Catholic Doctrine

Is Liberalism a Sin?

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Many people have no trouble at all understanding that liberalism is an unwise philosophy on which to base a system of governing or a way of life.  But is it actually a sin?

The word liberal comes from the Latin word “liber”, i.e., “free”.  Up to the end of the eighteenth century, this word commonly meant “worthy of a free man”.  Thus, “liberal arts”, “liberal occupations”, and “liberal education” were desirable and good. 

The term “liberal” was applied also to those qualities of intellect and character which were considered becoming to those who were on a higher social scale because of their wealth or education.  Thus, “liberal” meant intellectually independent or broadminded, magnanimous, generous, frank, or open.[1]

In the way of our ever-changing language, though, liberalism has also come to mean a political system opposed to centralization and absolutism.  In this sense, liberalism is not necessarily in opposition to the spirit and teaching of the Catholic Church.[2]

However, for the past two hundred years or so,  the term “liberal” has been applied increasingly to certain tendencies in intellectual, religious, political, and economic life which implied a partial or total emancipation of man from the supernatural, moral, and Divine order.[3]  It is at this point precisely that liberalism’s opposition to God becomes sinful.

Think of what those last two sentences are saying: emancipation of man from God’s laws – freeing man from the obligation of obeying God!

The underlying principle (of liberalism) asserts an absolute, unrestrained freedom of thought, of religion, conscience, creed, speech, and politics.

The necessary consequences of this are … the abolition of the Divine right and of EVERY KIND OF AUTHORITY DERIVED FROM GOD.[4]

Indeed!  All authority comes from God.[5]  So liberalism denies all of God’s true authority over us.

So, yes, Liberalism is a sin mainly because it opposes God and the Truth.  Here is how this is summed up in the masterful work, Liberalism is a Sin:

We may then say of Liberalism: in the order of ideas, it is absolute error; in the order of facts, it is absolute disorder.  It is, therefore, in both cases a very grievous and deadly sin, for sin is rebellion against God in thought or in deed, the enthronement of the creature in the place of the Creator.[6]

There are a host of other exceedingly-injurious repercussions from sliding into liberalism.  But if one didn’t know anything else about the scourge of liberalism, the information above should be more-than-enough to make it clear that it is totally incompatible with Catholicism. 

Yet, understanding this error in principle is one thing, but recognizing this error in particular circumstances is another thing, and many Catholics are fooled here.

For example, unfortunately, most Catholics have accepted the extremely liberal teachings of Vatican II (such as the false idea that “everyone goes to heaven”).  They’ve “gone along to get along”.  It might make them feel more comfortable in mistakenly believing that there is safety in numbers, saying such things as: “Many of my friends think this way” – supposing therefore, that such thinking is correct.

They do not realize, right then and there, that by doing so, they are being liberal, and thus are ignoring God’s laws and rights.  

People have in mind that going along with the group consensus sometimes makes life a little easier, and that they can avoid criticism, stress in their social life, problems at work or with their families or friends.  These people might tell themselves that it is not their job or their “place” to question liberal priests and the leaders in the Catholic Church (e.g., the Pope and cardinals).  Such people tell themselves that fighting liberalism is the leaders’ duty.  Further, it is certainly easier to accept liberalism than to fight it. 

Maybe such people are not so different from the many SSPX parishioners who see no need to look too closely at various proposals and changes that the Society makes to conform with Rome’s demands.  

It is so much easier to accept what is said from the SSPX pulpit, beginning with just a liberal point or two – for example, that the Catholic Church is much the same as the VC II Conciliar church.  Accepting this false position is the “first stop” on the road to developing into an unqualified liberal who progressively comes to accept small liberal points of doctrine that gradually bring him in line with the average Novus Ordo church-goer. 

If this is you, then regardless of what the SSPX leaders maintain, you, too, are a liberal! 

Yet, if by God’s grace you suddenly have this epiphany (i.e., discovering your liberalism) and realize you have allowed yourself to be lulled by the comfort of frequent SSPX Masses and regular access to the Sacraments, you need to change now and find your way back to the traditional Catholic Faith. 

It will not become easier for you to do this by delaying.  Every month makes it harder.  God expects much effort and prayers from His friends, to fight evil and to earn salvation.  If you have confidence in God’s love, He will give you the help you need.


[1]           1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, The Catholic Encyclopedia Press, 1913, p. 212, col. 1.  

[2]           1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, The Catholic Encyclopedia Press, 1913, p. 212, col. 1.  

[3]           1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, The Catholic Encyclopedia Press, 1913, p. 212, col. 2.  

[4]           1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, The Catholic Encyclopedia Press, 1913, p. 212, col. 2 (emphasis added).


[5]           Here is how St. Paul teaches this truth:

 

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

 

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

 

Pope Pius IX faithfully echoed St. Paul:

 

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

 

Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846, §22.

 

[6]               Liberalism is a Sin, by Fr. Felix Sarda y Salvany, 1886, ch.3.

Do You Want to Be Happy and Live Without Worry or Stress?

Posted on by Catholic Candle

I’m sure you do.  We all do.  But most people don’t want to live in the way through which they will achieve that goal – which is to live a life solely for the greater honor and glory of God.  Instead, they want to live a life of pleasure and to be well-liked and popular.  Here is some of what it takes to achieve that happy life:

He who attributes any good to himself hinders God’s grace from coming into his heart, for the grace of the Holy Ghost seeks always the humble heart.[1]

We must live our life as God wants us to live, not as we want.  Of course, the life God wants for us begins with a regular prayer life.  We must pray much – (St. Paul instructs us to “Pray without ceasing”.  1 Thessalonians, 5:17.

Next, we must study Christ and His teachings from the many traditional Catholic books, such as The Imitation of Christ, Catechism of the Council of Trent, St. Alphonsus de Liguori’s Books on Our Lord’s Incarnation and His Passion and Death.  Our Lord tells us the disposition we must have for that study:

I am He Who in one moment so enlightens the humble mind that it comprehends more of eternal truth than could be learned by ten years in the schools.  I teach without noise of words or clash of opinions, without ambition for honor or confusion of argument.[2]

Under these conditions, we will find our study of Christ so rewarding because to know God is to love God.  We will discuss things with Him often, and as our Good Friend.  He will always respond with the correct answer.  We will understand that God is all-knowing, generous, and wants us to be happy on earth, and later, much happier, with Him in heaven.   He will do only what is best for us.  We will learn to love Him as a trusted Friend, living the life that God wants for us – a happy one without stress or worry.

So, e.g., if we were interviewing for a desirable job, we should respond during the interview as if God were questioning us.  Or, when speaking during an important company meeting, speak as God wants us to.  Speaking and living as God wants — what could be better for you?  We can have real confidence that it will ensure a happy, worry-free life, and that God will do the best for us.  But if something unusual happens, we won’t worry because we know it is in our best interests.

However, as stated above, we must thoroughly study Christ’s life on earth.  His Life shows us everything we need to know – how to live, and to speak, and to pray.  This life – our “new” life – is ready for us.  Let’s start today!  God will bless our efforts, and remember: we must be saints to get into heaven.


[1]           Imitation of Christ, Thomas A Kempis, Bruce Publishing Co., 1962, Book III, Ch. 43, p.164.

[2]              Imitation of Christ, Thomas A Kempis, Bruce Publishing Co., 1962, Book III, Ch. 43, p.165.

 

The Modern “Lifestyle” = Rejection of the Principle & Foundation

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Examples of modern diversions:

·         Smart phones (gadgets);

·         Television/movies;

·         Travelling;

·         Health “focus on me” foods, an excessive concern with specialty foods, e.g., foods certified organic or “fairtrade”, or gourmet foods;

·         Exercise;

·         Sports; and

·         Some secondary “causes” or “crusades” on which a person focuses his life, e.g., saving the whales, the environment, ozone depletion, glacier melting, celebrity fan clubs, eliminating wasteful government spending, preserving historical landmarks, ancestral family trees, etc.

All of these are pulling man away from God as the central focus of his life.  The Conciliar Church is wrapped up in the world and, therefore, also is wrapped up in these diversions from the purpose of man’s existence – by contrast, these churchmen are supposed to be teachers who guide souls to be detached from the world, as Our Lord commanded.

Modern man is sensing his lack of a real purpose in his life and is searching for some relief for his aching and empty heart.  There is much discussion of stress and how modern man is being overstressed.  Of course, a person causes havoc in his body when he tries to live without his true focus (viz., God), too, and this is because we are body and soul. 

Many try to immerse themselves in their diversions (creatures) – see the list of diversions, “causes”, and “crusades”.  Many evil men (and the devils, too) are taking advantage of the modern man’s hapless, haphazard, wandering and his going from one so-called “solution” to another.  Hence, modern man searches in vain because he lacks the one purpose of his life and happiness, namely, God.  In other words, the Principle and Foundation is missing.

Many people find little bits and pieces of the Principle and Foundation.  In fact, they may find some huge chunks or inspirations of the concept of the Principle and Foundation.  However, because they do not have the true Faith, they do not find the satisfaction they seek.  The Principle and Foundation is the rudder of the spiritual life, and the better it is kept in mind, the happier we are. 

The Principle and Foundation is based on our proper use of our reason, and the more we use our highest faculty (our reason), the closer we get to God.  God calls us all to be contemplative, that is, to practice contemplation.[1]  

Those who practice contemplation use this faculty the best.  So, it is easy to see how far off the poor modern world is from the Catholic knowledge of God and from the service we owe to Him.

Let us use the Principle and Foundation to begin a new, better, more reasonable, more faithful way of living!


[1] See Mary’s School of Sanctity Lesson #3 on Contemplation and the Objective Truth Series  reflection # 24 Spiritual Nuptials

Let us Detach Ourselves from the World and Focus on our Eternal Goal

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Let us Detach Ourselves from the World and Focus on our Eternal Goal

One key element of the work of salvation is to rid ourselves of a false notion of self-importance and instead to foster a true self-forgetfulness and a focus on the things of God.  Here is a poetic way in which Professor Smith observed the importance of this truth in a speech at the University of Chicago, in 1902:

We proud men pompously compete for nameless graves while some starveling of fate forgets his way into Immortality.

Evolution is an Anti-God, False Religion

Posted on by Catholic Candle

 

Evolution is impossible and is a false religion.  It is contrary to true science and to careful reasoning.  However, just as Marxists falsely appeal to (supposed) science, so do the evolutionists.  But the truth is that Marxists and evolutionists both adhere to the (false) religion of Materialism.

 

Most Marxists and evolutionists are too naïve and uninformed to know that they are simply believing this (false) religion of Materialism, or they are not candid enough to admit this.  However, occasionally one of them admits the truth that their position is really a tenet of a (false) religion, and that their conclusions are not compelled by real scientific reasoning. 

 

Below, is one such admission by evolutionist, Richard Lewontin, a Professor of Zoology at Harvard.  He tells us that he is an evolutionist because of his prior (religious) decision to be a materialist.  Further, he admits that he chooses to be a materialist in order to not admit that God has any role in the world and in order that he can reject the existence of God (i.e., to not “allow a Divine Foot in the door”).  Here are Lewontin’s words:

                                                          

We take the side of science [sic] in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.  It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.  Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.[1]

 

In the same way in which Catholics should approach the adherents to any false religion, we should respond to evolutionists by using sound, rational arguments and real science to remove obstacles which prevent those persons from coming to the truth.  However, their chief problem is a moral one,[2] i.e., accepting a false principle because of their prior commitment to it (like Lewontin explained).  In the conversion of an evolutionist, God’s grace and prayer for the person play a larger role.

 

 

 

 


[1]           Richard Lewontin, Billions and Billions of Demons, New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p.31 (emphasis added).

