Author: Catholic Candle

Sedevacantism is Inherently Schism

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 ninth article in a series which covers specific aspects of the error of sedevacantism.  As context for this ninth article, let us recall what we saw in the earlier eight articles:

In the first article, we saw that we cannot know whether the pope (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 1.3 billion[2] people who profess to be Catholic.  We must not judge they are not “real” Catholics if they tell us that they are Catholics.  Instead, we should count them as Catholics who are very confused.[3]

Thus, we must judge the conciliar popes to have been material heretics, not formal heretics, and that each was pope in his turn until his death (or abdication).  Regarding any of the world’s 1.3 billion self-described Catholics who hold heresy, we must judge them to be material heretics only (if we judge them at all), unless they themselves tell us that they know they don’t qualify to be Catholics.[4]

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.[5] 

In the fourth article, we saw that it does not help us to protect ourselves better from a conciliar pope’s heresy, to declare that we know he is not the pope and is not a Catholic.[6]

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.[7] 

In the sixth article, we saw that the Church infallibly assures us that we will have a pope at all times until the end of the world, except during 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.[8]

In the seventh article of this series, we saw that the Catholic Church is a visible Body and will be visible to all.  The Catholic Church has a visible monarchical government and the pope is visible to all.  Thus, we know we have a pope and that he is visible to all.[9]

In the eighth article, we saw that the necessary visibility of the Catholic Church and the pope, requires as a corollary that whoever virtually all Catholics see (believe) is pope must be the pope, since the pope must be visible to all.

Below, in the ninth article of this series, we will examine more deeply what schism is and how sedevacantism is schism.


Sedevacantism is Inherently Schism[10]

As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, schismatics are:

“those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.”[11] 

That is exactly what sedevacantists do.  There are two parts to St. Thomas’ definition.  Schismatics are those who refuse:

1.    to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff; and

 

2.    to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.”[12]  .

The sedevacantists refuse both of these things. 

1.    The sedevacantists refuse to submit to the current, reigning pope, asserting that he has no authority over them because he is not “really” the pope.

2.    Also, the sedevacantists do not “hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his [viz., the pope’s] supremacy”.[13]  Instead, the sedevacantists declare they themselves do not belong to the same church as the 1.3 billion persons whom the sedevacantists rashly judge to not be “real” Catholics even though these 1.3 billion people consider themselves to be Catholic and are part of the “mainstream” human element of the Church (however confused these Catholics are concerning doctrine and morals). 

Summary of this Section: Sedevacantism is always schism because it is always a refusal to submit to the authority of the current reigning pope (and also to hold communion with those who submit to the pope’s authority).


Don’t Confuse the Sin of Schism with the Sin of Denying the Authority of the Papal Office in the Abstract (Which is Heresy).

We should not confuse the sin of schism (which is refusing submission to the authority of the current, reigning pope), with the sin of heresy, in which a person rejects as a matter of principle the very notion of the authority of the papal office –  the authority of which is revealed as part of our Catholic Faith.[14]

In contrast to the sedevacantists’ gravely wrong position, faithful and informed Catholics recognize that the current, reigning pope has authority over us all.  Even though we frequently cannot do what the pope commands us to do (because the command is sinful), nonetheless we must “acknowledge his supremacy”, as St. Thomas teaches us that we must.[15] 

We must do what the pope commands us to do if we can do so in good conscience.  We must obey his commands that are not sinful.  Thus, for example, if Pope Leo XIV were to command Catholics to recite at least five decades of the rosary each day, under pain of sin, we would be bound in conscience to do this, under pain of sin.

Of  course, it would be the sin of false “obedience” if we were to “obey” a sinful command of our superior – including the pope – because that supposed “obedience” to the superior would be false obedience and would actually be disobedience to God.[16]


Can a Sedevacantist Go to Heaven?

“Schism severs a man from the Church”, as St. Thomas teaches, quoting St. Jerome.[17]  Further, there is No Salvation Outside the Church.  So it would seem that no sedevacantist could ever go to heaven.

But we must make a crucial distinction; there are two ways to be severed from the Church: 1) Materially; and 2) Formally.  Let us look into this distinction further.

When a man holds the grave, false position that we have no pope (whereas we do have a pope), there are two ways he can hold this position.  He can either:

v  Hold this error culpably (i.e., he “knows better”); or
 

v  Hold this error innocently (i.e., he does not “know better” and does so in ignorance).

If the sedevacantist is blameless for his grave act of schism, then he has no interior culpability (i.e., no sin on his soul) although his position is objectively a grave act of schism.  This is like the man who commits the objective act of theft by innocently (although wrongfully) taking someone else’s umbrella (believing it to be his own umbrella), as he departs from a restaurant.  The man taking the umbrella commits an objective act of theft without having interiorly culpability (on his soul) for the sin of theft.  This man is a “material thief” but not a “formal thief”.

Similarly, if the particular sedevacantist is ignorant and is not interiorly culpable (according to God’s judgment of his soul) for his false opinion that we have no pope, (and thus not recognizing the authority of the pope who is then reigning), then he is a “material schismatic” and not a “formal one”.  The material schismatic is a person who refuses to submit to the authority of the current reigning pope, wrongly believing that it is permissible for a Catholic to do this.

By contrast, the sedevacantist is a formal schismatic if he has interior culpability (according to God’s judgment of his soul) because he truly “knows better” than to deny the authority of the reigning pontiff.  This distinction (between material and formal schism) is analogous to the distinction between material and formal heresy: 

Just as:

Ø  a material schismatic is a person who ignorantly holds that we have no pope, and thus, this materially schismatic person is materially outside the Catholic Church,

Ø  so also, a material heretic is ignorant that he holds heresy and this material heretic is materially outside the Catholic Church. 

But both the material schismatic and the material heretic are still formally inside the Church and so it is still possible for such persons to go to heaven because their grave error is (by hypothesis, in this example) innocent and committed in ignorance.

By contrast, a formal schismatic, is a person who is sinfully culpable for his error of holding that we have no pope.  This schismatic is formally outside the Catholic Church.  This is like the formal heretic who is sinfully culpable for his error in holding heresy.  This heretic is formally outside the Catholic Church.  Such persons – both formal schismatics and formal heretics – cannot go to heaven because there is No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church.

For the reasons set forth in Catholic Candle’s article which examines the sin of rash judgment,[18] we must not judge particular sedevacantists to be formal schismatics.  Only God can judge that (unless they themselves tell us that they know that they do not qualify as Catholics because of their refusal to recognize the authority of the pope).  Instead, if we judge individual sedevacantists at all, we must judge them in the best possible light (as St. Thomas teaches).  This would result in our supposing that they are material schismatics, not formal schismatics.[19]  This is true even if, in our judgment of the sedevacantists’ culpability, we would “err frequently through thinking well” of them.  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.60, a.4, ad 1.


The Common Root of Schism and the Sedevacantists’ Rash Judgment, is not an Accident.

As St. Thomas teaches, the sin of “schism is essentially opposed to the unity of ecclesiastical charity.”  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.39, a.1, ad 3.

Rash judgment also, is a sin against charity.  One way to see this is true, is that we would want our neighbor to judge us (if at all) in the best possible light.  If we do not judge our neighbor this same way, then we fail to “do unto others”, as we would have them “do unto” us.  St. Matthew’s Gospel, 7:12.  Thus, we are not charitable and are not treating our neighbor as ourselves, as required by the Second Great Commandment.  St. Matthew’s Gospel, 22:39.

Further, our judgments should always be made with a “habit of charity”, as St. Thomas explains.[20]  We must judge our neighbor (if at all) according to “our goodwill toward him”, ready to believe the best of him.[21]  For charity “believeth all things”, as St. Paul teaches us.  1 Corinthians, 13: 7.  St. Thomas teaches us that Our Lord “forbids judgment which proceeds not from benevolence but from bitterness of heart.”[22]

Although we must not judge the interior culpability of individual sedevacantists, it is not by chance that schism and rash judgment are both, at their root, sins against charity.  This connection is not by chance any more than the fact that gluttons tend to commit other kinds of sins connected to gluttony, such as pampering their flesh through inordinate attachment to bodily comfort.  (These connections between sins are objectively true, regardless of a particular person’s culpability.)


Summary of this article

All sedevacantists are in schism because they all refuse to submit to the authority of the pope and refuse to be in communion with (i.e., acknowledge as fellow Catholics) the mainstream of people who consider themselves to be Catholic but are greatly confused about doctrine and morals. 

The schism of the sedevacantists is material or formal – depending on whether they are culpable for their grave error.


[2]           The Vatican estimates that the number of Catholics worldwide is about 1.375 billion.  https://www.vaticannews.va/en/church/news/2023-10/fides-catholic-church-statistics-world-mission-sunday.html

 

[7]           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/

 

[8]           Read this article here that the Catholic Church’s unified government always continues, even during an interregnum:  The Catholic Church Will Always Have a Pope: https://catholiccandle.org/2025/02/21/the-catholic-church-will-always-have-a-pope/

[9]           Read this article showing that The Catholic Church Will Always be Visible, and Will Always Have a Pope Who is Visible to All, which can be found here:  https://catholiccandle.org/2025/03/27/the-catholic-church-will-always-be-visible-with-a-pope/

 

[10]         This is true whenever the Church has a pope, such as Pope Francis before his death and Pope Leo XIV after his election.  The only exception to the Church having a pope is during the very short interregnum periods during which the Church is electing a new pope.

[11]         Summa, IIa IIae, Q.39, a.1, Respondeo. 

[12]         Summa, IIa IIae, Q.39, a.1, Respondeo. 

[13]         Summa, IIa IIae, Q.39, a.1, Respondeo. 

[14]         Here is how St. Thomas explains this distinction:

 

Heresy and schism are distinguished in respect to those things to which each is opposed essentially and directly.  For heresy is essentially opposed to faith, while schism is essentially opposed to the unity of ecclesiastical charity.  Wherefore, just as faith and charity are different virtues, although whoever lacks faith lacks charity so too, schism and heresy are different vices, although whoever is a heretic is also a schismatic, but not conversely.  This is what Jerome says in his commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians: “I consider the difference between schism and heresy to be that heresy holds false doctrine while schism severs a man from the Church.”

 

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.39, a.1, ad 3.

[15]         Again, St. Thomas teaches that schismatics are “those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.”  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.39, a.1, Respondeo.

[16]         Read an explanation of this Catholic principle here: https://catholiccandle.org/2025/05/20/the-false-obedience-of-cowardly-and-weak-catholics/


[17]         Summa, IIa IIae, Q.39, a.1, ad 3 (St. Thomas Aquinas, quoting St. Jerome).

[19]         Again, when we say that we must not judge sedevacantists, we mean that we must not judge their personal subjective interior culpability.  But we can – and often MUST – objectively judge their error itself.  So, when we meet a sedevacantist, we should neither immediately conclude that we know he is in mortal sin and would go to hell if he were to die right now, nor should we merely shrug our shoulders, and say, “who am I to judge?” about the gravity of the objective error that he holds.

The virtuous route is in the middle: We do not judge that his soul is in mortal sin because of his grave error, but we also avoid his error and do our reasonable best to prevent him from contaminating others with his error.  In other words, we are on guard against a sedevacantist’s error not because we know he is in mortal sin but because we know his error is grave and dangerous.

[20]         Summa, Q.60, a.4, respondeo & a.2, ad 1.

[21]         Summa, IIa IIae, Q.60, a.4, ad 2.

[22]         Summa, Q.60, a.2, ad 1.

Lesson #46: Temperaments – Choleric Temperament – a Choleric’s Spiritual Combat – Part XI

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Philosophy Notes

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

1.    Mary’s School of Sanctity – Lesson #36:  About the Temperaments – Beginning our Study of the Choleric Temperament – Part I: 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– Part II: 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 – Part III:: 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/

 

7.    Mary’s School of Sanctity – Lesson #42: About the Temperaments – Continuing Our Study of the Choleric Temperament – a Choleric’s Spiritual Combat – Part VII: https://catholiccandle.org/2025/02/21/lesson-42-temperaments-choleric-temperament-a-cholerics-spiritual-combat-part-vii/

8.    Mary’s School of Sanctity — Lesson #43 About the Temperaments –Continuing Our Study of the Choleric Temperament — Their Spiritual Combat Part VIII: https://catholiccandle.org/2025/03/27/lesson-42-temperaments-choleric-temperament-a-cholerics-spiritual-combat-part-viii/

9.    Mary’s School of Sanctity – Lesson #44 About the Temperaments – Continuing Our Study of the Choleric Temperament – Their Spiritual Combat, Part IX: https://catholiccandle.org/2025/04/23/lesson-44-temperaments-choleric-temperament-a-cholerics-spiritual-combat-part-ix/

10. Mary’s School of Sanctity — Lesson #45 About the Temperaments – Continuing Our Study of the Choleric Temperament – The Choleric’s  Spiritual Combat Part X: https://catholiccandle.org/2025/05/20/lesson-45-temperaments-choleric-temperament-a-cholerics-spiritual-combat-part-x/

 

Mary’s School of Sanctity

Lesson #46 About the Temperaments – Continuing Our Study of the Choleric Temperament – The Cholerics’  Spiritual Combat – Part XI

Note: When referring to a person with a choleric temperament in this article we simply will call him a “choleric”.

