Lesson #44: Temperaments – Choleric Temperament – a Choleric’s Spiritual Combat – Part IX

Philosophy Notes

Catholic Candle note: The article immediately below is part nine of the study of the Choleric temperament.  The first eight 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/


Mary’s School of Sanctity

Lesson #44 About the Temperaments – Continuing Our Study of the Choleric Temperament – Their Spiritual Combat, Part IX

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

In our last lesson we saw how anger is inherently caused by some slight that someone has felt.  We had a list of questions that a choleric, in particular, can ask himself about feeling slighted and some means to take to prevent himself from getting angry.

Because anger becomes sinful when it is unreasonable, the choleric must learn to watch his feelings very closely.  As we mentioned, St. Thomas reminds us that the person with a choleric temperament is prone to become “angry too quickly or for any slight [meaning small/trivial] cause.”[1]

In addition to these two ways for anger to become sinful, we discussed what St. Thomas said about anger being “too long in a man’s memory, the result being that it gives rise to a lasting displeasure, wherefore he is grievous and sullen to himself.”[2]

This brings us to the important topic of the choleric tendency to hold grudges.  Let us take a brief look at the definition of the word grudge:

Grudge = sullen malice, cherished ill will [Merriam-Webster New Collegiate Dictionary, ©1949]

Grudge = a feeling of deep-seated resentment of ill will [Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, ©1987]

These meanings given for the word grudge plainly tell us that a grudge is something bad for the soul because these meanings refer to the ‘lasting displeasure’ that St. Thomas is talking about.

 

Recognizing and Squelching Anger/Not Allowing Anger to Linger

St. Paul warns us not to keep lasting anger in our hearts, “Be angry: and sin not.  Let not the sun go down upon your anger.” [Ephesians 4:26].

Rightly does St. Paul warn us because he knows that anger can quickly become unreasonable and therefore sinful.  This tendency of anger to be unreasonable is because anger has a close connection to pride.  We know that pride blinds the soul. So pride makes it very difficult to discover that one’s anger is unfounded, hence, unreasonable.  St. Paul says, “Be angry.”  Be tough on yourself.  Further, he says, “Sin not.”  Don’t be unjustly angry with your neighbor.  And again, St. Paul says, “Let not the sun go down upon your anger.”  Do not let your anger linger.

Thus, it is crucial that a person must judge himself strictly when he feels anger flaring up in his soul.  He must keep a close guard on himself.  He must find the source or cause of his feeling of anger.  This requires much self-knowledge.  By studying himself and his tendencies closely, he can discover what types of things spark his anger into action.  He must “nip-in-the-bud” his unjust anger.  In other words, he must quench the fire of anger at its beginning.

We discussed in our last lesson how a choleric’s anger is usually attached to pride. This pride makes the choleric frequently view everything as an insult.  We gave some typical things that a choleric feels slighted about.  We showed how each of these was linked to pride.  We gave some suggestions on how the choleric could counteract his pride and his anger for each case.  We list here again some common links to pride.  

A person feels slighted because:

1) He feels that he is not getting attention from others.

2) He feels that someone insulted him.

3) He thinks someone is making fun of him.

4) He feels that someone is getting in the way of his plans and his getting what he wants.

5) He thinks someone is insulting his (God-given) talents.

6) He does not like someone pointing out his defects or anything that he has done wrong.

A Strategy to Counteract His Tendency to Feel Slighted

A choleric must ask himself some hard-hitting questions and give himself some tough rebukes.  He cannot be gentle with himself.  He must be strict with himself. So here is a sample of the toughness the choleric has to have on himself and tell himself the following:

1) What do you want attention for?  Who do you think you are?  You act as if you are God’s gift to mankind!!  You are not the center of the universe!  Stop being so self-centered!  And how many times have you failed to give others the attention they deserved?

2) So, you think you have been insulted?  What makes you think that?  Do you really think that everyone must treat you as a king?   Treat you with kid-gloves?  Why are you so sensitive?  Most likely you deserve to be insulted.  Think of all your past sins and how you yourself have insulted God and then you will not be so prone to think that you deserve anything better than you have.  In fact, you have gotten far better than you have ever deserved!  And how many times have you insulted others?

3) Likewise, you feel that you have been mocked/made fun of?  Haven’t your past sins truly mocked Our Lord?  And here you allow yourself to take offense at the tiniest word spoken about you or to you.  Further, how many times have you mocked/made fun of others?

4) Now you are upset because your plans are disrupted in any way whatsoever?  What makes you think that God is pleased with your plans?  Did you pray to God about them and think deeply whether your plans would help you save your soul or help you to become a straight-to-heaven saint?

5) You are so upset because you think your (God-given) talents are being insulted?  If they are truly God-given talents, then you are not acting grateful for them by getting upset.  God did not have to give you anything and you should not act as if you were not given these talents from God and as if they were simply automatically yours.  God could, if He wanted to, take these away from you in an instant.

6) So now you are upset because someone pointed out a defect in you/or something that you have done wrong?  Do you really think you are perfect and there is absolutely no room for improvement in you?  Do you think you are without sin? Shouldn’t you be grateful that someone is trying to help you improve?  Do you not feel ashamed for your ingratitude toward the person trying to help you become holy?

Grudges Come When One Does Not Humble Himself and Is Not Willing to Forgive

Grudges, because they are unreasonable, are always sinful.  One must see himself in the true light, and thereby see that he deserves slights, insults, chastisements, admonishments, and punishments.  These are needed not only for the strengthening of the soul in virtue, but also to make reparation for one’s past sins. 

Grudges may not necessarily be because one is seeking to get revenge, but is rather the case of a person not being willing to forgive his neighbor.  Our Lord speaks many times in the Gospel about forgiving one’s neighbor.  He says we should always forgive from our hearts even if we were treated unjustly.   The following (from St. Matthew’s Gospel) is a good example:

Then came Peter unto Him and said: Lord, how often shall my brother offend against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?  Jesus saith to him: I say not to thee, till seven times; but till seventy times seven times.  

St. Matthew’s Gospel,18:21-22.

Our Lord here means to forgive always.

Again, in St. Matthew’s Gospel [18:23-35] we find the parable about the man being forgiven a huge debt and then he went out and throttled his fellow servant and demanded prompt payment of a very small debt.

[Our Lord says:] Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened to a king, who would take an account of his servants.