[2]           By observing that evolutionists’ chief problem is a moral one, this does not mean that we judge their subjective culpability for their false and evil position.  Similarly, we judge drunkenness to be a moral problem, but we neither judge the subjective culpability of alcoholics nor say that we know with certainty they will go to hell.

 

Concerning the distinction about our duty to judge exterior actions (and statements) but our obligation not to judge interior, subjective culpability for sin, we recommend that you read chapter five of the book, Sedevacantism, Material or Formal Schism, which is available here:

Ø  Here, for free: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/against-sedevacantism.html 

or

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

The Father’s Love for Man + The Son’s Love for the Father = Salvation for Man

Posted on by Catholic Candle

 He who is not ready to suffer all things and stand resigned to the will of the Beloved is not worthy to be called a lover.[1]

God so loved man that He sent His only Son to suffer and die as a fitting sacrifice in satisfaction for the sins of man, and to regain for mankind the gift of being children of God and heirs of heaven. 

Sin offends an infinite God, and therefore, would need infinite satisfaction.  Thus, Someone Infinite, Jesus Christ, had to offer that satisfaction.  Only the Blood of God Himself could accomplish this.

We can never repay Him in this life or the next.  The only way we can show our appreciation is to live according to His will.  Here is how My Catholic Faith explains this truth:

Our Lord looked forward to His agony, saying to His Apostles, “That the world may know that I love the Father, and that I do as the Father has commanded Me.  Arise, let us go from here.”  (St. John’s Gospel, 14:31).  In the garden, Jesus felt so sad at the sins of men and at what would befall Him that He said, “My soul is sad even unto death” (Matt. 26:38). 

To His Father, He cried out in pain: “Father if Thou art willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Thine, be done.”  (Luke 22:42).

Jesus pleaded three times this same prayer.  In His agony, “His sweat became as drops of blood, running down upon the ground.”  (Luke, 22:44).[2]

Jesus Christ suffered and died as Man; as God He could neither suffer nor die.  He suffered excruciatingly in order to make full reparation for sin.  Even only one sin is so abominable to God that not all the deluges and fires can wipe away the stain.  Only the blood of God Himself can do so. “The Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.”  (Is. 55:6).[3]

 

From the Passion of Christ, we learn the evil that sin is, and the hatred that God has for it.  Here is how My Catholic Faith explains this truth:

St. Augustine says that on the cross Our Lord bent His Head to kiss us, extended His Arms to embrace us, and opened His Heart to love us.  How thankful we should be to Christ for His love!  “He humbled Himself, becoming obedient to death, even to death on a cross” (Phil. 2:8).[4]

It was not necessary for Jesus to suffer so intensely in order to redeem all men.  As His merits are infinite, He could have wiped away the sins of a thousand worlds by shedding one drop of His blood.  But He chose to suffer agonies because He loves us.[5]

The sufferings of Christ, in addition, serve as an example for us, to strengthen us under trials.  Christ gave us an example of patience and strength.  If we receive trials, we should accept them with resignation, in imitation of Our Lord, Who suffered so willingly for our sake.  We can never have as much suffering as He did.[6]


[1]           Imitation of Christ, Thomas a Kempis, Book 3, Chapter 5.

[2]           My Catholic Faith, Bishop Louis Morrow, My Mission House, Kenosha, WI, ©1949, Lesson 34, page 69.

[3]           Id.

[4]           My Catholic Faith, Bishop Louis Morrow, My Mission House, Kenosha, WI, ©1949, Lesson 35, page 71.

[5]           Id.

[6]           Id.

Does the end ever justify the means?

Posted on by Catholic Candle

We live in a time of great pressure and growing distress.  Here are two examples:

  1. People are pressured to accept the COVID “vaccine”[1] in order to keep their jobs (or to avoid fines, or be able to obtain food, etc.) because of “vaccine” mandates imposed by the government or by their employers.[2]
  2. People are pressured to attend the Masses[3] of (or go to Confession to)[4] a compromise group or priest in order to get the sacraments or to avoid being without a parish to which to belong.

When people yield to pressures such as these, they say they were “forced” to receive the COVID “vaccine”, or they say they “had no choice” except to attend the Masses of a compromise group or priest.  

But did they really have no choice?  Of course, they had a choice!  They merely did not like the alternative.  They could refuse the COVID “vaccine” even if they were fired from their jobs (or even if they had no way to obtain food, or whatever).  Or (in the other example), those people could sanctify the Sundays at home, rather than support a compromise group and receive its sacraments.  

When these people say they were “forced” to commit the sin, they really mean that they chose to do the evil deed rather than to accept the crosses and sufferings sent to them by God.  

The Church’s martyrs often were given a way to avoid being killed.  For example, many Roman martyrs were told they could avoid being killed if they simply burned a tiny amount of incense to a false god.  Instead of their glorious martyrdoms and eternal salvation, those people could have excused themselves by saying they were “forced” to burn incense to the false gods.  Plainly such an excuse would have been sinful.   Their duty was to avoid such sin even though their steadfastness in the Faith would result in their martyrdom.

But suppose the sin which is “forced” upon the person is “only” a small sin and the results from committing the sin are very great goods?  This outlook (viz., that a sin is “only” a venial sin), is a temptation from the devil!  It is always wrong to commit even the “smallest” sin in order that good can come from it.  

All sins are infinite offenses against God in three ways (and mortal sins are infinite offenses against God in a fourth way too).[5]  We should never “slap God in the Face” in order that good might come from it.  In other words: the end does not justify the means.  

St. Paul shows this truth when he writes that some enemies of Christ spread the lie that Catholics hold that the end justifies the means.  Here are his words:

We are slandered, and as some affirm that we say: let us do evil, that there may come good.[6]

What does the word “justify” mean?

  • to provide or be a good reason for (something): to prove or show (something) to be just, right, or reasonable;
  • to provide a good reason for the actions of (someone).[7]

Under these broad definitions, it would seem that the end can be thought to justify the means in some circumstances.  For example: an employee is late for work and he justifies his delay, i.e., provides a good reason, when he explains that a car accident shut down the road on which he was traveling to work.

However, this is not what it means for the “end to justify the means”.  When it is claimed that the end justifies the means, this means that an outcome is so desirable that even sinful conduct is acceptable to achieve it.[8] 

In this sense, the end never justifies the means.  In other words, we cannot truly justify committing a sin.  As St. Paul teaches this truth, we cannot “do evil that there may come good”.


Conclusion

We are soldiers of Christ!  We must be friends of God!  Let us never commit a sin (such as to receive the COVID vaccine or attend a compromise Mass) in order that good can come of it!  Properly understood, the end never justifies the means.

[1]          The Covid “vaccine” is not really a vaccine.  It is gene therapy.  It is called a vaccine in order to deceive people into accepting it.  Here is how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration defined “gene therapy” in 2018:

Human gene therapy seeks to modify or manipulate the expression of a gene or to alter the biological properties of living cells for therapeutic use.

Gene therapy is a technique that modifies a person’s genes to treat or cure disease. Gene therapies can work by several mechanisms:

  • Replacing a disease-causing gene with a healthy copy of the gene
  • Inactivating a disease-causing gene that is not functioning properly
  • Introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease.

Quoted from: https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/cellular-gene-therapy-products/what-gene-therapy

This 2018 FDA definition fits the COVID Pfizer and Moderna “vaccines” perfectly.

However, that was before the leftists needed mRNA treatments to qualify as “vaccines”.  Now the leftist “fact checkers” solemnly tell you that COVID mRNA treatments are not gene therapy.  See, e.g., https://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-covid-19-vaccines-140024936.html

[2]          For an explanation of why the COVID “vaccines” (from Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneca and Johnson & Johnson) are always mortally sinful to receive, read this article: https://catholiccandle.org/2021/01/01/reject-the-covid-vaccines/

[3]
        To read about the importance of completely avoiding all compromise groups and priests, read this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/why-do-traditional-catholics-stay-in-a-compromise-group.html

[4]
        To read about the importance of never going to confession to a compromise group or priest, read this article: https://catholiccandle.org/2020/09/01/excuses-for-compromise-confessions/

[5]          For an explanation of these truths, read this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/the-infinite-evil-of-sin.html

[6]
         Here is the longer quote:

For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie, unto his glory, why am I also yet judged as a sinner?  And not rather (as we are slandered, and as some affirm that we say) let us do evil, that there may come good?  whose damnation is just.  What then?  Do we excel them?  No, not so.  For we have charged both Jews, and Greeks, that they are all under sin.

Romans, 3:7-9 (emphasis added).

[8]          Webster’s definition of the end justifying the means:

used to say that a desired result is so good or important that any method, even a morally bad one, may be used to achieve it.

[Example of using the phrase in a sentence:] They believe that the end justifies the means and will do anything to get their candidate elected.

https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/the%20end%20justifies%20the%20means

Sanctifying Grace – the Perfection of Free Will and Principle of Merit

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note:  Occasionally, we analyze the liberal statements of Bishop Richard N. Williamson.  Yet, someone could wonder:

Why mention Bishop Williamson any longer, since he is unimportant as merely one of very many compromising bishops and priests? 

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

However, we sometimes mention Bishop Williamson in particular for at least these five reasons, motivated by charity:

1.    New Catholic Candle readers might not be sufficiently informed of Bishop Williamson’s liberalism in order to avoid him.  Out of charity for them we occasionally provide these warnings to help those new readers appreciate the danger of the errors he spreads.

2.    Some longtime Catholic Candle readers might forget Bishop Williamson’s poison or vacillate in their resolution to stay away from him, if they never received a reminder warning about the danger inherent in his teachings.  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 these readers we occasionally provide these reminders lest readers “forget” to continue to avoid Bishop Williamson and his group.

3.    Bishop Williamson 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 that Bishop Williamson is taking.

4.    Over time, Bishop Williamson has provided us with a large catalogue of liberal errors.  Studying his compromises and errors along with the contrasting Traditional Catholic truth is a helpful means of studying our Faith and guarding ourselves against 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 Bishop Williamson’s liberalism to study our Traditional Catholic Faith better, in contrast to Bishop Williamson’s corresponding liberalism.

 

5.    Most so-called “bishops”, whether liberal/conciliar or sedevacantist, have doubtful consecrations and must be treated as invalid.[1]  By contrast, Bishop Williamson’s consecration is not doubtful.  Thus, if he ever were to return from his heresies, he could once again do important work for the Catholic Church, as he did years ago.

Finally, for those readers who are already resolute in their determination to completely avoid Bishop Williamson and his compromise group, they can receive just as much of the substance of this Catholic Candle article, if they substitute the phrase “a liberal could say” anytime they read “that Bishop Williamson teaches”.


Sanctifying Grace – the Perfection of our Free Will and the Principle of Merit

Defending the Catholic Faith and Our Lady’s Perfection

Against Bishop Williamson’s Confusion and Heresies[2]


In a recent letter to his followers, Bishop Richard Williamson showed his confusion about the spiritual life when he taught that if God were to bestow grace in great enough abundance, it would:

1.    Take away a person’s free will; and

2.    Destroy the merit of prayers, virtuous acts, and good works.

These two conclusions are heresies. But this confused bishop also adds a third error:

3.    Because God wanted His elect to be able to merit, He could not avoid the world being a place where most people go to hell.

Below, we will examine each of these three errors.

1.   Bishop Williamson falsely claims that grace can take away a person’s free will.

Bishop Williamson (falsely) teaches that God would take away a person’s free will by giving that person grace in sufficiently great abundance.  Bishop Williamson says that, if God gave grace in such abundance, then “He [viz., God] would in effect be stopping human beings from exercising their free-will”.[3]

In other words, Bishop Williamson is falsely asserting that if grace is abundant enough, it takes away free will.  That is false and is heresy!