In our last lesson we delved further into the typical form of pride a choleric has. Now we begin a more in depth look at the core of the choleric pride.  We mentioned that the source of the choleric pride is a lack of mental discipline, that is, an unwillingness to force himself to reason deeply and carefully.

In order to discuss this unfortunate failure to use his intellect – which leads to pride – we need to have a basic understanding of how God expects us to use our intellect.

In his Spiritual Exercises, St. Ignatius explains that man is created to praise, revere, and serve God.[1]  The Baltimore Catechism refers to these actions as knowing, loving, and serving God. 

The highest faculty a man possesses is his intellect and so it makes sense that the more a man knows, the better he will be able to praise, revere, and serve God.  This is true even if he knows about God merely through observing God’s creation.[2]  The more someone knows the truth, the more he is inspired to love God and consequently to serve God better.[3]

The Purpose of the Intellect

Man is intended to use his God-given reason to know his proper goal, namely, the happiness of enjoying God in heaven, and to take the proper means to accomplish this goal.  However, because of original sin, man’s mind has the wound of ignorance and his body has the wounds of the concupiscence of the eyes and the flesh.  In addition to this, man is prone to inordinate pride (i.e., the pride of life, as St. John the Evangelist calls it, 1 St. John, 2:16).

St. Thomas explains that the goodness of an action depends on the will of a man being directed to his proper end, that is, to God.  He explains how God intended man’s reason to direct and inform his will about the end (i.e., goal) of man and about the proper means he should take to obtain his end.  The whole of the moral life involves man listening to the voice of reason (also known as his conscience).

God has set down His laws plainly and His Catholic Church, in her Divine Element, has expounded upon the moral life in detail.  Nevertheless, the law of God, the Natural Law, is written in the heart of each man – as Genesis tells us that we are made in the image and likeness of God.[4]

So When Does the Failure to Use the Intellect Cause Sin to Occur?  Whenever a man does not listen to his reason.

Every conscious thought, word, or deed is either good or is a sin – there is no “in between”.[5]  Whenever a man is acting voluntarily,[6] it is a sin for him to not act according to his reason.  In other words, he sins whenever he voluntarily does something unreasonable.[7]  

 

Pride is a type of unreasonableness because it is an unreasonable exaltation of oneself.[8]  Thus, pride is inherently a sin because it is inherently unreasonable.[9]

The Importance of Good Will in Using Our Reason

One must be of good will.  That is, a man’s will must follow the good shown by the reason.  The will pursues the good or the apparent good.  Thus, man has the grave moral responsibility to find out if a particular object is really good or is only apparently good.  If something is only apparently good and not truly good, then we are obliged to avoid it.  Because use of reason is the center of the moral life, a man has a duty to properly inform his conscience/reason.

Further, St. Thomas tells us that even if the will listens to (i.e., follows) the reason in a situation where reason is erroneous, there is no sin provided that there is no bad motive on the part of the will and provided that the will (i.e., the man) is not blamable for his ignorance.

This explanation shows how crucial the use of reason is in the moral life of the soul.

A preview…

We have more work to do to examine the subject of the choleric temperament and reasoning.  What would motivate cholerics to not think deeply and carefully?  Here are some possible motives:

Ø  They do not want to take the time necessary to think things through because they want to accomplish things quickly or they want to race forward to act in a way that would cause them to be perceived as heroes (or heroines).

Ø  Or, they believe that it is too difficult to think carefully and deeply. (This fear of mental effort is what St. Thomas Aquinas calls stupor.)

Ø  Or, they believe that they do not have the ability to think deeply. 

Ø  Or, they falsely view thinking deeply and carefully as “proud”.

Using these or other rationalizations, cholerics are fooled by the father of lies.


[1]           Read these articles which examine this essential truth of our Faith and of human existence:

 

†      https://catholiccandle.org/2022/05/24/lesson-9-the-principle-and-foundation-part-i/

 

†      https://catholiccandle.org/2022/06/27/lesson-11-the-principle-and-foundation-part-ii/

 

[2]           St. Paul teaches how man knows of God’s existence and goodness through looking at the world around us:

 

For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; His eternal power also, and Divinity:  so that they [atheists] are inexcusable.

 

Romans, 1:20 (bracketed word added to show context).

[3]           Here is one way that St. Augustine, great Doctor of the Church, teaches this truth, addressing himself directly to God:

 

Heaven and earth and all that is in them tell me, wherever I look, that I should love You [i.e.¸God], and they cease not to tell it to all men, so that there is no excuse for them.

St. Augustine, The Confessions, Bk 10, Ch.6 (bracketed words added to show context).

[4]           Genesis, 1:26-27.


[5]           Here is one way this truth is explained by St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church:

 

It belongs to the reason to direct; if an action that proceeds from deliberate reason be not directed to the due end, it is, by that fact alone, repugnant to reason, and has the character of evil. But if it be directed to a due end, it is in accord with reason; wherefore it has the character of good. Now it must needs be either directed or not directed to a due end. Consequently, every human action that proceeds from deliberate reason, if it be considered in the individual, must be good or bad.

 

Summa, Ia IIae, Q.18, a.9, Respondeo, Whether an individual action can be indifferent? (emphasis added).

[6]           St. Thomas contrasts voluntary (human) action with involuntary action proper to brute beasts:

 

If, however, [an action] does not proceed from deliberate reason, but from some act of the imagination, as when a man strokes his beard, or moves his hand or foot [e.g., in his sleep]; such an action, properly speaking, is not moral or human [but is the type of action a brute beast could perform], since this [moral and human action] depends on reason.  Hence [an act proceeding only from imagination] will be indifferent, as standing apart from the genus [i.e., category] of moral actions.

Summa, Ia IIae, Q.18, a.9, Respondeo, Whether an individual action can be indifferent? (emphasis added; bracketed words added to show the context).

[7]           St. Thomas explains this truth by quoting and following Pope St. Gregory the Great, Doctor of the Church:

 

Gregory says in a homily (vi in Evang.): “An idle word is one that lacks either the usefulness of rectitude or the motive of just necessity or pious utility.” But an idle word is an evil, because “men . . . shall render an account of it in the day of judgment” (Matthew 12:36): while if it does not lack the motive of just necessity or pious utility, it is good. Therefore, every [voluntary] word is either good or bad. For the same reason every other action is either good or bad. Therefore, no [voluntary] individual action is indifferent.

Summa, Ia IIae, Q.18, a.9, Sed Contra, Whether an individual action can be indifferent? (emphasis added; bracketed words added to show the context).

[8]           This article pertains to the unreasonable pride which is a sin.  We are not treating the proper and reasonable pride that a parent might have for his child or a citizen might have for his country.

[9]           St. Thomas explains the unreasonableness of pride in this way:

 

Right reason requires that every man’s will should tend to that which is proportionate to him [i.e., he recognizes the truth about himself].  Therefore, it is evident that pride denotes something opposed to right reason, and this shows it [pride] to have the character of sin, according to Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv. 4), “the soul’s evil is to be opposed to reason.”  Therefore, it is evident that pride is a sin.

 

Summa, IIa-IIae Q.162, a. 1, Respondeo (bracketed words added to show the context).

 

The Blessings of a True, Catholic Liberal Education

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note: The article below concerns the best education, a Catholic Liberal Education.  Do not confuse it with many university programs called “liberal arts” but which are full of fluff, falsehood, and aimless so-called “enrichment” courses and “humanities”. 

A liberal education also does not refer to liberalism nor is a true liberal education an indoctrination into that error of liberalism or political correctness.  In fact, a true Catholic Liberal Education is the best antidote to the errors of liberalism.

Part 1

The Heart of a True Education is Thinking, Not Merely Memorizing

Let us start by reflecting on a problem that has existed for many decades but which is now worse than ever before and continues to get even worse.  This problem to which we refer is how common it is for people to graduate with a university degree without much (or any) real discernable improvement in their minds and thinking ability.  This is true whether the degree is a bachelor’s degree or a doctorate.

In their course work, students primarily learn how to “talk-the-talk” of their field.  An engineer learns engineering jargon.  Accountants learn accounting jargon.  Lawyers learn legal jargon.  Financial analysts learn their field’s jargon.  And so on.   And, usually, they also learn the jargon of political correctness, such as “social justice”, “diversity, equity, and inclusion”, etc.

Their diplomas, and being fluent in their field’s jargon, are the two ways these graduates show themselves to be members of their profession or field.  Even if those people are rather marginal or inadequate for engaging in the work of their field, they are trained to speak the jargon.

So, being a professional in his field often means being someone with a credential in that field and who is skilled at sounding like someone in that field.  Such jargon often might make a member of his field look and sound clever or learned, even when he is neither.  It makes him look like he is a man of understanding when he has merely been taught to parrot the experts’ statements – which have been “drilled into his head” through repetition and memorization.

To take one example: we saw how a great many physicians showed themselves to be unfit to practice medicine during the Covid scare.  They took the comfortable, lazy, conformist path of saying and doing whatever they were told by the medical establishment, even though it was contrary to what the eyes and experience of a thinking physician would show.[1]  These conformist physicians followed evil protocols which harmed their patients.

One reason for the way they acted was because (for many of them) they were too cowardly to exercise their independent judgment for the health of their patients.  That is a sufficient reason why these physicians are unfit for the practice of their profession – they don’t value the truth. 

In addition to physicians like these who are simply cowards, other physicians were ignorant of the harm they did to their patients because they were not accustomed to engaging in the true practice of medicine.  Instead, they slavishly followed the directives of the medical/political establishment, regardless of what those directives required.  These physicians followed the rash and lethal covid protocols and rejected the common, safe, inexpensive, and effective mitigation treatments of prudent doctors.

Based on their medical training, these physicians were conditioned to merely follow the medical establishment’s flow charts, checklists, and handbooks.  They did not use their independent judgment to treat the health of their patients.

They were accustomed to following the standard patterns such as ordering a medical test and then prescribing whatever pill was indicated by the flowcharts/protocols, depending on the test results. 

Although it is true that the treatment for the same health problem tends to take a similar path in many persons, the problem is that those physicians did not use their own professional judgment but merely deferred to whatever the medical/political establishment told them to do, no matter how unreasonable.[2]

It does not take a real physician to simply unthinkingly, uncritically follow the medical establishment’s treatment flowcharts/protocols.[3]  A professional (or someone who is proficient in whatever field) should be someone who uses his own good judgment and knows how to act independently and to practice in his field without anyone needing to tell him what to do.  He should not merely be someone who is trained to follow the rules and flow charts, as the modern “professional” is so often trained to do nowadays by the professional establishment in whichever field he is in.

Learning how to follow the flowcharts does not “make” a physician (or any professional).  Such medical treatment could be as adequately done (if it were legal) by a nurse, by a lab tech, or even, perhaps, by an eighth-grader who had been taught the medical jargon and how to follow the treatment flowcharts.

In this way, many physicians abdicate their responsibility to exercise their independent judgment, to reason carefully about a matter, and take full responsibility for their actions and the results.  So many physicians were (and are) unable to think critically since they never learned how to do so, because critical thinking is no longer taught in most schools.[4]  Instead of teaching students how to think, schools nowadays only teach students what to think – that is, the schools fill the students’ heads with the conclusions presented to those students to memorize.

The example above is about physicians, especially during the covid alarmism.  But a similar situation exists in other fields and disciplines.


An Example in Another Field, of Professional Conformity which Masquerades as Education

Above, we reviewed the incompetence demonstrated by physicians who blindly followed the deadly Covid flow charts and protocols issued by the political and medical establishment.

This conformity, and a lack of careful thinking and of exercising responsible professional judgment, is a much broader problem than merely among medical doctors.