And when he had begun to take the account, one was brought to him, that owed him ten thousand talents. And as he had not wherewith to pay it, his lord commanded that he should be sold, and his wife and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.  But that servant falling down, besought him, saying: Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. And the lord of that servant being moved with pity, let him go and forgave him the debt. But when that servant was gone out, he found one of his fellow-servants that owed him a hundred denarii: and laying hold of him, he throttled him, saying: Pay what thou owest.  And his fellow-servant falling down, besought him, saying: Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.  And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he paid the debt.  Now his fellow servants seeing what was done, were very much grieved, and they came, and told their lord all that was done. Then his lord called him: and said to him: Thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all the debt, because thou besoughtest me.  Shouldst not thou then have had compassion also on thy fellow servant, even as I had compassion on thee?   And his lord being angry, delivered him to the torturers until he paid all the debt. So also shall my heavenly Father do to you, if you forgive not everyone his brother from your hearts. [bold emphasis added]

And if these quotes are not enough to convince a choleric to keep a close eye on his pride and beware of the beginning of his anger, then simply looking at the Our  Father that Our Lord taught us shows us plainly enough that we must forgive our neighbor  if we are going to expect forgiveness from God.

Let’s face it.  We have all known someone who has held a grudge.  We can see that the grudge is very ugly and ridiculous.  Holding a grudge truly shows the pride and foolishness of the one holding it.  The grudge shows a gross lack of compassion and patience.  Most importantly, grudges show a grave lack of charity in the person holding the grudge.  It is as we have seen from what we have studied in St. Thomas, anger and pride married together and kept for a long time, engender hatred.  How can someone willing to hold a grudge really think he will be able to meet His Judge Who has been so forgiving and meek to him, when the reality remains that he was not willing to show any mercy and meekness to his neighbor?

Let the choleric remind himself of Our Lord’s words:

Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.  Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven. [St. Matthew 18:3-4]

And let us all – especially cholerics – often pray: “Jesus, meek and humble of Heart, make our hearts like unto Thine.”

A Preview…

In our next lesson we will study another character flaw of the choleric which is directly linked to his pride—his tendency to criticize and misjudge others.  Again, our goal will be to investigate this bad trait and strategize on the means to amend it.

 

 



[1]           Summa Theologica IIa IIae, Q. 158, a. 6, Respondeo [bracketed words added for clarity]

[2]           Summa Theologica IIa IIae, Q. 158, a. 6, Respondeo [Bold emphasis added.]

The Catholic Church Will Always be Visible with a Pope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.[7]

Below, in the seventh article of this series, we see 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.


The Catholic Church Will Always be Visible, and Will Always Have a Pope Who is Visible to All

From the preceding articles, we know that we must have a pope.  There are a few tiny dispersed groups who so despise the pope in the Vatican, that they concoct theories that there is a hidden pope, whom only their tiny “elite” “knows” about or “knows” is the pope.

These tiny “elite” groups are disunited in their views about who the hidden “pope” is.  Some hold that he lives in a farmhouse in Kansas.  Others claim that the “pope” is in Montana, Croatia, Argentina, Kenya, Spain or elsewhere.  Each of these “popes” is “known” and recognized only by his own tiny group.


The Catholic Church is Visible and will Always be Visible.

But we know from our catechism that the Catholic Church will always be visible.  This is why Pope Pius XI declared that:

The one true Church of Christ is visible to all.

Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928. ¶10. 

Pope Leo XIII identified the cause of this visibility:

The Church is visible because She is a Body.

Satis Cognitum, ¶3. 

Pope Pius XII affirmed this same truth, quoting these words of Pope Leo XIII.  Mystici Corporis Christi, §14.

St. Francis de Sales replied to his adversaries who “would maintain that the Church is invisible and unperceivable” that he “consider[ed] that this is the extreme of absurdity, and that immediately beyond this abide frenzy and madness.”  He then proceeds to discuss at length eight clear proofs that the Church is always visible.    Catholic Controversy, Part 1, Ch. 5.

Thus, because the Catholic Church will always be a body, she will always be visible.

This visibility of the Catholic Church shows that the Catholic Church has a visible head.  We will discuss this in the next section of this article.  But the visibility of the Catholic Church also shows that the sedevacantists are wrong in their claim that the 1.2 billion persons who claim that they themselves are Catholic are, in fact, not “real” Catholics and that only the sedevacantists’ own tiny group are the “real” Catholics.  The truth is that the sedevacantists are rashly judging those confused Catholics.  By contrast, faithful and informed Catholics do not declare that those 1.2 billion self-described Catholics are not “really” Catholics.[8]


This Visible Church will Always have a Visible Government with a Visible Head.

Because the Church will always be visible, and because unity of government is an element of the Mark of Unity[9] by which the Church can always be known, the Church will always have a visible government, so that the true Church can be recognized by this Mark of Unity of Government.  

Because the Church’s government is visible and monarchical, “the Church, being a visible body, must have a visible head and centre of unity.”[10]  This is obviously true.  For the Church is not one, with a visible government, if it is unknown “who is in charge”.  In fact, governing authority is the efficient cause giving unity as one body to any society of men.[11] 

For there is not one visible society if it consists of men united only by ideas and not by a unified, visible government.  That is why even basic catechisms teach us that the Catholic Church is “under one visible head.[12]

Such a visible head has always been necessary, but even more evidently so as the Catholic Church spread throughout the world.[13]  That is why Pope Pius XII sums up Catholic teaching by declaring that “it is absolutely necessary that the Supreme Head, that is, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, be visible to the eyes of all”.[14]

Conclusion of this Article

We have no assurance that the pope will be holy or will govern well.  We have no assurance that the pope’s words and deeds will not be shocking and repulsive.  However, we do know that the Catholic Church is a visible body and that her head, the pope, is visible to all.  Thus, the pope is not living unknown and hidden from the attention of the world, in some Kansas farmhouse or similar place. 

Further, it is clear that the pope is also not someone such as Cardinal Siri (whom a tiny group had supposed to have been a secret pope).  Such a supposed “pontificate” was not visible.  In other words, he was not the pope who is “visible to the eyes of all”.  Mystici Corporis, 69.

Thus, we must have a pope who, as pope, is visible to all.  In other words, who the pope is, is not a secret.  The pope’s identity is known to all, however bad he is.  As of March 5, 2025 (the date of this article), that pope is Francis, although as of this date, he is in the hospital and possibly near death.



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

 

[7]           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: The Catholic Church Will Always Have a Pope, available here: https://catholiccandle.org/2025/02/21/the-catholic-church-will-always-have-a-pope/

 

[10]         Catholic Dictionary, Addis & Arnold, Catholic Publication Society, 3rd ed., New York, 1884, article: Church of Christ, page 176.