The truth is that grace always makes our will freer and less under the dominion of the wounds of original sin.  Man is not free to choose his goal (i.e., his end).  It is fixed by the nature God gave to him.  Man always seeks happiness as his end.  Man’s will is only free to choose the means to this end.  All of this is explained beautifully in Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Libertas.

 

God can save the most hardened sinner by enlightening his mind and strengthening his will, so that the man sees more plainly the true means to obtain his happiness. When God gives this extra light and strength, any man freely chooses these means which God clearly shows him, and thus he attains happiness (especially heaven), which is the end which God fixed for him to seek.

 

Thus, the souls of the saints are most-free, because they follow God and reason in all of the various aspects of their lives. They are freest from the slavery to vices, such as pride and gluttony.[4]

The consequences of Bishop Williamson’s error are especially striking because of how his error insults the Blessed Virgin Mary.  If he were correct, then Mary would be the least free of all humans, since she has the greatest grace of any human person, as shown below.[5]


Mary has the greatest grace of any human person.

Mary is full of grace, as the Archangel Gabriel proclaimed: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.”  St. Luke, 1:28. 

St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Church, teaches the same truth:

So full of grace was the Blessed Virgin, that it overflows onto all mankind.  It is, indeed, a great thing that any one saint has so much grace that it is conducive to the salvation of many; but it is most wondrous to have so much grace as to suffice for the salvation of all mankind. Thus, it is in Christ and in the Blessed Virgin.[6]

Indeed, St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of the Church, teaches that Mary has more grace than all of the other saints together.  Here are his words:

Let us conclude that our heavenly child [Mary], because she was appointed mediatrix of the world, as also because she was destined to be the Mother of the Redeemer, received, at the very beginning of her existence, grace exceeding in greatness that of all the saints together.[7]

So, we see that Our Lady has the greatest grace of any human person – i.e., more than any person except Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Does this grace impede the Blessed Virgin Mary from exercising her free-will, as Bishop Williamson teaches?  Absolutely not!

Anyone who receives grace becomes freer because of the grace.  With the greatest abundance of grace, Our Lady is the freest of all.  This truth is the opposite of Bishop Williamson’s distortion of the spiritual life and his erroneous and confused teaching about grace and free will.

2.   Bishop Williamson falsely claims that abundant grace can take away a person’s opportunity to merit.

Bishop Williamson (falsely) teaches that a person’s ability to merit would be taken away if God gave him grace in sufficiently great abundance.  Bishop Williamson says that, if God gave very abundant grace, then “He [viz., God] would in effect be stopping human beings … from meriting for Heaven”.[8]

In other words, Bishop Williamson is falsely asserting that if grace is abundant enough, then a person cannot merit.  That is false and is heresy!  If he were correct, then Mary would be most greatly prevented from meriting since she has the greatest grace of any human person.  However, she has the greatest merit, as shown below.

Our Lady’s merit is greatest among all of the saints

The Blessed Virgin Mary is not only full of grace but this is the reason for the great merit she earned by every thought, word and deed.

St. Alphonsus beautifully explains this truth in these words:

If Mary, as the already destined Mother of our common Redeemer, received from the very beginning the office of mediatrix of all men, and consequently even of the saints, it was also requisite from the very beginning [that] she should have a grace exceeding that of all the saints for whom she was to intercede.  I will explain myself more clearly. If, by the means of Mary, all men were to render themselves dear to God, necessarily Mary was more holy and dearer to Him than all men together.  Otherwise, how could she have interceded for all others?  That an intercessor may obtain the favor of a prince for all his vassals, it is absolutely necessary that he should be dearer to his prince than all the other vassals.  And therefore St. Anselm concludes that Mary deserved to be made the worthy repairer of the lost world, because she was the purest of all creatures. ‘The pure sanctity of her heart, surpassing the purity and sanctity of all other creatures, merited for her that she should be made the repairer of the lost world.’[9]

St. Alphonsus further teaches:

Let us conclude that our heavenly child [Mary], because she was appointed mediatrix of the world, as also because she was destined to be the Mother of the Redeemer, received, at the very beginning of her existence, grace exceeding in greatness that of all the saints together.  Hence, how delightful a sight must the beautiful soul of this happy child have been to heaven and earth, although still enclosed in her mother’s womb!  She was the most amiable creature in the eyes of God, because she was already loaded with grace and merit. …  And she was at the same time the creature above all others that had ever appeared in the world up to that moment, who loved God the most; so much so, that had Mary been born immediately after her most pure conception, she would have come into the world richer in merits, and more holy, than all the saints united.[10]

With the most abundant grace, Our Lady also had the most abundant merits.  Contrary to Bishop Williamson’s heresy, a greater abundance of grace does not impede merit, but rather causes it.

3.   Bishop Williamson falsely claims the world is not the most perfect world but is the best world God was able to create and still have heaven be a great place.

Bishop Williamson not only shows his confusion about grace, free will, and merit (as shown above), but also, he asserts that God did not make earth a better place than He did, because that would have made heaven a worse place.  Bishop Williamson (falsely) teaches that if God had not made a world where most people go to hell, then heaven would be worse.  This is false and is heresy.  Here are Bishop Williamson’s words:

[A]n unmerited Heaven could not have the quality of a merited Heaven, which is why we live in this “vale of tears” – God created us only for the best, even if it necessitated the “collateral damage” of a “vale of tears” in which a majority of all souls created would choose Hell.[11]

In other words, Bishop Williamson falsely asserts God made a world where most men go to hell because otherwise, He could not have made heaven as great.

The truth is that the world that God made is the best of all possible worlds.[12]  God allows evil for His greater glory and in order to bring about greater good.[13]  God allows some people to (voluntarily) sin and to damn themselves because their damnation manifests God’s Justice more clearly than if damnation had been something which never occurred but which we understood only as something that could have – but didn’t – ever happen.

Similarly, God’s Mercy and Goodness in saving the elect is more manifest in contrast to the actual damnation of other souls, since the damned very evidently manifest what could have happened to the elect, had God not chosen to save them because of His Mercy and Goodness.

 

Although sin itself is evil, this world which God made, in which He allows sin and damnation, is better as a whole because it manifests God’s Mercy, Goodness, and Justice better than if there had been no sin.  By better manifesting God’s perfections, the universe gives greater Glory to God.[14]  For God’s only end is His Own Glory, that is, Himself.  Any other end (less than God) is unworthy of God.[15]

 

Thus, we see that, for His own Glory and to manifest His perfections, God saves some persons and gives them happiness.  Likewise, for His own Glory and to manifest His perfections, God allows some persons to damn themselves and be unhappy.[16]

Thus, Bishop Williamson errs that God made the earth imperfect because, if He had made the earth better, it would have made heaven worse.  The truth is that God could have made a world where everyone received superabundant grace and where everyone went to the perfect heaven which He made.  But this would have been a less-perfect world.

 

Similarly, God could have made a world where everyone received superabundant grace and there were no tears and no suffering, and everyone loved Him greatly.  However, such a world would have been less perfect because it would have failed to manifest His Honor and Glory as perfectly as the world He actually made. 

 

 

Conclusion

 

We must be vigilant to guard against Bishop Williamson’s fundamental errors concerning the spiritual life.  In contrast to his errors, the truth is that:

 

v  Grace always makes a man’s will freer. 

 

v  Grace always increases the merits of his actions. 

 

v  The heaven and earth that God made are the most perfect ones possible, although most men choose sin and choose to damn themselves.


[1]           For further information about the doubtfulness of the conciliar “consecration” rite, read this analysis: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B49oPuI54eEGZVF5cmFvMGdZM0U/view?resourcekey=0-d98Ksw0xkbtafE2fYSTq8A

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.11, a.2, respondeo.

[3]           Here is the longer quote:

God is absolute Goodness because He is absolute Being, only a lack of being can be evil. It is absolutely impossible for God to cause directly moral evil. What He can do is cause it indirectly by not giving the grace or graces which would have prevented that moral evil from happening. In that case He is not acting positively, He is refraining from acting, or acting negatively, to allow the evil to happen. Those graces that would have prevented the evil, He is entirely free to give or not give, and if He always gave them, He would in effect be stopping human beings from exercising their free-will and from meriting for Heaven. But an unmerited Heaven could not have the quality of a merited Heaven, which is why we live in this “vale of tears” – God created us only for the best, even if it necessitated the “collateral damage” of a “vale of tears” in which a majority of all souls created would choose Hell (Mt. VII, 13–14).

Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DCCXXXII (732) (underline emphasis in original; bold and italic emphasis added).

 

[5]           We must defend Our Lady against such insults to her prerogatives.  As St. Louis de Montfort teaches in his book, True Devotion to Mary, ¶265:

Finally, we must do everything for Mary.  Since we have given ourselves completely to her service, it is only right that we should do everything for her as if we were her personal servant and slave.  This does not mean that we take her for the ultimate end of our service, for Jesus alone is our ultimate end.  But we take Mary for our proximate end, our mysterious intermediary and the easiest way of reaching Him.

Like every good servant and slave, we must not remain idle, but, relying on her protection, we should undertake and carry out great things for our noble Queen.  We must defend her privileges when they are questioned and uphold her good name when it is under attack.

[6]           St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Angelic Salutation.

 

[7]           St. Alphonsus de Liguori, The Glories of Mary — discourse #2 the birth of Mary (emphasis added).

 

[8]           Here is the longer quote:

God is absolute Goodness because He is absolute Being, only a lack of being can be evil. It is absolutely impossible for God to cause directly moral evil. What He can do is cause it indirectly by not giving the grace or graces which would have prevented that moral evil from happening. In that case He is not acting positively, He is refraining from acting, or acting negatively, to allow the evil to happen. Those graces that would have prevented the evil, He is entirely free to give or not give, and if He always gave them, He would in effect be stopping human beings from exercising their free-will and from meriting for Heaven. But an unmerited Heaven could not have the quality of a merited Heaven, which is why we live in this “vale of tears” – God created us only for the best, even if it necessitated the “collateral damage” of a “vale of tears” in which a majority of all souls created would choose Hell (Mt. VII, 13–14).

Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DCCXXXII (732) (underline emphasis in original; bold and italic emphasis added).

 

[9]           St. Alphonsus de Liguori, The Glories of Mary – discourse #2 the birth of Mary

 

[10]         St. Alphonsus de Liguori, The Glories of Mary — discourse #2 the birth of Mary (emphasis added).

 

[11]         Here is the longer quote:

God is absolute Goodness because He is absolute Being, only a lack of being can be evil. It is absolutely impossible for God to cause directly moral evil. What He can do is cause it indirectly by not giving the grace or graces which would have prevented that moral evil from happening. In that case He is not acting positively, He is refraining from acting, or acting negatively, to allow the evil to happen. Those graces that would have prevented the evil, He is entirely free to give or not give, and if He always gave them, He would in effect be stopping human beings from exercising their free-will and from meriting for Heaven.  But an unmerited Heaven could not have the quality of a merited Heaven, which is why we live in this “vale of tears” – God created us only for the best, even if it necessitated the “collateral damage” of a “vale of tears” in which a majority of all souls created would choose Hell (Mt. VII, 13–14).

Eleison Comments by Mgr. Williamson – Issue DCCXXXII (732) (underline emphasis in original; bold and italic emphasis added).

 

[13]         Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas (the Greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church) explains this truth, quoting St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church:

 

As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): “Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.”  This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

 

Summa, Ia, Q.2 a.3, ad 1 (emphasis added).