Let us take another of countless examples of credentialed “professionals” who cannot (or do not) think on their own and merely speak the jargon of their field and mimic what the establishment tells them to say and do.

During the housing bubble of the early 2000s, risky, “subprime” mortgages of borrowers with bad credit histories, were packaged into bundles and were sold in the financial markets as AAA-rated securities.  (The “AAA” rating is the highest rating, reflecting the best and safest of all investments.)

Let us look at how this practice resulted in a major financial crisis.

In the search for greater profits, banks made huge numbers of mortgage loans, at higher interest rates, to borrowers with poor credit histories.[5]  The banks lowered their loan underwriting standards in order to originate more mortgage loans and the banks sold these mortgage contracts to investors (so those banks would not have to suffer the consequences of their lax standards).

Because there was a housing “bubble” at the time, housing prices were increasing at an unsustainable rate.  So, at the beginning of this “bubble”, when the subprime borrowers failed to pay their mortgages, the houses were (in the short run) increasing in value fast enough so the lender could sell the loan’s collateral (viz., the house) without suffering a loss after the borrower defaulted.

But this housing bubble (like all such “bubbles”) popped.  When the housing prices did not continue their unsustainable rise and when the economy took a downturn, then these subprime mortgages went into default in large numbers, causing massive losses as the prices of houses went down.

These subprime loans had been bundled into large groups and the three big credit rating agencies (Fitch, Standard & Poor’s, and Moody’s Investors Services) had rated these investments as AAA (the highest investment quality). 

Investors had been told that, although those subprime mortgages were risky investments individually, nonetheless, because they were bundled together, collectively those same mortgages became of the highest investment quality.[6]  The fallacy was that, if you add enough bad investments together, it becomes the best quality investment.

The certified financial analysts and the “whole financial world” parroted this nonsense.  The idea being (as it were) that if you pile enough manure in one heap, it becomes gourmet food.

Writing in hindsight, Investopedia.com stated:

The packaging of mortgage debt into bond-like financial instruments, was a key driver of the 2007-08 global financial crisis … that brought many major financial institutions on Wall Street and around the world to their knees when the U.S. real estate bubble burst.  …

The banks that held these … investments lost tens of billions of dollars which almost caused the US banking system to collapse.[7]

Here is one report from the period shortly before the risky mortgage bundles started to suffer huge losses:

Subprime mortgage bonds carrying the highest, “AAA,” rating have not eroded in quality despite price declines in the securities in recent days, Fitch Ratings said on Wednesday [August 8, 2007].

"We continue to be confident that “AAA” ratings reflect the high credit quality of those bonds ….”[8]

In this foolishness, “everyone” went along with the herd.  “No one” thought for himself, and “everyone” accepted the AAA credit rating for these bundles of junk mortgages because the “experts” told them they were ultra-safe.

While this foolishness was going on (and before the crash which later came), only a very few thinking people remarked that “this is nuts”!


Where did the Financial Analysts Go Wrong?

The financial analysts and other “professionals” who followed the herd on these mortgage investments had the academic degrees, spoke the industry jargon and could read spread sheets and charts.  But they did not use their own independent judgment and think clearly about the assertions being made that risky junk mortgages became ultra safe (we would say “magically”) if there were enough of them bundled together.

This results from the “institutions of higher learning” lowering academic standards and not teaching students how to think.  Instead, these students and graduates merely do what everyone else does in that field without exercising independent judgment in their work.

Such bachelor and doctoral degrees have much less value than they appear.  These considerations remind us that we cannot be sure of the competence of a person by merely confirming that he has the “correct” credential and sounds like he knows his field.

As we will see below, academic institutions have degraded their standards to lure more students (to gain students’ tuition dollars which are subsidized by federal government handouts – given either as grants or as subsidized loans).

When the overall number of students greatly increases (as it has in the last seventy years), this necessarily includes those students who are less qualified/unqualified because the more qualified students would generally already be college-bound (or entering graduate school).   Those underqualified students would not enroll at the particular school (or would not stay), if the universities did not greatly water-down their academic standards.

So, with diluted standards, academia pushes those students through the courses by teaching the students the jargon of their field and teaching them how to follow the flow charts and protocols of what they should do in their future work in their field, without really teaching the students how to think and without equipping them to act proficiently as independent professionals who practice in their field by exercising their own good judgment and acting on this judgment.


The Problem of Degree Inflation in Modern Academia

Not only do universities admit many, many, unqualified people in order to expand the class sizes and increase their tuition inflow, but this watering down also fits in other ways with the universities’ goals, since those institutions are captured by the leftists and promote leftist goals.

The leftists seek to eliminate meritocracy, which is the recognition and rewarding of superior objective performance.  Meritocracy is the opposite of the modern leftist idea that “everyone wins” and “everyone gets a prize”.  Obviously, this unrealistic mentality (viz., that “everyone wins”) deceives the students about the real world, which has real winners and real losers.  Thus, students are deprived of life-lessons which would foster in them resiliency of character and help them learn how to handle disappointments in life.

Further, the “everyone wins” mentality results in students not trying as hard as they should have – or would have – if they had not received good grades with little effort.  This discourages superior accomplishment and striving for excellence.

One of the reasons there is so much protesting (on college campuses) about political causes (such as related to the Gaza war in 2024) is because colleges are full of persons who are unfit for learning deeply and reflecting carefully – which are the activities of a true education.  Thus, many of these students are instead looking to live the life of action (not reflection).  They are not looking to improve their minds but to “make a difference” in society, as that phrase would be defined by “political correctness”.  Such students and faculty often demand that their college commits itself to social and political action in lieu of the life of education and knowledge.

There are many organizations in society (some good, some bad) which are dedicated to organizing and engaging in political action, promoting social causes, and focusing on practical pursuits.  Such “students” really belong (temperamentally) in those organizations.  If they are unwilling to postpone their life of action, then they do not belong at an institution of reflection and deep study (as a college should be).

Faculties should be largely communities of scholars, and the students should be apprentice-scholars.  But modern students are so often not docile disciples of wise teachers but instead are “change agents”[9] for social and political causes, often egged on by their leftist professors who do not belong at a real institution of learning any more than these students do.

The universities are inundated with frivolous sham “degrees” awarded for successfully memorizing sufficient leftist indoctrination – fields such as “black studies”, “women’s studies”, “ecological studies”, “sociology”, “psychology”[10], etc. 

The universities compete against each other for the same tuition dollars and so they offer students a curriculum which is attractive, easy, and “relevant” to them instead of offering a true scholarly education perfecting their minds through the pursuit of the highest universal truth.  Instead of a real education, students can elect to study  “theater arts”, “casino management”, “jazz performance”, “film production”, etc.  Through these activities and “relevant” courses, students and faculties can flatter their self-image and “check the boxes” which result in a four-year degree.

Instead of a college producing careful, reflective, wise, and analytical thinkers whose minds are perfected by the highest truths, colleges produce graduates who can superficially talk the jargon of the field and function by following the protocols of the particular industry.

What should happen is that colleges would enroll only those who can learn (and who are committed to learning) what colleges must teach – viz., the higher truths and wisdom.  THIS would make colleges truly institutions of higher learning and would make their students truly educated.  This curriculum would be a true Catholic Liberal Education (the elements of which we will examine in a later part of this article). 

But instead, colleges enroll those who are neither prepared for a true education nor are interested in true knowledge and wisdom.  So, the colleges give students what they want: functional, practical, “relevant” and (largely) shallow courses which are job training and social activism.


The Problem of Grade Inflation in Modern Academia

Grade inflation increasingly is widespread and a grade of “A” often really should mean “average”.  For example, roughly 79 percent of the grades awarded at the prestigious Yale University in the 2022–23 academic year were A’s or A-minuses.[11]  Likewise, almost 80% of Harvard students get an A, A-, or A+.[12] 

With such grade inflation one could say that everyone (more or less) is at the top of his class.  This means that the cum laude designation often deserves little praise and those who graduate with distinction are often distinctly average.

The watering down of academic standards is shown to be even worse when we consider that the average student coming into college can read at only the 7th grade level.[13]  Thus, if we were to assume that the student will make four years of reading improvement in the four years of college, then he would read at approximately an 11th grade level (junior in high school) when he graduates from college.  This means that this average student would graduate from college still unable to read at the grade level of a high school senior.

Misunderstanding What True Education Is

We should perfect our intellects (as God created us to do).  This is done through genuine education in universal truth, especially the highest truths.  (We will see more about this in a later part of this series.)  But in our perverse and carnal times, few people do that, or want to do that, or even know that this should be their goal.

Most people go to college to get job training and to memorize what they are told to memorize, not to genuinely perfect their minds.  Because the college life is no longer about the truth and no longer about developing the mind, it has become political and involves the concealing of racial and other types of performance disparities.  The focus is on money, power, prestige, and self-interest. 

Instead, without ever learning how to think carefully and critically, the students imbibe the politically correct conclusions and learn to become “social justice warriors” without ever learning how to evaluate the leftist garbage that is crammed into their minds.  Such students neither are capable of, nor interested in, leading the life of a scholar, pursuing the truth, and perfecting their minds.

Whereas universities should be offering a student precious years in which to gain wisdom and learn deep truths, instead those institutions compete for students by offering the cheapest and quickest road to an “academic” degree to be used as a tool with which to get a “good job”.  Thus, degrees nowadays are largely mere job training – which is not real education.  The idea is that with a degree, they can command a higher income in the job market.

A big part of the problem is that the government subsidizes education (including taxpayer subsidized state schools).  When something is subsidized, more people “buy” it – including many people who would not value it enough to “buy” the item if it were not subsidized.  So often students go to universities (at least in part) in order to grab government tuition freebees/handouts, have “fun”, and delay the time at which they must support themselves. 

Thus, it would help reduce degree “inflation” if the government stopped pumping money (subsidies and freebees) into the universities.  If that happened, there would be fewer students and more real education.  (There would also be other benefits such as a reduction of the injustices that society suffers, through the elimination of this socialist wealth-redistribution which occurs by such government subsidies).

Whereas, for hundreds of years, until recent decades, an academic degree indicated that a person had a somewhat exclusive intellectual formation, now those credentials have been so debased by a proliferation of low-standard college credentials that they often mean little else besides marking a period of four years of leftist indoctrination.  Moreover, during those four years, the focus is increasingly on “student experience” rather than on student learning.  In other words, the focus is on the “student as customer and consumer” rather than as a seeker of the highest knowledge and wisdom.

As we will see in a later part of this article, this highest knowledge and wisdom is truly beyond all price and should be valued “more than kingdoms”!


To be continued

 


[1]           For analysis of the Covid nonsense, read these articles:

v  The Overblown Corona Scare: https://catholiccandle.org/2020/10/01/the-overblown-corona-scare/

v  Problems with Face Masks: https://catholiccandle.org/2020/12/01/856/

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

v  Lockdowns are for Controlling People, Not a Virus: https://catholiccandle.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/lockdowns-are-to-control-people-not-a-virus-2.pdf

[3]           Read this article about the oppressive forces imposing medical conformity: How Your Family Doc Became a Drug Enforcement Agent, https://brownstone.org/articles/how-your-family-doc-became-a-drug-enforcement-agent/

[4]           Read this article: The Evils of Social-Emotional Learning: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/07/12/the-evils-of-social-emotional-learning/

 


[6]           Read, e.g., this article: https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-subprime-fitch-idUSN1831999120070718/

[9]           This is a phrase (usually used favorably by leftists) referring to persons changing society through protesting and other social activism.

[10]         Concerning “psychological” counseling: there is certainly a science of the study of the soul.  But in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Treatise on the Soul (“De Anima”), St. Thomas Aquinas shows the truth that, aside from medical problems in the brain as a bodily organ, which are caused by disease or physical trauma, what people need, who have “psychological” problems, is wise moral advice, sometimes over a prolonged period, concerning how to change their thinking about life and what moral choices they should make.

Thus, what is needed by people who have “psychological” problems is not someone with a particular academic degree or license but rather an advisor who has the virtue of Prudence, the Gift of the Holy Ghost which is called “Counsel”, and the other virtues and Gifts of the Holy Ghost.

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Words to Live by – from Catholic Tradition

We Must Live According to Reason – Not According to Inclination

Here is the teaching of St. John of the Cross, the Mystical Doctor of the Church:

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


Quoted from his work, Prayer Of A Soul Taken With Love, #42.


