Author: Catholic Candle

Lesson #42: Temperaments – Choleric Temperament – a Choleric’s Spiritual Combat – Part VII

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Philosophy Notes

Catholic Candle note: The article immediately below is part seven of the study of the Choleric temperament.  The first fix parts can be found here:

1.    Mary’s School of Sanctity – Lesson #36:  About the Temperaments – Beginning our Study of the Choleric Temperament: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/08/27/lesson-35-about-the-temperaments-the-choleric-temperament/

2.    Mary’s School of Sanctity – Lesson #37: About the Temperaments – Continuing Our Study of the Choleric Temperament: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/09/26/lesson-37-about-the-temperaments-continuation-of-the-choleric-temperament/

3.    Mary’s School of Sanctity – Lesson #38 — About the Temperaments – Continuing our Study of the Choleric Temperament – Their Spiritual Combat: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/10/24/lesson-38-temperaments-choleric-temperament-their-spiritual-combat/

4.    Mary’s School of Sanctity – Lesson #39 About the Temperaments – Continuing Our Study of the Choleric Temperament – That Temperament’s Spiritual Combat – Part IV: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/11/26/lesson-39-temperaments-choleric-temperament-their-spiritual-combat-part-iv/

 

5.    Mary’s School of Sanctity – Lesson #40: Temperaments – Choleric Temperament – Their Spiritual Combat – Part V: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/12/30/lesson-40-temperaments-choleric-temperament-their-spiritual-combat-part-v/

6.    Mary’s School of Sanctity – Lesson #41 – About the Temperaments – Continuing Our Study of the Choleric Temperament: a Choleric’s Spiritual Combat — Part VI: https://catholiccandle.org/2025/01/27/lesson-41-temperaments-choleric-temperament-a-cholerics-spiritual-combat-part-vi/


Mary’s School of Sanctity

Lesson #42: About the Temperaments – Continuing Our Study of the Choleric Temperament – a Choleric’s Spiritual Combat – Part VII

Note: When referring to a person with a choleric temperament in this article we simply will label him as a choleric.

In our last two lessons we have described: how one is moved to anger; what effects anger has on the body; and how anger affects the proper use of one’s reason.

Also, we saw in Lesson #41, in particular, how anger requires an act of reason insofar as one seeks just vengeance when he has been wronged.  Furthermore, we saw that because anger causes changes in the body, these changes hamper the proper role of one’s reason.

Since anger is a passion and classified as one of the seven capital sins, we need to be careful in our understanding of anger.  Let us consider the following three points:

1) When is anger lawful?

2) When is anger sinful?

3) When anger is sinful, how does it connect with additional sins, such as, hatred?

1) When is anger lawful?  

St. Thomas clarifies the answer to this question for us in the following explanation:

Now this [the evil of envy][1] does not apply to anger, which is the desire for revenge, since revenge may be desired both well and ill.  Secondly, evil is found in a passion in respect to the passion’s quantity, that is, in respect to its excess or deficiency; and thus, evil may be found in anger, when, to wit, one is angry, more or less than right reason demands.  But if one is angry in accordance with right reason, one’s anger is deserving of praise.[2]

St. Thomas explains in more depth when he comments on St. Gregory’s work On Morals:

Anger may stand in a twofold relation to reason.  First, antecedently; in this way it withdraws reason from its rectitude, and has therefore the character of evil.  Secondly, consequently, inasmuch as the movement of the sensitive appetite is directed against vice and in accordance with reason, this anger is good, and is called zealous anger.  Wherefore, Gregory says (De Moral. vol. 45): “We must beware lest, when we use anger as an instrument of virtue, it overrules the mind, and go before it as its mistress, instead of following in reason’s train, ever ready, as its handmaid, to obey.”  This latter anger, although it hinders somewhat the judgment of reason in the execution of the act, does not destroy the rectitude of reason.  Hence Gregory says (Moral. v, 45) that zealous anger troubles the eye of reason, whereas sinful anger blinds it.  Nor is it incompatible with virtue that the deliberation of reason be interrupted in the execution of what reason has deliberated: since art also would be hindered in its act, if it were to deliberate about what has to be done, while having to act.[3]

2) When does anger become sinful?

St. Thomas gives us guidelines here as well:

Anger, as stated above (a.1), is properly the name of a passion.  A passion of the sensitive appetite is good in so far as it is regulated by reason, whereas it is evil if it set the order of reason aside.  Now the order of reason, in regard to anger, may be considered in relation to two things.  First, in relation to the appetible [desirable] object to which anger tends, and that is revenge.  Wherefore if one desire revenge to be taken in accordance with the order of reason, the desire of anger is praiseworthy, and is called zealous anger [*Cf. Greg., Moral. v, 45].  On the other hand, if one desire the taking of vengeance in any way whatever contrary to the order of reason, for instance if he desire the punishment of one who has not deserved it, or beyond his deserts, or again contrary to the order prescribed by law, or not for the due end, namely the maintaining of justice and the correction of faults, then the desire of anger will be sinful, and this is called sinful anger.

Secondly, the order of reason in regard to anger may be considered in relation to the mode of being angry, namely that the movement of anger should not be immoderately fierce, neither internally nor externally; and if this condition be disregarded [namely, the proper degree of anger], anger will not lack sin, even though just vengeance be desired.[4]

3) When anger is sinful, how does it connect with additional sins, such as, hatred?

St. Thomas makes some very interesting and useful distinctions regarding the forms of anger when defending the names and descriptions that Aristotle used.  He cites the authority of St. Gregory of Nyssa, a father of the Church.

St. Gregory of Nyssa says there are three species of irascibility, namely, the anger which is called wrath, and ill-will which is a disease of the mind, and rancor.  Now these three seem to coincide with the three aforesaid [viz., the three-fold division used by Aristotle].  For wrath he describes as having beginning and movement, and the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 5) ascribes this to choleric persons: ill-will he describes as an anger that endures and grows old and this the Philosopher ascribes to sullenness; while he describes rancor as reckoning the time for vengeance, which tallies with the Philosopher’s description of the ill-tempered.  The same division is given by Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii, 16).  Therefore, the aforesaid division assigned by the Philosopher is not unfitting.[5]

St. Thomas continues his explanation as follows here:

The aforesaid distinction may be referred either to the passion, or to the sin itself of anger.  We have already stated when treating of the passions (I-II, Q. 46, A. 8) how it is to be applied to the passion of anger.  And it would seem that this is chiefly what Gregory of Nyssa and Damascene had in view.  Here, however, we have to take the distinction of these species in its application to the sin of anger, and as set down by the Philosopher.  For the inordinateness of anger may be considered in relation to two things.  First, in relation to the origin of anger, and this regards choleric persons, who are angry too quickly and for any slight cause.  Secondly, in relation to the duration of anger, for that anger endures too long; and this may happen in two ways.  In one way, because the cause of anger, to wit, the inflicted injury, remains too long in a man’s memory, the result being that it gives rise to a lasting displeasure, wherefore he is grievous and sullen to himself.  In another way, it happens on the part of vengeance, which a man seeks with a stubborn desire: this applies to ill-tempered or stern people, who do not put aside their anger until they have inflicted punishment.[6]

Then St. Thomas gives us additional information about the dangers that come with sullenness and being ill-tempered.

Both sullen and ill-tempered people have a long-lasting anger, but for different reasons.  For a sullen person has an abiding anger on account of an abiding displeasure, which he holds locked in his breast; and as he does not break forth into the outward signs of anger, others cannot reason him out of it, nor does he of his own accord lay aside his anger, unless his displeasure wear away with time and thus his anger cease.  On the other hand, the anger of ill-tempered persons is long-lasting on account of their intense desire for revenge, so that it does not wear out with time, and can be quelled only by revenge.[7]

An additional important aspect about anger is to see the connection between what St. Thomas has explained about holding anger inside and the situation in which the angry person becomes taciturn.  Let’s see St. Thomas’s explanation here:

On the part of the impediment to reason because, as stated above (A. 2), the disturbance of anger reaches to the outward members, and chiefly to those members which reflect more distinctly the emotions of the heart, such as the eyes, face and tongue; wherefore, as observed above (A. 2), the tongue stammers, the countenance takes fire, the eyes grow fierce.  Consequently, anger may cause such a disturbance, that the tongue is altogether deprived of speech; and taciturnity is the result. [8] 

St. Thomas quotes St. Gregory when referring to this taciturnity, “Gregory says (De Moral. v, 30) that when anger does not vent itself outwardly by the lips, inwardly it burns the more fiercely.”[9]

Now we can see how long-lasting and deep-seated anger has additional serious consequences.  For St. Thomas tells us that when anger lasts a long time, it engenders hatred.  Here are his words:

Anger is said to grow into hatred, not as though the same passion which at first was anger, afterwards becomes hatred by becoming inveterate; but by a process of causality.  For anger when it lasts a long time engenders hatred.[10]

Since St. Thomas teaches us that anger can turn into hatred, it would be an appropriate time to see what he teaches us about the seriousness of hatred.

St. Thomas investigates whether anger is graver than hatred.  He concludes that hatred is graver than anger.  He explains his conclusion as follows:

The species and nature of a passion are taken from its object.  However, the object of anger is the same in substance as the object of hatred; since, just as the hater wishes evil to him whom he hates, so does the angry man wish evil to him with whom he is angry.  But there is a difference of aspect: for the hater wishes evil to his enemy, as evil, whereas the angry man wishes evil to him with whom he is angry, not as evil but in so far as it has an aspect of good, that is, in so far as he reckons it as just, since it is a means of vengeance.   Wherefore also it has been said above (A. 2) that hatred implies application of evil to evil, whereas anger denotes application of good to evil.  However, it is evident that to seek evil under the aspect of justice, is a lesser evil, than simply to seek evil to someone.  Because to wish evil to someone under the aspect of justice, may be according to the virtue of justice, if it be in conformity with the order of reason; and anger fails only in this, that it does not obey the precept of reason in taking vengeance.  Consequently, it is evident that hatred is far worse and graver than anger.[11]

We add an additional explanation that St. Thomas gives regarding the differences between anger and hatred.  

In anger and hatred two points may be considered: namely, the thing desired, and the intensity of the desire.  As to the thing desired, anger has more mercy than hatred has.  For since hatred desires another’s evil for evil’s sake, it is satisfied with no particular measure of evil: because those things that are desired for their own sake, are desired without measure, as the Philosopher states (Politic Bk. 1; ch.9 #1257b26)[12], instancing a miser with regard to riches.  Hence it is written (Ecclus. 12:16): “An enemy . . . if he find an opportunity, will not be satisfied with blood.”  Anger, on the other hand, seeks evil only under the aspect of a just means of vengeance.  Consequently, when the evil inflicted goes beyond the measure of justice according to the estimate of the angry man, then he has mercy.  Wherefore, the Philosopher says (Rhetoric Bk.2; ch.4 #1382a8) that the angry man is appeased if many evils befall, whereas the hater is never appeased.[13]  As to the intensity of the desire, anger excludes mercy more than hatred does; because the movement of anger is more impetuous, through the heating of the bile.  Hence the passage quoted continues: “Who can bear the violence of one provoked?”[14]

We can see plainly from what St. Thomas has set forth and the striking quote from Aristotle’s Rhetoric (in the footnote before last), that sinful anger must be shunned with all one’s might. Not only does unreasonable anger lead to further sin, but it also is closely joined with pride.

A Preview…

We will look more into the connection of how pride fosters anger and other sins.  In our next lesson we will look into ways that a choleric can learn how to keep himself in check.  We will also look at ways in which he can curb his anger and refrain from holding grudges – which have direct links to hatred as we have shown above.


[1]           Here, St. Thomas is commenting on a quote from Aristotle: “The very mention of envy denotes something evil.”  These words are found here: Ethics, Bk.2, ch.6.

[2]           Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q.158, a.1, Respondeo.

[3]           Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q.158, a.1, ad. 2.

[4]           Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q.158, a.2 Respondeo, [bracketed words are added for clarification].

[5]           Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q.158, a.5, Sed Contra (bracketed words added for clarity).  The citation of St. Gregory of Nyssa is from Nemesius, De Nat. Hom. Xxi and the word ‘wrath’ in the citation above is rendered from the word ‘Fellea’, i.e., like gall.  But in Ia IIae, Q.46, a.8, St. Thomas quoting the same authority has ‘Cholos’ which the translators of St. Thomas rendered to be the word ‘wrath’.

[6]           Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q.158, a.5, Respondeo.

[7]           Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q.158 a.6 ad.2.

[8]           Summa Theologica, Ia Iiae, Q.48 a.4, Respondeo.

[9]           Summa Theologica, Ia Iiae, Q.48 a.4, Sed Contra.

[10]         Summa Theologica, Ia Iiae, Q.46 a.3, ad.2.

[11]         Summa Theologica, Ia IIae, Q. 46, a.6, Respondeo, [bold emphasis added].

 

[12]         Here are the words of Aristotle to which St. Thomas refers:

 

As in the art of medicine there is no limit to the pursuit of health, and as in the other arts there is no limit to the pursuit of their several ends, for they aim at accomplishing their ends to the uttermost (but of the means there is a limit, for the end is always the limit), so, too, in this art of wealth-getting there is no limit of the end, which is riches of the spurious kind, and the acquisition of wealth.

 

Aristotle’s Politics, Bk. 1; ch.3, #1257b26”.

 

[13]         The quote that St. Thomas refers to is from Aristotle and is quite striking:

 

Moreover, anger can be cured by time, but hatred cannot.  

 

Here are Aristotle’s fuller explanation from this same passage, to give a fuller context:

 

The one aims at giving pain to its object, the other at doing him harm; the angry man wants his victims to feel; the hater does not care whether they feel or not.  All painful things are felt; but the greatest evils, injustice and folly, are the least felt, since their presence causes no pain.  And anger is accompanied by pain, hatred is not; the angry man feels pain, but the hater does not.  Much may happen to make the angry man pity those who offend him, but the hater under no circumstances wishes to pity a man whom he has once hated: for the one would have the offenders suffer for what they have done; the other would have them cease to exist.

 

Aristotle’s Rhetoric Bk.2; ch.4 #1382a8.  Bold emphasis added to highlight the gravity of the sin of hatred.