[14]         Here is St. Thomas’ fuller explanation of this truth:

 

It is the part of the best agent to produce an effect which is best in its entirety; but this does not mean that He makes every part of the whole the best absolutely, but in proportion to the whole; in the case of an animal, for instance, its goodness would be taken away if every part of it had the dignity of an eye. Thus, therefore, God also made the universe to be best as a whole, according to the mode of a creature; whereas He did not make each single creature best, but one better than another.  And therefore, we find it said of each creature, “God saw the light, that it was good” (Genesis 1:4); and in like manner of each one of the rest.  But of all together it is said, “God saw all the things that He had made, and they were very good” (Genesis 1:31).

 

Summa, Ia, Q.47, a.2, ad 1 (emphasis added).


[15]         Here is how St. Thomas explains this truth: 

 

[E]ach and every creature exists for the perfection of the entire universe.  Furthermore, the entire universe, with all its parts, is ordained towards God as its end, inasmuch as it imitates, as it were, and shows forth the Divine goodness, to the glory of God.

 

Summa, Ia, Q.65., a2, respondeo (emphasis added).

 

God loves mankind and the rest of creation because they are His work and He gave them whatever goodness they have.  But they are finite goods which God loves finitely as part of His infinite love for Himself.  For a fuller explanation of this truth, read this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/god-does-not-infinitely-love-any-creature.html


[16]         Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas (quoting St. Paul) explains this Truth of the Catholic Faith:

 

Let us then consider the whole of the human race, as we consider the whole universe.  God Wills to manifest His goodness in men; in respect to those whom He predestines, by means of His mercy, as sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of His justice, in punishing them.

 

This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others.  To this, the Apostle refers, saying (Romans 9:22-23):

 

What if God, willing to show His wrath [that is, the vengeance of His justice], and to make His power known, endured [that is, permitted] with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction; that He might show the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He hath prepared unto glory;

 

and (2 Timothy 2:20):

 

But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver; but also, of wood and of earth; and some, indeed, unto honor, but some unto dishonor.

 

Summa, Ia Q. 23 a.5, ad 3 (emphasis added).  The bracketed words (in the quotes from St. Paul) are contained in the Summa.

 

Our Life is a Personal Gift from God

Posted on by Catholic Candle

A gift-giver has the moral right to expect the gift to be spent, used, or lived as intended by the giver.  If you inherited a large sum of money from your (traditional Catholic) parents that they worked hard all their lives to accumulate, they’d have a right to expect you to use it wisely, and above all, not to use it in an evil way, putting your salvation in greater doubt.

Most people take their gift of life for granted and live it as they see fit, without considering restrictions from God or anyone else.  WRONG!  Your life is a magnificent gift from God, and in justice, ought to be lived as He requires.  The Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say about supernatural gifts:

A supernatural gift may be defined as something conferred on nature that is above all the powers of created nature.  When God created man, He was not content with bestowing upon him the essential endowments required by man’s nature.  He raised him to a higher state, adding certain gifts to which his nature had no claim.[1]

***

The absolutely supernatural gifts, which alone are the supernatural properly so called, are summed up in the Divine adoption of man to be the son and heir of God.  This expression, and the explanations given of it by the sacred writers, make it evident that the sonship is something far more than a relation founded upon the absence of sin; it is of a thoroughly intimate character, raising the creature from its naturally humble estate, and making it the object of a peculiar benevolence and complaisance on God’s part, admitting it to filial love, and enabling it to become God’s heir, i.e., a partaker of God’s own beatitude.  “God sent His Son…that He might redeem them who were under the law: that we might receive the adoption of sons.  And because you are sons, God hath sent the spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying: Abba. Father. Therefore, now he is not a servant, but a son.  And if a son, an heir also through God.”[2]

In the present world, life is not valued as the precious gift that it is.  Therefore, it is easy for people to think they have the right to use it in any way they want – ignoring God’s Ten Commandments, one (or all), and thinking they are living a fuller, more enjoyable, and happy life.

But in reality, it is a most unfulfilled life, filled with drugs and alcohol, pleasure-seeking, futilely chasing after money, success, satisfaction, and happiness. It is like one of God’s fish trying to live out of water.

Real happiness in life is based on understanding and real appreciation of God’s gift of your life, and living it according to the Giver’s intention and plan.

God picked you to receive His gift of life.  He could have chosen not to create you and to create someone else instead.

Show your appreciation by living a holy life to please Him.  This has the (intended) consequence of bringing you untold happiness.  You were created to be happy on earth and then to be perfectly happy with God forever in heaven.

When it comes to generosity, God is never outdone.  In reality, you take far more than you give, whereas God gives and gives, wants your love, and waits for you to love Him in return.

So, realize Who is the Giver, and who is the one always taking.  Your life will be happier if you make a real effort to live your gift of life by standing up for Him in this sea of evil called “the civilized world”.

Don’t worry.  He knows of your love and appreciation of His gifts. He can read your heart.  Oh, what a gift!

 

          


[1]           The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1909, Vol. 6, Page 553, article: Gifts, Supernatural.


[2]           The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1909, Vol. 6, Page 553, article: Gifts, Supernatural.

Making “Relic Water” in the Catacombs

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note: Below is an article from a reader.  This reader describes a tool his family finds helpful and we publish his article here for the use of any other families who might choose to use this tool too.  We welcome any readers to submit articles, for the glory of God and the salvation of souls.

 

 

During the current Great Apostasy, we have little access to the sacraments and sacramentals.

God has not abandoned His children!  Although – for now – He has willed to take away most of the Sacraments from most faithful and informed Traditional Catholics.[1]  In God’s ineffable Providence, this is for our good.  We know infallibly that “all things work together unto the good, for those who love God.” Romans, 8:28.

So, when God takes away most sacraments, He gives us other means and gives those means greater efficacy than ever before.  So, e.g., God greatly increased the power of the Holy Rosary during our times.[2]

God understands that we cannot do the impossible, nor does He expect us to do so.  He neither expects, nor wants us to receive the Sacraments or to attend Mass when they are not available without compromise.  Compromise Masses and Sacraments don’t help us and they offend Him![3]

Our family has used up the holy water supply we had from priests who were previously uncompromising (and who we had been able to support and from whom we had been able to obtain spiritual help, including the sacraments and sacramentals).

More recently, however, those same priests have compromised and our family does not currently have any priests to help us because those who would now be available to us are compromising.  Of course, we will not seek additional holy water from priests who are now compromising, just like we would not seek the sacraments from them until such time, if ever, that they reject their compromises. 

Receiving holy water from compromising priests would be a scandal and God does not want us to spiritually-connect ourselves with those priests who are working against Him with their compromised lives and/or teaching. 

So, we are now gladly and contentedly without a priest[4] – for as long as God wills this – because this is presently His Will for us.  We know that the current unavailability of sacramentals (e.g., holy water) works for our good, if we love God. 

God will provide the means for us to use!  Because we are without holy water out of love for Him, He surely will bless us greatly without that sacramental.  It might be that God wants us to simply leave our holy water fonts dry for now, making Signs of the Cross without holy water.  That would be fine. 

On the other hand, God desires that we do what we can during these times of great apostasy.  Perhaps this also involves making and using (what our family calls) “relic water” (discussed below).  This “relic water” is named in honor of the saints we invoke, as we will explain.  This is merely our family’s attempt to do our best, to do what we can do in our present circumstances without a priest. 

We make “relic water” without any pretense that we are a priest.  (This is like our much greater reliance now, compared to the past, on making Spiritual Communions as fervently as we can.) 

In making “relic water”, we are merely doing what we can do by invoking the saints of God and using the sacramentals we do have.  Perhaps God will choose to treat this “relic water” as if it were holy water, knowing we are doing what we can in the circumstances in which He lovingly placed us.  Whatever He wants is what we want!


How to make “relic water”

Our family does not bless the “relic water”.  We ask the saints whose relics we have, to bless it.  For example, we have a first-class relic of Pope St. Pius X.  In a water-tight bag, we submerge the relic into the basin of water, praying:

Through thy holy relic, O Pope St. Pius X, please bless this water for the glory of God and the salvation of souls, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.

Our family has many other first-class relics (i.e., parts of the bodies) of many other saints.  One-by-one, we submerge that saint’s relic into the water, while invoking him (or her) in the manner described above.  

We do the same thing with a crucifix, St. Benedict medal, Miraculous Medal, Agnus Dei wax, a piece of blessed palm, a blessed candle, second-class relics, etc., slightly modifying the prayer.  For example, when submerging the bottom of the crucifix, we pray:

Through Thy holy crucifix, O Lord, please bless this water for the glory of God and the salvation of souls, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.

After finishing with all of the relics and other holy objects, we then recite the Saint Michael the Archangel prayer.

Lastly, we have some salt blessed by a priest.  We use a little of this which we sprinkle into the water in the form of a cross.  Any blessed salt could be used.  However, ours was blessed by the uncompromising Catholic priest-stigmatist, Fr. Leo McNamara, from St. Adrian’s Church in Chicago.  If anyone wants a little of this blessed salt (enough for one or two batches of “relic water”), we would gladly give him some if he mails us a self-addressed, postpaid envelope.  He could contact Catholic Candle about where to mail his request (catholiccandle@gmail.com).


The spirit behind making “relic water” – Faith, Hope, and Charity

In making “relic water”, we think that it is not essential that we use some particular holy item, such as a first-class relic.  The central point is for us to do what we can do with the holy items God has given us, and then leave the rest to Him.  He has put us sweetly in this time and He will not be outdone in generosity!

In the current Great Apostasy, the choice which uncompromising Catholics make is not between “regular” holy water and “relic water”.  Regular holy water is not an option for most faithful and informed Catholics because their supply has run out and there are no uncompromising priests (that they know of) from whom to get it.  Rather, their choice is between dry holy water fonts and doing the best they can with something such as “relic water”.  If some families think it is better to leave their holy water fonts dry, that is fine.  We are just explaining how we do what we can do.

We should be completely content without “regular” holy water, just as we should be completely content without the Mass, as long as God Wills that we have no uncompromising priest.


What if I have no relics?

We understand that not every family has first or even second-class relics.  Again, the spirit here is not one of legalism, but the spirit of Faith, Hope, and Charity.  Thus, even if you have any objects blessed in the past by good, uncompromising, and certainly-valid priests, then use them.   Even barring that, one might use a holy picture submerged in the plastic bag.  God provides.

Whether you and your family decide to use “relic water” or not, let us live with hearts full of love and gratitude that we can serve God and work out our salvation during these times in the catacombs!

 

 

 


[1]           Read this article about how God provides during our times of great apostasy, for uncompromising Catholics who have no priest: https://catholiccandle.org/2021/04/02/rome-has-the-churches-but-traditional-catholics-have-the-faith/

 

[2]               Sister Lucy, seer at Fatima, revealed this truth in the following words addressed to Fr. Fuentes:

 

God is giving two last remedies to the world: the Holy Rosary and devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  …  Prayer and sacrifice are the two means to save the world.  As for the Holy Rosary, Father, in these last times in which we are living, the Blessed Virgin has given a new efficacy to the praying of the Holy Rosary.  This in such a way that there is no problem that cannot be resolved by praying the Rosary, no matter how difficult it is – be it temporal or above all spiritual ….

 

Words of Sister Lucy, seer at Fatima, from her December 26, 1957 interview by Fr. Augustin Fuentes, vice-postulator of the cause of beatification for Francisco and Jacinta.  (Emphasis added.)  This interview can be found at: http://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2019/03/is-this-interview-that-caused-her.html

Sanctifying Grace – the “Companion” of Charity

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note: We should study the Catholic Faith our whole life.  Part of this duty is to understand more fully the truths of the Faith we already learned as children.  Thus, for example, concerning the question “Who is God?”, we know from our First Communion Catechism that “God is the Supreme Being Who made all things.”  During our life, we should learn more about God, as best we can, little-by-little, using the opportunities we have.