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


[12]         See, e.g., Baltimore Catechism #4, Q.
115.


[13]           
A Full Catechism of the Catholic Church, Joseph Deharbe, S.J., Catholic Publication Society, New York, 1889, p.132.

 

[14]            Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 69. 

 

A Lenten Reflection – a Deeper Look into Our Lord’s Passion

Note: Below is an extract from St. Teresa of Avila’s Interior Castle or The Mansions with a few brief comments that we give afterwards.

In obedience to her superiors, St. Teresa wrote this book for her spiritual daughters in the convent.

Extract:

How good Thou art, O God!  All is done for us by Thee, Who dost but ask us to give our wills to Thee that we may be plastic as wax in Thy Hands.  You see, sisters, what God does to this soul [meaning the soul He is drawing to higher perfection] so that it may know that it is His.  He gives it something of His own – that which His Son possessed when  living on earth – He could bestow no greater gift on us.  Who could ever have longed more eagerly to leave this life than did Christ?

As He said at the Last Supper: “With desire have I desired” this.  O Lord! Does not that bitter death Thou are to undergo present itself before Thine eyes in all its pain and horror?  “No, for My ardent love and My desire to save souls are immeasurably stronger than the torments.  This deeper sorrow I have suffered and still suffer while living here on earth, makes other pain seem as nothing in comparison.”

I have often meditated on this and I know that the torture a friend of mine [this is really St. Teresa herself] has felt, and still feels, at seeing Our Lord sinned against is so unbearable that she would far rather die than continue in such anguish.  Then I thought that if a soul whose charity is so weak [viz., the soul to which she just referred] compared to that of Christ – indeed, in comparison with His, this charity might be said not to exist – experiences  this insufferable grief, what must have been the feelings of Our Lord Jesus Christ and what must His life have been?  For all things were present before His eyes and He was the constant witness of the great offences committed against His Father.  I believe without doubt that this pained Him far more than His most sacred Passion.  There, at least, He found the end of all His trials, while His agony was allayed by the consolation of gaining our salvation through His death and of proving how He loved His Father by suffering for Him.  Thus, people who, urged by fervent love, perform great penances hardly feel them but want to do still more and count even that as little.  What, then, must His Majesty have felt at thus publicly manifesting His perfect obedience to His Father and His love for His brethren?   What joy to suffer in doing God’s will!  Yet I think the constant sight of the many sins committed against God and of the numberless souls on their way to hell must have caused Him such anguish that, had He not been more than man, one day of such torment would have destroyed not only His life but many more lives, had they been His.[1]


Comments:

This extract is very striking for several reasons.  One does not often find books written about the Passion which dwell on the fact that Our Lord suffered primarily because the honor of His Father has been insulted by sin.  So many books focus on Our Lord suffering because He loves us.  The typical books on the Passion seem to ignore the fact that Our Lord loves His Father with an Infinite Love.  Instead, many books teach the perverse error that Our Lord died primarily for us because He loves us infinitely.[2]  Although Our Lord is infinite in His nature and all His perfections, yet His external effects in His creatures are not infinite.  Thus, Our Lord loves us with a finite love because we are finite beings, therefore, unworthy and unfit to be loved infinitely.

Thinking about how Our Lord, in His Divine Nature, loves His Father with an Infinite Love and wanted to show publicly how much He honored His Father adds such a deep dimension to one’s meditation on the Passion!  When we ponder all the physical pain of Our Lord, we must not forget to add to this the constant thought that He suffered even far greater mental anguish and spiritual pain because sin is such an enormous insult to His Heavenly Father – the Supreme Godhead.  Mankind has committed countless sins since the beginning of time and will continue until the end of time – and He suffered for every single sin!

St. Teresa also ties together for us the two anguishes Our Lord suffered, namely, the offenses to the Divine Majesty and the ingratitude of souls who damn themselves.  She strikingly reminds us that Our Lord wants to save souls from hell and He is sorely grieved when men reject His redemptive sacrifice and plunge themselves headlong into hell anyway.  Hence, she vividly demonstrates to us the hideousness of sin.

In this Lent and Passiontide, let us beg Our Lord to forgive us for our wretched sins which caused and continue to cause Him such bitter pain and mental anguish.  Let us also beg Him to help us penetrate and better understand His Infinite Love for His Father so we can learn to love Him more deeply and have an ever-increasing gratitude to Him for all He suffered.



[1]           Extract taken from St. Teresa’s Interior Castle Fifth Mansion chapter II #12-13 (bracketed words and emphasis added).

[2]           For a refutation of the heresy that God loves any creature infinitely, read this article: God Does Not Infinitely Love Any Creature.  This article is found here:  https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/god-does-not-infinitely-love-any-creature

 

This refutation was a response to this heresy taught by Bishop Williamson’s Group.

Lesson #43: Temperaments – Choleric Temperament – a Choleric’s Spiritual Combat – Part VIII

Philosophy Notes

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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/


Mary’s School of Sanctity

Lesson #43 About the Temperaments – Continuing Our Study of the Choleric TemperamentTheir Spiritual Combat Part VIII

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

In our last lesson we studied more about the nature of anger, both just anger and unjust anger.  We also saw the various ways in which anger becomes sinful.  Since St. Thomas explained to us how the choleric is prone to anger, it is important to help the choleric analyze his anger.

Since one of our intentions for studying the temperaments is to gain self-knowledge and improve our spiritual lives, it is important to make the appropriate connections between the weaknesses found in each temperament.   Making these connections really helps one to find good strategies on how to conquer his bad tendencies which lead him to sin.  Thus, we need to look at the weakness of anger in the choleric and see how it is linked to the other weaknesses the choleric has.

St. Thomas tells us that:

The inordinateness of anger may be considered in relation to two things. First, in relation to the origin of anger, and this regards choleric persons, who are angry too quickly and for any slight cause.  Secondly, in relation to the duration of anger, for that anger endures too long; and this may happen in two ways.  In one way, because the cause of anger, to wit, the inflicted injury, remains too long in a man’s memory, the result being that it gives rise to a lasting displeasure, wherefore he is grievous and sullen to himself.  In another way, it happens on the part of vengeance, which a man seeks with a stubborn desire: this applies to ill-tempered or stern people, who do not put aside their anger until they have inflicted punishment.[1]

In Lesson #42 we spoke of long-lasting anger leading to the horrible sin of hatred.  This, of course, means that the choleric must work hard to keep a sharp eye on his anger and be able to discern whether his anger is just or sinful. 