Lesson #45: Temperaments – Choleric Temperament – a Choleric’s Spiritual Combat – Part X

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Philosophy Notes

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

  1. Mary’s School of Sanctity – Lesson #36: About the Temperaments – Beginning our Study of the Choleric Temperament – Part I: 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– Part II: 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 – Part III:: 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/

  1. 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/

  2. 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/

  1. Mary’s School of Sanctity – Lesson #42: About the Temperaments – Continuing Our Study of the Choleric Temperament – a Choleric’s Spiritual Combat – Part VII: https://catholiccandle.org/2025/02/21/lesson-42-temperaments-choleric-temperament-a-cholerics-spiritual-combat-part-vii/


  2. Mary’s School of Sanctity — Lesson #43 About the Temperaments –Continuing Our Study of the Choleric Temperament — Their Spiritual Combat Part VIII: https://catholiccandle.org/2025/03/27/lesson-42-temperaments-choleric-temperament-a-cholerics-spiritual-combat-part-viii/

  3. Mary’s School of Sanctity – Lesson #44 About the Temperaments – Continuing Our Study of the Choleric Temperament – Their Spiritual Combat, Part IX: https://catholiccandle.org/2025/04/23/lesson-44-temperaments-choleric-temperament-a-cholerics-spiritual-combat-part-ix/


Mary’s School of Sanctity

Lesson #45 About the Temperaments – Continuing Our Study of the Choleric Temperament –
The Choleric’s Spiritual Combat Part X

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

Previously, we have discussed anger and its link to pride in the choleric. Likewise, we have discussed at length how a choleric must acquire self-knowledge so he can master himself. He must beware of nurturing hatred, which fosters holding grudges.

In addition to all of this is another character trait which is directly linked to pride, namely, the choleric’s tendency to criticize and misjudge others.

When one thinks about the fact that with fallen human nature we are all infected with pride, one can see many results of this infection. One result is that we do not like others to see our weaknesses and failings. In fact, we tend to try to hide our faults rather than admit that we have them.

The bad-willed choleric is especially prone to this tendency to never admit that he is wrong. He does not want to see himself the way he really is. He avoids looking deeply into himself because he dreads discovering anything that he needs to improve in himself. This is a form of pride which in turn leads to blinding himself further regarding his own defects. He tries to convince himself that does not have his various defects. Likewise, he does not want others to see that he has any flaws.

One common way that this choleric attempts to deflect attention from his defects is to accuse others of flaws or supposed flaws. Thus, this choleric has a very strong tendency to criticize others as a means of keeping others from seeing him as he really is. Of course, this is directly linked to his denial of some (or all) of his defects. (A bad-willed choleric might be aware of his defects but does not want to correct them.) This form of pride is extremely strong in him.

An interesting point is that it seems that the more pride the bad-willed choleric has, the more critical he is and, therefore, the more he is unbearable he is to others. He seems to find constant fault with everyone around him. Thus, it can be that with some cholerics, nothing seems to please them.

Another important point to consider is that the proud choleric is instinctively intimidated by virtuous people around him, as if he can sense his defects more intensely in comparison to them. The intimidation he feels is so great within him that he vents his vexation by especially attacking any virtuous person associated with him.

If anyone points out to him any defect, this proud choleric can’t handle it and he lashes out at the “accuser”. He hurls insults at him and insists that the virtuous one, who was giving fraternal correction with love, is full of vice. It is ironic that oftentimes the so-called vice the choleric accuses his corrector of having, is the very vice he himself is full of. Instead of the choleric showing gratitude to the one giving charitable fraternal correction, the proud choleric displays his defects even more prominently by his haughty reaction to the correction.

Unfortunately, this pattern of behavior in a proud choleric is usually a vicious circle. His relatives and acquaintances become overwhelmed with the situation and do not know how to try to help him. However, since pride is blind, the choleric tends not to see any problem, so the problem becomes worse.

What can a choleric do to avoid turning into an unjust criticizer? (Below is a short list of suggestions. Of course, more can be found.)

1) Be aware of the tendency of cholerics to be proud.

2) Work very hard at acquiring the virtue of humility.

3) Saying ejaculations such as, “Jesus Meek and Humble of Heart make my heart like unto Thine,” is extremely helpful. Likewise, saying the Litany of Humility1 often, even twice a day, is a powerful means to fight pride.

4) When a critical comment/thought about another person comes into his mind, he could tell himself that he himself possesses that problem and he should not say or think of criticizing others, because doing so would be like the “pot calling the kettle black.”

5) He should pray to Our Lord and Our Lady to help him acquire more and more self-knowledge so he can see himself more in the Divine Light and work on improving his character.

6) He must tell himself to not be afraid of seeing his flaws because God intends him to continually convert and become more Christ-like— for our life on earth is to be an imitation of Christ and so we Catholics should want with all our hearts to go to heaven and to be divine friends with Our Lord.

7) He should remind himself that everyone has a form of pride and other defects to work on, and being aware of his is a great blessing. Knowing oneself is half the battle, so to speak; then all he needs to do is to get to work and improvements and peace of soul will come.

8) He should also remind himself that others will find him easier to bear if he has begun in earnest to change his attitude to a humble one.

A Preview…

In our next lesson we will examine the very core of the choleric pride – a lack of mental discipline, i.e., an unwillingness to force himself to reason deeply.

This lack of mental discipline has the following consequences (which we will examine):

  • Not making good choices/decisions;

  • Plans are poorly formulated and poorly implemented;

  • Failures leading to blaming others;

  • Failures leading to making excuses and covering up problems;

  • Trying to compensate for poor thinking by acting overconfident and/or bragging; and

  • Trying to manipulate others and control them to avoid the problems caused by bad planning.

1 Litany of Humility
O Jesus! meek and humble of heart, Hear me.

From the desire of being esteemed, Deliver me, Jesus.

From the desire of being loved… Deliver etc.

From the desire of being extolled …

From the desire of being honored …

From the desire of being praised …

From the desire of being preferred to others…

From the desire of being consulted …

From the desire of being approved …

From the fear of being humiliated …

From the fear of being despised…

From the fear of suffering rebukes …

From the fear of being calumniated …

From the fear of being forgotten …

From the fear of being ridiculed …

From the fear of being wronged …

From the fear of being suspected …

That others may be loved more than I, Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.

That others may be esteemed more than I … Jesus, grant etc.

That, in the opinion of the world, others may increase and I may decrease …
That others may be chosen and I set aside …
That others may be praised and I unnoticed …
That others may be preferred to me in everything…
That others may become holier than I, provided that I may become as holy as I should…



CC in Brief – Should we EVER go into St. Peter’s Basilica?

Posted on by Catholic Candle

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

CC in Brief

Should we EVER go into St. Peter’s Basilica?

Below is a reader’s question in light of an article in the April 2025 Catholic Candle concerning conciliar (and other compromise) churches being unfitting places to pray1:

Q. Are you saying that a Catholic should not go into St. Peter’s Basilica?  Did not the Lord go into the Temple, that den of thieves where blasphemies were regularly committed?

A. You are correct to follow Our Lord’s example in all things. But we must be careful to make sure that we are in the same situation before doing the same physical act that Our Lord did. So, e.g., we should not attempt to walk on water, as He did.

The Temple was Our Lord’s own house. Consider the possible difference between a well-armed man who walked into his own house which has been taken over by a drug gang, when he seeks to clean out the riffraff (like Our Lord going into the Temple to clean it out). Compare this to someone else deciding to walk into the same drug house with lesser good reasons, or even just for gawking and photo opportunities, etc.

Further, there seems to be a difference between Catholic practice near the time of Our Lord and after that. There was a certain transition period during which Catholics like Saints Peter and John went into the Temple [Acts of the Apostles, 3:1-6], but after this transition period, Catholics did not enter. In fact, the three reasons given in the Catholic Candle article2 are an ample basis for explaining why faithful and informed Catholics ceased entering synagogues, just as they should not enter conciliar or compromise churches as explained in the Catholic Candle article. So, for the reasons set forth in the Catholic Candle article, we think people should not go into conciliar or other compromise churches to pray.

But what about entering a conciliar building for tourism purposes? Is there scandal3 then?

Yes, there is still scandal, but for different reasons. There would not be the same type of scandal when one enters a church building – like St. Peter’s in Rome – if it is a daily tourist trap full of large crowds who are obviously not there to pray. In such a case, if a man were to walk into the building snapping pictures, dressed like a tourist, and not praying or genuflecting, it reduces or eliminates the scandal of being seen entering there as a place of prayer.

But there would still be a different problem than the scandal of a man going into that church to pray. This is because it seems unfitting to simply treat St. Peter’s as a secular tourist site because this ignores the fact that the basilica was formerly a place of holiness, although it is now desecrated. Profane treatment of a once-holy building would seem to be wrong, like treating a previously-consecrated chalice like a secular drinking vessel because it has already been desecrated. So, we should not go into conciliar or compromise churches either to pray or to simply gawk around and look at the beauty of the art.4

Besides the scandal of praying in conciliar churches, there are other concerns and occasions for compromise when entering these places. One temptation would be to genuflect (out of a misguided reverence) in front of the “tabernacles.” (There is a serious doubt that Our Lord is really present in the novus ordo and various “Latin Mass” venues, based not only regarding the problems with the novus ordo “mass” itself, but also doubtful ordinations/consecrations, and invalid form, matter, or intention.)

One might see some otherwise well-meaning “Traditionalists” dipping their fingers into the “holy” water fonts, or even showing respect for the masonic “altar” tables. All of this constitutes compromising / mixing with the Revolution. We must never do this.

In contrast, every year the “new” SSPX leads hundreds of “Traditionalists” through these conciliar buildings on European pilgrimages. These pilgrimages are led by SSPX priests, and one sees in the advertisement pictures that “Traditionalists” are kneeling reverently in prayer.

Pilgrimages are good and wholesome in regular times, but now is not the time for such activities to the locations desecrated by the ongoing Conciliar Revolution. We are in full-scale war with this Revolution!

For all the above reasons, we must avoid entering conciliar or other compromise churches to pray or “just to look around” – including the famous churches in Europe. This is a sacrifice for faithful and informed Catholics but is an act of integrity and prudence to offer to Our Lord the King, as well as to avoid scandal.

We would do well to remember the famous quote from St. Athanasius when the Arian heretics of his day took possession of the churches: “They have the churches, but we have the faith.”5 It is clear that St. Athanasius, knowing the horror of heresy, would have been saddened had he heard that some Catholics were entering such Arian churches (or, in our times, entering into conciliar or compromise churches) because of their art, their beauty, their history, etc.

Let us stay out of such churches! We should be completely content and extremely grateful to God that we have the True Faith! Let us not seek those buildings until God delivers them back once again, to be used for holy purposes!

3 Scandal is giving the appearance of evil which makes another person more likely to sin. Summa, IIa IIae, Q.43, a.1, ad 2.

4 Although we should not go into compromise churches to pray or treat those buildings like secular tourist sites, there is a narrow situation where one might go into such a building to fulfill an office of nature without participating in any religious activity. Read this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/other-than-weddings-and-funerals-we-should-never-attend-any-religious-services-of-compromise-groups-or-false-religions



The False “Obedience” of Cowardly and Weak Catholics

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle Note: Sedevacantism is wrong and is schism. Catholic Candle is not sedevacantist. A reader would be mistaken to believe that the article below gives any support to sedevacantism. The article simply shows that we should resist (and not follow) the evil command of a pope or any other superior.



Faithful and informed Catholics know that Our Lord’s enemies have long planned to corrupt the human element of the Catholic Church through false “obedience”. For example, here is the Masonic plan set out 200 years ago, to use false “obedience” to attack the Church:


The Pope, whoever he may be, will never come to the secret societies. It is for the secret societies to come first to the Church, in the resolve to conquer the two [viz., the Church and pope]. The work which we have undertaken is not the work of a day, nor of a month, nor of a year. It may last many years, a century perhaps, but in our ranks the soldier dies and the fight continues. …


That which we ought to demand, that which we should seek and expect, as the Jews expected the Messiah, is a Pope according to our wants. … [With such a pope, we] have the little finger of the successor of St. Peter engaged in the plot, and that little finger is of more value for our crusade than all the Innocents, the Urbans, and the St. Bernards of Christianity. …


Let the clergy march under your banner in the belief always that they march under the banner of the Apostolic Keys. … You will have fished up a Revolution in Tiara and Cope, marching with Cross and banner – a Revolution which it will need but to be spurred on a little to put the four quarters of the world on fire.1


Faithful and informed Catholics know that the Freemasons have accomplished their goal in the human element of the Catholic Church, mainly through Vatican II and the subsequent conciliar church.