The article below is an aid to help us “peering a little more deeply” into a few related truths of the Faith which we already learned in our catechism as children.  The article below is merely one more step in the journey of learning our Faith better.


What is Charity, and How does it relate to Sanctifying Grace?

Charity is friendship with God.[1] 

Without charity, a man is an enemy of God, since every man is at enmity with God through Original Sin[2] (and mortal sin), unless (and until) he becomes His friend through the friendship of charity[3], which is only acquired with Sanctifying Grace.[4] 

Sanctifying Grace is God’s Life within us[5] and makes us holy and pleasing to God.[6]

Let us summarize what we covered so far:  God’s life is to know and love Himself, and that life is pure and perfect bliss; He is the only worthy object of His love and knowledge.[7]

Yet the astounding fact is this:  When we possess charity and Sanctifying Grace, we also participate in that very life of God – His love and knowledge for Himself!  We know and love God in a way similar to the way that He Himself knows and love Himself.  Note that we said “in a way similar to how He knows and loves Himself” – but not to the same extent. 

This qualification of “in a way similar to” is very important.  Perhaps an example might help: let us suppose a very bright philosopher who knows and can prove many truths about God, yet who lacks Sanctifying Grace.  This man might be able to explain many natural truths about God (truths knowable by the human intellect without Revelation) which many or even most Catholics cannot prove because of a lack of education.  Yet this bright man is not able to know God in the way that the simplest peasant can know Him when he has Sanctifying Grace. 

What is the way the bright man knows God?   He can prove things about God from a distant and cold perspective, in a dry, academic way.  For example, he can prove there must be a God, because of such-and-such human reasoning.  He can prove that this God must be eternal, and can prove many other truths.  This is all good, but yet it is a “far cry” from what Sanctifying Grace does for the soul. 

Let us now contrast:  What can the peasant in the state of grace do which the bright philosopher in the state of mortal sin cannot do?  The peasant is able to know God as a loving Father – a personal God Who cares about each of us deeply, Who was born and died for us, Who is always looking out for us, guiding us, showering us with gifts, and Who longs to have us with Him forever in heavenly bliss.  But love requires knowledge of the thing loved.  Thus, because the peasant is able to know God in this way, he is also able to love God in a way that bright philosopher is simply not able to.

The “Companionship” of Sanctifying Grace and Charity: Sanctifying Grace and Charity always come into a soul together[8] and increase together (and they leave together, in any soul that has the great tragedy of committing a mortal sin).[9]

Thus, we can see that Sanctifying Grace and charity are inseparable “companions” in the supernatural life.  Here is how God’s Life and His Love for Himself are reflected in our possessing Sanctifying Grace and charity:

➢  God is His Own Divine Life; Sanctifying Grace is God’s Life in us by participation.

 

➢  God has one act, which is to love Himself.[10]  By charity, we love God in a similar way.


Without Charity and Sanctifying Grace, we cannot merit.

What is merit?

To “merit” means “to be worthy of or entitled or liable to earn”.[11]

Merit is a right to a reward.   For example, let us suppose a man who is in mortal sin discovers a plot to kill and overthrow the king.  The man informs the king.  This deed deserves praise and reward, because perhaps it not only saved the king himself, but also the whole kingdom.  Thus, the king – if he is a just man – might say to the man, “Well done!  You have merited a reward and my gratitude.”  In that case, the man merited a natural reward from a mere man. 


Merit can be natural or supernatural.

But what if the man did the same thing, but this time possessed Sanctifying Grace and charity?   When in the state of grace, the motive behind our actions can be that of love of God, and thus take on a supernatural dimension.   In such case, not only would the man gain natural merit from the human king, but also supernatural merit.  God, Who is Justice itself, might well give him natural gifts (e.g., good health, success), but also supernatural gifts (e.g., a right to a higher place in heaven, an increase of virtue and grace).

But without Sanctifying Grace, we cannot merit anything from God.[12]

This is not surprising, since those without Sanctifying Grace are God’s enemies.[13]  How could God’s enemies ever merit from Him while remaining His enemies and remaining in mortal sin – with their wills turned against Him?[14]

Let us “unpack” the consequences a little further, of the truth that without Sanctifying Grace, a person can merit absolutely nothing from God.  This means that:

➢  A man in the state of mortal sin who builds orphanages, schools, or monasteries (which are good works) does not merit even the slightest thing from God, by doing so.[15]

➢  A man in the state of mortal sin who teaches the Catholic Faith, does not merit even the slightest thing from God, by doing so. [16]

 

➢  A man in the state of mortal sin who dedicates his life to fighting communism or disease, or who dies trying to rescue a child in a burning building, does not earn anything at all from God, by doing so.[17]

This is true even if the man’s work was an instrument to save many other souls and brought about much good in other ways.  Persons without Sanctifying Grace never merit from God by the good works they do.  On the other hand, though, those persons are able to commit further evil.  By choosing to commit more sins, they offend God further and deserve further punishment.

This does not mean that a man in mortal sin never does anything good and that he cannot have any natural virtues.  When the man teaches the truth or constructs a building, those are truly natural good works and this fact is not “taken away” by the man’s inability to merit from God for those works.[18]  Again, a man might merit natural rewards, such as from the human king, as explained in the above example.

Natural virtue is not a source of supernatural merit, when a man is in mortal sin.[19]  For example, a Satanist (or other enemy of God) could possibly have the habit of being patient with his neighbor or be habitually generous to a crippled child.  These habits (patience and generosity) would be natural virtues.  What is impossible is for such a man to merit supernaturally from God, by his (natural) good acts and virtues.

We ordinary Catholics, who are unaccustomed to the ways of God, might tend to falsify the truths (above) by supposing that there is a way “through the back door” for a man in mortal sin to merit in some way.  For example, although we know that a man in mortal sin cannot merit from God, we might suppose that, when God sees the man’s (human) good works or (natural) virtues, God might decide to give that man grace on that basis, i.e., for this reason.  But our supposition (viz., that God might act this way) would contradict the truth that a man in mortal sin never merits from God by anything he does.  In other words:

Nothing done by a person without Sanctifying Grace inclines God to give him any blessing or good.

Remember the explanation above: to “merit” is to be a cause of good or to earn good in some way.  If a man in mortal sin were to influence God favorably toward him in any way, through the good works that man did, so that God gave him something which the man would not have otherwise received, then that man has merited while in mortal sin.  In other words, that man’s good works would have been a cause of the good he received from God.  This is impossible.[20]  Thus, God never gives any good to a man because of that man’s good works while he is in mortal sin, because that man cannot merit anything by his works.

However, this truth certainly does not mean that God could never (or would never) give grace to a man in mortal sin.  Rather, the Sanctifying Grace and other good things which God gives to a man in mortal sin are in no way merited by him.  They are given as a free, undeserved gift of God, not based on anything he did.

In a future article, we will look at how someone can merit supernatural good in some way (called “condignly”), when he is already in the state of Sanctifying Grace.


Conclusion

A man in mortal sin cannot merit Sanctifying Grace or any other good from God, by the (human) good works he does or by the (natural) virtues he has.  Sanctifying Grace is a free gift of God, not merited in any way by the man in mortal sin.


[1]           Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Church, explains this truth:

It is written (John 15:15): “I will not now call you servants . . . but My friends.”  Now this was said to them by reason of nothing else than charity. Therefore, charity is friendship.  …

According to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 2,3) not every love has the character of friendship, but that love which is together with benevolence, when, to wit, we love someone so as to wish good to him.  If, however, we do not wish good to what we love, but wish its good for ourselves, (thus we are said to love wine, or a horse, or the like), it is love not of friendship, but of a kind of concupiscence. For it would be absurd to speak of having friendship for wine or for a horse.

Yet neither does well-wishing suffice for friendship, for a certain mutual love is requisite, since friendship is between friend and friend: and this well-wishing is founded on some kind of communication.

Accordingly, since there is a communication between man and God, inasmuch as He communicates His happiness to us, some kind of friendship must needs be based on this same communication, of which it is written (1 Corinthians 1:9): “God is faithful: by Whom you are called unto the fellowship of His Son."  The love which is based on this communication, is charity: wherefore it is evident that charity is the friendship of man for God.

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.23, a.1, sed contra and respondeo (emphasis added).

[2]           As the psalmist teaches, concerning everyone being born with Original Sin: “I was conceived in iniquities; and in sins did my mother conceive me.”  Psalm, 50:7.  St. Paul teaches that, because of Original Sin, we are all “by nature children of wrath”.  Ephesians, 2:3. 

[3]           Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas teaches this truth, following and quoting St. Augustine: “whosoever has not charity is wicked, because ‘this gift alone of the Holy Ghost distinguishes the children of the kingdom from the children of perdition’”.  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.178, a.2, sed contra, quoting St. Augustine’s treatise on the Blessed Trinity, De Trinitate, bk.15, ch.18.

St. Paul teaches: “the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us.”  Romans, 5:5.

[4]           Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas teaches this truth, quoting St. Augustine:

Sanctifying Grace is given chiefly in order that man’s soul may be united to God by charity.  Wherefore Augustine says (De Trin. xv, 18): “A man is not transferred from the left side to the right, unless he receives the Holy Ghost, by Whom he is made a lover of God and of his neighbor.”

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.172, a.4, respondeo.

[5]           Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas teaches this truth:

[T]he light of grace which is a participation of the Divine Nature is something besides the infused virtues which are derived from and are ordained to this light ….

Summa, Ia IIae, Q.110, a.3, respondeo. 

See also, St. John of the Cross, the Mystical Doctor of the Church, where he teaches the same truth: Spiritual Canticle, Stanza 38, §4.

St. Peter refers to Sanctifying Grace as making us “partakers of the Divine Nature”.  2 Peter, 1:4.

[6]           Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas teaches this truth:

Even as when a man is said to be in another’s good graces, it is understood that there is something in him pleasing to the other; so also, when anyone is said to have God’s grace – with this difference, that what is pleasing to a man in another is presupposed to his love, but whatever is pleasing to God in a man is caused by the Divine love, as was said above.

Summa, Ia IIae, Q.110, a.1, ad 1.

A little below these words of St. Thomas, he says “we speak of grace inasmuch as it makes man pleasing to God”.

Summa, Ia IIae, Q.110, a.3, respondeo (emphasis added).

Here is how the Baltimore Catechism #3 explains this truth:

Q. 461. What is sanctifying grace?

A. Sanctifying grace is that grace which makes the soul holy and pleasing to God.

[7]               The only way God knows creatures is through knowing Himself and knowing us as His works.  Summa, Ia, Q.14, a.7, respondeo; Ia, Q.16, a.7, respondeo.  The reason why God loves us creatures is because we are His works and He loves His works and the good He put into us.  Summa, Ia, Q.14, a.5; Ia, Q.20, a.2.

[8]           Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas teaches this truth:

Sanctifying Grace is given chiefly in order that man’s soul may be united to God by charity.

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.172, a.4, respondeo.

[9]           Mortal sin deprives a man of sanctifying grace.  Summa, Ia IIae, Q.109, a.7, respondeo.  Mortal sin deprives a man of charity.  Summa, Ia IIae, Q.88, a.1, respondeo.

[10]         This same one act of loving Himself is also an act of knowing Himself.  It is hard for us to understand this, but God is wholly simple and has only one act, which is to know and to love Himself.  Summa, Ia, Q.3; Ia, Q.16, a.5, ad 1.

[11]         https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/merit (definition of the transitive verb, “merit”).