Before we discuss ways to help a choleric discern more about his anger, we need to recall that pride, a prominent weakness of the choleric,[2] is directly linked to his anger.  Let us briefly look at St. Thomas’s definition of pride in order to see how pride is linked to the typical causes of anger which we discussed in Lesson #40.

St. Thomas defines pride as follows:

Pride (superbia) is so called because a man thereby aims higher (supra) than he is; whereby Isidore says (Etym. X): “A man is said to be proud, because he wishes to appear above (super) what he really is”; for he who wishes to overstep beyond what he is, is proud.[3]

With this definition in mind let us look at what St. Thomas taught us in Lesson #40. St. Thomas explained, “All the causes of anger are reduced to slight in these three forms: contempt, despiteful treatment (i.e. hindering one from doing one’s will), and insolence.”[4]

St. Thomas says that each of the three causes of anger really boils down to some kind of slight.  Here are his words:

Each of those causes amounts to some kind of slight.  Thus, forgetfulness is a clear sign of slight esteem, for the more we think of a thing the more is it fixed in our memory.  [In other words, those things we often think about and which we care about, we do not tend to forget.  So, forgetting about a person suggests we don’t care much about that person.]

Again, if a man does not hesitate by his remarks to give pain to another, this seems to show that he thinks little of him: and those too who show signs of hilarity when another is in misfortune, seem to care little about his good or evil.  Again, he that hinders another from carrying out his will, without deriving thereby any profit to himself, seems not to care much for his friendship.  Consequently, all those things, in so far as they are signs of contempt, provoke anger.[5]

There are two other aspects upon which St. Thomas touches in regard to a cause of anger.  He asks two questions, namely, (1) whether a man’s excellence is a cause of his anger, and (2) whether a man’s defect is the cause of his anger.  St. Thomas answers these questions as follows:

The cause of anger, in the man who is angry, may be taken in two ways.  First, in respect to the motive of anger: and thus excellence is the cause of a man being easily angered, because the motive of anger is an unjust slight, as stated above (A. 2). However, it is evident that the more excellent a man is, the more unjust is a slight offered him in the matter in which he excels.  Consequently, those who excel in any matter, are most of all angry, if they be slighted in that matter; for instance, a wealthy man in his riches, or an orator in his eloquence, and so forth.

Secondly, the cause of anger, in the man who is angry, may be considered on the part of the disposition produced in him by the motive aforesaid. However, it is evident that nothing moves a man to anger except a hurt that grieves him: while whatever savors of defect is above all a cause of grief; since men who suffer from some defect are more easily hurt.  And this is why men who are weak, or subject to some other defect, are more easily angered, since they are more easily grieved.[6]

So now let us make a list of the causes of anger and see how each of them can be infected with pride.  It should be noted that these apply to any human but we are here considering especially the choleric who St. Thomas has classified as getting “angry too quickly or for any slight cause.”

·         A) Thus, forgetfulness is a clear sign of slight esteem, for the more we think of a thing the more is it fixed in our memory.

 

·         B) If a man does not hesitate by his remarks to give pain to another, this seems to show that he thinks little of him.

 

·         C) Those, too, who show signs of hilarity when another is in misfortune, seem to care little about his good or evil.

 

·         D) He that hinders another from carrying out his will, without deriving thereby any profit to himself, seems not to care much for his friendship.

 

·         E) A man who excels in an area is insulted by someone who slights his excellence.

 

·         F) A man who is weak or has a defect is easily grieved and angered.


The list of slights when attached to pride and what remedies to take: (These are in connection with the typical pride of the choleric.)

A) When One Feels Slighted Because Someone Has Forgotten Him.

A proud choleric would assume that his friend is trying to hurt him or insult him.  Thus, if he feels slighted he should first examine if the offense he feels is real or imagined.   He needs to think on a more objective level.  He should take care not to make a rash judgment.  One thing he should do is give the benefit of the doubt to the one he feels slighted by.  There may well be a logical reason why the friend could not accomplish what the choleric expected.
 

B) When One Feels Offended Because Of Something That Someone Has Said.  

Here again, a proud choleric would automatically assume that there was an evil motive and premeditation involved in what was said to him.  He must really make every effort to pull out of the situation and be objective.  He should assume that no ill-will was intended.

He could forgive-and-forget or he could patiently communicate to the person who made the comment that he (the choleric) took it the wrong way.  This communication is in itself an act of humility and will help the situation.  He should try to “clear the air” and make sure there is no misunderstanding or hard feelings shown about the comment. 

The choleric could also think that if someone said something that rubbed the choleric the wrong way, this proves that the choleric is proud and needs to admit to himself that he deserved the comment.  Sometimes, people do not know how to approach a choleric to give him fraternal correction and consequently an admonishment or instruction can come out sounding harsh.

C) When One Feels Hurt Because Someone Found Humor in a Mishap/Misfortune that Occurred to the Choleric.

The proud choleric would usually take a great offense at this.  Of course it is against charity to treat someone’s misfortune or accident as humorous.  However, fallen human nature often finds humor in some silly circumstance and might laugh yet without intending any slight or insult.

What should one do if he should be laughed at?  Our first thought should be of Our Lord who was unjustly mocked and laughed to scorn.  He took it with meekness and forgave His offenders, and so we should do likewise. 

Also, we can thank God for the humiliation and unite our embarrassment to Our Lord’s.  We can remind ourselves that we really do not deserve any better.  This is a good way to make reparation for our past sins and learn how to love others, especially our enemies. 

D) When One Feels Angry Because Someone Interferes with His Plans, Even Though the Said Someone Does Not Gain Any Profit Thereby.

A proud choleric would typically get very upset about this situation.  What should the choleric do?  He should remember that when something happens that is outside of his control, then it is God’s Will for him at least at that present time.

He should first thank God for the cross.  He should examine whether his plans were good for his salvation in the first place.  If he finds that the plans were not conducive to his salvation then, of course, he should immediately abandon that plan.

If he is not sure whether his plan was good or not, he must pray for enlightenment from God.  He should also seek advice and get help evaluating the situation.  He could also use St. Ignatius’s technique of considering the plan as someone else’s.  Then the choleric would ask himself if this plan is conducive to salvation.  Likewise, he should ask himself what he would have wanted to do if he were on his deathbed and about to die.  Then he could implement the results of his internal inquiry.

All of these thoughts would certainly curb his first inclination to get upset or angry.

E) When One Who Has a God-Given Talent Has Been Insulted by Someone Who Slights his Excellence.

