The Evil of Comfortably Tolerating Heresy

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

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.

No Salvation outside the Catholic Church

Catholic Candle note:

If people are only warned once against the principal errors of our Time, most of them will not keep the 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 mention 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 from all sides.  

We see this happening now among the N-SSPX’s followers because that group has largely stopped preaching regularly against Vatican II[1] (as the SSPX used to do).  The article below reviews a crucial Catholic dogma and the N-SSPX’s recent public doubting of this dogma.

        

There is No Salvation outside the Catholic Church

The Catholic Faith infallibly teaches that only Catholics go to heaven, because there is No Salvation outside the Catholic Church.

The Council of Florence and Pope Eugene IV infallibly declare:

The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the ‘eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her”.

Session 11.

Pope Boniface VIII infallibly declares:

With Faith urging us, we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is neither salvation, nor remission of sin”.

Unam Sanctam, 1302, Denz. 468.

Pope Sylvester II infallibly declares:

I believe that in Baptism all sins are forgiven, that one which was committed originally as much as those which are voluntarily committed, and I profess that outside the Catholic Church no one is saved.

Pope Sylvester II’s Profession of Faith, 991 AD.

Pope Innocent III infallibly declares:

By the heart, we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics but the Holy Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved.  

Fitts exemplo, 1208, Denz. 423.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Greatest Doctor of the Church, declares:

[T]here is but one Church in which men find salvation, just as outside the Ark of Noah it was not possible for anyone to be saved.  

Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, at the article “The Holy Catholic Church”.

Saint Augustine, Doctor of the Church, declares:

He who is separated from the body of the Catholic Church, however laudable his conduct may otherwise seem, will never enjoy eternal life, and the anger of God remains on him by reason of the crime of which he is guilty in living separated from Christ.  

St. Augustine’s Epistle 141.

Pope St. Gregory the Great, Doctor of the Church, declares:

The Holy Catholic Church teaches that … all those who are separated from Her will not be saved.  

De Moralis, bk.14, §5.

Pope Pius IX declares:

There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church.  There is only one See founded in Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation.  He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church.

Singulari Quidem, §4.

Pope Pius XI declares:

The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship.  This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enters not here, or if any man goes forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.

Mortalium Animos, §11.

Saint Cyprian of Carthage, a Father of the Church, in writing against the heretics of his time who denied the “faith and truth of the Catholic Church”, declared that “there is no salvation out of the Church”.  3rd Century, Letter LXXII, To Jubaianus, Concerning the Baptism of Heretics, ¶¶ 20 & 21.

The Conciliar Church, the N-SSPX, and Bishop Williamson All Publicly Doubt the Dogma

The conciliar church promotes the idea of holiness and salvation outside the Catholic Church.  For example, Vatican II declares that the Jews who have not converted to the Catholic Faith “remain most dear to God”.[2]  Likewise, Pope John Paul II declared that Buddhists and other non-Catholics (as well as Catholics), are part of the “Church of the Living God”.[3]

As the “new” SSPX and Bishop Williamson are becoming more liberal, they are adopting more conciliar errors.[4]  For example, Bishop Williamson doubts the dogma that there is No Salvation outside the Catholic Church.[5] 

Recently, the N-SSPX’s superior general, Fr. Davide Pagliarani, doubted this same dogma.  Here are his words:

If a soul can be saved outside the Catholic Church, it is despite the error in which it finds itself, and not thanks to it, and in any case, it is saved by Jesus Christ alone.[6]

Fr. Pagliarani here asserts the possibility that someone can be saved outside the Catholic Church.  When Fr. Pagliarani says:

if a soul can be saved outside the Catholic Church … it is saved by Jesus

Christ

this is a shocking and Faith-destroying statement which suggests the impossible might be possible, leading many souls into liberalism.  

Moreover, Fr Pagliarani contradicts himself.  Jesus Christ saves souls by incorporating them into Himself.  That is the only reason why God’s elect have their sins forgiven.  The Body of Christ is the same thing as the Catholic Church. This is why Pius XI (above) described the Church as the temple of God, which was the way Jesus referred to His Body.  St Paul uses both expressions to refer to his early converts and explain to them how Christ was atoning for their sin by incorporating them into Himself.  See 1 Cor. 3:16-17; 1 Cor. 12:13, 27; Col. 2:11-14; John 2:19-22.

Faithful and informed Catholics would never entertain Fr. Pagliarani’s Faith-denying doubt that there might be salvation outside the Catholic Church even on the condition that salvation outside the Church was still through Jesus Christ.  The statement is similar to:

if the devil can go to heaven, he is saved by Jesus Christ.

Faithful and informed Catholics would never say this about the devil even on condition!  Yet the devil has as much chance of gaining heaven as does someone who dies outside the Catholic Church – that is, no chance!

Faithful and informed Catholics affirm the dogma that outside the Catholic Church “no one is saved.”  Quoted from Fitts exemplo, 1208, Denz. 423 (emphasis added).  