 

[12]         Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas teaches this truth, referring to Sanctifying Grace using its other name, i.e., “habitual grace”, since Sanctifying Grace remains in (inhabits) those in the state of grace:

The preparation of the human will for good is twofold: the first, whereby it is prepared to operate rightly and to enjoy God; and this preparation of the will cannot take place without the habitual gift of grace, which is the principle of meritorious works ….

Summa, Ia IIae, Q.109, a.6, respondeo (emphasis added).

Here is how the Catechism of St. Pius X teaches this truth:

5 Q. Why do not those who are in mortal sin participate in these goods [shared in the Communion of Saints]?

A. Because that which unites the faithful with God, and with Jesus Christ as His living members, rendering them capable of performing meritorious works for life eternal, is the grace of God which is the supernatural life of the soul; and hence as those who are in mortal sin are without the grace of God, they are excluded from perfect communion in spiritual goods, nor can they accomplish works meritorious towards life eternal.

Catechism of St. Pius X, section, Ninth Article of the Creed, subsection, Communion of Saints (bracketed words added to the question, to show the context).

Here is how the Baltimore Catechism #3 teaches this truth:

Q. 141. Why then do we say a soul is dead while in a state of mortal sin?

A. We say a soul is dead while in a state of mortal sin, because in that state it is as helpless as a dead body, and can merit nothing for itself.

[13]         Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas teaches this truth, following and quoting St. Augustine: “whosoever has not charity is wicked, because ‘this gift alone of the Holy Ghost distinguishes the children of the kingdom from the children of perdition’”.  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.178, a.2, Sed contra, quoting St. Augustine’s treatise, De Trinitate, bk.15, ch.18.

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

[14]         Concerning three ways that all sin is an infinite offense against Almighty God and concerning a fourth way in which mortal sin is an infinite offense against God, read this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/the-infinite-evil-of-sin.html

[15]         We already implicitly know this truth, since we know what St. Paul teaches regarding the importance of Charity, which is the inseparable “companion” of Sanctifying Grace:

And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, … and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.     

1 Corinthians, 13:3.

[16]         We already implicitly know this truth, since we know what St. Paul teaches regarding the importance of Charity, which is the inseparable “companion” of Sanctifying Grace:

If I speak with the tongues of men, and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.  …  And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

1 Corinthians, 13:1-2.

[17]         We already implicitly know this truth, since we know what St. Paul teaches regarding the importance of Charity, which is the inseparable “companion” of Sanctifying Grace:

If I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

1 Corinthians, 13:3.

[18]         Here is one way St. Thomas Aquinas teaches this truth:

Yet because human nature is not altogether corrupted by sin, so as to be shorn of every natural good, even in the state of corrupted nature it can, by virtue of its natural endowments, work some particular good, as to build dwellings, plant vineyards, and the like ….

Summa, Ia IIae, Q. 109, a.2, respondeo.

[19]         Here is one way St. Thomas Aquinas teaches this truth:

[W]ithout grace man cannot merit everlasting life; yet he can perform works conducing to a good which is natural to man, as "to toil in the fields, to drink, to eat, or to have friends," and the like, as Augustine says.  …

Summa, Ia IIae, Q. 109, a.5, respondeo.

[20]         St. Thomas teaches that: “Man by himself can no wise rise from sin without the help of grace.”  Summa, Ia IIae, Q.109, a.7, respondeo.

St. Thomas teaches that a man in mortal sin is as unable to merit return to grace, as a dead man is unable to cause his soul to return to his body.  Here are St. Thomas’s words:

[M]an cannot be restored by himself; but he requires the light of grace to be poured upon him anew, as if the soul were infused into a dead body for its resurrection.

Summa, Ia IIae, Q.109, a.7, ad 2.

Here is how the Catechism of St. Pius X teaches this truth:

5 Q. Why do not those who are in mortal sin participate in these goods?

A. Because that which unites the faithful with God, and with Jesus Christ as His living members, rendering them capable of performing meritorious works for life eternal, is the grace of God which is the supernatural life of the soul; and hence as those who are in mortal sin are without the grace of God, they are excluded from perfect communion in spiritual goods, nor can they accomplish works meritorious towards life eternal.


Catechism of St. Pius X, section, Ninth Article of the Creed, subsection, Communion of Saints.

 

The Human Element of the Catholic Church Has Been Trending Liberal

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Yes, it has been trending liberal to a degree that after three visits to earth by the Blessed Mother, requesting that the faithful return to religious fervor, penance, and a greater focus on the Traditional Catholic Faith, she has been almost completely ignored.

The first appearance of the Blessed Mother was in La Salette, France, on Sept. 19, 1846, 174 years ago.  Our Lady warned that Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the anti-Christ.  This warning was ignored, and Rome has lost the Faith, as demonstrated by the results of the evil Second Vatican Council in the 1960s.

VC II gave us the anti-Catholic Novus Ordo mass which does not give grace.  Without grace one loses the Faith and the ability to avoid sin.  The leaders in Rome (i.e., Masons and their servants) were not satisfied with the liberal Benedict XVI.  Thus, yielding to their pressure, he abdicated and they elected the more liberal Pope Francis.  This present pope has been as liberal as possible without exposing the end plan of destruction of the Church’s human element, especially in the matter of papal authority.  The Masons are not far from completely achieving their goal of solidifying their power in Rome, the seat of the Anti-Christ.[1] 

The second and third apparitions by God and His Mother – to save souls and recall Catholics from their straying path – were at Lourdes in 1858, and at Fatima in 1917.  At Fatima, she spoke of Three Secrets (or three parts to a Secret) to the three small children.  The first was a vision of hell to emphasize how many souls go to hell forever.

The second Secret was how the pope and all the bishops of the world could save souls and ensure peace in the world by a very easy and simple plan to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Simple and easy if they all still had the Faith.  But without the Faith, that request of the Blessed Mother has yet to be fulfilled in the 103 years since Fatima.

The third part of the Message remained secret at the request of the Blessed Mother.  However, she directed it to be revealed no later than 1960.  Several popes read that Secret, as written down by Lucy at the request of her spiritual adviser.  The popes never disclosed its content because it predicted that Rome would lose the Faith.[2]  As stated above, it was to have been revealed in 1960, which appears to be an effort to stop the Second Vatican Council, which took place in the early ‘60s and which resulted in the anti-Catholic conciliar church.  All three appearances were to urge sacrifice and prayers for the salvation of souls and the return of Rome’s focus to the traditional Catholic Faith.

Her appearances were almost completely ignored, bringing on a religious crisis and the consequent loss of many, many souls.  We should have expected this because we were warned by our heavenly Mother.  I believe the worst of the great chastisement is yet to come. 

What can we do now to help save souls?  Although no longer urged by the human element of the Catholic Church, we can do what Our Lady told us to do at Fatima and at La Salette: spread her instructions and warnings, far and wide, as listed below:

At Fatima:

1.    Fashions: “Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend My Son very much!”  (Our Lady said this in 1917!) 

 

2.    Hell: “More souls go to hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason!”  (Sins against the 6th Commandment)

 

3.    Bad marriages: “Many marriages are not good; they do not please Our Lord and are not of God.”

 

4.    Punishment of the world: The Blessed Mother can no longer restrain the Hand of Her Divine Son from striking the world with just punishment for its many crimes.

 

5.    Five warnings: “If my requests are not granted, Russia will scatter her errors throughout the world, provoking wars and persecutions of the Church.  The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, and various nations will be destroyed!”  (Remember, Our Lady told us this in 1917!)

 

6.    Amend: “I have come to warn the faithful to amend their lives and ask pardon for their sins.  They must not continue to offend Our Lord Who is already deeply offended.”

 

7.    Rosary: “Say the Rosary every day, to obtain peace for the world.  Add after each decade the following prayer: ‘Oh, my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to heaven, especially those in most need of Thy mercy.’”

 

8.    Pray: “Pray, pray a great deal, and make sacrifices for sinners, for many souls go to hell because they have no one to make sacrifices and pray for them.”

 

9.    Immaculate Heart devotion: “God wishes to establish in the world the devotion to My Immaculate Heart.  If people do what I tell you, many souls will be saved and there will be peace.”

 

10. World peace: “Tell everybody that God gives graces through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Tell them to ask graces from her, and that the Heart of Jesus wishes to be venerated together with the Immaculate Heart of Mary, for the Lord has confided the peace of the world to her.”

 

11. War: “War is a punishment from God for sins!”

 

12. Final peace: “In the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace!”

 

13. First Saturday devotion: “I promise to help at the hour of death, with graces needed for salvation, whoever, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, shall confess and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary, and keep me company for fifteen minutes, while meditating on the mysteries of the Rosary with the intention of making reparation to My Immaculate Heart.”

 

14. Sacrifice:  Our Lord appeared to Lucy in 1943.  He complained bitterly and sorrowfully that there are so few souls fulfilling Our Lady’s requests, saying: “The sacrifice required of every person is the fulfillment of his duties in life and the observance of My Laws!  This is the penance I now seek and require!”

 

15. St. Joseph:  The only saint who appeared at Fatima besides Our Lady.  St. Joseph held the Child Jesus in his arms and blessed the 70,000 people three times.  It is he of whom it has been said: “The sound of victory will be heard when the faithful recognize the sanctity of St. Joseph.”

 

16. Brown scapular:  On October 13, 1917, at the last apparition, Our Blessed Mother appeared, dressed as Our Lady of Mt. Carmel.  Silently she held out to the world the brown scapular – the sign of personal consecration – the sign of eternal salvation.  Lucy of Fatima explained: “The scapular and the Rosary are inseparable.”

 

17. Adoration before the Blessed Sacrament: Our Lady of Fatima asked for reparation.  The Angel of Fatima showed the children how to make reparation by adoring Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.  (Making Holy Hours, or half hour, or 15-minute visits in Church (when an uncompromising one is available[3]) during the week is fulfilling the adoration request.       

 
The Causes of Mary’s Tears at La Salette; Our Resolutions to Console her:

1.    Revolt against God and His Church, sins of impiety and obstinacy.  Resolution:  Submission to God, cooperation with Divine grace.

 

2.    Profanation of the Lord’s Day.  Resolution:  Sanctification of this Holy Day through works of piety and charity.

 

3.    Taking the Lord’s name in vain, cursing and swearing.  Resolution: To honor and bless the name of the Lord, especially when it is blasphemed.

 

4.    Missing Mass on Sundays or Holy Days (when one is available).  Resolution: To assist at Mass faithfully and respectfully.

 

5.    Violation of the laws of fasting and abstinence.  Resolution: Faithful observance of these laws; spirit of mortification.

 

6.    Neglect of prayer.  Resolution:  Fidelity to morning and evening prayer; family Rosary.

 

7.    Indifference and ingratitude towards Our Heavenly Mother herself.  Resolution: Childlike confidence in Mary; zeal to spread the teachings of her merciful apparition.

Above, Our Lady spoke of bad marriages.  It is much worse now, with so many couples living together without benefit of marriage.  It has come to the point that they wear this mortal sin as a badge of dubious “honor.”  There is also no shame when the children are born, nor do people have any concept of sin and morality.

We are in a battle for souls.  The battle is against:

1.    Atheistic communism

 

2.    The efforts to destroy the Catholic Church’s human element

 

3.    International Masonry

 

4.    Modernism

 

5.    Liberalism

 

6.    Pervasive evil pop culture

 

7.    The devil’s efforts put forward through the conciliar church

We can no longer rely on the clergy of the Catholic Church.  They seem to be the first to accept the anti-Catholic changes from Vatican II.  It was said in Traditionalist circles, during the ’70s, that the Church would be destroyed from the “Top” and restored by the few good priests and laymen from the “Bottom.”  The liberal N-SSPX will not help to solve the problems of the crisis in the Church because they are part of the problem.