A proud choleric is very prone to get upset and angry when his talents are not recognized.  One could say that the proud choleric wants the whole world to acknowledge his talents.  This may seem like an exaggeration to make a point, but we would have to admit knowing some choleric somewhere who acts exactly like this.  What should this choleric do?  First of all, if one has talents, he must give the glory to God.  Our Lord and Our Lady are perfect examples of how to magnify God for the excellence they possessed.  As St. Paul said, “What hast thou that thou hast not received?  And if thou hast received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?” 1 Corinthians, 4:7.

We all have to thank God for what we have received. The choleric must do all he can to foster humility in himself and should try to form the habit of thanking God often for all the benefits he has received from God.

He should be meek and offer up the cross of being insulted.  This is a great way to make reparation for his past sins and to imitate Our Lord. 

He must remember that the insult may be a way for someone to subtly point out the choleric’s pride concerning his talents.  So this is another reason for the choleric to be thankful that someone has insulted him.  His conscience will undoubtedly tell him that he may really deserve the insult to curb his pride. 

Of course, the choleric should forgive the person who insults him and this forgiveness must be with his whole heart.  Otherwise he might get the temptation to harbor a grudge against the offender. [7]

F) When a Man Who Is Weak Has his Defect Pointed Out.

A proud choleric who has a natural weakness and/or a defect will find himself, as St. Thomas says, very easily irked and spontaneously lashes out if anyone makes a reference to his problem(s).  Naturally, his pride does not want to face the fact that he has a problem.  The most obvious reason for this is that the problem he has could in most circumstances be addressed and fixed.  If someone points out his shortcomings, his conscience reminds him that his lack of effort to amend is the cause of the weakness/defect still abiding in him.  The old adage, “God helps those who help themselves” is involved here.  If the choleric worked hard, first to face himself, then to seek the means to improve and to take those means, then he would be on his way to overcoming the weakness and/or defect(s).

We all have tendencies which need to be conquered in us.  As St. Paul says, “But I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of my sin, that is in my members.”  Romans, 7:23.

Of course, St. Paul here is talking about the concupiscence of the flesh which we all must deal with.  Consequently, St. Paul exhorts us numerous times to use our reason.  God intends each person to use his reason to avoid sin and to conquer the natural weaknesses which are in his temperament.

Therefore, the proud choleric, when his weakness and/or defect is revealed, should force himself to humbly be grateful to the person who makes it known.     

We can readily see that if one does not view himself correctly, he would easily take offence at anything that he perceives as negative to him.  It is truly a great blessing of God to help us see ourselves the way we really are, especially our defects.  God often uses others as His tools to show us what we need to work on most in our souls.  Therefore, we should not shun fraternal correction but embrace it to help us conquer pride.

A  Short Self-Examination to Check if Pride is involved in One’s Anger (based on our discussion above)

  Do I feel slighted?

  Is this slight sent to me to show me that I need to amend some aspect of my life/character?

  Should I not take this opportunity to examine my conscience? {Because this occasion may seem to me to be a slight only because it pricks my conscience about one of my failings and in my pride I do not want to see myself as I really am.}

  Am I imitating Our Lord if I am unjustly accused?

  Am I offering up this humiliation for the Glory of God?

  Would it not be better to simply say a prayer for the person I feel slighted by and then forget about the incident?

This short examination can be very helpful to keep in mind the next time one, especially a choleric, feels like he is beginning to boil inside.  When one humbles himself, especially seeing all things as coming from the Hands of God, then one can crush angry feelings which are often linked directly to pride.

In our next lesson we will deal more with various ways that a choleric can work on humility to restrain his anger.  We will see more how pride greatly influences the choleric’s frame of mind.  We will connect our investigation of slights (see above) with an examination of how a choleric can slow down his impulsive tendencies to take offense, get angry, and cling to anger for long periods of time.



[1]           Summa Theologica IIa IIae, Q.158, a.6, Respondeo (emphasis added).

[2]           See Lesson #39, in which the pride of the choleric is described.

 

[3]           Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q.162, a.1, Respondeo.


In that Respondeo, St. Thomas further teaches regarding pride:
  

However, right reason requires that every man’s will should tend to that which is proportionate to him.  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.

 

[4]           Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q.47, a.2,  Respondeo.

[5]           Summa Theologica II IIae, Q. 47 a.3 Reply #3 (bracketed words added for clarity).

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

 

[7]           One could ask the question, “What if the man (even a choleric man) was humble and is slighted for his excellence?”  This excellent man would have to weigh the matter carefully and be sure if he should indeed show disapprobation against the offender.  For example, if he would cause scandal by not expressing his just anger, then he must be sure to not simply blow off the incident but rather show that he has just anger and use this anger in an appropriate way.

21 Examples of Liberalism in the “New” SSPX

Catholic Candle note:  Occasionally, we analyze the liberal statements of the SSPX.  Someone could wonder:

Why mention the SSPX any longer, since they are unimportant as merely one of very many compromise groups? 

It is true that a priest (or group) is of small importance when he (or the group) is merely one of countless compromisers.  By contrast, an uncompromising priest is of great importance, even though he is only one.

However, regarding the “new” SSPX: we sometimes mention them for at least these five reasons, motivated by charity:

  New Catholic Candle readers might not be sufficiently informed of the “new” SSPX’s liberalism to avoid that group.  Out of charity for them we occasionally provide these warnings to help these new readers appreciate the danger of the N-SSPX.

  Some longtime Catholic Candle readers might forget the N-SSPX poison, or vacillate in their resolution to stay away from the N-SSPX if they never received a reminder warning about the danger of the N-SSPX.  This is like the fact that all it takes for many people to become conciliar is to never be reminded about the errors of Vatican II and the conciliar church.  Out of charity for them we occasionally provide these reminders for readers who would otherwise “forget” the danger of the N-SSPX.

  The N-SSPX serves as an important study case to examine how leaving the truth often happens.  It is a warning to us all about a very common way to depart from the truth and become unfaithful.  Out of charity for ourselves we occasionally provide these insights about becoming unfaithful by taking this common road of compromise the N-SSPX is taking.

  Over time, the N-SSPX provides us with a thorough catalogue of liberal compromises, and studying those compromises and errors with the contrasting Traditional Catholic truth is a helpful means of studying our Faith and guarding ourselves from the principal errors of our time.  This helps us to fulfill our duty of continually studying the doctrines of our Faith.  Out of charity for ourselves, we use the occasion of the N-SSPX’s liberalism to study our Traditional Catholic Faith better and the corresponding N-SSPX liberalism.