Fr. Pagliarani proves in other ways too, that he is a coward and a doctrinal weakling.  In this same interview, he is directly asked if Jews must become Catholic.  Here is the interviewer’s question:

Do the Jews also have to convert to the Catholic Church, as you say for Protestants?[7]

Weak Fr. Pagliarani does not answer that question which a faithful and informed Catholic could easily answer.  Instead, he gives the non-answer that: 1) priests used to take the anti-modernist oath; and 2) Jews who wished to join the Catholic Church are allowed to enter.  Here is his full answer to the interviewer’s question whether “the Jews also have to convert to the Catholic Church”:

Modernism is one of the most dangerous errors. Until the Second Vatican Council, the Church asked all priests to take the anti-modernist oath, which I have also taken.  As for Judaism, it would be an unforgivable sin to exclude the Jewish people from the assets and the treasures of the Catholic Church.  The salvific mission of the Church is universal, and she cannot leave out any people.[8]

Fr. Pagliarani and the “new” SSPX betray the Catholic Faith!  They neither speak the truth freely nor defend it boldly.  Thus, they betray God and the Catholic Faith.  Here is how St. Thomas declares this truth:

He who does not speak the truth freely also betrays it, for it must be freely spoken; also, he who does not defend it boldly, betrays it, for it must be boldly defended.[9]

Conclusion

The conciliar church leaders betray the Faith.  Beware: the traitors who are leading the N-SSPX and the Williamson group are leading their followers along the same conciliar path of modernism!


[1]          For example, Fr. Daniel Cooper, SSPX, wrote regarding people who want the SSPX “to be attacking Vatican II from the pulpit. Very rarely is there a good reason to do this.”  Read the longer quote here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-cooper-silent-vatican-ii.html

Fr. Cooper followed the liberal new direction of the SSPX.  He has since died.  The N-SSPX declared he entered heaven on the date he died.  Read the quote here, taken from the SSPX’s own source: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-travels-the-conciliar-path-toward-promoting-universal-salvation.html

 

Please pray for the repose of Fr. Cooper’s soul.

[2]          Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, §16.

[3]          Here is the longer quote from Pope John Paul II (before he became pope):

O God of infinite majesty!  The Trappist or the Carthusian confesses this God by a whole life of silence.  The Bedouin wandering in the desert turns toward him when the hour of prayer approaches.  And this Buddhist monk absorbed in contemplation, who purifies his spirit in turning it towards Nirvana: but is it only towards Nirvana?  …  The Church of the Living God unites in her precisely these peoples who in some manner participate to [sic] this admirable and fundamental transcendence of the human spirit, because she knows that no one can appease the most profound aspirations of this spirit but He alone, the God of infinite majesty.

Karol Cardinal Wojtyla, The Sign of Contradiction, Ed. Fayard, 1979, pp. 31-32.

[4]            Bishop Williamson rarely or never publicly condemns the N-SSPX’s liberalism and in fact, agrees with much of it.  His only frequent criticism of the N-SSPX is its seeking a deal with modernist Rome.  While such a deal will hasten the N-SSPX’s descent into ever-greater liberalism, the N-SSPX is continually becoming more liberal now.

[5]          Read Bishop Williamson’s own words about non-Catholics going to heaven, quoted from his own source, in this article:  https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/williamson-bishop-williamson-promotes-vatican-ii-heresy-that-people-can-be-saved-outside-the-catholic-church.html

[6]          Words of Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, quoted from the interview he gave to the Austrian daily newspaper the Salzburger Nachrichten, and published on December 15, 2018.  This interview can be found here:  https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/it-inconceivable-church-was-mistaken-two-millennia-43158?utm_source=Society+of+Saint+Pius+X+%7C+Newsletter&utm_campaign=fb5d776750-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_12_15_11_06&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8c13eb2341-fb5d776750-203947293

 (emphasis added).

[8]          Words of Father Davide Pagliarani, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, quoted from the interview he gave to the Austrian daily newspaper the Salzburger Nachrichten, and published on December 15, 2018.  This interview can be found here:  https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/it-inconceivable-church-was-mistaken-two-millennia-43158?utm_source=Society+of+Saint+Pius+X+%7C+Newsletter&utm_campaign=fb5d776750-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_12_15_11_06&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8c13eb2341-fb5d776750-203947293

 (emphasis added).

[9]
         
St. Thomas Aquinas, The Ways of God for Meditation and Prayer, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, ©2007, p.97.

What Gift do most People Appreciate Least, but is Worth more than a King’s Ransom?

Catholic Candle note: The article below was written by a man who has always been Traditional Catholic and who has been continually fighting liberalism since before Vatican II.

The answer to this riddle is: the gift of a Supernatural Faith.