Because we are not listening to Our Lady, God has left us on our own, on the path to destruction.  Unquestionably, we are a long way down that path, to a point that we can almost see the future climax of the current great chastisement.  There is hope, though, with the coming supreme confrontation between the City of God and the Synagogue of Satan, (i.e., the decisive battle between the Virgin and the devil.[4]  The Virgin will crush the head of Satan and there will be peace, and the Church will triumph again.  We can help by following her Fatima 17-point Plan, and the 7-point Plan of La Salette.

 

 

 


[1]           Shortly after Pope Francis’ election, the Masons declared that he was a plan (i.e., “a design”) fulfilled.  Here are the words of Nicola Spinello, Adjunct-Vicar Grand Master of the Masons of Piazza del Gesù:

 

I believe that this pope [viz., Francis] is the realization of a design that has long wanted to be adopted.

 

Quoted in the book, Vaticano massone. Logge, denaro e poteri occulti: il lato segreto della Chiesa di papa Francesco, by Giacomo GALEAZZI – Ferruccio PINOTTI, Edizioni Piemme, Milano 2013, p.83, as quoted here: https://onepeterfive.com/freemasons-love-pope-francis/#_ftn23 (bracketed word added to show the context).

[2]           The Whole Truth About Fatima, by Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinite,

    Vol. III, Ch.3, p.676.

 

[3]           Concerning why we should never enter a compromise church in order to pray, read this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/evil-praying-conciliar-church.html

 

[4]           Ibid, p. 745.

The Evil of Comfortably Tolerating Heresy

Posted on by Catholic Candle

The Apostolic Fathers Rebuke the Conduct of Bishop Williamson’s Followers

Bishop Williamson continually increases his “collection” of heresies he promotes, as shown regularly in Catholic Candle

note

Read Bishop Williamson’s own words on many issues on which he teaches heresy (cited to his own sources) on our website.

and elsewhere. For example, Bishop Williamson promotes the heresies that:

Maybe Bishop Williamson’s followers disagree with his heresies. But they maintain a cowardly

note

Catholics must judge words and deeds objectively. But we must never judge a person’s interior, subjective culpability for sins, because that would be the sin of rash judgment. Read the explanation found here: Against sedevacantism

A person might have the superficial opinion that it is a sin of rash judgment for us to call “cowardly” the silence of Bishop Williamson’s followers. However, that opinion would be wrong.

The word, “cowardly” means:

being, resembling, or befitting a coward, e.g., a cowardly retreat.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cowardly (emphasis added).

Thus, “cowardly” is a fair description of the silence of Bishop Williamson’s followers, when he teaches heresy and scandal, because their silence resembles and befits a coward (since they fail in their objective duty to stand up for the true Catholic Faith). But we don’t judge their internal, subjective culpability for these objective mortal sins of silent betrayal of the Catholic Faith.

silence and cordial relations with him. This is un-Catholic!

The Rule of St. Paul

Faithful Catholics must avoid teachers of heresy. Here is what St. Paul commands us to do:

Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. For they that are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their own belly; and by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent.

note

Romans, 16:17-18 (emphasis added).

Faithful Catholics boldly and openly oppose teachers of heresy. Here is how St. Irenaeus summarizes the Catholic attitude:

Such caution did the apostles and their disciples exercise that they might not even converse with any of those who perverted the truth; as [St.] Paul also said, “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing he that is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself” (Titus 3:10-11).

note

St. Irenaeus teaches this in his book Against Heresies, Book III, quoted in Eusebius, The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, Penguin Classics, p.116-117.

 

The Example of St. John the Evangelist

Here is how St. John treated teachers of heresy:

[St.] John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe in Ephesus and seeing [the heretic] Cerinthus within, ran out of the bathhouse without bathing, crying, “Let us flee, lest even the bathhouse fall, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.”

note

St. Irenaeus gives this account in his book Against Heresies, Book III, quoted in Eusebius, The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, Penguin Classics, p.116-117.

 

Bishop Williamson’s followers do the opposite! They lavishly praise him and comfortably tolerate his heresies.

Bishop Williamson’s followers banquet with him. They laugh when he scoffs at St. John Chrysostom’s warnings about hell.

note

Read Bishop Williamson’s own words, cited to his own sources, here: Bishop Williamson Scoffs at St. John Chrysostom’s Frightening Warning about Going to Hell

See, e.g., this frame from a video of Bishop Zendejas’s consecration banquet, showing Bishops Faure and Zendejas smiling while Bishop Williamson mocks St. John Chrysostom. Id.

Where are the soldiers of Christ among Bishop Williamson’s followers? Did even one of them imitate St. John the Evangelist, crying out when he saw Bishop Williamson in the banquet hall:

Let us flee this banquet hall (the “bath house”) lest it fall, because Williamson the enemy of the truth, is within!

The Example of St. Polycarp

Here is how St. Polycarp treated teachers of heresy:

[St.] Polycarp himself, when [the heretic] Marcion once met him and said, “Knowest thou us?”, replied, “I know the first born of Satan.”

note

St. Irenaeus gives this account in his book Against Heresies, Book III, quoted in Eusebius, The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, Penguin Classics, p.116-117.

 

How many of Bishop Williamson’s followers rebuked him as St. Polycarp rebuked other teachers of heresy? Did even one follower call this heresy-spewing bishop a “first born of Satan”?

The Fake Resistance’s Pattern of Lacking Zeal for the Faith

The Fake Resistance lacks zeal for the true Faith. Bishop Williamson tells his followers not be “too concerned” to convert souls to the Catholic Faith.

note

Read Bishop Williamson’s own words, cited to his own sources, here: Faithful Catholics Have a Missionary Spirit; Bishop Williamson Tries to Destroy this Spirit.

His followers respond by not being “too concerned” to bring their own leader to the truth.

Conclusion

Let us pray for Bishop Williamson’s weak followers, that they begin to faithfully and boldly stand up for the Truth, without human respect for Bishop Williamson!

Human respect will not help Bishop Williamson. Praying for him and boldly opposing his errors, will help him convert.

Vatican II Teaches the Heresy that Everyone Receives Grace

Posted on by Catholic Candle

Catholic Candle note:

If only warned once against the principal errors of our Time, most people will lose their Faith.  They must be reminded periodically about each of these errors and the opposing Catholic Truth.  They will appreciate these reminders if they love the Faith, just like a man loves hearing people praise his spouse, if he loves her.  

People are continually bombarded with liberalism from all sides.  They will gradually and imperceptibly succumb to liberalism if they simply are not regularly warned and reminded about these errors which are foisted upon them repeatedly.  

Below, is an article about the error that everyone receives grace.  This article is an expanded version of an article we printed in February 2017.  A few weeks before that earlier article, Bishop Richard Williamson published the error that God gives grace to all men.  Here are Bishop Williamson’s words:

[T]o all men He [i.e., God] gives grace sufficient for them to know Him and love Him and so get to Heaven.[1]

The present article does not mention Bishop Williamson because he has changed his position.  He now correctly refers to men “possibly” receiving sanctifying grace, showing he no longer holds that everyone receives grace.  Here are his words:

And men are torn between the two from conception until death, because they receive from God their basic human nature and possibly sanctifying grace which both incline them to God, while from the Fall of Adam their nature is wounded with original sin which inclines them to Satan and to evil. Nor can any man alive avoid this conflict.[2]

Thus, to his credit, Bishop Williamson did his duty and publicly corrected his previous public error and scandal on this issue.  Please pray for him that he corrects his other errors too.[3]  When those errors are corrected, we will enthusiastically and gratefully welcome him and support him!

A person might be tempted to hold the feel-good belief circulating in our modernist age, that everyone receives grace.  This false belief agrees with our democratic mentality that everyone deserves equal opportunity to achieve his goals.  However, grace is a free, undeserved gift of God’s generosity, which He does not give to everyone.  

As St. Thomas Aquinas explains, it is not unfair or unjust that God does not give all men grace because grace is not a debt that God owes in justice.  Here are St. Thomas’s words, in which he contrasts debts owed in justice, to the gratuitous nature of God’s free and undeserved gift of grace:

There is a twofold giving.  One belongs to justice, and occurs when we give a man his due.  In this type of giving, [the sin of] respect of persons takes place [viz., fulfilling (or not fulfilling) our duty of justice based on the status of the particular person].  

The other giving belongs to liberality, when one gives gratis that which is not a man’s due.  Such is the bestowal of the gifts of grace, whereby sinners are chosen by God.  In such giving, there is no place for respect of persons, because anyone may, without injustice, give of his own as much as he will, and to whom he will, according to Matt. 20:14 & 15: “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will?  …  Take what is thine, and go thy way.”[4] 

Modernists (e.g., de Lubac) promote acceptance for the heresy of universal salvation by teaching that God gives grace to everyone.  For, if God gave everyone grace, then it would appear to narrow the chasm between all men and salvation.

The error that everyone receives grace also promotes the heresy of naturalism.  If a person (wrongly) considers grace as something given to every man simply because he is human, then this confuses the supernatural order with the natural order.  That is why Pope Pius XII, as part of his condemnation of heretical naturalism, insisted that God has no obligation to call all persons to salvation (which would require Him to give them grace).  Pope Pius XII condemned the modernist Henri de Lubac (who became a Cardinal after Vatican II), in these words:

Some [persons] … destroy the gratuity of the supernatural order, since God, they say, cannot create intellectual beings without ordering and calling them to the beatific vision. 

Humani generis, §26 (emphasis added).[5]

This “calling them to the beatific vision” would require God to give them grace because (as St. Thomas explains) “no one can come … to the glory of the vision of God … except through grace”.[6] 

Further, as St. Thomas teaches, “the very least grace is sufficient to … merit eternal life.”[7]  Thus, in effect, Pope Pius XII condemned the naturalist heresy that God cannot create mankind without giving all men the grace “ordering and calling them to the beatific vision.”

Because grace and the call[8] to the beatific vision are free, undeserved gifts of God, God gives these gifts to only some men.  God does no injustice to those men to whom He does not give grace.[9] 

Vatican II Teaches the Error that God gives Grace to Everyone

As one of its countless errors, Vatican II teaches that God gives all men grace.  For example, in Lumen Gentium, the council teaches: “Christ … communicated truth and grace to all.”  Lumen Gentium, §8 (emphasis added).

As explained above, Vatican II’s error destroys the gratuitousness of God’s free, undeserved gift of grace.  As shown below, one of the most obvious ways to see this error, is by considering that a baby cannot go to heaven without baptism.

Everyone Who Dies Without Baptism and Before the Use of Reason, Dies Without Grace and Cannot Save His Soul

St. Thomas explains the teaching of the Catholic Church:

[M]an is not justified from sin[10] [including original sin] except by grace … [and] the very least grace is sufficient to … merit eternal life.[11]

But babies can only receive grace through Baptism (because they cannot use their reason and so cannot have Baptism of Desire[12]).  As the Summa explains:

[S]ometimes Baptism cannot be omitted without loss of eternal salvation, as in the case of children who have not come to the use of reason.[13]

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

[W]e must make a distinction and see whether those who are to be baptized are children or adults.  For if they be children, Baptism should not be deferred.  First, because in them we do not look for better instruction or fuller conversion.  Secondly, because of the danger of death, for no other remedy is available for them besides the sacrament of Baptism.[14]


Summary of the Above Explanation

We see that God does not owe grace to anyone as a matter of justice.  Rather, grace is a free, undeserved gift of God and He chooses to give it to some persons and not to others.  God could choose to give baptism (and grace) to all unbaptized babies who die before the age of reason, but He does not.

It is a heresy (promoted by conciliar revolutionaries such as de Lubac) that God must call all intellectual beings to beatitude (and thus give them the grace required for this call to beatitude).