Archbishop Lefebvre recognized this successful corruption of the human element of the Church through false “obedience”. Here are his words:


Satan’s master stroke will therefore be to spread the revolutionary principles introduced into the Church by the authority of the Church itself, placing this authority in a situation of incoherence and permanent contradiction; so long as this ambiguity has not been dispersed, disasters will multiply within the Church. … We must acknowledge that the trick has been well played and that Satan’s lie has been masterfully utilized. The Church will destroy Herself through obedience.2 … You must obey! Whom or what must we obey? We don’t know exactly. Woe to the man who does not consent. He thereby earns the right to be trampled underfoot, to be calumniated, to be deprived of everything which allowed him to live. He is a heretic, a schismatic; let him die – that is all he deserves.


Satan has really succeeded in pulling off a master stroke: he is succeeding in having those who keep the Catholic Faith condemned by the very people who should be defending and propagating it. … Satan reigns through ambiguity and incoherence, which are his means of combat, and which deceive men of little Faith. Satan’s master stroke, by which he is bringing about the auto-destruction of the Church, is therefore to use obedience in order to destroy the Faith: authority against Truth.3


In the quote above, Archbishop Lefebvre is talking about the corruption of the human element of the Church since the Divine element of the Church cannot be destroyed and will continue and remain perfect until the end of the world.


So, Satan and the Masons have used the Vatican to cause the corruption in the human element of the Church by using modernist Ecclesiastical authorities to attack and suppress the truth through false “obedience”.4


To help us to avoid this trap of false “obedience”, let us look more carefully at what true obedience is. Here are six points regarding obedience:


  1. True Obedience is Subordinate to Faith and Must Conform to Faith.


  1. We have no duty to “obey” the evil command of a superior.


  1. Not only have we no duty to “obey” the evil command of a superior, but we must refuse to “obey” it.


  1. Not only must we refuse to “obey” the evil command of a superior but we must oppose the accomplishment of that evil command.


  1. We must resist the bad command of any superior, including the pope.


  1. [Objection:] But shouldn’t we wait for good leaders before resisting the evil command of a superior? [Answer:] No! We must act now!

Below, we discuss each of these six points.



  1. True Obedience is Subordinate to Faith and Must Conform to Faith


There are three virtues, Faith, Hope and Charity, which are called “theological” because they have God as their object. Through these virtues, we believe what God has revealed, we trust in God5 and we love God. These Theological Virtues are greater than all other virtues including the virtue of obedience.6


Besides these three Theological Virtues, every other virtue is a moral virtue – it is either one of the four Cardinal Virtues (Prudence, Justice, Courage and Temperance) or is a virtue which “comes under” a Cardinal Virtue and is connected with that Cardinal Virtue.


For example, the virtue of obedience is a subordinate virtue “coming under” the Cardinal Virtue of Justice.7 This is because Justice is giving each person what is owed to him8 and the virtue of obedience is giving our superior the obedience which is owed to him.


We must never obey a lower superior if that superior’s command is contrary to the command of a high superior because then we would be failing to give the higher superior the obedience we owe to that higher superior.9


God is our highest superior, Whom we must obey in all things. We must never “obey” the commands of other superiors which are contrary to the Will of God.10 When Jewish authorities in Israel gave the Apostles commands which were contrary to God’s Will, the Apostles told them “we ought to obey God, rather than men.” Acts of the Apostles, 5:29.


Because we would disobey God by following a bad command of any other superior, following that bad command is really a sin of disobedience.11



  1. We have no duty to “obey” the bad commands of a superior.


Our salvation depends upon discerning the difference between true obedience – which is necessary, and false obedience – which is a sin. Here is how the book, Liberalism is a Sin, explains the duty of any subordinate, contrasting when he receives a good command and when he receives a sinful command:


Obedience to a superior in all that is not directly or indirectly against Faith and Morals is his bounden duty, but it is equally his duty to refuse obedience to anything directly or indirectly in opposition to the integrity of his Faith.12


One of the errors of both the sedevacantists and so-called “conservative” Catholics, is failing to distinguish between opposing the authority of the pope as such (which is a sin), and opposing a pope’s evil exercise this authority (which is good). Both groups falsely hold that if we have a pope, then we must do whatever he says and cannot resist what he does and says.


However, when we resist a superior’s sinful command (or conduct), we do not thereby reject the superior’s authority as such, but only his evil command (or conduct). St. Thomas makes this crucial distinction when he discusses St. Paul resisting St. Peter, the first pope, to his face. Galatians, 2:11. St. Thomas explains that “the Apostle opposed Peter in the exercise of authority, not in his authority of ruling [as such].”13 Thus, while recognizing our superior’s authority, we must oppose his abuse of authority when he commands evil.


St. Athanasius, Doctor of the Church, is our model. He was excommunicated14 because he refused Pope Liberius’ evil command to accept Arian-infected doctrine and the command to not oppose those persons who taught the infected doctrine.


If today’s so-called “conservative” Catholics had been alive then, they would have obeyed Pope Liberius and accepted Arian-infected false doctrine.


If today’s sedevacantists had been alive then, they would have denied that Pope Liberius was a real pope.



  1. We have a duty to refuse to “obey” the bad command of a superior.


Not only do we have no duty to “obey” the evil command of a superior (as shown in the section immediately above), but we have a duty not to “obey” an evil command.


St. Thomas explains this truth as follows:


[S]ometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.15


There is a great difference between doing evil under false “obedience” (which is a sin) and refraining from doing a particular non-obligatory good deed because a superior commanded us to refrain from this deed. Here is how this distinction is explained by Pope St. Gregory the Great, Doctor of the Church:


Know that evil ought never to be done through obedience, though sometimes something good, which is being done, ought to be discontinued out of obedience.16 


We must always obey God and never “obey” anything contrary to God’s Will. We know His Will through reason and the Catholic Faith. Here is how Pope Leo XIII explained this truth:


[T]he nature of human liberty, however it be considered, whether in individuals or in society, whether in those who command or in those who obey, supposes the necessity of obedience to some supreme and eternal law, which is no other than the authority of God, commanding good and forbidding evil. And, so far from this most just authority of God over men diminishing, or even destroying their liberty, it protects and perfects it, for the real perfection of all creatures is found in the prosecution and attainment of their respective ends; but the supreme end to which human liberty must aspire is God. …


[W]here a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful, lest, while obeying man, we become disobedient to God.17


Because an evil command from a superior is, in effect, a command to disobey God’s Will, we should strongly reject such a command just like any other temptation to sin. Here is how this truth is taught by Juan Cardinal de Torquemada, who was the holy and learned medieval theologian responsible for the formulation of the doctrines defined at the Council of Florence:


It is necessary to obey God rather than men. Therefore, where the Pope would command something contrary to Sacred Scripture, or to an article of Faith, or to the truth of the Sacraments, or to a command of the Natural Law18 or of the Divine Law, he ought not to be obeyed, but such command ought to be despised.19



  1. Not only must we refuse to “obey” an evil command of a superior but we have a duty to oppose the accomplishment of that evil command.


Above, we saw that we have no obligation to obey a bad command of a superior. Then we saw that we have a duty to refuse to “obey” this bad command. But our duty is even greater than that. We have a duty to resist the carrying out of that command according to our abilities.


We are soldiers of Christ and we must work to achieve the Will of Christ the King even when the one opposing Christ’s Will is our superior (including the pope).


Satan’s most effective weapon is the Catholic who “doesn’t want to get involved” and doesn’t want to sacrifice himself for the cause of Christ the King. At the beginning of the same Great Apostasy in which we now live, Pope St. Pius X blamed those weak and timid Catholics for Satan’s success. Here are the saintly pope’s words:


In our time more than ever before, the chief strength of the wicked lies in the cowardice and weakness of good men …. All the strength of Satan’s reign is due to the easy-going weakness of Catholics.


Oh! if I might ask the Divine Redeemer, as the prophet Zachary did in spirit: What are those wounds in the midst of Thy hands? The answer would not be doubtful: With these was I wounded in the house of them that loved Me. I was wounded by My friends, who did nothing to defend Me, and who, on every occasion, made themselves the accomplices of My adversaries. And this reproach can be leveled at the weak and timid Catholics of all countries.20



  1. We must resist the bad command of any superior, including the pope.


We must resist the evil commands of any superior. However, the pope is the highest of all superiors on earth. Thus, when discussing the sin of false obedience, wise men often spoke particularly about false obedience to the pope because what applies to resisting the evil command of a pope also applies to resisting the evil command of any other, lower superior.


After setting out the exalted authority of the pope, Pope Paul IV then tells us that we are right to resist the pope whenever he deviates from the Faith. Here are his words:


[T]he Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fullness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.21


The great Thomist and theologian, Saint Cajetan taught:


One must resist the Pope who openly destroys the Church.22


Fr. Francisco Suarez, S.J., was the greatest Jesuit theologian, whom Pope Paul V called “Doctor eximius et pius” (most exalted and pious doctor). Fr. Suarez teaches:


If [the Pope] lays down an order contrary to right customs one does not have to obey him; if he tries to do something manifestly opposed to justice and to the common good, it would be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, he could be repelled by force, with the moderation characteristic of a good defense.23


Fr. Francisco de Vitoria, O.P., was the great and glorious Thomist of Salamanca, philosopher, theologian, jurist and the Father of International Law. Fr. Vitoria teaches:


A Pope must be resisted who publicly destroys the Church. What should be done when the Pope, because of his bad customs, destroys the Church? What should be done if the Pope wanted, without reason, to abrogate Positive Law [i.e., Church Law]?24


Then Fr. Vitoria answers his own question:


He would certainly sin; he should neither be permitted to act in such fashion nor should he be obeyed in what was evil; but he should be resisted with a courteous reprehension. Consequently, … if he wanted to destroy the Church or the like, he should not be permitted to act in that fashion, but one would be obliged to resist him. The reason for this is that he does not have the power to destroy. Therefore, if there is evidence that he is doing so, it is licit to resist him. The result of all this is that if the Pope destroys the Church by his orders and actions, he can be resisted and the execution of his mandates prevented.25



  1. [Objection:] But shouldn’t we wait for good leaders before resisting the evil command of a superior? [Answer:] No! We must act now!


Catholics must work tirelessly to help their fellow members of the Mystical Body of Christ. Because Catholics seek the good for their friends, they want their friends to share this great good, viz., the truth. To be ignorant of an aspect of the Faith is harmful to salvation, even if the person is not blamable for his error. This is why the Catholic Church is and must be always missionary, although the conciliar hierarchy and compromise groups26 have lost their missionary zeal. In other words, we must abide in the truth and work tirelessly that our friends, our family, and all people, also abide in the truth.


St. Thomas quotes and confirms St. Augustine’s words, that the truth is everyone’s good and correcting an erring superior is anyone’s duty. Here are his words:


If the Faith be in imminent peril, prelates ought to be accused by their subjects, even in public. Thus, St. Paul, who was the subject of St. Peter, called him to task in public because of the impending danger of scandal concerning a point of Faith. As St. Augustine’s commentary puts it:


St. Peter himself set an example for those who rule, to the effect that if they ever stray from the straight path, they are not to feel that anyone is unworthy of correcting them, even if such a person be one of their subjects.27


Another Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine, assures us that we are right to resist a pope who uses his office to attack souls (whether through false doctrine or bad morals). Here are his words:


In order to resist and defend oneself no authority is required …. Just as it is licit to resist a Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order, or above all tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or depose him, for these are acts proper to a superior.28


Where matters of faith and morals are involved, resistance to a superior’s bad commands is every Catholic’s duty. The only correct course of action is that taken by Eusebius and so highly praised by Dom Guéranger in his epic work, The Liturgical Year:


On Christmas Day, 428, Nestorius (Patriarch of Constantinople), profiting from the immense crowd assembled to celebrate the birth of the Divine Child to Our Lady, uttered this blasphemy from his Episcopal throne: “Mary did not give birth to God; her son was only a man, the instrument of God.”


At these words a tremor of horror passed through the multitude. The general indignation was voiced by Eusebius, a layman, who stood up in the crowd and protested. Soon a more detailed protest was drafted in the name of the members of the abandoned Church, and numerous copies spread far and wide, declaring anathema on whoever should dare to say that He Who was born of the Virgin Mary was other than the only begotten Son of God. This attitude not only safeguarded the Faith of the Eastern Church, but was praised alike by Popes and Councils.