 

  If the SSPX ever abjured its liberalism, it could do great good as it used to do, since its bishops and its priestly ordinations so far have been valid (although the SSPX has taken in some conciliar and doubtfully-ordained “priests” whom it allows to administer “sacraments”).  This validity of SSPX ordinations stands in contrast to many compromise groups (such as the FSSP, ICK, and others), all of whose “ordinations” were and remain doubtful from the very beginning of those groups.

For those readers who are firm in their resolution to completely avoid supporting the N-SSPX, they can receive just as much of the substance of those Catholic Candle articles, if they substitute the phrase “a liberal could say” anytime they read “the SSPX teaches”.


21 Examples of Liberalism in the “New” SSPX

Today’s SSPX is not the same SSPX as the one in the old days.   There are countless examples of its teaching and practice to show this.  Many are documented in Catholic Candle, both on its current website and in its old one, CatholicCandle.neocities.org. 

Below are twenty-one examples of this SSPX liberalism, taken from many more which we could have listed here.  We cannot ignore the mountain of evidence.   You should not either.

1.    The SSPX previously taught that the rubella vaccine and other vaccines developed through abortion are always sinful.  By contrast, the SSPX now says not only that this same rubella vaccine is justifiable for some people, but also that the COVID vaccines, which were also developed through abortion, are also justified.[1]  The SSPX’s new position is wrong, liberal, and contradicts its prior teaching on vaccines developed through abortion.

2.    The SSPX says it now accepts 95% of Vatican II[2] and says that Vatican II contains no direct heresy and “not so many” errors.[3]  The truth the “new” SSPX denies is that the documents of Vatican II are riddled with liberal teachings and heresies.

 

3.    The SSPX now teaches that the religious liberty taught by Vatican II is “a very, very limited one, very limited”.[4]  The truth that the “new” SSPX denies is that the scope of religious liberty that Vatican II teaches is unlimited as long as public order is not breached.[5]  This is the same meager restriction that the French Revolutionaries insisted upon after the French Revolution.  In other words, buddhists, protestants, and even satanists can do what they wish in public, as long as they are peaceful and don’t become violent.

 

4.    The “new” SSPX falsely teaches that “many Vatican II texts are traditional”.[6]  The truth that the “new” SSPX denies is that there are no traditional documents of Vatican II (much less “many”).

 

5.    Among these Vatican II documents, is Lumen Gentium.  The SSPX now teaches that this document is free from errors/liberalism.[7]  The truth that the “new” SSPX denies is that there are hundreds of heresies, liberal and false statements in Lumen Gentium.[8] 

 

6.    The “new” SSPX called the new mass “Holy Mass”.[9]  Besides the “new” SSPX calling the new mass “Holy Mass”, it now calls the Traditional Mass by its conciliar name, viz., the “Extraordinary Form”.[10]  The SSPX taught that the new mass is good, but not as good, as the Traditional Mass by likening the new mass to a tin trumpet, and likening the Traditional Mass to a silver trumpet.[11]  Indeed, while Bishop Fellay was superior general, he attended the new mass and afterwards praised it.[12]  His two assistants (who were second and third in authority in the SSPX) attended a new mass on another occasion.[13]  The “new” SSPX has blamed the dispute between the Vatican and the “old” SSPX concerning the new mass, on how “profound” Archbishop Lefebvre’s “motives” were and the bewilderment of the SSPX priests and followers because they were “fed up” with the “way in which the new mass was being celebrated.”[14]  Bishop Fellay says that “what needs to be corrected” in the new mass are things like making a better vernacular translation.[15]  The truth that the “new” SSPX denies is that the new mass itself is evil and sacrilegious. 

 

7.    The “new” SSPX falsely indicates that Pope Francis abides in the truth, and is preserved from error.[16]  When he was superior general, Bishop Fellay declared that he is “very happy” with a lot of what Pope Francis teaches.[17] 

 

8.    Jesus Christ is God.  For this reason, Mary is the Mother of God because she is the mother of a Person Who is God.  For the same reason, the Jews committed Deicide because they killed a Person Who is God.  Vatican II contradicted the traditional teaching from the time of the apostles, that the Jews committed Deicide.[18]  The SSPX has adopted this conciliar error and denies the Church’s teaching that the Jews did commit Deicide.[19]  The truth that the “new” SSPX denies is that the Jews did commit Deicide – as the Church has always taught.

 

9.    Catholics should not hold it as certain that we will go to heaven.  But that is what the SSPX now teaches.[20]  The truth is that the (supposed) certainty of salvation is the vice of presumption.

 

10. The new SSPX falsely teaches that Vatican II does good, when Bishop Fellay, its then-superior general, stated that the “Second Vatican Council … illuminates – i.e. deepens and further makes explicit – some aspects of the life and of the doctrine of the Church”.[21]  The truth is that Vatican II does no good.

 

11. Among countless other conciliar errors is the claim that there exist “degrees” of being in communion with the Catholic Church.[22]  The “new” SSPX indicates it accepts this conciliar theory by now using the term of “full communion”, as if there were any other kind of communion.  Id.

 

12. While he was superior general, Bishop Fellay said that Pope Francis’s exhortation on marriage (Amoris Laetitia) “contains many things that are correct and beautiful”.[23]  The truth is that this is a vile, thoroughly-conciliar document.  Bishop Fellay falsely says that Pope Francis’s abominable Amoris Laetitia is like a “beautiful boat” with a “very small” hole in it.[24]  The “new” SSPX is grossly minimizing the evil of Pope Francis’s teachings.

 

13. The SSPX teaches that Vatican II’s Optatam Totius is free from errors/liberalism.  The truth is that there are many liberal and false statements in it.[25] 

 

14. The “new” SSPX published an article about Islam’s hostility toward other religions.  This article stressed the importance of religious liberty for every religion and omitted to state the Catholic truth that error (including religious error) has no rights.[26]  The truth is that only the true Catholic Faith has rights.[27]

 

15. The “new” SSPX says we must continually change.[28]  This echoes the conciliar hierarchy, which continually emphasizes the need to change, to “renew” ourselves, and to “ride the wave of revolution of faith”.[29]

16. The conciliar church refers to promotion of conciliar errors as The New Evangelization.[30]   The “new” SSPX declared that Pope Francis sees the SSPX as a help in The New EvangelizationId.  This is scandalous since it implies that the N-SSPX approves of and is willing to promote Pope Francis’ modernism.