 

[14]         Summa Theologica, Ia IIae, Q.46, a.6, ad.1.

The Catholic Church Will Always Have a Pope

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note: Sedevacantism is wrong and is (material or formal) schism.  Catholic Candle is not sedevacantist. 

Below is the sixth article in a series which covers specific aspects of the error of sedevacantism.  As context for this sixth article of this series against the error of sedevacantism, let us recall what we saw in the earlier five articles:

In the first article, we saw that we cannot know whether Pope Francis (or anyone else) is a formal heretic (rather than a material heretic only) – and thus whether he is outside the true Catholic Church – based simply on his persistent, public teaching of a heretical opinion.[1]

Then in the second article, we saw that we must not judge a man to be a formal heretic if he professes to be Catholic and says he believes what a Catholic must believe now, in order to be Catholic now.  When a person professes a heretical opinion, we must judge him in the most favorable light (if we judge him at all).  So, we must avoid the sin of rash judgment and we must not judge negatively the interior culpability of the pope and the 1.2 billion people who profess that they are Catholic.  We must not judge they are not “real” Catholics if they tell us that they are Catholics.[2]  Instead, we should count them as Catholics who are very confused.

Thus, we must judge Pope Francis to be a material heretic, not a formal heretic, and that he is the pope.  Regarding any of the world’s 1.2 billion self-described Catholics who hold heresy, we must judge them (if we judge them at all) to be material heretics only, unless they themselves tell us that they know they don’t qualify to be Catholics.[3]

In the third article, we examined briefly the important difference between persons in authority who fulfill their duty to judge those under their charge in the external forum, as contrasted to a sedevacantist or anyone else except God who judges the interior culpability of other persons and (rashly) judges them to be formal heretics.[4] 

In the fourth article, we saw that it does not help us to protect ourselves better from Pope Francis’ heresy by declaring that he is not the pope.[5]

In the fifth article, we saw that it is possible for a pope to teach (or believe) heresy and, in fact, popes have taught and believed heresy at various times during Church history.[6] 

Below, in the sixth article of this series, we see that the Church infallibly assures us that we will have a pope at all times until the end of the world, except very short interregnums between papal reigns, during which the Church is in the process of electing a new pope and during which the Church’s unified government continues to function.

The Catholic Church Will Always Have a Pope

Because the Post-Vatican II popes have regularly committed shocking scandals – especially Pope Francis – a Catholic might be tempted to conclude from mere feelings rather than from an informed mind, that there is no pope.  However, that reaction is an error.  The Catholic Church teaches that She will always have a pope, until the very end of the world:

Vatican I infallibly teaches us:

If anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say, by Divine Law) that Blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this primacy, let him be anathema.[7]

The great Doctor of the Church, Saint Francis de Sales, teaches the same thing:

St. Peter has had successors, has them in these days, and will have them even to the end of the ages.[8]

Pope Pius XII teaches us:

If ever one day … material Rome were to crumble, … even then the Church would not crumble or crack, Christ’s promise to Peter would always remain true, the Papacy, the one and indestructible Church founded on the Pope alive at the moment, would always endure.[9]


Conclusion

We know with complete certainty that the sedevacantists are wrong in their (objectively-heretical) assertion that the Catholic Church does not have a pope.

The Catholic Church is Not in an Interregnum

Sedevacantists generally hold that Pope Pius XII has had no successors during the last 67 years.  In an attempt to avoid the contradiction between Vatican I’s infallible teaching and their own (false) theory, the sedevacantists simply label the last 67[10] years as a “papal interregnum”.

But if a sedevacantist would examine his position objectively, he would see that the supposed “facts” he asserts would not constitute a real interregnum but rather would be in an interruption in papal (monarchical) succession.  The sedevacantists assert that there will be a pope in some future time.  But their theory (viz., no pope now, but there will be a future pope) really supposes there would be (what historians call) a restoration of the (papal) monarchy which had been interrupted.[11] 

The Difference between a Real Papal Interregnum and the Sedevacantists’ False Assertion of a Current Interregnum.

Throughout Church history, no pope was ever elected until the previous pope died (or abdicated).  Thus, there was always a short interregnum, during which the electors promptly began the process of choosing a new pope and they continued their task until a new pope was chosen.

Choosing a new pope has often taken only days.  But the sedevacantists try to liken the 67-year (supposed) papal interregnum which they assert, to the very extreme and unusual interregnum which ended in Pope Gregory X’s election in 1272.  This interregnum was 2¾ years and is the longest in Church history.[12]

The election of Pope Gregory X took 2¾ years because the Cardinal electors had a profound disagreement which caused those Cardinals to labor that long electing a new pope.  But they kept trying until they succeeded in electing a new pope.

This interregnum (before Pope Gregory X’s election) is very different from the supposed interregnum asserted by the sedevacantists, for five reasons:

1.    The sedevacantists assert an interregnum which is over 24 times longer than the Church’s longest interregnum (ending in the election of Pope Gregory X).

2.    Taking into account the speed of communication of particular times throughout history, never in Church history did virtually every Catholic think that a pope reigned when the papal throne was vacant.  By contrast, the tiny sedevacantist “elite” thinks that the Chair of St. Peter is vacant and only this “elite” “knows” it. 

3.    In the case of every anti-pope in history, it has never happened that virtually every Catholic throughout the world has been deceived into believing that an anti-pope was the true pope.  In fact, it would be impossible for this to happen as will be shown in a future article.  But the tiny sedevacantist “elite” wrongly thinks this has occurred today and that only their tiny “elite” “knows” the truth.

4.    In every interregnum beginning with St. Peter’s death, the papal electors promptly set about the task of choosing a new pope.  Even in the most extreme case of laboring 2¾ years to choose a new pope, the electors began promptly and did not stop trying until they succeeded. 

By contrast, the sedevacantists assert there has been no attempt to even begin electing a new pope during this 67-year (supposed) interregnum, because the sedevacantists assert that no Cardinal electors remain to elect a new pope because they are all disqualified by (supposedly) ceasing to be members of the Catholic Church.

5.    During papal interregnums, the Church’s Unified Government continues operating without interruption.  But that is not true under the sedevacantist interregnum theory, which results in a concrete denial of Catholic teaching that Unity of Government is an element of the Church’s Mark of Unity.  See the discussion below.


A Quick Reminder of Basic Catechism Concerning the Four Marks of the Catholic Church.

Before we look more deeply into the impossibility of the sedevacantists’ false theory that we are in a long papal interregnum, let us remember a little basic catechism concerning the Four Marks of the Church.

The Four Marks of the Church are One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.[13]  These four marks are only contained in the Catholic Church and are the way to always discern the True Church founded by Jesus Christ.[14]

1.    The Church is One because its members 1) are all united under one government, 2) all profess the same faith, 3) all join in a common worship.[15]

 

2.    To show that the Church possesses the note of holiness it suffices to establish that her teaching is holy: that she is endowed with the means of producing supernatural holiness in her children.[16]

3.    The third mark of the Church is that she is Catholic, that is, universal.[17]

 

4.   Apostolicity is the mark by which the Church of today is recognized as identical with the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles.[18] 

The Sedevacantist Interregnum Theory Contradicts Catholic Teaching that the Church’s Unity of Government is Part of the Church’s Mark of Unity.

It is a basic truth of the catechism that the Catholic Church has a unified, monarchic government.[19]  This unity of government makes the Church one throughout the world.[20]  This central government is an element of the Church’s Mark of Unity.[21]

One large Catholic Dictionary explained the need for the Church’s unity of government by setting forth the contrast to the disunited German States of the early 19th Century, which were united under a common language, beliefs, and practices, but were not one country:

The Catholic Roman Church … is one because all her members are united under one visible head ….  Some years ago, a great deal was said about the unity of Germany, which was eagerly desired by many.  Germans had many points in common: they all spoke the same language; the same blood flowed in their veins; they were proud of the same literature; they were bound together by many ennobling recollections, and, in some measure, by common aspirations.  But the German States were not one because they were not under one government.[22]

For the Catholic Church to lose Her unity of government, even temporarily, would be to lose an element of the Mark of Unity, at least temporarily.  Id.  If there were times when the Church did not have this element of the Mark of Unity, then this element would never be part of the Mark, because the Marks of the Church are inseparable from the Church and are signs by which we can always discern the true Church.[23] 

Just as the Church is always unified in Faith, She is always unified in Government.  Thus, when a pope dies, if the Church’s central Government ceased to function, the Church’s unity of government would also cease.  That does not happen. 

Even during papal interregnums, the Church’s central government continues to function, although under somewhat different rules.   Important Pontifical matters which are not urgent are deferred until the election of the new pope.[24]  Urgent Pontifical matters are handled by majority decisions of the cardinals.[25]  Sacred Congregations continue to handle routine matters.[26]  We could list many more details about the continued functioning of the Church’s central Government during a true interregnum.[27]  But in summary, the Church’s central Government always continues functioning and the Church maintains Her Mark of Unity in Her Government even during a papal interregnum.

Above, we use as an example, Pope St. Pius X’s 1904 revision of the rules for the operation of the Church’s central Government during a papal interregnum.  But this revision is only one of the various versions of the rules over the centuries.  The rules have also been tweaked by Pope Pius IV, Pope Gregory XV, Pope Clement XII and other popes.  But regardless of the details, the Church’s central Government always continues to function even during an interregnum (although, as said above, under somewhat different rules than when a pope is alive).

Because sedevacantists (falsely) assert that not only the pope but everyone else in the Church’s government (Cardinals, Chamberlains, etc.) is outside the Catholic Church, the sedevacantists’ interregnum theory results in the (supposed) destruction of the unity and the continuity of the Church’s central government for 67 years now.  This results in a concrete denial of Catholic teaching that unity of government is an element of the Church’s Mark of Unity, since the Church’s Marks are never lost, even temporarily.

Conclusion of This Examination of the Sedevacantists Assertion that the Church is in an Interregnum

The past 67 years are much different than a papal interregnum.  The sedevacantist theory contradicts the consistent Catholic teaching concerning the unity and continuity of the Church’s government, which is an element of Her Mark of Unity.

The truth is that the Catholic Church will always have unity and continuity in Her central government even during a papal interregnum, but this does not mean that She will always be governed well.

So, we know that we must have a pope because St. Peter will have “perpetual successors”; he “has them in these days”; and there is a pope who is “alive at the moment”.[28]


[6]               Read this article here:  It is Possible for a Pope to Teach Heresy and Remain the Pope?: https://catholiccandle.org/2025/01/27/it-is-possible-for-a-pope-to-teach-heresy-and-remain-the-pope/

 

[7]           Vatican I, Session 4, Ch. 2 (bold emphasis and parenthetical words are in the original, italic emphasis added).


[8]           Catholic Controversy, by Saint Francis de Sales, part 2, art. 6, Ch. 9.


[9]           January 30, 1949, Address to the Students of Rome, Quoted from The Pope Speaks, Pope Pius XII, Pantheon Books, New York, 1957 (emphasis added), p.215.

[10]         It is common for sedevacantists to falsely assert that Pope Pius XII was the last “real” pope.  However, we have seen some sedevacantists asserting that the (supposed) vacancy in the Apostolic See goes back to an even earlier date. 

On the other hand, some sedevacantists seem to take the position that Pope Francis is the first pope who is bad enough for them to declare that he is not a “real” pope.  These sedevacantists are very poorly informed about the countless doctrinal horrors and great scandals of Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II.  For example, Pope John Paul II called Christ the “guarantee of universal salvation”.  http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2002/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20021003_ss-salvatore-s-brigida_en.html

Pope John Paul II also kissed the Koran; arranged and sponsored multiple international gatherings of false and pagan cults at Assisi, Italy; took part in many pagan rituals including burning incense to pagan gods and receiving the ritual mark of the pagan goddess Shiva, from a “priestess”.  The vile and dreadful words and deeds of Pope Francis’ conciliar predecessors is beyond the scope of this article.

 

But, whatever the number of conciliar popes that the sedevacantists take upon themselves to declare to not be “real”, the sedevacantists are still wrong.  Whether they claim that there is an interregnum of 67 years (as most sedevacantists do) or “only” 12 years (viz., if they decide to declare only Pope Francis to be not a pope), the reasons given in this article still show that the sedevacantists are rash and wrong.

[11]         See the history of monarchy in various countries, e.g., England and France, where historians describe the monarchy (which had been cut off) as having been “restored”.  One example of this description of a monarchy interrupted by revolution and then later restored, is the Bourbon Restoration in France after the French Revolution and the Napoleonic years.  Here is how one historian described this restoration of a king in the Bourbon line:

           

The Bourbon Restoration was the period of French history following the first fall of Napoleon in 1814 and his final defeat in the Hundred Days in 1815, until the July Revolution of 1830.  The brothers of the executed Louis XVI came to power and reigned in highly conservative fashion.  Exiled supporters of the monarchy returned to France.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourbon_Restoration

 

[12]         The Primacy of the Apostolic See Vindicated, Bishop Francis Kenrick, 3rd ed., Dunigan & Bro., New York, 1848, p.288.

[13]         The Catechism of St. Pius X, Ninth Article of the Creed, teaches:

13 Q. How can the Church of Jesus Christ be distinguished from the numerous societies or sects founded by men, and calling themselves Christian?
  
A. From the numerous societies or sects founded by men and calling themselves Christian, the Church of Jesus Christ is easily distinguished by four marks: She is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

[14]         The Catechism of St. Pius X, Ninth Article of the Creed, teaches:

13 Q. How can the Church of Jesus Christ be distinguished from the numerous societies or sects founded by men, and calling themselves Christian?
  
A. From the numerous societies or sects founded by men and calling themselves Christian, the Church of Jesus Christ is easily distinguished by four marks: She is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

&

20 Q. And why is the true Church called Roman?

A. The true Church is called Roman, because the four marks of Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity and Apostolicity are found in that Church alone which acknowledges as Head the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter.

[15]         1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, section 12, article: Church.

[16]         1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, section 12, article: Holy.

[17]         1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, section 12, article: Catholic.

[18]         1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, section 12, article: Apostolicity.

[19]         See, e.g., St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica Suppl., Q.26, a.3, Respondeo.