When the shepherd turns into a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself. As a general rule, doctrine comes from the bishops to the faithful, and it is not for the faithful, who are subjects in the order of Faith, to pass judgment on their superiors. But every Christian, by virtue of his title to the name Christian, has not only the necessary knowledge of the essentials of the treasure of Revelation, but also the duty of safeguarding them. The principle is the same, whether it is a matter of belief or conduct, that is, of dogma or morals. Treachery such as that of Nestorius is rare in the Church; but it can happen that, for one reason or another, pastors remain silent on essential matters of faith. The true children of Holy Church at such times are those who walk by the light of their baptism, not the cowardly souls who, under the specious pretext of submission to the powers that be, delay their opposition to the enemy in the hope of receiving instructions which are neither necessary nor desirable.29


Where the Catholic Faith and morals are concerned, we must have a great zeal and complete liberty to speak the truth regardless of the feelings or the anger of our superiors.30


A superior is not representing God when he gives an evil command. Charity requires that we correct him.31



Conclusion


Bad ecclesiastical superiors have been using false obedience to attack the truth. They have been corrupting the human element of the Church.


We must always remember that:


  1. True Obedience is Subordinate to Faith and Must Conform to Faith.


  1. We have no duty to “obey” the evil command of a superior.


  1. Not only have we no duty to “obey” the evil command of a superior, but we must refuse to “obey” it.


  1. Not only must we refuse to “obey” the evil command of a superior but we must oppose the accomplishment of that evil command.


  1. We must resist the bad command of any superior, including the pope.


  1. We should join the fight without delay, for Christ the King and against His enemies!

1 Quoted from the permanent secret instruction given to the members of the High Lodge (Alta Vendita) dated 1819. An English translation is found in The War of Antichrist with the Church and Christian Civilization, by Msgr. George F. Dillon, New York, Burns and Oates, 1885, pp 66, 67 & 71 (emphasis added and bracketed words added to show context). Pope Pius IX vouched that this Alta Vendita Masonic plan is authentic.


2 In other words, the Church will be corrupted in Her human element.

3 Quoted from Satan’s Master Stroke, a public statement by Archbishop Lefebvre, October 13, 1974, Le Sel de la terre #94, Autumn 2015 (emphasis added).


4 On this issue and so many others, the SSPX’s current leaders teach the opposite of their founder, Archbishop Lefebvre. For example, when Fr. Arnaud Rostand was U.S. District Superior (before he was promoted and transferred to Menzingen), he asserted that:


[T]he crisis [in the Church] came from the collapse of Church authority.


Quoted from the June 2013 Regina Coeli Report (emphasis added and bracketed words added to show the context).


Similarly, then-seminary rector, Fr. Yves le Roux, lamented the “distrust of authority” in “the ranks of defenders of the tradition of the Church”. Quoted from Fr. Yves le Roux’s 10 November 2013 letter entitled “Subversion or Tradition?”


In other words, the N-SSPX falsely teaches that the problem is that Church authority is too weak (collapsed) or too distrusted. However, faithful and informed Catholics know that the crisis in the human element of the Church is primarily and fundamentally an attack on the truth through false “obedience” and abuse of authority.


5 For an explanation of the difference between the true Theological Virtue of Hope and the vice of presumption, read this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-the-new-sspx-teaches-the-vice-of-presumption-as-if-it-were-the-virtue-of-hope.html

This article shows that the “new” liberal SSPX now promotes the vice of presumption as if it were the true Theological Virtue of Hope.


6 Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church, states this truth:


[T]he theological virtues whereby a person adheres to God in Himself, are greater than the moral virtues, whereby he holds in contempt some earthly thing in order to adhere to God.


Summa, IIa IIae, Q.104, a.3, Respondeo. See also, Summa, IIa IIae, Q.4 a.7 sed cont. & ad 3; IIa IIae, Q.23 a.6.

7

Read St. Thomas Aquinas’ marvelous explanation of this truth here: Summa, IIa IIae, Q.104. a2.

8

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.58, a.1.

9

Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church, states this truth:


There are two reasons, for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things:


First, on account of the command of a higher power. For as St. Augustine comments on Romans 13:2 (“He that resisteth the power, resist the ordinance of God”):


If a commissioner issues an order, are you to comply, if it is contrary to the bidding of the proconsul? Again, if the proconsul command one thing, and the emperor another, will you hesitate, to disregard the former and serve the latter? Therefore, if the emperor commands one thing and God another, you must disregard the former and obey God.


St. Augustine, De Verb. Dom. VIII (emphasis added; slight editing for clarity).


Second, a subject is not bound to obey his superior if the latter commands him to do something wherein he is not subject to him. For Seneca says (De Beneficiis iii): “It is wrong to suppose that slavery falls upon the whole man: for the better part of him is excepted.” His body is subjected and assigned to his master but his soul is his own. Consequently, in matters touching the internal movement of the will, man is not bound to obey his fellow-man, but God alone.


Quoted from the Summa, IIa IIae, Q104, a.5, respondeo.


10 Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church, states this truth:


Man is subject to God simply as regards all things, both internal and external, wherefore he is bound to obey Him in all things. On the other hand, inferiors are not subject to their superiors in all things, but only in certain things and in a particular way, in respect of which the superior stands between God and his subjects, whereas in respect of other matters the subject is immediately under God, by Whom he is taught either by the natural or by the written law.


Summa, IIa IIae, Q.104, ad 2.


11 Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church, states this truth:


[A]nyone who obeys the sinful command of his superior, commits the sin of disobedience to God’s law.


Summa, IIa IIae, Q.33, a.7, ad.5 (“…ipse peccaret praecipiens, et ei obediens, quasi contra praeceptum Domini agens…”).


Here is another way St. Thomas distinguishes three categories related to obedience: 1) true obedience; 2) perfect obedience; and 3) false obedience:


[W]e may distinguish a threefold obedience; one, sufficient for salvation, and consisting in obeying when one is bound to obey: secondly, perfect obedience, which obeys in all things lawful: thirdly, illicit obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful.


Summa, IIa IIae, Q.104, a.5, ad 3.


12 Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, Liberalism Is a Sin, 1886, reprinted by TAN Books, p.84 (emphasis added).

13 Super Epistulas S. Pauli, Ad Galatas, ch.2 lectio III (emphasis and bracketed words added).

14 See, The Voice of Tradition, By Michael Davies, The Remnant, April 30, 1978, page 13-4, citing various authorities showing St. Athanasius was excommunicated.


Pope Liberius’ excommunication of St. Athanasius was null and void. Read the explanation for this truth here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/against-sedevacantism.html#question-001

15 Summa, IIa IIae, Q.104, a.5, ad. 3.


16 De Moral., bk. XXXV, §29 (emphasis added).

17

Libertas Praestantissimum, §§ 11 &13 (emphasis added).


18 The Natural Law is what we know we must do by the light of the natural reason God gave us. One example of the Natural Law is that we must never tell a lie. We naturally know this because we know that the purpose of speech is to convey the truth and so we naturally know that telling a lie is abusing the purpose of speech.


Here is how St. Thomas explains what the Natural Law is:


[L]aw, being a rule and measure, can be in a person in two ways: in one way, as in him that rules and measures; in another way, as in that which is ruled and measured, since a thing is ruled and measured, in so far as it partakes of the rule or measure. Wherefore, since all things subject to Divine providence are ruled and measured by the Eternal Law, as was stated above [in Summa, Ia IIae, Q.91, a.1]; it is evident that all things partake somewhat of the Eternal Law, in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends. Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine Providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident both for itself and for others. Wherefore it has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law. Hence the Psalmist after saying (Psalm 4:6): "Offer up the sacrifice of justice," as though someone asked what the works of justice are, adds: "Many say, Who showeth us good things?" in answer to which question he says: "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us": thus implying that the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light. It is therefore evident that the Natural Law is nothing else than the rational creature’s participation in the Eternal Law.


Summa, Ia IIae, Q.91, a.2, Respondeo.

19 Summa de ecclesia (Venice: M. Tranmezium, 1561). Lib. II, c. 49, p. 163B. This English translation of this statement of Juan de Torquemada is found in Patrick Granfield, The Papacy in Transition (New York: Doubleday, 1980), p.171 (emphasis added).


20 Pope St. Pius X, Discourse on the Beatification of Joan of Arc, December 13, 1908.


21 Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, §1 (emphasis added).


22 In De Comparata Auctoritate Papae Et Concilii, as quoted in Is Tradition Excommunicated?, Angelus Press, p. 20.

23

De Fide, disp. 10, sect. 6, n. 16, in Opera Omnia, Paris, Vives, vol 12.

24

Obras de Francisco de Vitoria, Dialogus de Potestate Papae, para. 4 (Madrid: BAC, 1960), pp. 486f (emphasis added).

25

Obras de Francisco de Vitoria, Dialogus de Potestate Papae, para. 4 (Madrid: BAC, 1960), pp. 486f (emphasis added).

26 Bishop Williamson’s group and the “new” SSPX lack missionary zeal. Read their own words cited to their own sources.


Here are Bishop Williamson’s words: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/williamson-faithful-catholics-have-a-missionary-spirit-bishop-williamson-tries-to-destroy-this-spirit.html


Here are the N-SSPX’s words: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-extinguished-missionary-spirit.html


27 Summa, IIa IIae, Q.33, a.4, ad. 2 (emphasis added).


28 De Summo pontifice Book II, ch. 29, in Opera omnia, Neapoli/ Panormi/Paris: Pedone Lauriel, 1871, vol. I, p. 418.


St. Thomas explains the reason for this distinction St. Robert Bellarmine makes, viz., that we are right to resist (i.e., to correct) the pope or other superior, but we cannot punish or depose him:


A subordinate is not competent to administer to his prelate the correction which is an act of justice through the coercive nature of punishment. But the fraternal correction which is an act of charity is within the competency of everyone in respect of any person towards whom he is bound by charity, provided there be something in that person which requires correction.


Summa, IIa IIae, Q.33, a. 4, respondeo.


The sedevacantists err by denying St. Thomas’ distinction. They depose the pope, by declaring and seeking to persuade others that he is not pope.

29

The Liturgical Year, Vol. IV, Dom Guéranger; Feast of St. Cyril of Alexandria, February 9th (emphasis added).


30 Here is how St. Thomas explained this fact:


To the Prelates [was given an example] of humility so that they do not refuse to accept reprehensions from their inferiors and subjects; and to the subjects, an example of zeal and liberty so they will not fear to correct their Prelates, above all when the crime is public and entails a danger for many.


Super Epistulas S. Pauli, Ad Galatas, 2, 11-14 (Turin & Rome: Marietti, 1953), lec. III, n. 77 (emphasis added).

31

Here is how St. Thomas explains these truths:


Ecclesiasticus, ch.17, v.12 says that God ‘imposed on each one duties toward his neighbor.’ Now, a Prelate is our neighbor. Therefore, we must correct him when he sins. … Some say that fraternal correction does not extend to the Prelates either because a man should not raise his voice against heaven, or because the Prelates are easily scandalized if corrected by their subjects. However, this does not happen, since when they sin, the Prelates do not represent heaven and, therefore, must be corrected. And those who correct them charitably do not raise their voices against them, but in their favor, since the admonishment is for their own sake. … For this reason, … the precept of fraternal correction extends also to the Prelates, so that they may be corrected by their subjects.


St. Thomas’ Commentary on Peter Lombard’s Sentences, Book IV, distinction #19, Q.2, a.2 (emphasis added).

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Words to Live by – from Catholic Tradition

We Must Never, Ever Tell a Lie

To tell a lie is always evil and sinful.  No end ever justifies a sinful means.  Even if we were to suppose that a person had the very highest of all motives – which is to promote the glory of God – that would still never justify a lie.

Here is the very striking way in which St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church, teaches this truth:

A lie must be shunned to such an extent that, even if it seemed that the lie would increase the glory of God, we should still not tell a lie.[1]

Let us consider an example:  Suppose a pagan were on his deathbed with only minutes to live.  Suppose also that we happen to know that he would convert to the Catholic Faith and agree to baptism if we were to tell him a small (so-called) “harmless” lie, such as that the dog he loved would go to heaven.  We can never justify even such a (so-called) “white” lie even to save his soul.


[1]           Here is the Latin:

Adeo enim vitanda sunt mendacia, ut etiam si cedere videantur ad landem Dei, non sunt dicenda.

St. Thomas Aquinas’ Lectures on St. John’s Gospel, ch.13, lecture #3, section #1776.

