitations has run out, a case should not be started in court. If a case is started after the statute of limitations has run out, it is called time barred.  A defendant or respondent can ask the court to dismiss the case if it is time barred by the statute of limitations.

 

Statute of limitations laws are based on fairness. Over time, memories fade, evidence is lost, and witnesses disappear.  People get on with their lives and don’t expect court cases from events in the past – unless a really horrible crime has been committed.

 

The amount of time by when a person or agency can start a case is different depending on the claim. For example, cases about real property have a long time period, while slander and libel have short time periods.  Some crimes, like murder, are so terrible that they often have no limitations period.

 

Except for when a government agency is sued, there is almost always at least one year from the date of an event to start a case no matter what type of claim it is. You should have no statute of limitations worries if you file your case within this one-year period.

 

https://nycourts.gov/CourtHelp/GoingToCourt/statuteLimitations.shtml

[12]         For a full explanation of this truth that all sin is an infinite evil in three ways and mortal sin is an infinite evil in a fourth way too, read this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/the-infinite-evil-of-sin.html

 

[13]         Here is a list of vaccines connected with murder and a list of ethical alternatives, if they exist: https://cogforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/vaccineListOrigFormat.pdf

 

[22]         For an explanation why the validity is doubtful using the conciliar rite of consecration of a bishop (now called “ordination of a bishop”), read Catholic Candle’s comparison of the new rite and the Traditional Episcopal rite.  This comparison is available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B49oPuI54eEGZVF5cmFvMGdZM0U/view

[30]         Definition of concatenation: “a group of things linked together or occurring together in a way that produces a particular result or effect”.  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concatenation

[32]         Here, e.g., is an analysis of some of so-called “bishop” Athanasius Schneider’s liberalism: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-schneider-beloved-revolutionary.html

 

As another example, here is a news report of so-called “archbishop” Vigano’s prayer at an ecumenical prayer event: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/abp-vigano-speech-to-jericho-march at which a rabbi gave his “prayer” at the same event: https://app.videosquirrel.app/watch/1784

[33]         https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/it-morally-permissible-use-covid-19-vaccine-62290 (initial letter capitalized).

 

Here is the longer quote:

 

As several manufacturers announce the imminent development of a vaccine against Covid-19, many rumors circulate about those vaccines that suggest a moral impossibility to use them.

 

[34]         https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/it-morally-permissible-use-covid-19-vaccine-62290  The only pretense at “conservativism” in the position of the N-SSPX, is to say that we should choose a non-abortion-connected vaccine if one were available (although none is available).  The Vatican says this too.

[35]         See the analysis above, especially related to Our Lord’s murder 2,000 years ago concerning which a person is still not exonerated who consents to His being murdered, by joining Judaism.


[36]           June 2000 Angelus Magazine, p.40 (emphasis added).

 

[49]         James Lyons-Weiler, Pathogenic Priming Likely Contributes to Serious and Critical Illness and Mortality in COVID-19 via Autoimmunity, Journal of Translational Autoimmunity, 2020, 100051, ISSN 2589-9090, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtauto.2020.100051 &  (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589909020300186)

“In Order To Remain Catholic, It Is Necessary to Become Protestant.”

Posted on by Catholic Candle

The above statement summarizes the results of the Second Vatican Council in a uniquely profound, and meaningful way.  In one statement, it brings to mind just how anti-Catholic the Council was and is.  In order to remain “Catholic” as far as Rome and the Council are concerned, one has to accept, think, and follow Protestant-type religious formulas.

 

What are those anti-Catholic religious formulas and beliefs – which are promoted by Satan, the Protestants, and the Conciliar church of the Second Vatican Council?  Here are some of them:

 

1.    “Eliminate” the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and replace it with a non-Catholic service designed with the help of six Protestant ministers and a Mason.

 

2.    “Eliminate” the Holy Sacrament of Penance and replace it with “reconciliation” with your fellow man.  God is not involved.

 

3.    “Eliminate” the truth that there is No-Salvation-Outside-the-Catholic Church and promote Religious Liberty.

 

4.    Disregard any facts and information against all false religions, and praise Martin Luther on the 500th anniversary of his heretical sect (i.e., promoting Religious Liberty).

 

5.    “Eliminate” the need for the Sacrament of Extreme Unction by promoting Universal Salvation, (i.e., everyone goes to heaven).