[20]         Summa Supp., Q.40, a.6, Respondeo.  


[21]         See Council of Trent Catechism, article: Marks of the Church, section: Unity, subsection: Unity in Government.

[22]         Catholic Dictionary, Addis & Arnold, Catholic Publication Society, 3rd ed., New York, 1884, article: Church of Christ, page 174.

 

[23]         1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, article: Unity (as a Mark of the Church); See also, Catechism of St. Pius X, section: Ninth Article of the Creed, Q.13.


[24]         This rule is set out, e.g., in St. Pius X’s Constitution Vacante Apostolica Sede, December 25, 1904, title 1, Ch.1, §1.


[25]         See, e.g., St. Pius X’s Constitution Vacante Apostolica Sede, December 25, 1904, title 1, Ch. 1, §5.

[26]         St. Pius X’s Constitution Vacante Apostolica Sede, December 25, 1904, title 1, Ch.4.

 

[27]         See, e.g., St. Pius X’s Constitution Vacante Apostolica Sede, December 25, 1904, title 1, Ch.3, §12, regarding the continued functioning of the offices of Camerlengo and the Grand Penitentiary.


[28]         Words of Pope Pius XII from the January 30, 1949, Address to the Students of Rome, Quoted from The Pope Speaks, Pantheon Books, New York, 1957 (emphasis added), p.215.

Nobody’s Favorite Topic: Purgatory

Posted on by Catholic Candle

I happened to come across a little booklet that has changed my life.  And (hopefully) changed my (future) death.  It is called READ ME OR RUE IT by Fr. Paul O’Sullivan, and was originally published by this good Dominican in 1936.

It is entirely possible that you have it in your “stash” of leaflets, books, and pamphlets which you always think you’ll get to when you have more time.  Just as I did.  But I never quite made the time.  Until recently.  Now I can’t imagine what a close call I had to missing out on the value of this unassuming little booklet.

Fr. O’Sullivan begins by saying that some books are worth reading, but others should be read without fail.  This booklet is one of the latter.  

We have always been taught to “Pray for the Poor Souls.”  The good nuns (in the ‘50s) impressed on us how important that was.  And …is. We always understood it was a good thing to do so, and that by helping them we might also lessen our own time in Purgatory.

But as the years passed, our prayers for the Poor Souls might, sadly, have metamorphosed into a mechanical 16 words:

May the souls of the faithful departed through the mercy of God rest in peace, Amen.

Or if we were feeling a little generous, we may have begun it more properly:

Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord, and let the perpetual light shine upon them.  …  May the souls of the faithful departed through the mercy of God, rest in peace, Amen.

It is humbling to acknowledge the hundreds of thousands of times I have said those little prayers while driving or peeling potatoes or mopping floors these many years, but I failed to go that one step farther to always think of the words I was saying. It’s true that the Poor Souls in Purgatory gained some benefit from them, but oh, how much more efficacious might they have been!

Most of us probably think: Of course, I know what Purgatory is.  We’d probably start by saying that it’s a place we don’t want to go, and yet we’d reluctantly agree that it’s infinitely better to go to Purgatory rather than be consigned to the fires of Hell for all eternity.

And if we think more on it, we’d be forced to acknowledge that nearly all souls who are saved are plunged after death into the prison of fire in which they suffer the most intense pain.  So grievous is their suffering that one minute in this awful fire will seem like a century.[1]

St. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest Doctor of the Church, describes the fires of Purgatory as … “being equal in intensity to the fire of Hell, and that the slightest contact with it is more dreadful than all the possible sufferings of this Earth.”[2]

St. Augustine, another of the great Holy Doctors, “teaches that to be purified of their faults previous to being admitted to Heaven, souls after death are subjected to a fire more penetrating, more dreadful than anything we can see, or feel, or conceive in this life.”[3]

St. Cyril of Alexandria does not hesitate to say that “it would be preferable to suffer all the possible torments of Earth until the Judgment day than to pass one day in Purgatory.”[4]

These are pretty frightening warnings.  Were it not for the fact that the existence of Purgatory is an article of the Catholic Faith,[5] many would prefer to believe that the matter is overstated and that God couldn’t possibly wish such pain and suffering on us – thus showing how shallow and vague is the understanding of the value of Purgatory. 

But Purgatory exists to satisfy the Justice of God.  The intensity of the pain, anguish, suffering, and agony of Purgatory correlates with the magnitude of the injustice done to Our Lord.  It is impossible to exaggerate the evil of sin![6]  Consider that if a soul is condemned to Hell for all eternity because of a single unforgiven mortal sin, it is not difficult to understand that a person who has committed many deliberate venial sins (and/or mortal sins which have been forgiven) in his life may have to spend long years in Purgatory to atone for them.  Even if the guilt from them has been remitted through absolution, the debt (pain) due to them remains to be paid in Purgatory.

Our Lord tells us that we shall have to render an account for each and every idle word we say, and that we may not leave our “prison” until we shall have paid the last farthing.  St. Matthew’s Gospel, 5:26.

And if that isn’t enough to worry you (or more helpfully, to give you a wake-up call), think of all the uncharitable thoughts, words, and deeds, laziness, vanity, pride, etc., that you casually commit, but one day will have to pay to that “last farthing.”

The temporal punishment of every one of those sins, venial or (forgiven) mortal, is piling up over our span of life—whether 20, 30, 50 or 90 years– and must be atoned for after death.

While it is worthwhile to focus on the pain of Purgatory, the truth is that this is not the worst of it, unbelievable as it seems!  Though the fire is unimaginably severe, the pain of loss or separation from God will totally eclipse the physical pain, As Fr. O’Sullivan puts it: “The soul is consumed with an intense desire to fly to God, yet it is held back, and no words can describe the anguish of this unsatisfied craving.”[7]

Petty-minded as many of us are, we find ourselves wondering how long we will have to spend in Purgatory.  (We make the treacherous assumption that we will avoid Hell.)  Various saints have written about this, and it seems that the only thing we can expect is that it will be very much longer than is generally believed!  This is not a great comfort, but probably of considerable value to us if it renews our determination to avoid sin, and also to ratchet up our prayers for the Poor Souls.

The actual duration of time to be spent in Purgatory is unknowable. Reason tells us that it depends on the number and seriousness of our sins and the intention and malevolence with which we offended Our Lord.  All kinds of factors will have a bearing on the length of our suffering, including how much penance we did or did not do in this life.  Also, how much we gain by being included in the prayers and good works offered for “the Poor Souls in Purgatory.” (If we are faithful in praying for them, we will surely benefit from their gratitude and help.)

As you surely recall, the Holy Souls cannot pray for themselves.  They can offer up their own pain and sufferings for their loved ones on earth, and for those who pray for them, but they do not benefit from this directly.  Divine Justice demands expiation of their sins.

However, in His great mercy, Our Lord wants them to be in Heaven with Him, and thus, places in our hands the means of helping them!  Prayers offered for them, especially the Rosary, will aid them in securing relief or even release from their fiery confinement.

(Masses, to be sure, would provide great succor if and when there is a valid and uncompromising priest available.  But Our Lord, in His perfect wisdom, has seen fit to close off this avenue of aid at this time, in most places, perhaps allowing us to redouble our prayers, including those wondrously effective little ejaculations that we can say so frequently, applying the Indulgence to the Souls in Purgatory.)

On the subject of ejaculations, Fr. O’Sullivan had some pithy things to say:

Many people have the custom of saying 500 or 1,000 times each little ejaculation, “Sacred Heart of Jesus, I place my trust in Thee!” or the one word, “Jesus.” These are most consoling devotions; they bring oceans of grace to those who practice them and give immense relief to the Holy Souls.

Those who say the ejaculations 1,000 times a day gain 300,000 days’ Indulgence!  What a multitude of souls they can thus relieve! What will it not be at the end of a month, a year, 50 years?  And if they do not say the ejaculations, what an immense number of graces and favors they shall have lost! It is quite possible – and even easy – to say these ejaculations 1,000 times a day. But if one does not say them 1,000 times, let him say them 500 or 200 times.”[8]

Lest you think that helping the Poor Souls is a “one-way street,” keep in mind that they may be of crucial importance in helping you avoid a lengthier or more severe stay in Purgatory.

A reminder: although they cannot help themselves, the Holy Souls can procure great graces for those who help them. It is said that they repay us a thousand times for whatever we do for them!


Praying for the Holy Souls is a Duty, Not an Option.

Hopefully we are coming to the realization of how important it is for us to pray for the Poor Souls in Purgatory.  However, the truth is that we are not free to decide whether or not we want to make the time to do so.  Rather, it is our duty to take the time.   

Just as it is a sin to refuse to give a starving person food necessary to keep him alive, or to come to the aid of a drowning person, or to care for the sick, or alleviate the suffering of an accident victim, so, too, we have an obligation to pray for the Holy Souls in Purgatory.

As Fr. O’Sullivan says, “There is no hunger, no thirst, no poverty, no need, no pain, no suffering to compare with what the Souls in Purgatory endure, so there is no alms more deserving, none more pleasing to God, none more meritorious to us than the alms, the prayers, the Masses we give to the Holy Souls.”

Though there are many organizations willing to help various people fight against injustice, diseases, and a great number of other causes, there are very few whose sole aim is to help the Poor Souls.  It is hard to understand why otherwise-pious Catholics can so foolishly neglect them.  Rather short-sighted of us, isn’t it?  How can we not realize that we may desperately need prayers someday, becoming one of the Poor Souls ourselves?

It is easy to forget the absent Souls in “far-off” Purgatory.  And in a great mercy from Our Lord, He even makes it abundantly beneficial for us to help them, or help our own family or friends who may be enduring untold suffering right now and beseeching us not to forget them.

We know that but we must not forget: they can and do help us earth-bound sinners.  We will have their everlasting gratitude, and they will repay us a thousand times over, even shortening or lessening the severity of our Purgatory.

The big “take-away” from this article, then, must be to remind you of your obligation to pray for the Poor Souls in Purgatory. Yes, it is not only your obligation, but also you should realize it is even in your best interests to do so.

Below is a very fine prayer for the Holy Souls.  Many of you undoubtedly say it regularly, but for any others, it may suffice as a good reminder.


Prayer for Mercy for the Holy Souls in Purgatory

Have Mercy, O gentle Jesus! on the souls detained in Purgatory.  Thou Who for their ransom didst take upon Thyself our human nature and suffer the most cruel death, pity their sighs and the tears shed when they raise their longing eyes toward Thee, and by virtue of Thy passion, cancel the penalty due to their sins.  May Thy Blood, O tender Jesus, Thy Precious Blood, descend into Purgatory to solace and refresh those who there languish in captivity.  Reach forth Thy hand to them, and lead them into the realms of refreshment, light, and peace.  Amen.[9]
 

Plenary Indulgences for the Poor Souls

Six general rules for obtaining a PLENARY INDULGENCE:

1. State of Grace at least when performing the indulgenced act;

2. Complete detachment from sin, even venial sin;

3. Confession (concerning this condition during our time of great apostasy, read this article: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/06/23/to-reach-heaven-should-be-our-lifes-main-work/ )

4. Communion (concerning this condition during our time of great apostasy, read this article: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/06/23/to-reach-heaven-should-be-our-lifes-main-work/ )

5. Prayers for the Pope (concerning this condition during our time of great apostasy, read this article: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/06/23/to-reach-heaven-should-be-our-lifes-main-work/ )

6. Indulgenced act: a special good work with special conditions of place and time

Special indulgenced acts to be performed for obtaining a Plenary Indulgence for the poor souls:

†      From November 1-8: Visit to a cemetery, with mental prayer for the Poor Souls, and prayers for the traditional intentions of the pope)
 

†      On November 2: Visit to a church, praying one Our Father and one Apostles Creed plus prayers for the traditional intentions of the pope.  Most faithful and informed Catholics should perform the cemetery visit on this day instead of this visit to a church because these Catholics do not have access to a church or chapel which is not a place of compromise.  We should never make such a visit to a conciliar or compromising church — such as a church of the SSPX, the sedevacantists, or the Bishop Williamson Group).  For more information about the reasons for this, principle, read this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-praying-conciliar-churches.html.

A PARTIAL INDULGENCE can be obtained any time by visiting a cemetery and praying for the Holy Souls.


[1]           Read Me or Rue It, by Fr. Paul O’Sullivan, O.P„ (E.D.F.), Tan Books and Publishers,

Rockford, IL, 1992, Ch.1, p.1.

[2]           Read Me or Rue It, by Fr. Paul O’Sullivan, O.P„ (E.D.F.), Tan Books and Publishers,

Rockford, IL, 1992, Ch.1, p.1.

[3]           Read Me or Rue It, by Fr. Paul O’Sullivan, O.P„ (E.D.F.), Tan Books and Publishers,

Rockford, IL, 1992, Ch.1, p.1.

 

[4]           Read Me or Rue It, by Fr. Paul O’Sullivan, O.P„ (E.D.F.), Tan Books and Publishers,

Rockford, IL, 1992, Ch.1, p.2.

[5]           The existence of Purgatory is a doctrine which every Catholic must believe in order to remain a Catholic and to be saved.

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

 

[7]           Read Me or Rue It, by Fr. Paul O’Sullivan, O.P„ (E.D.F.), Tan Books and Publishers,

Rockford, IL, 1992, Ch.1, p.3.

[8]           Read Me or Rue It, by Fr. Paul O’Sullivan, O.P„ (E.D.F.), Tan Books and Publishers,

Rockford, IL, 1992, Ch.5, p.25.

[9]           Quoted from Holy Hour of Reparation, published by Soul Assurance Prayer Plan, Chicago, IL, ©1945, p.27.

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Words to Live by – from Catholic Tradition

 

Let Us Fight Darkness of Mind by Fighting Self-Indulgence!

 

Nothing so darkens the mind as being made soft by earthly things.

 

St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church, quoting St. John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church, in The Catena Aurea on St. John’s Gospel, on Ch. 1, v.10.