17. The SSPX now blurs the difference between the Catholic Church and the modernist conciliar church.[31]  Archbishop Lefebvre made this clear distinction.[32]

18. The SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre used to say that the indult groups “are doing the devil’s work”.[33]  Now the SSPX treats those groups as colleagues in the Lord’s vineyard.[34]

19. When he was superior general, Bishop Fellay said that by an agreement with Rome, the SSPX “will return to the Church”.[35]  The truth is that the “old” SSPX (and other Traditional Catholics who correctly saw things) were already in the Church.  Ironically, the more the “new” SSPX becomes conciliar, the more that “new” SSPX needs to “return to the Church” by rejecting its liberalism.

20.  The “new” SSPX, through one of its bishops, approved of a booklet for use in the SSPX, which teaches the conciliar position that a patient or the patient’s caregiver is permitted to choose to starve that patient to death if keeping that patient alive through providing food and liquids is too much of a burden for that patient or caregiver.[36]

21. The “new” SSPX promotes the “no nukes” unilateral nuclear disarmament position of Pope Francis and leftist organizations such as Greenpeace.  The N-SSPX argues against the pre-conciliar Catholic position that all weapons – including nuclear weapons – can be used as long as the Catholic teachings concerning war and a just defense are preserved.[37]



[1]           Here are the SSPX quotes (both the new and old ones) in part 3 of this article:  https://catholiccandle.org/2021/01/01/reject-the-covid-vaccines/

 

[3]           While he was superior general, Bishop Fellay said:


In Vatican II, there is no direct heresy.  There are openings.  Openings to the [sic] error.  And some direct errors.  Not so many direct errors.

 

Hear Bishop Fellay’s words here: August 24, 2016 video interview , beginning at the 50 seconds’ mark.  This video interview used to be here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuCOdk99mfA&spfreload=5 but has been made private.

[4]           Listen to then-superior general Bp. Fellay’s exact words at the following link – listen at minute 1:25 of 6:00 at:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdnJigNzTuY&feature=topics

 

[5]           Read the quote from Vatican II here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/religious-liberty-vatican-ii.html

[9]           Bishop Fellay June 30, 2018 interview found at: https://fsspx.news/en/news/bishop-fellay-interview-are-disturbing-factor-church-19871 .


[10]         One of countless examples of this is the SSPX superior general using this phrase to refer to the true Mass here: http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=4242

 

[11]                    Here are Bishop Fellay’s words:

 

If you welcome a head of state and have the choice between a silver trumpet and a tin trumpet, do you use the tin trumpet?  That would be an insult; you don’t do that. And even the best new Masses are like tin trumpets in comparison to the old liturgy.  We have to use the best for the dear Lord.

 

Quoted from the Bishop Fellay June 30, 2018 interview found at: https://fsspx.news/en/news/bishop-fellay-interview-are-disturbing-factor-church-19871 (emphasis added).

 

[12]         Read the news report and quotes from Bishop Fellay here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/fellay-promotes-hybrid-mass.html

 

[14]         Here is the longer quote from Bishop Fellay, starting with the question:

 

Q: Cardinal Ratzinger was a connoisseur and veteran promoter of Catholic Tradition and a friend of the Traditional Mass; why couldn’t he reassure the Archbishop?

 

Bishop Fellay: He did not understand how profound the Archbishop’s motives were or how bewildered the faithful and the priests were. Many were simply fed up with the post-conciliar scandals and nuisances and with the way in which the new Mass was being celebrated. If Cardinal Ratzinger had understood us, he would not have acted that way.  And I think that he regretted it.  That is why he then tried as Pope to repair the damage with the Motu Proprio and lifted the excommunication. We are truly grateful for his attempts at reconciliation.

 

Quoted from the Bishop Fellay June 30, 2018 interview found at: https://fsspx.news/en/news/bishop-fellay-interview-are-disturbing-factor-church-19871 (emphasis added).


[15]         Quotation, citation, and analysis here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/fellay-promotes-hybrid-mass.html


[16]         Read the SSPX quotes and find the citations to the SSPX publications here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/bouchacourt-francis-preserved-error.html#fnref1

 

[17]         Read the SSPX quotes and find the citations to the SSPX publications here:

https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/fellay-interview-liberal-timid.html


[18]         Nostra Aetate, §4.

[19]         Quotations, citations, and analysis of the Catholic teaching and of the “new” SSPX’s denial of the Catholic teaching, are here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/2014-01-14-bp-fellay-ltr.html

[20]         Here is one example of this SSPX teaching: in the November-December 2016 Angelus Magazine, Fr. Wegner declares:

Faith makes us know God: we believe in Him with all our strength but we do not see Him. Our faith, therefore, needs to be supported by the certitude that some day [sic] we will see our God, that we will possess Him and willl [sic] be united to Him forever. The virtue of hope gives us this certitude by presenting God to us as our infinite good and our eternal reward.

https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-the-new-sspx-teaches-the-vice-of-presumption-as-if-it-were-the-virtue-of-hope.html

[21]         Quoted from Bishop Fellay’s April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration (dashes are in the original).


[22]         Quotation, citation, and analysis here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/schmidberger-conciliar-ideas-jargon.html


[23]         Quotation, citation, and analysis here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/fellay-francis-eroding-marriage.html


[24]         Amoris Laetitia is Pope Francis’s scandalous and heretical document on marriage.  The truth, of course, is that this document is a complete shipwreck! (continuing Bishop Fellay’s boat metaphor).  Plainly, Bishop Fellay greatly minimizes the truth when he says Pope Francis’s “beautiful boat” has a “very small” hole, because most boats have very small leaks.  That is why boats have bilge pumps – to remove the water from very small leaks.  A very small leak is not ideal but is not a disaster like Amoris Laetitia and other teachings of the conciliar church.

 

Read the SSPX’s Amoris Laetitia quotes and find the citations to the SSPX publications here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/fellay-francis-eroding-marriage.html

[26]         Quotation, citation, and analysis here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-jourdan-religious-liberty.html


[28]        
Quotation, citation, and analysis here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/pfluger-traditional-catholics-change.html

 

[29]         To read the conciliar quotes promoting continual change (and to read an analysis of them), see Lumen Gentium Annotated, by Quanta Cura Press, pp.66-78, ©2013, available at: https://catholiccandle.org/2023/06/23/lumen-gentium-annotated/ (free) & at Amazon.com (sold at cost).

[30]         Quotation, citation, and analysis here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/SSPX-promote-new-evangelization.html

[31]         For example, here is Bishop Fellay: “The fact of going to Rome doesn’t mean that we agree with them.  But it’s the Church!  And it’s the true Church!” Bishop Fellay, Flavigny, 09/02/2012).