 

6.    “Revise” the Sacrament of Holy Orders, causing real doubt of a valid ordination.

 

7.    “Eliminate” the Sacrament of Confirmation.

 

8.    Insist that we can live how we want and do not need to perform good works (i.e., Universal Salvation).

 

9.    “Eliminate” the primacy of the pope in favor of a democracy of bishops and

cardinals.

10. Reject the Christ-established one, united Church; (Christ never referred to His Churches, but to His Church.)  There are 200 different Protestant churches in the United States alone.[2]

 

11. “Eliminate” belief in Divine Tradition, with the false belief that the Bible holds all the truth.

 

12. Accept divorce as proper and necessary, (i.e., easy annulments).

 

13. Accept that it was necessary to kill Catholics in 1560 England to establish the Protestant faith.

 

14. Accept all faiths as the road to salvation (i.e., Religious Liberty).

 

15. When Pope Francis states, “Who am I to judge?” on the evils of unnatural lifestyles, he is suggesting that he agrees with the Protestants that private judgment is a rule of faith.

 

The above is a partial list of what it means to become Protestant in order to remain Catholic per the Second Vatican Council.  An additional result of the Council was the self-destruction of once-vital Catholic religious organizations.  There were great reductions in the number of vocations, priests, sisters, monks, churches, Catholic schools, convents, seminaries, and monasteries. 

 

What more could the leaders in Rome and the Conciliar church do to fulfill the requests of Satan?  Not much, if anything, with the complete destruction of the human element in the Catholic Church.

 

I believe that uncompromising traditional Catholics are experiencing a bloodless type of martyrdom – with a martyrdom of blood to follow in the future, as in 16th century England.  Satan is not going to change course now, after all his many current successes. Sixty years ago, who would have believed that it would be possible that the Catholic Church’s human element would be on “life support” by the year 2021?

 

Fear not; we are not alone.  Our Lord gave you all the graces needed to stand firm as an uncompromising Catholic fighting for Christ the King up until now.  You will get all the necessary graces to withstand what is coming. 

 


[1]              I Accuse the Council, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, 1982, p. 79.

 

[2]              My Catholic Faith, Bishop Louis Morrow, ©1949, p. 102.

 

Having an Eternal Perspective

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Objective truth series — Reflection #18

Here is a brief recap of the last four reflections:

·         Reflection 14 – The pursuit of truth and the love of truth as the basis for standing up for the truth, in order to fight false human respect.

 

·         Reflection 15 – The precious blessing it is to possess the faith in these times of apostasy when so few have the faith, and having the use of reason is also something to be extremely grateful for.

 

·         Reflection 16 – Finding delight in God bringing us a higher view of truths.

 

·         Reflection 17 – God uses us, poor instruments that we are, to pass on the truth by standing up for the truth, and to teach the truth to others.

All of the reflections in this Objective Truth Series, especially the last four reflections, can be boiled down to what was quoted in Reflection 15, namely, the Principal and Foundation from the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola.

Man is created to praise, reverence, and serve God, Our Lord, and by this means to save his soul.  All other things on the face of the earth are created for man to help him fulfill the end for which he is created.  From this it follows that man is to use these things to the extent that they will help him to attain his end.  Likewise, he must rid himself of them in so far as they prevent him from attaining it [viz., his end].  

As was said in the very first reflection, St. Thomas Aquinas says – First, God chooses a soul, then He loves that soul, and then He makes the soul worthy of His Love by giving grace to the soul.  Thus, the saints are truly called the Elect of God and the life’s journey of the saint’s soul is God’s work.  The Principal and Foundation quoted above, is the Blessed Mother’s instruction, giving souls what can be called the cornerstone of the way of salvation.  In this manner the soul learns from the Principal and Foundation to have an eternal perspective of life. 

What do we mean by an eternal perspective?  This means that one takes the Principal and Foundation into consideration when making all his decisions. For example, he would ask himself, “Will this use of a creature, this activity etc. be something that will help me save my soul or not?”  Of course, not all the saints in heaven went on an Ignatian retreat; nevertheless, they made their decisions always with the salvation of their immortal soul in mind.  Hence, they had this eternal perspective in which they made their salvation the most important work of their lives.  They certainly worked out their salvation “with fear and trembling,” as St. Paul admonished the Philippians to do.