The Man Whom the Whole Church Accepts as Pope, Is 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 eighth article in a series which covers specific aspects of the error of sedevacantism.  As context for this eighth article, let us recall what we saw in the earlier seven 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 1.3 billion[2] people who profess that they are Catholic.  We must not judge they are not “real” Catholics if they tell us that they are Catholics.  Instead, we should count them as Catholics who are very confused.[3]

Thus, we must judge Pope Francis to be a material heretic, not a formal heretic, and that he was the pope (until his death on April 21, 2025).  Regarding any of the world’s 1.3 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.[4]

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.[5] 

In the fourth article, we saw that it does not help us to protect ourselves better from Pope Francis’ heresy (or the heresy taught by any pope) by declaring that he is not the pope.[6]

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.[7] 

In the sixth article, we saw that the Church infallibly assures us that we will have a pope at all times until the end of the world, except during 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.[8]

In the seventh article of this series, we saw that the Catholic Church is a visible Body and will be visible to all.  The Catholic Church has a visible monarchical government and the pope is visible to all.  Thus, we know we have a pope and that he is visible to all.[9]

Below, in the eighth article of this series, we see that the necessary visibility of the Catholic Church and the pope, requires as a corollary that whoever all Catholics see (believe) is pope must be the pope, since the pope must be visible to all.

 


 

Because the pope must be visible, a necessary corollary of this truth is that whoever is accepted as the pope by nearly all Catholics, we know must be the pope by that very fact, since the pope must be visible to the Church as the pope.  This is true because, if almost all Catholics accepted the legitimacy of an anti-pope, then the true pope would be “invisible”, i.e., unknown to the Church.  Thus, because the pope must be visible to all, whoever is accepted as pope by virtually all Catholics, we know must be the pope.

 

St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, explained this truth as follows:

 

It is of no importance that in past centuries some Pontiff was illegitimately elected or took possession of the Pontificate by fraud.  It is enough that he was accepted afterwards by the whole Church as Pope, since by such an acceptance he would become the True Pontiff.”[10]

 

When teaching this same truth, Louis Cardinal Billot identified the cause of this truth, viz., the indefectibility of the Church:

 

Beyond all doubt, it ought to be firmly held, that the adhesion of the universal Church would, in itself, always be an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a particular pope, and even for the existence of all conditions which are required for his legitimacy as pope.  Nor does it take long to identify the reason for this fact.  For the reason is taken directly from the infallible promise of Christ and from Providence: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against Her [the Church]”.  And again: “Behold, I am with you all days”, which is equivalent.[11]

 

In his book The Primacy of the Apostolic See Vindicated, Bishop Francis Kenrick discusses whether bribes (simony) can invalidate the election of a pope.  He teaches that the Church’s acceptance of a pope cures any defect in his election but that the pope nonetheless has a moral duty to resign:

 

Should the contemplated case unfortunately occur, the guilty individual must know that he cannot conscientiously exercise the papal power.  …  [T]he acquiescence of the Church heals the defect as far as the faithful are concerned, although it does not relieve the delinquent from the necessity of abdicating the high office which he sacrilegiously assumed.[12]

 

Similarly, Outlines of Dogmatic Theology declares this same principle:

 

[W]henever the Church at large recognizes any man whatever as being Pope, that man is Pope, whatever many have been the circumstances that led to his being recognized.  … [A]cceptance by the Church is a proof that such or such a person is lawful Pope.[13]

 

But a person could ask:

 

How does this fit with the historical fact of the occurrence of the Great Western Schism? 

 

The answer is that this Western Schism in the 14th and 15th centuries shows nothing to the contrary.  In that schism, lasting over 40 years, there was no single man recognized by virtually all Catholics living then, as the true pope.  Instead, there was a very large faction which supported each of the two main claimants to the papacy (one of which was the true pope).  Here is how the Catholic Encyclopedia explains this great division:

 

The greater number of the Italian and German states, England, and Flanders supported the pope of Rome. On the other hand, France, Spain, Scotland, and all the nations in the orbit of France were for the pope of Avignon.[14]

 

Thus, we see that the Great Western Schism was not a situation where almost all Catholics accepted an anti-pope as the real pope.  Similarly, it would be impossible at any time for almost all Catholics to accept an anti-pope as the real pope.

 

 

There are Five Consequences of the Fact that Whomever the Whole Church Accepts as Pope, is the Pope.

 

1.   Pope Francis was the pope until his death on April 21, 2025.

 

More than 1.3 billion people worldwide, profess to be Catholic.[15] 

 

Virtually all 1.3 billion Catholics accepted Pope Francis as pope (until his death).  Thus, we know that Pope Francis was the pope, i.e., until his death on April 21, 2025.

2.   Pope Benedict XVI was not pope after his resignation in 2013.

 

The fact that Catholics universally accepted Pope Francis as pope, is one of many reasons why it is wrong to suppose that Pope Benedict XVI did not “really” resign, and continued to be the pope (instead of Pope Francis).  Virtually the whole Church accepted Pope Francis as pope (until his death), and the whole Church could never accept an anti-pope (as shown above).

3.   Each of the other post-conciliar popes was the pope in his turn.

 

Over the last 67 years (as of 2025), virtually the whole Church accepted each of the other post-conciliar popes, as pope in his turn.  Thus, we know each was the pope. 

4.   This is a further reason we know Cardinal Siri was not pope.

 

It is clear that Cardinal Siri was not pope (as a tiny group supposed).  Not only was his supposed “pontificate” invisible, but it would have opposed the pontificate of the pope universally accepted by Catholics. 

5.   This further shows the impossibility of the Church being now in a papal interregnum.

 

The Church accepted Pope Francis as pope and accepted each of his post-conciliar predecessors.  This is one of many compelling reasons why we know the Church is not in a decades-long papal interregnum because, when the Church accepted each post-conciliar pope in his turn, each one became the true pope (even if we were to suppose that, somehow, his election was irregular and that he wasn’t pope already).[16]

 

 

Further Objection:  “I understand the above reasoning showing that if virtually the entire Church accepts a man as a pope, that shows infallibly that he is the pope.  But that reasoning does not hold if the man was already a heretic upon his acceptance of that office, as surely all the post-conciliar popes have been, including Jorge Bergoglio.”  

 

Further Response:  This objection is answered by the arguments contained in the first and second articles of this series.  This objection fails to make the crucial distinction between formal and material heresy.  Material heresy (alone) does not prevent a man from becoming or from being accepted universally as pope, no matter how publicly he insists on teaching his heretical opinion. 

 

In those first two articles, we saw that we have no evidence that Pope Francis or any of the post Vatican II popes are/were formal heretics (rather than a material heretics only).  Thus, we cannot conclude that they are/were outside the true Catholic Church, based simply on their persistent, public teaching of heretical opinions.[17]   All of the post-Vatican II popes professed to be Catholic before and after their election.  Thus, we cannot judge them to be formal heretics.

 

 


[7]           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/

 

[8]           Read this article here that the Catholic Church’s unified government always continues, even during an interregnum:  The Catholic Church Will Always Have a Pope: https://catholiccandle.org/2025/02/21/the-catholic-church-will-always-have-a-pope/

[9]           Read this article showing that The Catholic Church Will Always be Visible, and Will Always Have a Pope Who is Visible to All, which can be found here:  https://catholiccandle.org/2025/03/27/the-catholic-church-will-always-be-visible-with-a-pope/

 

[10]         Verità della Fede, Part 3, Ch.8, §9, emphasis added.


This entire work of St. Alphonsus is available in an online library, for free, in Italian:  http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/_P3BD.HTM 

 

Here is the original Italian version, of the sentences quoted above:

 

Niente ancora importa che ne’ secoli passati  alcun pontefice  sia  stato illegittimamente eletto, o fraudolentemente siasi intruso nel pontificato; basta che poi sia stato accettato da tutta la chiesa come papa, attesoché per tale accettazione già si è renduto legittimo e vero pontefice.

 

This work is also contained in Opera de S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, vol. VIII, p.720, n.9, Marietti, Turin, 1887.


[11]         Cardinal Billot, Tractus De Ecclesia Christi, Book 1, Q.14, De Romano Pontifice, Thesis 29, §3, 3rd Ed., Prati, 1909; emphasis added.

[12]         Bishop Francis Kenrick, The Primacy of the Apostolic See Vindicated, 3rd Ed., 1848, Dunigan & Bro., New York, pp. 287-8.

 

[13]         Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Sylvester J. Hunter, S.J., 2nd ed., vol. 1, pp. 394 & 395, Benziger Brothers, N.Y. 1894 (emphasis added).

[14]         1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Article: Western Schism.

 

[15]         https://www.vaticannews.va/en/church/news/2023-10/fides-catholic-church-statistics-world-mission-sunday.html

 

[16]           St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Verità della Fede, Part 3, Ch.8, §9.

The “New” SSPX Promotes Praying in Conciliar Churches during the “Holy Year”

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Pope Francis declared that, in the 2025 “holy year”[1], people can gain a plenary indulgence by praying in one of many churches throughout the world, viz., the cathedral in any diocese, plus many other churches.  He did this in 2015 too.

The “new” liberal SSPX promotes participation in this “holy year” and encourages its followers to pray in conciliar churches.  One of the “new” SSPX priests, Fr. Peter Scott, who had previously been uncompromising, promotes this evil in these words:

Of course, most of us cannot go in person to Rome, but in this case, we can gain the plenary indulgence by visiting and praying a Rosary in the cathedral of our town, and fulfilling all the other conditions required.[2]

The now-liberal Fr. Peter Scott is simply following his now-liberal group.  When Pope Francis declared a “holy year” about ten years ago and declared that people can gain a plenary indulgence by praying in one of many churches throughout the world, viz., the cathedral in any diocese, plus many other churches, Bishop Fellay strongly urged his followers to participate in the so-called “holy year” by going to conciliar churches to pray.  He wrote:

Must we then deprive ourselves of the graces of a Holy Year?  Quite the contrary.  When the floodgates of grace are opened wide, we must receive abundantly![3]

The “new” SSPX has been weakening for a long time and has long blurred the difference between the conciliar church – which is a new religion[4] – and the true Catholic Church of all time.  This causes the “new” SSPX to increasingly promote praying in conciliar churches, which are occupied by the modernists and which for almost 60 years have been used to further Revolution. 

For example, the “new” SSPX was thrilled that one of its priests said Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.  http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/08/sspx-priest-celebrates-mass-in-saint.html  (Fittingly, this new-SSPX video showing the Mass in this basilica is posted by a person whose user name is New Catholic.)

Reminder: We Should Stay Out of Conciliar Churches and Other Compromise Chapels

There are three reasons we should not go into conciliar churches to pray:

1.    Places of sacrilege are most unfitting places to pray;

2.    We should abhor and shun places of sacrilege; and

3.    We must avoid giving scandal.


Below, we discuss each of these points.


1.  Sacrilege Makes a Conciliar Church Unfitting for Prayer

Places of evil are inherently very unfitting places for spiritual actions such as prayer.  Prayer is among the very best and most sacred “Things”.  To mix prayer with the worst (viz., an evil place) is most unfitting and offensive to God.  It is like choosing the filthiest, most disgusting vessel as the container for the most precious liquid – it is wholly unfitting.

The Summa explains this truth admirably:

Now although, properly speaking, a corporeal thing cannot be the subject of the stain of sin, nevertheless, on account of sin corporeal [i.e., physical] things contract a certain unfittingness for being appointed to spiritual purposes; and for this reason, we find that places where crimes have been committed are reckoned unfit for the performance of sacred actions therein, unless they be cleansed beforehand.[5]

But sins directed against God are the gravest sins – much worse, for example, than the crime of murder, because murder is a sin directed against man, not God.  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.13, a.3, ad 1. 

The new mass is inherently protestantized and man-centered and so is always “an irreverent treatment of the Sacred” (the definition of a sacrilege).  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.99, a.1.[6]  Thus, the new mass is objectively worse than murder, since the new mass is objectively a grave offense directed against God Himself.

If a new mass is valid, that makes it objectively worse – by being a valid (rather than invalid) sacrilege.  A valid sacrilege even more strongly calls down the wrath of God because a valid sacrilege compels God Himself (Sacramentally present) to take part in the sacrilege. 

Thus, conciliar churches are inherent dens of sacrilege because the new mass is said there (and for many other reasons).  As a den of sacrilege, it is a very unfitting place to pray.  Summa Supp. Q.74, a.1, respondeo.