 

 

Lesson #41: Temperaments – Choleric Temperament – a Choleric’s Spiritual Combat – Part VI

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Philosophy Notes

Catholic Candle note: The article immediately below is part six of the study of the Choleric temperament.  The first five parts can be found here:

1.    Mary’s School of Sanctity – Lesson #36:  About the Temperaments – Beginning our Study of the Choleric Temperament: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/08/27/lesson-35-about-the-temperaments-the-choleric-temperament/

2.    Mary’s School of Sanctity – Lesson #37: About the Temperaments – Continuing Our Study of the Choleric Temperament: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/09/26/lesson-37-about-the-temperaments-continuation-of-the-choleric-temperament/

3.    Mary’s School of Sanctity – Lesson #38 — About the Temperaments – Continuing our Study of the Choleric Temperament – Their Spiritual Combat: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/10/24/lesson-38-temperaments-choleric-temperament-their-spiritual-combat/

4.    Mary’s School of Sanctity – Lesson #39 About the Temperaments – Continuing Our Study of the Choleric Temperament – That Temperament’s Spiritual Combat – Part IV: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/11/26/lesson-39-temperaments-choleric-temperament-their-spiritual-combat-part-iv/

 

5.    Mary’s School of Sanctity – Lesson #40: Temperaments – Choleric Temperament – Their Spiritual Combat – Part V: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/12/30/lesson-40-temperaments-choleric-temperament-their-spiritual-combat-part-v/

 

Mary’s School of Sanctity

Lesson #41 – About the Temperaments – Continuing Our Study of the Choleric Temperament: a Choleric’s Spiritual Combat — Part VI

Note: When referring to a person with a choleric temperament in this article we simply will refer to him as a choleric.

As we continue our study of the choleric temperament, we examine some aspects of anger more closely because anger is one of the most prominent features of the choleric temperament (and unreasonable anger is one of its greatest dangers).

In this present lesson, we will look more at what anger does to the body and the role that reason plays in anger.  This present examination of anger focuses on signs which a person can use to detect anger in himself.  We will see the importance of using these signs when we see (in a future article) what a great danger excess anger can be for a choleric.

What Does Anger Do to the Body?

St. Thomas explains that there is a bodily transmutation that occurs in the passions of the soul.  This transmutation is in proportion to the movement of appetite, that is, the desire.  He says that every appetite tends with greater force to repel that which is contrary to it.  Here is how he explains this concept with regards to the passion of anger:

Since the appetitive movement of anger is caused by some injury inflicted, as by a contrary that is present; it follows that the appetite tends with great force to repel the injury by the desire of vengeance; and hence ensures great vehemence and impetuosity in the movement of anger.   And because the movement of anger is not one of recoil, which corresponds to the action of cold, but one of prosecution, which corresponds to the action of heat, the result is that the movement of anger produces fervor of the blood and vital spirits around the heart, which is the instrument of the soul’s passions.  And hence it is that, on account of the heart being so disturbed by anger, those chiefly who are angry betray signs of it in their outer members.  For, as St. Gregory says [ De Moralis volume 30] the heart that is inflamed with the stings of its own anger beats quick, the body trembles, the tongue stammers, the countenance takes fire, the eyes grow fierce, they that are well-known are not recognized.  With the mouth indeed he shapes a sound, but the understanding knows not what it says.[1] 


How is reason involved with the passion of anger?

There are two aspects of the relationship of reason and anger that we will address at this time: 1) How anger requires an act of reason, and 2) how the heat of anger counteracts the proper use of the reason.

1) How anger requires an act of reason

In our last Lesson (#40), we discussed St. Thomas’s statement: “Anger is the desire to hurt another for the purpose of just vengeance.”  This just vengeance is as a repayment for an injury done.  There are a variety of types of injuries which we pointed out also in Lesson #40.  Reason is used in determining that an injury was done and what is proper to do about the injury.

St. Thomas explains for us how reason is involved in the passion of anger.  First, St.  Thomas quotes Aristotle saying, “Anger listens to reason somewhat,”[2] and afterward tells us the following:

Anger is a desire for vengeance.  However, vengeance implies a comparison between the punishment to be inflicted and the hurt done; wherefore the Philosopher says in Ethics Bk. 7 ch.6 #1149b1, that anger, as if it had drawn the inference that it ought to quarrel with such a person, is therefore immediately exasperated. However, to compare and to draw an inference is an act of reason.  Therefore, anger, in a fashion, requires an act of reason.[3]

Even though the passions are connected to our bodies in what is called the sensitive appetite or desire, St. Thomas makes it clear that our reason is certainly also involved in what we do with our passions, including anger.  He explains in these words:

The movement of the appetitive power may follow an act of reason in two ways.  In the first way, it follows the reason in so far as the reason commands: and thus the will follows reason, wherefore it is called the rational appetite.  In another way, it follows reason in so far as the reason denounces, and thus anger follows reason.  For the Philosopher says (De Problematibus section 28; probl. 3) that anger follows reason, not in obedience to reason’s command, but as a result of reason’s denouncing the injury.  Because the sensitive appetite is subject to the reason, not immediately but through the will.

We must keep in mind another aspect of anger, and that is, the second point given just above.

2) How the heat of anger counteracts the proper use of the reason.

St. Thomas relates what St. Gregory says in his De Moralis that anger “withdraws the light of understanding, since it [anger] confounds the mind by stirring it [the mind] thoroughly”.[4]

St. Thomas delves into the topic further as follows:

Although the mind or reason makes no use of a bodily organ in its proper act, yet, since it needs certain sensitive powers for the execution of its act, the acts of which powers are hindered when the body is disturbed, it follows of necessity that any disturbance in the body hinders even the judgment of reason; as is clear in the case of drunkenness or sleep. However, it has been stated (A. 2) that anger, above all, causes a bodily disturbance in the region of the heart, so much as to effect even the outward members. Consequently, of all the passions, anger is the most manifest obstacle to the judgment of reason, according to Ps. 30:10: “My eye is troubled with wrath.”[5]

St. Thomas adds:

“The beginning of anger is in the reason, as regards the appetitive movement, which is the formal element of anger.  But the passion of anger forestalls the perfect judgment of reason, as though it listened but imperfectly to reason, on account of the commotion of the heat urging to instant action, which commotion is the material element of anger.  In this respect it hinders the judgment of reason.[6]

St. Thomas gives us an additional explanation about reason being hindered by anger.  He begins by quoting St. Gregory as saying, “when anger does not vent itself outwardly by the lips, inwardly it burns the more fiercely.”[7]

Then St. Thomas continues as follows:

As stated above (A. 3; Q. 46, A. 4), anger both follows an act of reason, and hinders the reason: and in both respects it may cause taciturnity [that is, being uncommunicative by speech].  On the part of the reason, when the judgment of reason prevails so far, that although it does not curb the appetite in its inordinate desire for vengeance, yet it curbs the tongue from unbridled speech. Wherefore Gregory says (Moral. v, 30): Sometimes when the mind is disturbed, anger, as if in judgment, commands silence.  On the part of the impediment to reason because, as stated above (A. 2), the disturbance of anger reaches to the outward members, and chiefly to those members which reflect more distinctly the emotions of the heart, such as the eyes, face, and tongue; wherefore, as observed above (A. 2), the tongue stammers, the countenance takes fire, the eyes grow fierce.  Consequently, anger may cause such a disturbance, that the tongue is altogether deprived of speech; and taciturnity is the result.[8]

This is an ideal time to turn our attention to our next points of investigation.    In our next lesson we will look at the dangers that may occur if one does not watch his anger closely and/or does not confirm if his anger is just.


[1]           This quote is taken from St. Thomas’s question, “Whether Anger above All Causes Fervor in the Heart?”  Found in the  Summa Theologica  Ia IIae Q. 48 a.2 Respondeo

    

It is interesting to note a distinction that St. Thomas makes regarding fervor.  He says that the passion of love, which is the beginning and cause of all passions, itself, causes a heat of fervor.  Anger, too, causes a heat; however, the fervor caused by love differs from that of anger.   Furthermore, anger increases the fervor of love and makes it [love] to be felt more in the case where a person senses that what he loves is done an injury.  Here is St. Thomas’s explanation of the differences in fervor:

 

The fervor of love has a certain sweetness and gentleness; for it tends to the good that one loves, whence it is likened to the warmth of the air and of the blood.  For this reason, sanguine temperaments are more inclined to love; and hence the saying that love springs from the liver, because of the blood being formed there.  On the other hand, the fervor of anger has a certain bitterness with a tendency to destroy, for anger seeks to be avenged on the contrary evil: whence it [anger] is likened to the heat of fire and of the bile, and for this reason Damascene says in De Fide Orthodox that it [anger] ‘results from an exhalation of the bile whence it takes its name chole.’ (Taken from the Summa Theologica, Ia IIae, Q.48 a.2 ad.1.

 

[2]           Aristotle’s Ethics Bk.7; ch.6, #1149b1.

 

[3]           Summa Theologica, Ia IIae, Q.46, a.4, Respondeo.

 

[4]           Summa Theologica, Ia IIae, Q.48 a.3, Sed Contra.

[5]           Summa Theologica, Ia IIae, Q.48, a.3, Respondeo.

 

[6]           Summa Theologica, Ia Iiae, Q.48, a.3, ad.1.

 

[7]           Summa Theologica, Ia IIae, Q.48, a.4, Sed Contra quote is from Pope St. Gregory the Great’s De Moralis, vol. 30.

[8]           Summa Theologica. Ia IIae. Q.48. a.4. Respondeo (bracketed words added for clarity).

It is Possible for a Pope to Teach Heresy and Remain the Pope?

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note: Sedevacantism is wrong and is (material or formal) schism.  Catholic Candle is not sedevacantist. 

Below is the fifth article in a series which covers specific aspects of the error of sedevacantism.  As context for this fifth article of this series against the error of sedevacantism, let us recall what we saw in the earlier four articles:

In the first article, we saw that we cannot know whether Pope Francis (or anyone else) is a formal heretic (rather than a material heretic only) – and thus whether he is outside the true Catholic Church – based simply on his persistent, public teaching of a heretical opinion.[1]

Then in the second article, we saw that we must not judge a man to be a formal heretic if he professes to be Catholic and says he believes what a Catholic must believe now, in order to be Catholic now.  When a person professes a heretical opinion, we must judge him in the most favorable light (if we judge him at all).  So, we must avoid rash judgment and we must not judge negatively the interior culpability of the pope and the 1.2 billion people who profess that they are Catholic.  We must not judge they are not “real” Catholics if they tell us that they are Catholics.[2]

Thus, we must judge Pope Francis to be a material heretic, not a formal heretic, and that he is the pope.  Regarding any of the world’s 1.2 billion self-described Catholics who hold heresy, we must judge them (if we judge them at all) to be material heretics only, unless they themselves tell us that they know they don’t qualify to be Catholics.[3]

In the third article, we examined briefly the important difference between persons in authority who fulfill their duty to judge those under their charge in the external forum, as compared to a sedevacantist or anyone else except God who judges the interior culpability of other persons and (rashly) judges them to be formal heretics.[4]

In the fourth article, we saw that it does not help us to protect ourselves better from Pope Francis’ heresy by declaring that he is not the pope.[5]

Below, in this fifth part of this series of articles against the error of sedevacantism, we examine whether it is possible for a pope to teach (or believe) heresy. 

Further Catholic Candle note explaining the origin of this part:

The following is a letter from a reader who was disturbed by a recent sedevacantist article (published elsewhere on the internet) that he read carefully.  This reader wrote Catholic Candle to express his concern and to send Catholic Candle a copy of the disturbing article.  He wrote seeking advice and help discerning the truth regarding that sedevacantist author’s claims.

It is Possible for a Pope to Teach Heresy and Remain the Pope?

The Following is an Extended Email From a Reader (almost two pages):

Dear Catholic Candle: Help, please. 

Recently, I read an article in which a sedevacantist author claimed that a pope “cannot teach error”.  Is that true? 

Note: for purposes of the rest of my email (below) to Catholic Candle, I will assume that this sedevacantist’s assertion means that the pope cannot teach heresy, as opposed to not being able to teach other errors about other matters, because I think the former is what the sedevacantist intended to say.

Let me add this:  This sedevacantist author gave many quotes from authorities which he claimed to state that no pope can ever teach error (heresy).  I have not checked the accuracy of any of those quotes.

First of all, I want to say that I view many of the sedevacantist’s quotes as not clearly supporting his position. 

1.    There were some quotes which did not seem to support this sedevacantist’s assertion at all, because they talked about the Church not failing in the Faith.

For example, he quoted a statement (which he attributed to Pope Saint Lucius I) saying that the Faith of the Roman Apostolic Church will not fail. 

I think that it is plainly true that the Roman Catholic Church will not fail and that the Church will always have the Faith – otherwise the Church and the Faith would cease upon the earth.  So, those quotes don’t support to his assertion that an individual pope could never teach heresy.

2.    Then there were other quotes that this sedevacantist gave which were much too vague to really support his assertion that no pope could ever teach heresy.

 

For example, this sedevacantist gave a quote (which he attributed to Pope Damasus I) which said that the See of Peter has no stain or blemish.  Plainly, however-much there might be no stain attributed to the See of Peter as such, no one can deny that throughout history, there have been many individual popes that have certainly stained themselves badly, in various ways.

Further, I note that the Pope Damasus quote (which is from the Fourth Century) is in the present tense.  In other words, he says that the See of Peter “has” no stain.  Perhaps this quote could be taken to mean that, in the Fourth Century, no pope had stained himself in the many ways in which we know from history that popes stained themselves in later centuries.

The “bottom line” is that such quotes do not seem to clearly say that no pope can teach heresy.

The sedevacantist author would probably say that when Pope St. Lucius I used the phrase the “Roman Church”, he meant particular individual popes and that when Pope St. Lucius I said that the Faith of the Church won’t fail, he meant that no individual pope could ever teach heresy.  To me, this seems like a doubtful interpretation.

But regardless of this, there are a few quotes which do seem to support the sedevacantist’s assertion that a pope cannot teach heresy. 

1.    He attributes a quote to Pope Innocent III saying that St. Peter’s successors “would never at any time deviate from the Catholic faith.”

2.    The sedevacantist attributes a quote to St. Robert Bellarmine saying that “the Pope … cannot preach heresy.”


Again, help please: Is it true that no pope can ever preach heresy?