[32]         For example, here is Archbishop Lefebvre relating his discussion with then-Cardinal Ratzinger: 

 

Cardinal Ratzinger repeated it many times, “But Monsignor, there is only one Church, you mustn’t make a parallel church.” I told him: “Your Eminence, it is not us who are forming a parallel Church, as we are continuing the Church of all times, it is you who are forming the parallel church for having invented the Church of the Council, which Cardinal Benelli called the Conciliar Church; it is you all who have invented a new church, not us, it is you who have made the new catechisms, new Sacraments, a new Mass, a new liturgy, not us. We continue to do what was done before. We are not the ones who are forming a new church.

 

Econe, Press Conference, June 15, 1988.  There are many other examples of Archbishop Lefebvre distinguishing between the Catholic Church and the conciliar church.

 

[35]         Here is the longer quote: “Anyway, the Pope said that it is only a problem of canonical discipline. An act of Rome will suffice to say it is finished and we will return to the Church. It will come. I am very optimistic!” Bp. Fellay, Interview with Les Nouvelles Caledoniennes, 12/27/10.

Words to Live by – from Catholic Tradition

 

Let Us Be Always Faithful to Our Faithful Divine Friend!

 

Concerning Our Lord Jesus Christ, My Imitation of Christ urges us in these words:

 

Love Him and keep Him for thy Friend, Who, when all go away, will not leave thee nor suffer thee to perish in the end.

 

My Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis, (c)1982, Confraternity of the Precious Blood, 5300 Fort Hamilton Parkway, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11219, Bk.2 ch.7.                                                                          

 

The Financial Weakness of the U.S. Government in Three Graphs

Catholic Candle note: Below is an update written in late January 2025, concerning the dire condition of the U.S. Government’s fiscal condition and, by analogy, the fiscal condition of the governments of other Western countries which are trending in the same direction. 

For reference, here is an earlier assessment and how the leftists hide the truth: The Condition of the U.S. Economy compared to Leftist Spin about the Economy.  This article can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/03/21/the-u-s-economy-compared-to-leftist-spin-about-the-economy/

Catholic Candle usually writes on topics more directly related to the Catholic Faith, as well as Catholic philosophy and Catholic practice.  But there is an ongoing cultural and political revolution all around us, and this revolution has other aspects too.  That is why we also cover topics that could be called “political”, in order to shine a light on current evils in government and society as well as (in the present article) to highlight the leftist lie that the U.S. is in a strong economic condition.


The United States is being ruined in many ways, especially morally.  But besides this moral ruin, the U.S. is being ruined financially by the enemies of the U.S. (inside and outside of the country), who seek to destroy its economy through extreme overspending, and to promote socialism through handing out government freebees of every description and in every direction. 

The U.S. Government is moving the nation toward the socialist posture where money and decisions are increasingly controlled by the government and where the government increasingly spends money that it does not have (with strings attached) to promote socialism and to corrupt the nation. 

Below is government data showing recent progress made in increasing U.S. economic instability and increasing government insolvency.

In the graphs below, it is a little hard to see the exact numbers that we give in the text of this article.  But those precise numbers are available online by using the links we include below the graphs and then hovering with your cursor over the lines shown in those graphs.  These graphs prominently say “FRED” on their upper left-hand corner, because they are from the U.S. Federal Reserve and “FRED” is an acronym meaning “Federal Reserve Economic Data”.


The U.S. National Debt

The U.S. National Debt has almost doubled in ten years – from about $17.8 trillion in the third quarter of 2014 to $35.5 trillion in the third quarter of 2024.  (This is the latest ten year period available when this article was being written in late January, 2025.)

The data and graph (above) are from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and can be found here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEBTN


Interest on the U.S. National Debt

The interest that the U.S. Government pays on this National Debt is now more than $1.1 trillion per year (as of the third quarter of 2024, which is the latest data available when this article was being written in late January, 2025).  This is approximately a 262% increase in U.S. interest obligations in the last ten years.  (The total interest obligation in the third quarter 2014 was $442 billion.)

This annual interest obligation (on the U.S. national debt), is now 250% larger than the entire annual federal deficit[1] (then $441 billion.[2]) ten years ago (in 2015).

 

The data and graph are from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and can be found here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A091RC1Q027SBEA


A New “Permanent” Higher Level of Annual Government Spending

The Government continues to spend at a reckless rate and way beyond its means.  Even ignoring the spikes in excess spending during the period of the Covid alarmism, the U.S. government spending continues to trend dramatically upward, going from about $3.9 trillion per year to about $7 trillion per year over a period of ten years.

This data and graph are taken from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and can be found here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FGEXPND


Conclusion

The U.S. National Debt is accelerating.  The huge and increasing interest payments exacerbate this problem.  Meanwhile, the U.S. Government makes it worse by continuing to spend way beyond its means.

Dear Reader, notice this parallel: our society is ever more unreasonable and unrestrained in its evil decisions on moral matters.  Similarly, our society is ever more unreasonable and unrestrained in its evil decisions on fiscal matters also.

The use of reason and restrain would solve everything in the moral, social, and the economic spheres.  Truly, the virtue of Prudence and living the Catholic life are the answers to all of society’s problems, even those economic ones!

The grave condition of our nation is a reminder to pray harder for our country.  We should add this intention to our daily prayers.  Our course, despite our country’s problems, we should not be anxious.  Although God can do all things, it seems that the worsening condition of our country and the human element of the Church will probably not be solved until the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart.  Adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domini!



[1]           The federal government deficit is the amount that the U.S. Government spends in excess of the revenue that it has collected from taxes.


[2]           See the graph of government data here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD 

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

Philosophy Notes

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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


Mary’s School of Sanctity

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

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

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

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

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

1) When is anger lawful?

2) When is anger sinful?

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

1) When is anger lawful?  

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

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

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

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

2) When does anger become sinful?

St. Thomas gives us guidelines here as well:

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

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

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

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

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

St. Thomas continues his explanation as follows here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Preview…

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

The Catholic Church Will Always Have a Pope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Catholic Church Will Always Have a Pope

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

Vatican I infallibly teaches us:

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

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

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

Pope Pius XII teaches us:

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


Conclusion

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

The Catholic Church is Not in an Interregnum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

 

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


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


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

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

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

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

 

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

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

           

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

&

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

 

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


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


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

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

 

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


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

Nobody’s Favorite Topic: Purgatory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Prayer for Mercy for the Holy Souls in Purgatory

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

Plenary Indulgences for the Poor Souls

Six general rules for obtaining a PLENARY INDULGENCE:

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

2. Complete detachment from sin, even venial sin;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Words to Live by – from Catholic Tradition

 

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

 

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

 

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