In conciliar churches also we find other evils such as scandalous conciliar sermons, “communion” in the hand and “eucharistic” ministers, gross immodesty, banal un-Catholic music, bookshelves full of poisonous materials, ugly conciliar “art”, “priests” walking around in street clothes, and so on.  All of these things tend to weaken the Faith of good Traditional Catholics, as well as weaken the horror for sin and compromise that we must maintain.


2.  Faithful and Informed Catholics Instinctively Abhor Conciliar Churches

In the proportion in which we love Our Lord, we should abhor conciliar churches.  This is like a widow who loved her deceased husband.  In proportion to her love for him, she would not wish to use as a place of amusement, rest, and comfort the location in which her husband had previously been tortured and brutally murdered.  Her love would not permit it. 

Similarly, those who love Our Lord and realize that the new mass is objectively a sacrilege, would never wish to be in a place which continues to be used for the new mass and other conciliar evils.  And the more an informed Catholic loves Our Lord, the more he finds conciliar churches intolerably odious – more because of the sacrileges that continue to occur there than because of the buildings’ conciliar ugliness!  This is a second reason informed Catholics do not enter conciliar churches.


3.  Entering Conciliar Churches Causes Scandal

Scandal is giving the appearance of evil which makes another person more likely to sin.  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.43, a.1, ad 2.

To the extent others see us entering a conciliar church, it gives scandal because this would tend to give credence (in their minds) to what goes on there.  Most people would not make the distinction when we entered a conciliar church, e.g., to pray the rosary but not when the new mass is said there.  Each person’s presence adds a little to the appearance that the conciliar church is more visited/attended and that what goes on there is more accepted. 

Without thinking deeply about the matter, many people would tend to think that those entering a conciliar church approve what is happening there.  Therefore, in the eyes of many people, we would indicate our approval generally for what goes on there, regardless of our real opinion.  Because people are social creatures, they would tend to accept the conciliar church because they see other people accepting it.  This is a third reason that informed Catholics do not enter conciliar churches.


Conclusion

For the three reasons given above, Catholics should never go into a conciliar church to pray.  It is among the most unfitting places to pray and is among the places that a faithful and informed Catholic would least desire to be, because it is a place of sacrilege and grave offense to Our Lord. 

What a contrast this Catholic position is to that of the “new” SSPX leaders, who urge us to pray in conciliar churches for the “holy year”!  They see no reason why the new mass should make conciliar churches unfitting for prayer because they already say kind things about the new mass and are moving toward accepting it.[7]

Would the “new” SSPX tell the faithful to stay away from conciliar churches if, in those churches, people regularly and openly spit on the SSPX logo or on a picture of Bishop Fellay there?  If so, that means the “new” SSPX is more offended at insults to their bishop and their own institution, than at the infinite offenses given to Our Lord God in the sacrileges of the new mass.


Postscript:

Because of the liberalism and other compromises of groups such as the “new” SSPX,[8] their Masses and other activities in their own chapels also offend God.[9]  Thus, as outlined above, the “new” SSPX chapels are also unfitting places to pray, are places that faithful and informed Catholics should abhor, and are places where scandal would arise from persons entering there.  Let us stay out of their liberal and compromise chapels as we should stay away from the mainstream conciliar churches!


[1]           The conciliar church is a new and false religion.  Read this analysis here: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/02/05/the-conciliar-church-is-anti-god-and-anti-catholic/

 

There has been nothing holy whatsoever about the new conciliar religion itself, arising out of the 16 documents of Vatican II, and perpetuated and strengthened through the gravely anti-Catholic words, actions, and omissions of the leaders of that false religion, such as the conciliar popes and the conciliar clergy.

 

But that does not mean that the leaders of this new religion might not (subjectively) believe that they can both be members of this new false religion while also being members of the Catholic Church, just as men could suppose that it is possible to be members of the freemasons at the same time as being Catholic.  Such dual membership, while possible, would show their great confusion of mind but it would not make it impossible for them to be (confused) members of the Catholic Church.

 

[2]           Fr. Peter Scott, 2- 20-25 Defende Nos, #123, p.3 (emphasis added).

[3]           Quoted from Bishop Fellay letter #84, May 24, 2015.

[5]           Summa Supp. Q.74, a.1, respondeo (emphasis added; bracketed word added for clarity).

[6]           Read this article about why the new mass never gives grace: https://catholiccandle.org/2020/03/01/the-new-mass-does-not-give-grace/

[7]           See, e.g., example #6 in the list of 21 examples of “new” SSPX liberalism.  This list is found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2025/03/27/21-examples-of-liberalism-in-the-new-sspx/

 

[8]           See, e.g., the examples of 21 examples of “new” SSPX liberalism, found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2025/03/27/21-examples-of-liberalism-in-the-new-sspx/

 

Warning about Lifenews.com: It Promotes Heresy

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note: Below is a corrected article. 

Correction

 

This correction regards our April 2025 article — Warning about Lifesitenews.com: It Promotes Heresy!: https://catholiccandle.org/2025/04/23/warning-about-lifesitenews-com-it-promotes-heresy/

 

Catholic Candle is embarrassed to have written an article in our April 2025 edition where we wrongly identified the name of the website at fault.  We thought it was Lifesitenews.com and it was really Lifenews.com.

 

We are sorry and apologize to Lifesitenews.com and to Catholic Candle readers.  It was our mistake completely.

 

 

Warning about Lifenews.com:

It Promotes Heresy


Lifenews.com publishes a mix of articles, good and bad.

Among other examples is its recent article which concludes falsely, that all unbaptized babies go to heaven.  For example, here are two ways that this heresy is stated in the article:

Do Aborted and Miscarried Babies Go to Heaven? …  I conclude that babies are among the “loved by God, that he [sic] has chosen” (1 Thessalonians 1: 4) and are with him now.  … 

Trust that your babies are with the Lord and with perfect understanding, enjoying him [sic], as you will come to see.[1]

The article in Lifenews.com promotes the protestants’ denial of the importance (or existence) of Original Sin.  They do not consider prompt infant Baptism to be necessary or important. 

The protestant author purports to be “biblical”.  But he is not.  He quickly segues into his squishy protestant heresy, namely, that Baptism is not crucial for salvation because the Father is so loving.

This protestant author’s supposed “biblical” analysis is so shallow that he neither mentioned nor showed how his protestant heresy fits with Our Lord’s words:

Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.   

St. John’s Gospel, 3:5.

Let us close this present article with a quick summary of the truths that Lifenews.com denies, at least implicitly, by publishing that heretical article.[2]

❖  Original Sin makes us enemies of God.  As the psalmist teaches: “I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me.”  Psalm 50:7.  St. Paul teaches that, because of Original Sin, we are all “by nature children of wrath”.  Ephesians, 2:3.

 

❖  No One Can Go to Heaven Without Grace.

Here is one way that St. Thomas shows the connection between sanctifying grace and salvation:

[M]an is not justified from sin[3] [including Original Sin] except by grace … [and] the very least grace is sufficient to … merit eternal life.[4]

St. Thomas teaches the same truth in these words:

The holy Fathers [of the Old Testament] were delivered from hell by being admitted to the glory of the vision of God, to which no one can come except through grace; according to Rom. 6:23: ‘The grace of God is life everlasting.’ ”[5]

❖  But babies (and retarded persons who have never had the use of reason) can only receive grace through Baptism (because they cannot use their reason and so cannot have Baptism of Desire[6]).  As the Summa explains:

[S]ometimes Baptism cannot be omitted without loss of eternal salvation, as in the case of children who have not come to the use of reason.[7]

In other words, because there is no way for a baby to receive grace except through Baptism, if a baby is not baptized, he cannot go to heaven.

Here is another way to state this same explanation that an unbaptized baby does not go to heaven:

1.    No one goes to heaven unless he is a friend of God.

 

2.    No one is a friend of God without the (supernatural) Theological Virtue of Charity.

 

3.    There is no way for a baby to obtain this (supernatural) Theological Virtue of Charity except through Baptism.

 

4.    Therefore, a baby does not go to heaven unless he is baptized.

 

❖  Because a baby cannot go to heaven without grace and cannot obtain grace without Baptism, the Church insists on prompt Baptism.  As St. Thomas explains:

We must make a distinction and see whether those who are to be baptized are children or adults.  For if they be children, Baptism should not be deferred.  First, because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion.  Secondly, because of the danger of death, for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism.[8]

This phrase “no other remedy is available for them” refers to a baby’s inability to be purged of Original Sin and to receive Grace, in any way besides Baptism.  By contrast, a person who has the use of reason could possibly receive Baptism of Desire, if he were unable to be Baptized.

❖  In the book, The Teaching Of The Catholic Church, Canon Smith explains the reality for parents of a baby who died without baptism:

[U]nbaptised children, not having received the sacrament of faith [i.e., Baptism], have not the supernatural knowledge, without which they cannot know what they have lost.  Hence their loss causes them no anguish of soul.  Although these considerations may bring some little consolation to the Catholic mother grieving over the fate of her child who has died unbaptised, they will not relieve the weight upon her conscience, should hers have been the fault, or free parents from the obligation to have their children baptised as soon as possible, since there is no measure or proportion between the natural  happiness that will be their lot [i.e., the lot of the babies] in limbo, and the inconceivable felicity of heaven, of which man’s carelessness [viz., by delaying Baptism] may so easily deprive them.[9]

❖  In his Constitution, Auctorem Fidei, on August 28, 1794, Pope Pius VI condemned the claim that the existence of the Limbo of the Children is a fable.  Here is his condemnation:

Condemned:

The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk,–false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.[10]

Thus, the article[11] published by Lifenews.com promotes one or more heretical doctrines:

➢  That all unbaptized babies have grace;

➢  That grace is not necessary to get to heaven; and 

➢  That the Limbo of the Children is a fable, incurring the condemnation of Pope Pius VI.

Abortion is the murder of innocent babies.  It is very human for us to sympathize with the innocent and the weak.  We would be inclined to “wish ourselves into” the error that unbaptized babies (including all those murdered in abortion), somehow go to heaven. 

But we should love the truth more than the comfort of an appealing heresy!  It is heresy to say those unbaptized babies can go to heaven.  So that heresy is a false comfort. 

Also, this demonic heresy deemphasizes the urgent need to baptize babies.  When heretics deemphasize the necessity of infant Baptism, they promote the devil’s strategy of seeking to delay the Baptism of babies, even though it is the only way they can get to heaven.


Conclusion

Beware of the recklessness of Lifenews.com.  Watch out for the heresies that it publishes under the guise of “pro-life”!

 

 

 

 


[1]           Both of the above statements are quoted from: Do Aborted and Miscarried Babies Go to Heaven? Here’s What the Bible Says found here: https://www.lifenews.com/2025/03/04/do-aborted-and-miscarried-babies-go-to-heaven-heres-what-the-bible-says/?cmid=d5fc2db8-b428-4858-b3aa-6b8ade0ecdb7  (emphasis added).

 

[2]           Do Aborted and Miscarried Babies Go to Heaven? Here’s What the Bible Says found here: https://www.lifenews.com/2025/03/04/do-aborted-and-miscarried-babies-go-to-heaven-heres-what-the-bible-says/?cmid=d5fc2db8-b428-4858-b3aa-6b8ade0ecdb7.

 

[3]           i.e., so that his sins are forgiven.


[4]           Summa, III, Q.62, a.6, ad 3 (bracketed words added).

[5]           Summa, III, Q. 52, a.7, respondeo; the quote from St. Paul is in the original, bracketed words in the original.

[6]           Contrary to the Feeneyite errors, the Catholic Church teaches the possibility of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.  Read the explanation here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/the-catholic-teaching-of-baptism-of-desire-and-baptism-of-blood.html


[7]           Summa Supp., Q.8, a.1, ad 2.


[8]           Summa, III, Q.68, a.3, respondeo (emphasis added).

 

[9]           The Teaching Of The Catholic Church, A Summary of Catholic Doctrine, By Canon George D. Smith, D.D., Rh.D, Volume I, p.358, New York, MacMillan, ©1949 (emphasis and bracketed words added).

[10]         2626 Dz 1526 26 (emphasis added).

[11]         Do Aborted and Miscarried Babies Go to Heaven? Here’s What the Bible Says, found here: https://www.lifenews.com/2025/03/04/do-aborted-and-miscarried-babies-go-to-heaven-heres-what-the-bible-says/?cmid=d5fc2db8-b428-4858-b3aa-6b8ade0ecdb7