Catholic Candle’s Analysis and Response

For the purpose of this article, Catholic Candle will take the sedevacantist’s quotes – regardless of the number of them – according to the sedevacantist own interpretation of them, viz., as if they said that the pope cannot preach heresy.  This is the question we address below.

But the sedevacantist’s position is much too superficial and fails to even go deep enough into the topic to make his own position clear.  If we suppose that these quotes would say the pope cannot preach heresy, what does that mean?  Does that mean that the pope cannot be a material heretic or that he cannot be a formal heretic?

Because the sedevacantist does not go deep enough to make his position clear, let us be thorough and examine his assertion according to both interpretations of his assertion.

But this requires that we first examine the difference between material heresy and formal heresy.  To do this, let us use the guidance of the greatest Doctor of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas.[6]


The Distinction Between Material Heresy and Formal Heresy.

It is true that many people who profess to be Catholics, hold grave objective errors against the Catholic Faith.  This problem occurred in past centuries also, even if it is more common today than in (at least some) past centuries.  For example, a child might believe that the Holy Ghost has the body of a dove.  Or an adult might profess the Pelagian heresy (about grace and free will).

 

But we would not be forced to conclude that such a person (who professed himself Catholic) is not really Catholic.  For a person ceases to be Catholic when he holds a position against the Catholic Faith which he knows to be incompatible with what the Church teaches that he must believe in order to be Catholic.

 

If a man held the Pelagian heresy, but wrongly believed that he held the Catholic Faith (concerning matters of grace and free will), then that man would be a material heretic.  That is, the man would hold the “material” of heresy (i.e., a heretical opinion) not knowing it was heresy.  But this man would not be a formal heretic because he would not know that his position was against the teaching of the Catholic Church (and God).  A material heretic does not deny this authority (of the Church and God) but “only” denies that a particular statement belongs to the deposit of the Faith.

By contract, a formal heretic denies the formal aspect of Faith, which is the authority of the Church, which is the authority of God.  In other words, a formal heretic denies the authority of the Church (God) concerning one or more statements of the Faith.  He does not believe a statement of the Faith even though he knows that the Church (God) teach it.[7]

 

 

Definitions – In summary:

 

➢  A person is a formal heretic if he denies the Catholic Faith in its formal aspect, i.e., if he denies any statement which he knows is revealed by the infallible teaching authority of the Church (God).  Such denial involves rejecting the Church’s (God’s) infallible authority itself.

 

➢  A person is only a material heretic, if he denies a part of the Catholic Faith in its material aspect only.  In other words, a material heretic is a person who denies a statement of the Catholic Faith without knowing that the Church (God) teaches that this statement is infallibly true.  A denial of the material of the Faith only, does not involve rejection of the Church’s (God’s) infallible authority, because the person errs (only) about what the Church (God) teaches.

 

Thus, a material heretic can be a Catholic.  However, a formal heretic cannot be Catholic, because in order to be Catholic, one must submit to every single dogma of the Faith that one knows the Church teaches; and yet the formal heretic rejects the Church’s (God’s) authority by denying part of the Faith, knowing that the Church (God) teaches it.

 

 

So Now We Come to the Two Questions We Set Out to Examine

Having seen what it means to be a material heretic and what it means to be a formal heretic, these are the questions presented:

1.    Can a pope ever become a material heretic? 

and
 

2.    Can a pope ever become a formal heretic?

Let us first ask if a pope can become a material heretic and then after that, let us ask whether a pope can become a formal heretic.


1. Can the Pope become a Material Heretic?

It is a very superficial supposition to think that a pope cannot be a material heretic (that is, the supposition that a pope cannot hold, even internally, an opinion contradictory to the Catholic Faith).[8]  Further, it is superficial to think the pope cannot then teach his heretical opinion (e.g., through the pope teaching while he is ignorant).  These (false) suppositions are superficial because they fail to take into account the basic truths of the catechism that even children know.

A.  To Say that the Pope Cannot Make a Heretical Statement Means that He is Always Infallible When Making Any Statement about the Faith.


If the pope were unable to make heretical statements, then everything he said about religious matters would be infallible.  In other words, Catholics would be sure that everything he said on religious matters was protected from error and must be true.  In other words, under this supposition, the pope would always be infallible when making any statement about the Catholic Faith.

B.  It is Basic Catechism that the Pope Can Indeed Teach Heresy (Error) When He Does Not Invoke His Special Ex Cathedra Authority.


But it is basic catechism (which even children know) that the pope only teaches infallibly under certain carefully-enumerated conditions. 

For example, here is the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X showing when the pope is infallible, viz., on matters of Faith and morals only under certain conditions:

57 Q. When is the Pope infallible?

A. The Pope is infallible when, as Pastor and Teacher of all Christians and in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by all the Church.[9]

Notice the narrow conditions under which the pope is infallible.  All of these conditions must be fulfilled:  he must be teaching all Christians (not just a subset, such as his own diocese of Rome or a certain nation);  he must be using his full authority (not just partial authority); and he must be defining (not just commenting on or exploring) a doctrine regarding faith or morals (not Church discipline, Canon Law, or some other, lesser subject) to be held by all (not just some of) the Church.

The Baltimore Catechism teaches the same thing as does the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, and elaborates further.  Firstly, The Baltimore Catechism equates the pope speaking infallibly with his speaking ex cathedra:

Q. 531. What is necessary that the Pope may speak infallibly or

ex-cathedra?

A. That the Pope may speak infallibly, or ex-cathedra, (1) He must speak

on a subject of faith or morals; (2) He must speak as the Vicar of

Christ and to the whole Church; (3) He must indicate by certain words,

such as, we define, we proclaim, etc., that he intends to speak

infallibly.[10]

 

Then The Baltimore Catechism emphasizes the same thing that every Catholic child is taught, viz., that the pope is not infallible on any other occasion when he speaks about Faith or morals:

 

Q. 532. Is the Pope infallible in everything he says and does?

A. The Pope is not infallible in everything he says and does, because

the Holy Ghost was not promised to make him infallible in everything,

but only in matters of faith and morals for the whole Church.  Nevertheless, the Pope’s opinion on any subject deserves our greatest respect on account of his learning, experience and dignity.[11]

The Baltimore Catechism summarizes these truths, teaching that the pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra:

Q. 533. Can the Pope commit sin?

A. The Pope can commit sin and he must seek forgiveness in the Sacrament

of Penance as others do.  Infallibility does not prevent him from

sinning, but from teaching falsehood when he speaks ex-cathedra.[12]

Similarly, The Catechism Explained teaches that “the Pope is infallible in his solemn decisions”.[13]  Those “solemn decisions” are his ex cathedra pronouncements.  Thus, The Catechism Explained tells us the same truth as the other catechisms, viz., that the pope is not always infallible whenever he speaks about the Faith or morals but only when he speaks ex cathedra, i.e., only “in his solemn decisions”.

Therefore, except when the pope is protected by the Holy Ghost under the conditions of his special ex cathedra authority, anything else that he says on matters of religion is not infallible and can be false (heresy).

So, we see that it is false to say that a pope cannot make heretical statements. 

But what about the quote from St. Robert Bellarmine (referenced above, as quoted by the sedevacantist), namely, “the Pope … cannot preach heresy”?  We just saw that the Catholic catechisms concur that the Pope can indeed teach heresy.  We must therefore interpret St. Robert Bellarmine as meaning that the pope cannot become a formal heretic, as explained further below.


The First Vatican Council’s Definition of Papal Infallibility Shows the Same Truth as do These Catechisms Quoted Above: viz., that the Pope’s Infallibility is Limited to Those Times When He Speaks Ex Cathedra.

The dogmatic teaching of Vatican I on the subject of the pope’s ex cathedra infallible authority shows that any other time – except when he invokes this ex cathedra infallible authority – the pope can indeed make a heretical statement because he is not then protected by the safeguard of this special promise of the Holy Ghost’s protection against teaching heresy.  Here is Vatican I’s dogmatic declaration from the Council’s Session IV, ch.4:.

†      we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

❖  when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,

➢  that is, when,

1.   in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,

2.   in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,

3.   he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,

❖  he possesses,

➢  by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,

❖  that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.

❖  Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

All formatting and emphasis are in the original.

Notice that Vatican I’s dogmatic definition teaches us when the pope is infallible, viz., when he speaks according to the conditions for using his ex cathedra authority.  Plainly, the pope is not infallible every time he speaks on a matter of the Faith or morals.  Plainly, when the pope is speaking non-infallibly, he can err on a matter of the Faith or morals; that is, he can teach heresy.

The First Vatican Council was defining when the pope speaks infallibly.  The Council was telling us that, when he teaches infallibly, we know with complete certitude that what he teaches is true.  The Council was teaching us that, in the absence of using his ex cathedra authority, the pope might be wrong, not that at any other time he might have ceased be the pope.  In other words, the ex cathedra conditions are conditions of infallibility not conditions of sede vacante.  The absence of those conditions shows the possibility of error not that he ceased to be pope.

So, looking at the language of Vatican I’s decree (above), we see that the pope is not always protected from making heretical statements.  That is, the pope can teach heresy. 

This same truth is also shown in a second way: viz., by the fact that Vatican I even made the effort to solemnly define those ex cathedra conditions at all.  Why would the Council “bother” clarifying those conditions if the pope could never teach heresy under any conditions (and thus is supposedly infallible anytime he speaks about the Faith or morals)?

C.  Additional Reasons Why We Know that the Pope Can Teach Heresy When Not Speaking Ex Cathedra.

1.    Contrary to fact, if it were true that a pope could never teach heresy, this would mean that the pope cannot err if he says something about the Faith or morals even at the dinner table or in a sermon or in private correspondence.  Even if the sedevacantist (quoted above) did not realize the breadth of his own false assertion, nonetheless that is what he said, viz., that a pope “cannot teach error” (or heresy). 

By contrast, the dogma taught by Vatican I shows that the pope’s infallibility requires specific conditions manifesting a fitting solemnity of the dogmatic declaration as well as the pope’s deliberate and careful intent to teach an irreformable truth of the Faith or morals.  Plainly, the sedevacantist is wrong that the pope can never teach heresy, i.e., never make a heretical statement and become a material heretic.

2.    If it were true the pope spoke infallibly every time he said something about the Faith, then it would be the duty of his dinner companions and anyone who talks with him to record everything he says about the Faith or morals because there would be a continual string of (supposedly) “infallible” things which would be coming out of his mouth.

3.    The pope would have a sort of “Midas Touch”.  He would be unable to limit the continual stream of (supposedly) “infallible” dogmas coming out of his mouth, just as King Midas (in the children’s story) was unable to touch anything without it turning to gold.  Whereas King Midas was severely handicapped by being unable to live his life, e.g., touch his own daughter without turning her into a golden statue, likewise the pope would be unable to carry on a normal conversation or preach a sermon without (supposedly) changing the world with a continual stream of (supposedly) irreformable “truths” that he utters.  The pope would be afraid to share his thoughts with others (including his advisors) on a matter of the Faith or morals lest he (supposedly) “infallibly” “declare” a truth of the Faith.  This would severely hamper the pope because he has great need of free and full discussions with his advisors and others. 

Or, if we were to assume (contrary to fact) that the sedevacantists were correct, then the pope would not even need advisors because he would just say whatever he thought at the moment about Faith or morals, knowing whatever it was would be true.

 

4.    The history of the Church shows that the quotes attributed to Pope Innocent III and to St. Robert Bellarmine cannot mean that the pope is unable to make a heretical statement (and to become a material heretic), because the history of the Church shows this to be false. 

We see that various popes have been material heretics.  Let us look at two examples that illustrate this:

 

➢  Pope John XXII (reigned 1316-1334) taught heresy insistently both before and during his papal reign.  He was a material heretic and refused to be corrected until shortly before his death.[14]

➢  Pope Nicholas I wrote a letter to the Bulgarians, in which he spoke as if baptism were valid when administered simply in our Lord’s Name, without mention of the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity.  But he was not teaching ex cathedra.  The question asked of Pope Nicholas was actually a different one: viz., concerning the minister of baptism, viz., whether a Jew or Pagan could validly baptize.  He correctly answered in the affirmative.  But Pope Nicholas then answered “that the baptism was valid, whether administered in the name of the three Persons or in the name of Christ only.”  This is heresy!  Cardinal Newman cites this example quoting St. Robert Bellarmine in De Rom. Pont., iv. 12.[15]


Note: In the second of these examples (above), Cardinal Newman relies on St. Robert Bellarmine’s account that Pope Nicholas I told the Bulgarians that they could validly baptize without mentioning the Blessed Trinity.  This clearly shows that St. Robert Bellarmine well knew that Pope Nicholas I and other popes are capable of making heretical statements. 

Thus, when the sedevacantist author (mentioned above) attributes to St. Robert Bellarmine a quote saying that “the Pope … cannot preach heresy”, this does not mean that the pope cannot make a heretical statement, as is obvious by St. Robert Bellarmine himself pointing out Pope Nicholas’s (non-infallible) heretical teaching to the Bulgarians.

If the sedevacantist author (see above) supposes that his own St. Robert Bellarmine quote (near the top of this article) refers to the pope being unable to preach material heresy, we don’t interpret the sedevacantist as trying to deceive his readers.  We think that he probably did not look deeply enough into the topic to know better.

D.  Conclusion of this Part – a Pope Can Teach a Heretical Statement (Non-Infallibly) and Remain the Pope


We see it would be unreasonable to suppose that a pope cannot make a heretical statement.  We see that a pope can teach heresy, based on:

†      Basic catechism that even children learn;

†      Two reasons based on the words of Vatican I’s dogmatic definition of ex cathedra infallibility;

†      Considerations of reason; and

†      Considerations of Church history.


Thus, Catholics should not suppose that Pope Francis is not the pope because he makes heretical statements.


2. Can a Pope Ever Become a Formal Heretic?

A.  The Pope Cannot Teach Heresy Ex Cathedra

From the first part of this article, we see clearly that popes can become material heretics, and in fact, that some popes have been so.   But what about the quote the sedevacantist attributes to Pope Innocent III, saying that St. Peter’s successors “would never at any time deviate from the Catholic faith”?   Further, what about the statement (which the sedevacantist attributed to Pope Saint Lucius I) saying that the Faith of the Roman Apostolic Church will not fail?   Do not these quotes contradict our claim that the popes can become material heretics?