For instance, St. Teresa of Avila told her nuns, “We have only one soul and one eternity.” Although she is an example of a saint who did have the influence of the good Jesuits, and her little saying shows that she made her decisions with her eternal salvation in mind, her perspective is not unlike all the other saints in heaven.

Of course, we know from our Catechism that we are supposed “to know, love, and serve God to be happy with Him in heaven.”  However, we do not just automatically act upon this truth from the age of reason. 

This is where God’s school of sanctity must be considered.  What does He do to the soul?  He spends years drawing souls to Himself and helping them sort out/discover that life is a journey, an exile, and that the soul’s true goal is heaven.  Yes, one can study these things in Catechism, but unfortunately these truths do not really sink in, until the Lord causes these truths to penetrate deeply into one’s soul.  The soul seems to discover for the first time that the intimate friendship with the Divine Spouse Jesus Christ is the only true goal of life.

This is a time of true conversion of heart, when Our Lord gives the soul an eternal perspective.  When the soul has finally latched onto the eternal perspective, the soul is much more focused on working for God.   In this conversion the soul now finally understands that nothing else is important but the salvation of the soul.  The world’s “fog” now seems to lift and the soul now sees the real purpose for existence in the most serious light in which it should be taken.

But God does not stop there, for now the serious part, so to speak, of the soul’s journey, has begun.   God patiently works on the soul and the soul continues to sort the distractions of this life from the supernatural realities for which man was created.  With a clearer perspective, the soul now understands better how God intends that man wears himself out in the service of God.  The soul, too, learns more and more how crucial it is to be detached from things of the world.  This process of learning to care more and more about God continues and God draws the soul closer to Him.  All of God’s adopted children are supposed to become spiritually married to Christ, the Bridegroom of the soul.  Therefore, it is perfectly normal in the spiritual life that the soul would become less attached to the world and more intimately attached to God.

Once a soul has an eternal perspective, the soul looks at everything in a whole different way.   The soul can see that the things of this world are so empty and shallow.  The cares of the world are dealt with in a more objective way.  Yes, one certainly has to deal with the concerns of his duty of state; however, these concerns are handled with one’s eternal salvation always in mind.  The soul does not want to displease God in any way—seeing that we are either on the side of Christ or on the side of Satan.  As Christ said, “He that is not with Me, is against Me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.” St. Matt. 12:30.  And further, “But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the Day of Judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” St. Matt. 12:36-37.

With just these words of Our Lord in mind, it is easy to see that Our Lord wants us to have an eternal perspective.  Clearly, we have to discern carefully what is involved in our decisions and consider well how we must do all things to please God. Our thoughts, words, and deeds must be weighed on the scale of eternity!  Nothing in life is truly neutral and all things must work toward God and His Glory.  As Catholics we cannot become callous and think that our actions do not have eternal consequences.  Keeping an eternal perspective makes all choices simpler and therefore easier.

Another wonderful consequence of an eternal perspective is that placing all things in God’s Hands becomes more habitual.  How good God is to teach and train a soul to have an eternal perspective!  One stands only in awe at such Paternal care for our poor souls and perhaps something like the following would flow forth:

To praise, to revere, and to serve Him,
Oh, this sounds so scary and grim,
Our souls were created for this,
‘Tis the only view, that brings bliss.

Why an eternal perspective?
And must we be so selective?
The Lord wants us never forget,
That we belong to Him and yet,

He knows we’re so fragile and weak
And that worldly things we do seek
He ‘minds us to think of our end,
And not to make the world our friend.

‘Tis so easy to lose our course,
And to forget that, God’s our source,
Of life, of being, our one true goal,
The only way to save one’s soul.

For every choice one must make,
We must work only for His sake.
To act for Him, ne’er Him oppose,
If we want, eternal repose.

At times a choice, seems so small,
But made badly, could costs it all,
Best to weigh things, on this wise scale,
Than forever the choice bewail,

We pray Mary, our special guide,
That with her Son, we may abide,
And live not like fools, for this world,
And not into hell’s depths be hurled.

Having perspective eternal,
Keeps the soul, from the infernal,
Wonderful outlook, for one’s life,
The soul becomes the Bridegroom’s wife.

For such an outlook, we must pray,
To stick to our goal on life’s way,
And when this view does sink in deep,
With tears of thanks we shall e’re weep.