Unbaptized babies (who die before the age of reason) are obvious examples of persons to whom God never gives grace.   If they received grace, no one would be in Limbo. 

This suffices to show that Vatican II plainly teaches heresy[15] when it says that God gives grace to everyone.

It is Rash to Declare that God gives Grace even to All Adults.

It is rash to say that God gives grace to all adults.  Such a statement ignores that grace is a free, undeserved gift of God and that God gives grace only to whom He wills.  As St. Thomas explains, following St. Ambrose:

[T]he extrinsic and chief cause of devotion is God, of Whom [St.] Ambrose, commenting on Luke 9:55, says that “God calls whom He

deigns to call, and whom He wills, He makes religious; the profane

Samaritans[16], had He so willed,[17] He would have made devout.”[18]

St. Thomas Aquinas, the Greatest Doctor of the Church, follows St. Augustine, who is the Doctor of Grace, in teaching that God does not give grace to all adults.  Here are St. Thomas’s words, quoting St. Augustine:

If we understand those things alone to be in a man's power, which we can do without the help of grace, then we are bound to do many things which we cannot do without the aid of healing grace, such as to love God and our neighbor, and likewise to believe the articles of faith.  But with the help of grace we can do this, for this help “to whomsoever it is given from above it is mercifully given; and from whom it is withheld it is justly withheld, as a punishment of a previous, or at least of original sin,” as Augustine states.[19]

Note that St. Thomas, quoting St. Augustine, explains that God withholds grace from someone (although that person cannot obey all God’s commands without grace), either because that person has actual sins or at least because of original sin.

Prior unfaithfulness and actual sin are only further reasons (in addition to original sin) why God might never give grace to some adult, just as He also chooses to give no grace to unbaptized babies.

Summary of the Reasons so far, showing that Vatican II Teaches Heresy

The Catholic Faith teaches us that grace is a free, undeserved gift that God owes to no one and does not give to everyone.  

Vatican II falsely teaches that everyone receives grace.  Its teaching is false for at least five reasons:

  1. The council’s error means all unbaptized babies go to heaven, because those babies would receive grace (along with everyone else).  But those babies cannot lose grace because they cannot commit actual sin and so unbaptized babies who die, must all go to heaven because they all die with grace.  The Catholic Faith teaches the opposite, viz., that no unbaptized babies go to heaven.

  1. The council’s error destroys the gratuity of God’s free and undeserved gift of grace.
  2. The council’s error promotes the heretical naturalism condemned by Pope Pius XII.

  1. The council’s error promotes universal salvation, by appearing to narrow the chasm between all men and salvation.

  1. The council’s error rashly contradicts the great Doctors of the Church, and claims that all adults receive grace.

In teaching that God gives grace to everyone, Vatican II teaches an error about the Catholic Faith.  In other words, it teaches heresy.

Another reason it is clear that not everyone receives grace

When a person receives grace, he receives the Catholic Faith because grace causes the Catholic Faith in our souls.[20]  In other words, if a man has grace, he has the Catholic Faith also.[21]

It is the Catholic Faith which causes a person to become (or remain) Catholic.  If the person loses grace (and charity) through mortal sin but still has the Faith, then he becomes a dead member of the Church but remains Catholic.

If it were true that everyone receives grace, then it would be true that everyone receives the Catholic Faith, because grace causes the Faith.  If everyone receives the Catholic Faith, then everyone becomes a Catholic.  

But it is false that everyone becomes Catholic.  The Catholic Church differentiates apostates (who reject the Catholic Faith which they previously held) from other non-Catholics, e.g., Jews and pagans (who never had the Catholic Faith).[22] 

Thus, it is false that everyone receives grace, because it would make them all Catholics, and make all non-Catholics into apostates when they then reject the Catholic Faith (which is caused by grace).

Does this mean that non-Catholics go to hell without their own fault?

No.  We cannot get to heaven without God’s help.  However, anyone who goes to hell, goes there through his own fault.  God judges and blames him for the sins he committed freely, not for lacking the free gifts of grace God chose not to give him.  

The Natural Law is in every man’s heart and a man goes to hell because of his sins against the Natural Law, even if he did not have knowledge of the true Catholic Faith.[23]

If it were supposed that a man would somehow live his whole life without committing any mortal sin, yet he did not have any grace (and so could not go to heaven), then he would go to a place of natural happiness, the Limbo of the Babies.  The reality, though, is that, without grace, such a man commits mortal sin by his own free will and so goes to hell.

Using a Vatican Holy Office condemnation from 1690, to falsely support the error that everyone receives grace

Some people might wrongly suppose that a Vatican Holy Office condemnation from 1690, supports the error that everyone receives grace.  Here is that statement condemned by the Holy Office in 1690:

Condemned:

Pagans, Jews, heretics, and others of this kind do not receive in any way any influence from Jesus Christ, and so you will rightly infer from this that in them there is a bare and weak will without any sufficient grace.[24]

To infer means to “derive as a conclusion from facts or premises”.[25]  The Vatican Holy Office condemns the idea that from the bare fact that a person is not Catholic, we can rightly conclude he has not received grace.  This condemnation tells us that some non-Catholics receive grace (otherwise we could rightly conclude none receive grace).  Of those non-Catholics who receive grace, they either reject that grace or use it to begin a Catholic life.  

Through this condemnation, we know that some non-Catholics receive grace.  But this does not allow us to conclude that all non-Catholics receive grace.  This is like when we know that some members of a family are female, this does not allow us to conclude that all members of the family are female.  

The Jansenists were wrong when they said that no non-Catholics receive grace.  Although this Jansenist statement is justly condemned, it does not pertain to the issue at hand because the truth is that grace is a gratuitous (free) gift which God gives to whom He wills, including to some non-Catholics.  However, God does not give grace to everyone, as is clear from the explanation in this article and from the existence of the Limbo of the Babies; (no one would be in limbo if everyone received grace).

It is a mystery of God’s Providence what graces He does (and doesn’t) give, and to whom He gives (and doesn’t give) them, according to His Will.[26]

Conclusion

Let us thank God with all our heart for the precious gift of grace, through which the Catholic Faith, the Catholic life, and salvation are opened to us!  

How much more we should be grateful for this blessing, because we see that the gift of grace is not given to everyone and that God first gave it to us as His free, undeserved gift, not because of our prior merits!

[1]          January 14, 2017 Eleison Comments #496 (emphasis added; bracketed word added for clarity).

[2]          April 6, 2019 Eleison Comments, #612 (emphasis added).

[3]          Bishop Williams teaches errors on many subjects, e.g., he says that Traditional Catholics can go the new mass if it helps them.  Read his words cited from his own source, here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/williamson-traditional-new-mass.html

[4]          Summa, IIa IIae, Q.63, a.1, ad 3 (emphasis and bracketed words added; ellipsis in original).

[5]          The connection between de Lubac and this condemnation, is set forth in Si Si No No issue #5, December 1993, in an article entitled They Think They’ve Won, Part three.

[6]          Here is the longer quote: “the holy Fathers [of the Old Testament] were delivered from hell by being admitted to the glory of the vision of God, to which no one can come except through grace; according to Rom. 6:23: ‘The grace of God is life everlasting.’”  Summa, III, Q. 52, a.7, respondeo; the quote from St. Paul is in the original.

[7]          Summa, IIIa, Q.62, a.6, ad 3.

[8]          Not only is the Beatific Vision itself a gratuitous gift of God but even the call itself to the beatific vision is a free, undeserved gift of God, which He does not give to all men.  Our Lord teaches us that “many [not all] are called but few are chosen.”  St. Matthew, 22:14 (bracketed words added).

[9]          St. Thomas gives an example of men not given grace, when he teaches: “God hid [true] wisdom from the [worldly] wise by not giving them grace.”  Quoted from Lectures on St. Matthew’s Gospel, St. Thomas Aquinas, ch.11, §960.  St. Thomas is explaining the Gospel verse “because Thou hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent” (bracketed words added to reflect the context).  

Because grace is a free, undeserved gift of God, these worldly-wise men have no cause to claim that God was unjust by withholding His grace.

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

[11]
         Summa, III, Q.62, a.6, ad 3 (bracketed words added).

[12]
         Contrary to the Feeneyite errors, the Catholic Church teaches the possibility of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood.  Read the explanation here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/the-catholic-teaching-of-baptism-of-desire-and-baptism-of-blood.html

[13]
         Summa Supp., Q.8, a.1, ad 2.

[14]
         Summa, III, Q.68, a.3, respondeo (emphasis added).

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

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

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

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

[16]          The Samaritans were heretics who lived between Judea and Galilee.  See, St. John’s Gospel, ch.4.

[17]          One might think that God gives everyone grace because God “will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”  1 Timothy 2:4.  However, God wills all men to be saved upon a condition which was not fulfilled, viz., that there be no sin.

Because sin entered the world, God’s unconditional will is that some persons are not saved and are not even “called” through grace.  For “many [not all] are called but few are chosen.”  St. Matthew’s Gospel, 22:14 (bracketed words added).

Among the examples of men that God could have saved but chose not to save (or even give them any grace), are babies who die without baptism, and also “the profane Samaritans [whom], had He so willed, He would have made devout”.

[18]          Summa, IIa IIae, Q.82, a.3 (emphasis added).

[19]          Summa, IIa IIae, Q.2 a.5. ad 1, emphasis added, quoting St. Augustine from De Corr. et Grat. v, vi [Cf. Epistle 190; De Praed. Sanct., viii.].

[20]          Here is how St. Thomas explains this important truth:

Grace causes faith not only when faith begins anew to be in a man, but also as long as faith lasts.  For it has been said above (I:104:1; I-II:109:9) that God is always working man’s justification, even as the sun is always lighting up the air. Hence grace is not less effective when it comes to a believer than when it comes to an unbeliever: since it causes faith in both, in the former by confirming and perfecting it, in the latter by creating it anew.

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.4 a.4, ad 3 (emphasis added).

[21]          As the First Vatican Council teaches:

[Faith is] a supernatural virtue by which, under the inspiration and the aid of the grace of God, we believe that which He has revealed to us to be true: we believe it, not because of the intrinsic truth of the things seen by the natural light of our reason, but because of the very authority of God who has revealed us these truths, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

Vatican I, Session 3, ch.3, Denz. 3008 (emphasis added).

[22]          For example, here is St. Thomas Aquinas, distinguishing between those non-Catholics who had previously been Catholic, and other persons who had never been Catholic:  St. Thomas explains:

[T]he unbelief of heretics, who confess their belief in the Gospel, and resist that faith by corrupting it, is a more grievous sin than that of the Jews, who have never accepted the Gospel faith.  Since, however, they accepted the figure of that faith in the Old Law, which they corrupt by their false interpretations, their unbelief is a more grievous sin than that of the heathens, because the latter have not accepted the Gospel faith in any way at all.

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.10, a.6.

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

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

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

Summa, Ia IIae, Q.91, a.2, respondeo.

[24]          Statement condemned in a Decree of the Holy Office, Dec. 7, 1690, 2305 Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum #1295, °5 (emphasis added).

[26]          The Jansenist statement is also justly condemned for a second reason: it says that no non-Catholics “receive in any way any influence from Jesus Christ”.  There are many ways Our Lord influences various non-Catholics.  For example, He gives some of them grace.  Some, He influences through His Church by sending missionaries to them.  To some, He gives Catholic neighbors.  Some, He causes to attend a Catholic school.  There are countless other ways too, that Jesus Christ influences non-Catholics.  However, we do not discuss this further because we have already shown above that the condemned Jansenist statement does not pertain to the issue whether everyone receives grace.