The answer to this dilemma is that a distinction needs to be made between the pope (on the one hand) acting as a private individual (or “private theologian” as he is sometimes called), versus the pope (on the other hand) acting as the successor of St. Peter speaking with ex cathedra infallibility – that is, the pope acting in the See of Peter as such.  Assuming the quote attributed to Pope Saint Lucius I is correct (that the See of Peter will not fail in the Faith), this quote seems to mean that the See of Peter as such will not fail in the Faith.  The pope teaches most properly as the successor of Peter and as pope when he speaks with ex cathedra infallibility and it would be impossible (and it has never happened) that the successor of Peter as such, that is, as the infallible head of the Church speaking ex cathedra, can teach any error.

Another way of stating this same truth is that the pope will never teach heresy utilizing the conditions of ex cathedra (extraordinary) infallibility.

This is indicated in one of the quotes received along with the above reader’s question: The sedevacantist author quotes Francisco Suarez[16] as stating that:

in accord with His divine providence…[God] preserve[s] the pope from heresy in consequence of the promise that he shall never err in defining faith.  Furthermore, as such a thing has never happened in the Church, we may conclude that, in the providence of God, it cannot happen.’

Thus, the sedevacantist attributes to Suarez the (true) statement that the pope cannot err when defining the faith, that is, when teaching infallibly.  Indirectly, Suarez seems to acknowledge and teach that the pope can err when he teaches about the Faith or morals except when he meets the conditions laid out in the Vatican I definition of infallibility (which was already quoted above):

1.    exercising his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,

2.    in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,

3.    he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church.

B. Another Possible Interpretation: the Pope Will Never
    Become a Formal Heretic

Above, the sedevacantist attributed to Pope Innocent III the statement that St. Peter’s successors “would never at any time deviate from the Catholic faith”.  This could be taken as meaning that no pope would ever deviate from the Faith by rejecting the Faith in its formal aspect.  (Recall the distinction we made above concerning formal vs. material heresy.)

In the section immediately above (entitled “The Pope Cannot Teach Heresy Ex Cathedra”), the emphasis concerned the pope’s inability to teach heresy infallibly.  In the present section, the emphasis will be on the pope’s inability to reject the formal aspect of the Faith, namely, the truth of the Faith based on God’s authority.

One consequence of this interpretation is that we would avoid the possibility that the Church could ever suffer an interregnum due to a pope losing his papacy (and his membership in the Catholic Church) through (formal) heresy.  This would be one God-given means through which the Church would always have successors, as Vatican I infallibly teaches.[17]

As shown above, St. Robert Bellarmine was well aware of Pope Nicholas I’s material heresy when teaching the Bulgarians, yet (as attributed by the sedevacantist author above), St. Robert states that a pope cannot preach heresy.  This would seem to indicate that St. Robert Bellarmine meant that a pope could never preach heresy as a formal heretic, resulting in his loss of the papal office and the creating of a papal interregnum. 

C.  How to Interpret Quotes About the See of Peter Remaining Unstained


The Catholic Church, in Her Divine element, is always unstained, although the pope and all other Catholics stain themselves.

We must distinguish between the Catholic Church as the Spotless Bride of Christ, in contrast to the human element of the Church.  The Church Herself, Who possesses the Mark of Holiness, is perfect.  The human element (i.e., individual Catholics, including the pope insofar as he sins and errs), can and has gone wrong. 

 

The Church is in no way blamable in Her Divine element for the heretical statements and sins of anyone, including the pope.  Here is how that truth is taught in The Catechism Explained:

 

The Catholic Church is Holy.  …  The misdeeds of some members, or abuses occurring within the Church are due not to the Church, but to the perversity of men.[18]

 

The sedevacantist author gave a quote (found above, which he attributed to Pope Damasus I) which said that the See of Peter has no stain or blemish, that quote would fit with the truth that the Church in Her Divine element can never make a heretical statement or commit the least sin, although (as we saw), an individual pope can do so.

 

When a pope is speaking ex cathedra, he is acting as the pure, stainless Bride of Christ.   But when the pope errs or sins, including preaching heresy (non-infallibly, of course), he is not speaking or acting as the pure Bride of Christ, but rather, he is only speaking as part of the Church’s human element and capable of error.  This is like, e.g., if the pope commits the sin of gluttony, he sullies himself but not the pure Bride of Christ in Her Divine element.

 

D.  Why Isn’t It More Frequently Stated Throughout the Centuries that the Pope Can Teach Heresy when Not Speaking Ex Cathedra?


When the human element of the Catholic Church is in times of spiritual health, it is unseemly to talk very much about the pope erring in matters of the Catholic Faith.  When the human element of the Church is spiritually healthy, there is often a filial and pious (but potentially dangerous) tendency to attribute inerrancy to the pope.

This is like when a family is blessed with a father who is a good head, it seems unseemly to talk about the evils that this father could do.

Similarly, when the Church enjoys the reign of a good pope, it is unseemly to say very much about the pope’s ability to teach heresy just like in a good family it is unseemly to say too much about the father’s ability to deceive his children.

E.  Conclusion

 

1.    We see that a pope is able to teach heresy (that is, to make heretical statements) when he is not speaking ex cathedra.  In other words, a pope can be a material heretic and some popes have been material heretics in the past.  The sedevacantist’s contrary assertion is merely a variation of the Protestant calumny that “you Catholics think that everything the pope says about religion must be true”.

2.    We know infallibly from Vatican I that a pope cannot teach heresy when teaching ex cathedra.

 

3.    St. Robert Bellarmine seems to teach that no pope could ever become a formal heretic.  If that is true, then that would be one reason (among many) why the sedevacantists are wrong in saying that we are presently in a long papal interregnum.[19]

 

4.    The Catholic Church, in Her Divine Element, as the unspotted Bride of Christ, can never sin and teach heresy but the human element of the Church – i.e., all Catholics (including the pope) can and do sin and err – even sometimes teaching heresy.

 

5.    Pope Francis has taught many heresies but never has he taught them using his ex cathedra authority.  These heresies do not show that he is not the pope.


[6]           Read this article explaining why faithful and informed Catholics especially read the Doctors of the Church, most especially St. Thomas Aquinas: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/why-faithful-and-informed-catholics-especially-follow-the-doctors-of-the-church

 

[7]           Here is how St. Thomas explains this distinction between the Faith’s formal and material aspects: 

 

If we consider, in the Faith, the formal aspect of the object, it is nothing else than the First Truth.  For the Faith of which we are speaking, does not assent to anything, except because it is revealed by God.  Hence, the mean [i.e., the middle term of the syllogism] on which Faith is based is the Divine Truth [i.e., God’s authority].

If, however, we consider materially the things to which Faith assents, they include not only God, but also many other things ….

 

Summa, III, Q.1, a.1, Respondeo (emphasis and bracketed words added).

 

In other words, the formal aspect of the Faith is God alone precisely in so far as God is the infallible authority on which depends the truth of the content of revealed Faith. 

 

The material aspect includes many other things, e.g., our Lady’s Assumption into Heaven, because the material aspect of the Faith includes all the various revealed truths that are the content of our Faith.

[8]           Heresy is an error about the Catholic Faith.  Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas explains this truth:

 

We are speaking of heresy now as denoting a corruption of the Christian Faith.  Now it does not imply a corruption of the Christian faith, if a man has a false opinion in matters that are not of faith, for instance, in questions of geometry and so forth, which cannot belong to the faith by any means; but only when a person has a false opinion about things belonging to the faith. 

 

[Catholic Candle note: because an opinion does not need to be spoken, we see that St. Thomas is teaching us (in the words above) that a person can fall into heresy even by internally holding a false opinion about the Faith.  Nothing else is required, such as a person telling others his false opinion, or preaching it to them.]

 

[Continuing to quote St. Thomas:]  Now a thing may be of the faith in two ways, as stated above, in one way, directly and principally, e.g., the articles of faith; in another way, indirectly and secondarily, e.g., those matters, the denial of which leads to the corruption of some article of faith; and there may be heresy in either way, even as there can be faith.

 

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.11, a.2, respondeo (emphasis and bracketed words added).


[9]           Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, Ninth Article of the Creed.

[10]         The Baltimore Catechism #3, (emphasis added).

[11]         The Baltimore Catechism #3, (emphasis added).

[12]         The Baltimore Catechism #3, (emphasis added).

 

[13]         The Catechism Explained, Francis Spirago, Benziger Bros., New York, 1921, p. 240.

 

[15]         Cardinal Henry Newman’s treatise On The True Notion of Papal Infallibility.

 

[16]         Fransico Suarez was a Spanish Jesuit philosopher and theologian who did good work by defending Roman Catholic doctrine against the Protestant Revolution.  He was an avid student of St. Thomas Aquinas, although Suarez deviated in many important ways from the sound methods, teachings, and conclusions of St. Thomas.  Nevertheless, Suarez remains a respected thinker and commentator on some of St. Thomas’ teachings.  It is likely this importance and respect that the sedevacantist wishes to  leverage, “adding Suarez’s weight” to his (the sedevacantist’s) false argument.

[17]         Vatican I infallibly declares:

If anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say, by Divine Law) that Blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this primacy, let him be anathema.

 

Vatican I, Session 4, Ch. 2 (bold emphasis and parenthetical words are in the original, italic emphasis added).

[18]         The Catechism Explained, Rev. Francis Spirago, p.244, TAN Books and Publishers, Rockford, 1993 (reprinting the 1899 edition).

[19]           For other reasons why we cannot be in a long papal interregnum, read Chapter 2 of Sedevacantism – Material or Formal Heresy.  This small book is available:

❖  Here, for free: https://catholiccandle.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/sedevacantism-material-or-formal-schism.pdf

❖  Here, at cost ($4): https://www.amazon.com/Sedevacantism-Material-Quanta-Cura-Press/dp/B08FP5NQR6/ref=sr_1_1

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Words to Live by – from Catholic Tradition

 

Let Us Not Be Self-Indulgent and Impulsive!

 

Blessed is he who, setting aside his own liking and inclination, considers things according to reason and justice before doing them.

 

Quoted from Prayer Of A Soul Taken With Love, #42, by St. John Of The Cross, Mystical Doctor of the Church

 

The Search for the Lost Schools

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note:  The article below is by one of Catholic Candle’s more senior editors who has always been Traditional Catholic.  This article provides a small glimpse into the state of the Catholic education of children in Mid-Twentieth Century America.

As a “cradle Catholic” and one who benefitted from 12 years of Catholic schools (plus 2 years at a Catholic university), I was an unwilling witness to the dissolution of Catholic schools in America.  It was something that in my wildest nightmares I could not have anticipated.

Good Catholic families from local parishes had always been expected to send their children to the parish schools.  Many did so at a significant sacrifice.  (Families who couldn’t afford it were often given “discounts”.)  The point is that we all assumed that these schools would always be there to teach the children more about their Faith, how to be better Catholics, and how to save their souls.  And, oh yes, give them a superior education besides.

It wasn’t until about the 1960s that things began to change.  You might begin to suspect that there could be some connection to a critical event that took place in that period. (Hint: think VC II).  Yes, Women’s Lib was among the trenchant influences, too, with its attendant push to convents and religious orders to shed their habits and “think for themselves.”  These were worrisome things, of course, but I don’t believe there was any panic that this was the death knell for Catholic education itself.  When the changes first began, they were a trickle, hardly causing passing concern.  Many of us were at first surprised, then uneasy, but not yet alarmed when Catholic schools began to innovate under the banner of modernism.

Looking back now, I believe the changes seemed unreal at first, and beyond anybody’s power to derail them – sort of like trying to stop a locomotive with your bare hand.  I think it is fair to say that most Catholics didn’t understand the scope of the changes in our Catholic schools that were being proposed – no, demanded.  We were used to trusting the self-sacrificing nuns and good priests to educate our children in our Catholic Faith, and now we were told that the erudite professors themselves must be allowed to decide what to teach.  

As a busy young mother of a growing family, I didn’t really understand how it came about so suddenly.  We had a strong network of solid Catholic schools one year, and the next it was beginning to disintegrate; and ten years down the line, many were fading into pale copies of public schools.  How on earth did this happen?  How did we reach this point?  The question became: did we just have to learn to live with these revolutionary changes?  Some, perhaps naively, imagined that if these changes “just happened,” might they be the natural progression of steps to improve the education of our children?  The answer is “no.”  They were the result of a specific concrete historic event.  And that event was the start of a rebellion against the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

This historic event took place at St. John’s University in Queens, New York in January, 1966.  Two hundred professors went on strike for 1½ years to challenge the teaching authority of the Church.  St. John’s had been founded by the Vincentian Fathers in 1870 to give explicitly Catholic education to Catholic students, in submission to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.  Now, suddenly there was a claim to a nebulous “right” to, in essence, teach what they wanted to.  Professors from all over the United States threw their support to the St. John’s protesters, claiming that academic freedom was violated if they were not allowed to contradict the teaching authority of the Church.  In the previous century, nobody apparently thought about that; they were too busy claiming scientific freedom.  Which had been quickly suppressed by a number of popes, including Pius IX, Leo XIII, and St. Pius X.

It turned out that this latest toxic claim, however, was not easily suppressed.  The rush to jump on the academic freedom bandwagon had begun.  Several months later, in April 1966, a conference of Catholic university presidents and other education leaders was held at Notre Dame, including some from Seton Hall, Boston College, Georgetown, and other Catholic universities.

The theme of the conference, the first of many, was “Academic Freedom in the Catholic University.”  Following this, the president of Notre Dame, Fr. Theodore Hesburgh, a Holy Cross father, asked modernist Jesuit Fr. Neil McCloskey to write a statement outlining a supposed academic freedom.  It was called the Land ‘O Lakes Statement as it had been put together in Land ‘O Lakes, Wisconsin.  It was a declaration of rebellion against the authority of the Church.  The influential manifesto, which would spread its poison from coast to coast, and beyond, proclaimed:

To perform its teaching and research functions effectively, the Catholic university must have a true autonomy and academic freedom in the face of authority of whatever kind: lay or clerical, external to the academic community itself.[1]

No effort was made to disguise the fact that The Statement was greatly inspired by the liberalization of Vatican II.  The Statement had enormous influence on Catholic higher education.  In the following decades the great majority of Catholic colleges and universities relinquished control of their own institutions to independent Boards of Directors.  (Hard to believe but sadly, they did).  The Statement had recommended replacing priests with completely independent lay people who weren’t obliged to obey ecclesiastical authority (the Church).  These institutions still called themselves Catholic and may have appeared to be Catholic, but more and more they began to operate independently, and at times in opposition to Church teaching.

A few wary Catholics wondered out loud if a university like Notre Dame was still Catholic!  It was true that there was still beautiful Catholic art exhibited, and various Catholic symbols and statues still remained around the N.D. campus, but were these just remnants from the past rather than evidence of a living Catholic Faith?

There were some efforts by Catholic leaders to reverse the damage caused by the academic freedom offensive, but nothing that seemed to take hold.  Rome, of course, expressed its opposition to this flagrant challenge to the authority of the Church, and local bishops were generically urged to be vigilant as to what was taught in their dioceses and exert more authority to insure orthodoxy.

They suggested that if you called your school “Catholic,” the word must not just be a noun, part of the title, but rather, the word “Catholic” must be a descriptive adjective and must always be a real expression of a profound reality; in other words, it must mean something. It must identify the speaker or the university as upholding the truths of the Faith and being in conformity to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

This was a nice expected response.  And of course, nothing much came of it.  Unless you count the eventual closing of hundreds of Catholic institutions or their becoming independent of the Church.

It wasn’t until 1990, a full 24 years after the first salvo by the academic freedom liberals, that Rome issued Ex Corde Ecclesiae, an apostolic constitution by Pope John Paul II, defining the role of the Catholic university.  In it, the pope repudiated The Land ‘O Lakes Statement, examined the problem, and set forth a set of regulations that were meant to ameliorate the situation, such as:

➢  Compelling Catholic teachers both in Catholic and non-Catholic universities to be in complete submission to the Magisterium of the Church; and

➢  Obliging non-Catholic teachers to respect the teachings of the Catholic Church, (not compelling them to believe them, but not to publicly oppose them).

Many Catholic teachers vehemently disagreed.  The president of Notre Dame is supposed to have said, “If the pope says Notre Dame is not Catholic, who would believe him?”

Whatever measures the Church took to stem the tide of this disaster proved ineffectual.  This might be hinted at by the following random statistics (which I have collected from various places, over time):

❖  In 1958, the number of American children attending a private elementary school was 15%.  In 1970, this number had fallen to 10%; in 2015, to 9%.

❖  In 1965, 89% of American children in private elementary schools were in Catholic schools.  By 2013, that number had fallen to 42%, less than half of what it had been.

v  From 2000 to 2010, more than 1000 Catholic schools were closed; 174 of them were closed or consolidated during 2009-2010 alone.

v  From 1970-2010, the number of Catholic schools in the U.S. dropped by 37%.

An equally sad statistic is that from 1970-2010, the number of religious vocations dropped by 70%!  Here are some specifics:

†      The Jesuits (a teaching order), decrease (approximately) from 59,000 to 38,000;

†      Christian Brothers (another teaching order) decrease from 2,212 to 589; and

†      The number of nuns decrease from 160,931 in 1970; to 48,546 in 2015; and then to 45,605 in 2018.

It is difficult to assess a cause-and-effect statistic of the shrinking of the religious orders in the U.S., and how it relates to the destruction of Catholic schools. Certainly, the worldliness of society, the general weakening of morals, the targeting of our youth by the entertainment industry, a “kept” media – all of these, and more, contributed to the breakdown of our Catholic school system.  When the parents of the ‘60s and ‘70s “gave up” on it and began to send their children elsewhere, it is little wonder that when their children married and had families, they weren’t so quick to send them to those same declining schools. “Declining” meaning where the schools were “declining” to adhere uncompromisingly to the Magisterium of the Church.

So, all in all, one might be tempted to think it hopeless to believe it’s possible to reverse the damage.

And on our own, it surely would be.  But Our Lady will not stand by indefinitely while Satan holds sway over the education of our children.  Just as she promised four hundred years ago in Quito, Ecuador, when referring to the Great Apostasy, in the end her Immaculate Heart will triumph. However, she added that her triumph will only occur when all seems hopeless.  Here are her words:

When everything will seem lost and paralyzed, that will be the happy beginning of the complete Restoration. This will mark the arrival of my hour, when I, in a marvelous way, will dethrone the proud and cursed Satan, trampling him under my feet and chaining him in the infernal abyss.[2]

Our present situation in the human struggle to restore our Catholic schools does seem very bad.  However, it does not yet seem completely lost and hopeless.  Thus, it seems we must endure some additional years before the victory promised by Our Lady of Quito.

On our part, we must make a greater effort to be more fervent in our prayers and to continue to say our daily rosary.  (Or better yet, the fifteen decades.)

While we pray for the triumph of Our Lady, we must also fight for Christ the King as best we can.  So must the Church hierarchy.  The first thing they must do is to correct their own softness and liberalism.

As to the tangible steps that might be taken after that, it is not beyond the power of the local ordinaries to regain control of our Catholic schools.  They would need to have the will and the courage to meet the challenge.  It would not be easy, but with the help of the Holy Ghost and Sts. Thomas Aquinas, and John Bosco (patrons of Catholic schools), the liberalism that was astoundingly allowed to spread its poison across the United States could eventually be neutralized, and our Catholic schools could once again do their crucial job of educating children according to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.

We must pray fervently and fight for Christ tirelessly!  This is God’s Will, even though the reality is that this Catholic restoration of education will not occur except as part of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and through Her intercession.

Our Lady of Quito and of Fatima, Pray for us!

 


[2]           Steve Skojec, in One PeterFive, July 6, 1915; Our Lady of Good Success, January 15, 2024.

Government-Set Price Controls Don’t Work

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note: Below is an article concerning the U.S. economy in particular, and, by analogy, pertaining to the economies of other Western countries.

Catholic Candle usually writes on topics more directly related to the Catholic Faith, as well as Catholic philosophy and Catholic practice.  But there is an ongoing cultural and political revolution all around us, and this revolution has other aspects too.  That is why we also write on topics that could be called “political”, in order to shine a light on current evils in government and society.  Here are examples of such Catholic Candle articles:

Ø  The COVID-19 “Vaccine’s” Harms Continue to Be Further Revealed: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/02/20/in-case-you-missed-it-february-2024/

Ø  Glacier-Melting Alarmism: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/01/23/glacier-melting-alarmism/

Ø  The Leftist Attack on the Moral Fiber of Society: https://catholiccandle.org/2023/10/29/the-leftist-attack-on-the-moral-fiber-of-society/

Ø  The “Deadly Heat” Alarmism: https://catholiccandle.org/2023/08/24/the-deadly-heat-alarmism/

Ø  The False Principle of “Diversity and Inclusion”: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/01/05/the-false-principle-of-diversity-and-inclusion/

Ø  “Big Data” – a New Version of an Old Danger of Manipulation and Deception: https://catholiccandle.org/2021/12/11/h/

Ø  Black Lives Matter is Showing its “True Colors” – and They are Red: https://catholiccandle.org/2021/10/03/black-lives-matter-is-showing-its-true-colors/

Ø  The Evil & Dangers of Yoga: https://catholiccandle.org/2021/09/05/the-evil-dangers-of-yoga/

Ø  Wikipedia – a Deceptive Tool of the Leftists:  https://catholiccandle.org/2021/08/02/wikipedia-a-deceptive-tool-of-the-leftists/

 

Ø  The Current Leftists Follow the Usual “Tyrant’s Playbook”: https://catholiccandle.org/2021/05/03/the-current-leftists-follow-the-usual-tyrants-playbook/

Ø  Empathy – a Tool for Good or for Evil: https://catholiccandle.org/2021/04/02/empathy-a-tool-for-good-or-for-evil/

 

Ø  Reject the COVID Vaccines!  https://catholiccandle.org/2021/01/01/reject-the-covid-vaccines/

 

Ø  Face masks present grave health risks & are to control people, not a virus: https://catholiccandle.org/2020/12/01/856/

Catholic Candle holds that the globalists are positioning the U.S. economy and other economies in the Western World to be pushed into collapse if and as needed, to compel people to accept a future globalist tyranny.

Thus, we have an eye on the economy in order to monitor (in a general way) its condition and its readiness for use as a weapon compelling acceptance of a globalist tyranny.

Government-Set Price Controls Don’t Work

In the United States, the Democrats have revived the idea of the government mandating price controls.  It is worth considering the wisdom (or lack thereof) of this idea.  Are price controls good or bad? 

After the bloated federal spending of the last 4½ years, foolishly begun by Trump in 2020 and then made even worse (even greater spending) in the Biden years, the United States is experiencing price inflation which was completely inevitable (“as sure as gravity”, one might say, or “as sure as death comes to us all”). 

This price inflation is worse than the official numbers say it is, as anyone can tell by going to the grocery store, etc., because the government has politicized the inflation rate and is using some “tools” it has available in order to dishonestly hide as much of the inflation as it can by “adjusting” the numbers.  Perhaps some readers are unaware of those “tools” but, in any case, that is a topic for some other time.

The voters were upset (as it appears from their subsequent votes), and the rosy government inflation numbers could not keep people from believing their own “lying” eyes and the “lightness” of their wallets.  So, Harris tried to get the voters on her side in the last months before the election, by proposing that, if elected, she would implement government price controls to (supposedly) punish the “price gougers”.  She and the White House, in effect, were telling people that the problem they could plainly see (high inflation) was caused by sellers in the private sector somehow “taking advantage of people”, rather than the true cause, which was Federal spending and the increase of the money supply.

Key to a correct understanding of inflation is to understand that dollars are a commodity which is valued in relation to other goods.  For example, if a country suddenly has 10 million extra pounds of apples, it is inevitable that the price of apples would go down.  Similarly, if there are suddenly $6 trillion extra dollars added to the economy (as there was), the value (price) of a dollar goes down, meaning what a person can buy with a dollar also goes down.

Suppose we were to want the price of apples to go down.  What should we do?  The answer is obvious: we increase the supply of apples.  The extra 10 million pounds of apples (in the example above) does that.  Suppose instead that the government tries to decrease the cost of apples by passing a law declaring that no person can sell an apple for more than 10¢ per apple.  Would that reduce the price of apples?  Well, the answer is that it would decrease the price of an apple for only a comparatively small number of apples right after the law takes effect, e.g., for the apples which are already in the store.  But a seller who has apples to sell would try to find something else to use them for, rather than sell them at a loss.

When the government declares that a seller can only charge one dime per apple, this actually has the effect of decreasing the number of apples for sale and creating a shortage.  To avoid the price controls, some sellers would, perhaps, export their apples to a different market which is not affected by the law.  Other sellers might sell their apples for other uses – even animal food.  There certainly would not be any new orchards planted.  Some of the orchards already planted might be plowed up and used to grow something else or perhaps be used for a housing development, etc.  (Isn’t this what anyone of us would do if we could and if we were in that business?)

By contrast, if the price of apples were to rise in the Free Market, what would happen?  The sellers would see that selling apples was profitable and would try to obtain more apples to sell.  Perhaps the sellers would import apples.  Perhaps the sellers (or other persons) would plant more apple orchards.  Perhaps fewer apples would be used for juice and pear juice would be sold as a substitute for apple juice instead.

Similarly, if our goal were to decrease the value of the dollar (i.e., worsen inflation), what would we do?  We would increase the supply of dollars which are available.  Dumping an extra $6 trillion dollars into the economy (as the government did) foreseeably caused the value of the dollar (i.e., what it can buy) to decrease.  This is inflation.

So, when the government “runs the money printing presses on ‘overdrive’”, the result is inevitably that inflation will spike up (as happened).

The same things happen when the government passes other types of laws which control the price of goods.  When one of the Catholic Candle Team was in school in a leftist university town, this town had implemented rent controls over its rental housing stock.  This means that no new housing was built which could meet the student demand for housing.  This meant that students had to commute from farther away, where there was no rent control and the landlords could receive a fair rent.

After initially attempting (without success) to find an apartment in the university town, this Catholic Candle Team member ended up commuting every day from a non-rent-controlled area where Republicans had a majority (where housing was available).

By contrast, if landlords in the university town had been allowed to rent at fair value, they might not only build more housing stock but they might also remodel existing houses to make them into multiple apartment units, etc.

These government rent controls work in the same way as price controls.  They make matters worse and create shortages.  The government’s pumping huge extra amounts of money into the economy inevitably creates inflation.  Kamala Harris’ price controls would just make matters worse by adding shortages to the already-existing problem of inflation.

Fairly recent history shows this: government mandated price controls were tried back during President Nixon’s failed government policies (and they didn’t fix anything but made things worse).  If Harris had not lost (thanks be to God that she did!) that issue of price controls would be much more an issue of practical, immediate importance, since the leftists would presumably attempt to force our nation further into a socialist “command economy” in this way.

But, as it is, with Harris having lost, the topic of price controls has lost its practical urgency for now.  Nonetheless, this Democrat policy proposal could easily come back in the foreseeable future.

Open Letter to Parents Sorrowing About Their Wayward Children

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Philosophy Notes

Catholic Candle note: In these times of great apostasy, we suffer many things.  All of society is arrayed against God and the Church Militant.  We need great and frequent Crosses which are the hammer blows through which God chisels our souls to form the image of Our Lord Jesus Christ.[1]

We should use the strategies which our generous Lord has given us for carrying our Crosses better and lightening them in the way He wishes.[2]

Below, is an article especially focused on one Cross which Catholic parents frequently must carry in our troubled times, when it can seem that their children are attacked by the devil from all sides.

All through the course of human history there have been parents grieving for their wayward and confused children.  When Cain killed Abel, Adam and Eve must have been so heartbroken that the first murder on earth had taken place—as a consequence of original sin!  This fact doubly hurt them because they knew that if Adam had not sinned, death would not have come into the world.  Eve knew that she influenced Adam and he chose to sin, choosing her over God (!) and because of false human respect in regard to her.  Furthermore, they knew that the human nature of all mankind was weakened because of Adam’s Fall.   

Why does God allow parents to suffer the cross of having a wayward/confused child?

For one or more of the following reasons:

1.    To teach/warn the parents that they were too lax with their children or to show the parents that they are currently raising their children in a worldly manner.

We see how Heli in the Old Testament was punished with wicked sons because he did not teach them fear of the Lord.  1 Kings, ch.3.  We see how in Proverbs (13:24) it says, “He that spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes” and “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, and the rod of correction shall drive it away.”  Proverbs, 22:15.

2.    To humble the parents and teach them that they are not perfect parents and that they must be compassionate towards other parents who have wayward children.

3.    To purify the souls of the parents and test their hearts.

4.    To give parents the opportunity to practice the virtues of courage and trust in God

5.    To have the parents count their blessings— the Faith, God’s insights, etc.,

What can parents do when they have wayward/confused children?

1.    Fight the temptation, which will no doubt come, to have self-pity.  Remember, God uses Crosses like this to humble parents.

2.    Thank God for this Cross and pray for guidance on how to handle the child, and of course, pray for the salvation of the child.  Remember that all things, including this tribulation, “work together unto the good, for those who love God”.  Romans, 8:28.

3.    Do not condone the bad behavior and ill-will of the child.

4.    Send the message that you are always ready for the child to come to you and always ready to help him get on the right path.

5.    Reach out to instruct the child or admonish the child (as prudent, depending on the circumstances).

6.    Show patience towards the child.

7.    Show love for the child in a way that does not send the wrong message of approval for bad conduct.

8.    Let us be patient with God’s timing.  Let God work according to His Own “schedule”.  When a child is in a morally dangerous situation and there is great uncertainty, it is very human for us to wish for immediate clarity and certainty regarding that child’s situation.  But sometimes, the heaviest part of that God-given Cross is that we remain in an unresolved position of insecurity and the fact that we must calmly wait while He works on the child’s soul.[3]

9.    Avoid the temptation to be bitter towards the child. 

10. Parents should make sure they examine their consciences on how worldly they have been or are in raising their children, and of course amend

themselves immediately so their children can see their current better example.

 

11. Unite with Christ Who knows exactly what such parents are suffering.  What He suffered from ingratitude was the greatest possible suffering of this type.[4]  Reflect on Our Lord’s sorrows of this sort that He expresses in Psalm 87:19: “Friend and neighbor thou hast put far from me”. 

Compassionate Our Lord’s suffering of this variety when He spoke these words through the prophet Job:

He hath put my brethren far from me, and my acquaintances, like strangers, have departed from me.  My kinsmen have forsaken me, and they that knew me, have forgotten me.  They that dwelt in my house … have counted me a stranger, and I have been like an alien in their eyes.  …  He whom I love most is turned against me.  Job 19: 13-15, 19

12. Ponder on the words that Simeon spoke to Our Lady, “Thy own soul a sword shall pierce so that out of the hearts of many, thoughts may be revealed.”

God was preparing Our Sorrowful and tender Mother to be ready to listen to the heartache of her spiritual children and console them.  She had more anguish and suffering than all human parents put together.  Remember, she really cares about her children of the Mystical Body who were given to her by Our Lord on the Cross.

Be consoled, too, that St. Joseph and Our Lady suffered greatly when Our Lord stayed behind in Jerusalem when He was twelve.  God sent them this choice cross so they could merit abundantly when suffering it.  Likewise, so we could learn from them on what to do with our children and how to suffer such a heartache well for God’s glory.  


[1]           Read this article for strategies and encouragement in bearing our Crosses: Frequent Crosses Needed to Help Us to Turn From Sin, found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/03/21/frequent-crosses-needed-to-help-us-to-turn-from-sin/

[4]           Summa, III, Q.46, aa.5-6.

Lesson #40: Temperaments – Choleric Temperament – Their Spiritual Combat Part V

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Philosophy Notes

Catholic Candle note: The article immediately below is part five of the study of the Choleric temperament.  The first four parts can be found here:

1.    Mary’s School of Sanctity – Lesson #36:  About the Temperaments – Beginning our Study of the Choleric Temperament: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/08/27/lesson-35-about-the-temperaments-the-choleric-temperament/

2.    Mary’s School of Sanctity – Lesson #37: About the Temperaments – Continuing Our Study of the Choleric Temperament: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/09/26/lesson-37-about-the-temperaments-continuation-of-the-choleric-temperament/

3.    Mary’s School of Sanctity – Lesson #38 — About the Temperaments – Continuing our Study of the Choleric Temperament – Their Spiritual Combat: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/10/24/lesson-38-temperaments-choleric-temperament-their-spiritual-combat/

4.    Mary’s School of Sanctity – Lesson #39 About the Temperaments – Continuing Our Study of the Choleric Temperament – That Temperament’s Spiritual Combat – Part IV: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/11/26/lesson-39-temperaments-choleric-temperament-their-spiritual-combat-part-iv/


Mary’s School of Sanctity

Lesson #40 About the Temperaments – Continuing Our Study the Choleric Temperament: Their Spiritual Combat – Part V

Note: When referring to a person with a choleric temperament in this article we simply will label him as a choleric.

In our last lesson we explained in general the passion of anger.  We saw that anger is caused by a concurrence of several passions so that anger involves a hope of vengeance (whether just or unjust).  We included the following lists of points which will need to be discussed in order to better understand anger as a passion and to see how crucial it is for anyone to be well aware of the proper use of anger.   

·         What does anger do and how does it move the soul to action?

 

·         What role does reason play in the use of anger?

·         How does justice fit in with the use of anger?

·         If anger can be unjust, and if can lead to many dangers; what are these possible dangers?

·         How should one fight his feelings of unjust anger?

Because cholerics are very prone to anger, they have a special need for caution regarding their anger.  Hence, it is so important that they have a good comprehension of the passion of anger.

So let us begin by giving some background information on anger and how it works in the soul.

What motivates anger?

St. Thomas Aquinas explains that anger arises in connection with something we suffer or that we perceive that we suffer. Here is his explanation:

Anger is the desire to hurt another for the purpose of just vengeance.  However, unless some injury has been done, there is no question of vengeance; nor does any injury provoke one to vengeance, but only that which is done to the person who seeks vengeance; for just as everything naturally seeks its own good, so does it [everything] naturally repel its own evil. But injury done by anyone does not affect a man unless in some way it be something done against him.  Consequently, the motive of a man’s anger is always something done against him.[1]

This anger as a result of something done to us can include something done to others as St. Thomas shows here:

If we are angry with those who harm others, and seek to be avenged on them, it is because those who are injured belong in some way to us: either by some kinship or friendship, or at least because of the nature we have in common.[2]

In addition to harm done to ourselves and/or others, we can also take offense if something we love is despised by another, as St. Thomas explains here:

When we take a very great interest in a thing, we look upon it as our own good; so that if anyone despise it, it seems as though we ourselves were despised and injured.[3]

St. Thomas also tells us about a concept that seems paradoxical but is nonetheless true.  He puts forth the objection as follows and then answers it:

Objection #4: Further, he that holds his tongue when another insults him, provokes him to greater anger, as Chrysostom observes (Hom. xxii, in Ep. ad Rom.)[4]. But by holding his tongue he does the other no harm.  Therefore, a man is not always provoked to anger by something done against him.

Reply #4: Silence provokes the insulter to anger when he thinks it is due to contempt, as though his anger were slighted and a slight is an action.[5]

Of course, when we are insulted, Our Lord would not want us to retaliate but to imitate Him by being meek.  He was insulted many times and did not open His Mouth.  So if someone takes offense because we silently take an insult, we need not worry about that person’s attitude.  We have an obligation to set a good example whether other people like it or not.

St. Thomas explains how the main cause of anger is someone slighting us or showing us contempt.  He quotes Aristotle saying that anger is “a desire, with sorrow, for vengeance, on account of a seeming slight done unbecomingly.”[6]

 St. Thomas explains being slighted as a motivation for anger as follows:

All the causes of anger are reduced to slight. For slight is of three kinds, as stated in [Aristotle’s work] Rhetoric Bk.2; ch.2, #1378a31 viz., contempt,   despiteful treatment, i.e., hindering one from doing one’s will, and insolence; and all motives of anger are reduced to these three.  Two reasons may be assigned for this.  First, because anger seeks another’s hurt as being a means of just vengeance, wherefore it seeks vengeance in so far as it seems just.  However, just vengeance is taken only for that which is done unjustly; hence, that which provokes anger is always something considered in the light of an injustice.

Wherefore the Philosopher says (Rhetoric Bk.2, ch. 3 #1380b16) that men are not angry if they think they have wronged someone and are suffering justly on that account; because there is no anger at what is just.  However, injury is done to another in three ways: namely, through ignorance, through passion, and through choice.  Then, most of all, a man does an injustice, when he does an injury from choice, on purpose, or from deliberate malice, as stated in Ethics Bk. 5, ch. 8 #1135b24 &1136a4.  Wherefore we are most of all angry with those who, in our opinion, have hurt us on purpose.  For if we think that someone has done us an injury through ignorance or through passion, either we are not angry with them at all, or very much less, since to do anything through ignorance or through passion takes away from the notion of injury, and to a certain extent calls for mercy and forgiveness.  Those, on the other hand, who commit an injury on purpose, seem to sin from contempt; wherefore we are angry with them most of all.  Hence, the Philosopher says (Rhetoric Bk.2, ch. 3 #1380a34) that we are either not angry at all, or not very angry with those who have acted through anger, because they do not seem to have acted slightingly.

The second reason is because a slight is opposed to a man’s excellence because men think little of things that are not worth much ado (Rhetoric Bk. 2, ch. 2 #1378b13). However, we seek for some kind of excellence from all our goods.  Consequently whatever injury is inflicted on us, in so far as it is derogatory to our excellence, seems to savor of a slight.[7]

St. Thomas tells us about various forms of being slighted, such as, being forgotten by others; that others should rejoice in our misfortunes; that they [others] should make known our evils; being hindered from doing as we like. He explains these in details as follows:

Each of those causes amounts to some kind of slight.  Thus, forgetfulness is a clear sign of slight esteem, for the more we think of a thing the more is it fixed in our memory.  Again, if a man does not hesitate by his remarks to give pain to another, this seems to show that he thinks little of him: and those too who show signs of hilarity when another is in misfortune, seem to care little about his good or evil.  Again, he that hinders another from carrying out his will, without deriving thereby any profit to himself, seems not to care much for his friendship. Consequently, all those things, in so far as they are signs of contempt, provoke anger.[8]

St. Thomas continues his treatment of the causes of anger still further in this section of the Summa.  One additional note we need to take from St. Thomas is his comment on the fact that, when a man excels in some aspect, e.g., he is wealthy or wise, he can be angered easily.  The reason he gives for this is:

However, it is evident that the more excellent a man is, the more unjust is a slight offered him in the matter in which he excels.  Consequently, those who excel in any matter, are most of all angry, if they be slighted in that matter; for instance, a wealthy man in his riches, or an orator in his eloquence, and so forth.[9]

On the other hand, St. Thomas explains that those who suffer from a lack of excellence in some way also become easily angered.  His comment follows:

Secondly, the cause of anger, in the man who is angry, may be considered on the part of the disposition produced in him by the motive aforesaid. However, it is evident that nothing moves a man to anger except a hurt that grieves him, while whatever savors of defect is above all a cause of grief since men who suffer from some defect are more easily hurt.  And this is why men who are weak, or subject to some other defect, are more easily angered, since they are more easily grieved.[10]

There is a connection we should briefly mention here between anger and humility.   One’s excellence – real or perceived – must be accompanied by humility.  Otherwise, a person would be greatly tempted to think he is better than he really is and he would fall into anger if others do not recognize his excellence.  Likewise, if someone has a defect which he could make efforts to overcome and he does not try to improve, he could also fall into anger if anyone attributes his defects to his refusal to make the necessary efforts.

A Preview…

In our next lesson we will look more at what anger does to the body and the role that reason plays in anger.


[1]           Summa Theologica, Ia IIae, Q.47, a.1, Respondeo (bracketed word added for clarification).

[2]           Summa Theologica, Ia IIae, Q.47, a.1 ad 2.

[3]           Summa Theologica , Ia IIae, Q.47, a. 1, ad 3.

[4]           This citation refers  St. John Chrysostom in his Homily 22 for St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans

[5]           Summa Theologica , Ia IIae, Q.47, a.1, ad 4.

 

[6]           Quote taken from Aristotle’s Rhetoric Book 2, chapter 2, #1378a31.

[7]           Summa Theologica , Ia IIae, Q.47, a.2, Respondeo.

[8]           Summa Theologica , Ia IIae, Q.47, a.2, ad 3.

[9]           Summa Theologica , Ia IIae, Q.47, a.3, Respondeo.

[10]         Summa Theologica , Ia IIae, Q.47, a.3, Respondeo.

In case you missed it — December 2024

Posted on by Catholic Candle

The Leftists’ Anti-Resiliency Program

In the past, Catholic Candle has shown how the Catholic Faith and the Catholic life of virtue make a person strong in character and resilient in addressing the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”[1] which are a normal part of every life.

In contrast to these blessed effects when a man lives the way God wants him to live, the Marxists and leftists are trying to weaken everyone and to destroy personal resilience in society.  Read, e.g., this article: The Leftist Attack on Personal Resilience, found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/01/10/the-leftist-attack-on-personal-resilience/

A further, recent example of this comes from the large leftist British newspaper, The Guardian, which offered “confidential, impartial, professional counseling” to its employees who feel anxious or distraught because Trump won the recent presidential election in the United States.[2]

Truly, the leftists are a fragile “bunch”!  Can you imagine conservatives needing professional counseling because they were anxious or distraught because Kamala Harris was elected?  It would not happen because conservatives are not so frail. 

This should show even the leftists themselves that there must be something wrong with their ideology that it makes them so prone to being “triggered” and turns them into weaklings who are unable to cope with life without being coddled and treated by professional “counselors”.