The definition of a Supernatural Faith is:

The act of the intellect assenting to a Divine truth owing to the movement of the will, which is itself moved by the grace of God.[1]

The Catholic Encyclopedia explains further:

And just as the light of Faith is a supernatural gift bestowed upon the understanding, so also this Divine grace moving the will is, as its name implies, an equally supernatural and absolutely gratuitous gift.  Neither gift is due to previous study; neither of them can be acquired by human efforts, but ….  “Ask and ye shall receive.”[2] 

Most receive this gift from God through their parents, at Baptism, without effort or request.  It usually happens at a time when we give it little or no value.  Many people gain little appreciation for this gift over the years and many people discard it without any regret.  Those who keep and nurture this gift gain in virtue and understanding of what is at stake regarding earthly and eternal happiness.

The gift of Faith must be protected by an informed conscience, study, prayer, and courage to stand up against liberalism and modernism, and to stand up for Christ the King.

Two big helps to nurture your gift of Faith are humility and prayer.  Humility is the first virtue, inasmuch as it removes the obstacles to Faith.  Prayer inspires devotion and love for the Gift Giver.

The worst thing you can do with your precious gift of Faith is to put it in the hands of a liberal priest, or to be a follower of a liberal organization like the N-SSPX.  This foolish and misplaced trust does not relieve you of the responsibility for your own salvation.  I believe many follow a misguided path to salvation because they are lazy and/or cowardly; thus, they take the easy way out.  St. Paul in Romans states: “You have to work out your salvation in fear and trembling.”

Your actions demonstrate what value you place on your gift of Faith.  Below is a to-do list, with numbers for a grade.  This will help you determine what value you place on your gift of Faith.  100 points is your goal; less than that, there is work to do.

  1. You set aside a regular time for a daily Holy Hour of prayer and spiritual reading.  20 points

  1. You go out of your way to receive the traditional sacraments and attend Mass, when available.  10 points

  1. You fearlessly stand up for Christ the King no matter the criticism or loss of friendship or family.  10 points

  1. You set a good example at all times for others to follow.  10 points

  1. The traditional Catholic Faith is your whole life, every day, from the morning’s first moment through the night’s last moment.  20 points

  1. You never compromise with liberalism, no matter how slight.  10 Points

  1. You join the real resistance of informed and uncompromising Catholics.  10 points

  1. You leave or disassociate from any compromised group or priest without hesitation.  10 points

The above should confirm and defend your decision to leave the liberal N-SSPX, if you or others previously had any doubt about this.  The above points should also give you the courage to leave the liberal N-SSPX if you have failed to do so before now.

Let’s further take stock of the value you place on your gift of Faith, compared to your gift of Life from God.  The gift of Life has a built-in incentive to preserve it and nurture it.  Many spend much time and treasure to improve their health, no matter what the cost or distance.  But few people make equal efforts and have equal enthusiasm for the gift of Faith, that they have for this gift of Life.

Many protect and nurture their gift of Life to excess, which is a sin against temperance and a distraction from their effort to nurture and protect the gift of Faith.  We all have a duty to nourish and safeguard our health, but not to excess.  Everything in moderation except love for God.

So, let’s all dedicate ourselves to the eight steps listed above to nurture our gift of Divine Supernatural Faith.  You couldn’t make a better or more worthwhile decision.

 


[1]          Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911, Vol. V, page 756, quoting St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, IIa IIae, Q.4, a.2.

[2]          Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911, Vol. V, page 756.

God Came to Earth to Redeem Man but Also for an additional reason

Catholic Candle note: The article below was written by a man who has always been Traditional Catholic and who has been continually fighting liberalism since before Vatican II.

After God had freely determined to save the human race, He might have done so by pardoning man’s sins without having recourse to the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.  However, the Incarnation of the Word was the most fitting means for the salvation of man, and was even necessary should God claim full satisfaction for the injury done Him by sin.[1]  He took upon Himself not only the nature of man – a nature capable of suffering and sickness and death – but also He became like man in every respect except sin.[2]

Now, another reason God came to earth as a man is so He could teach us for 33 years – day after day, year after year – how one must live in order to be happy on earth and in heaven.  Any important and difficult subject to be mastered is best taught by demonstration of a leader.  This is why a new physician does a residency and a new plumber does an apprenticeship.  

Our Lord’s personal demonstration spoke much louder than words alone.  Because of that, we can never say it was easy for Him to suffer this or that, or go without this or that.  No, He suffered and gave up much, offering to be our earthly guide to ensure our happiness on earth and in heaven by following His selfless example.

It was all to help us break the grip the devil has on us because of the sin of our first parents, and our own sins.  Without Him showing us the way for 33 long years, I doubt there would be as many wonderful saints and a history of great religious societies.

Our Catholic Faith gives us many reminders of the importance of following Our Lord’s example.  For example, St. Paul urges us in these words:

Brethren, be imitators of God as very dear children and walk in love.

Epistle for 3rd Sunday of Lent (Ephesians, 5:1).

Below are the three phases of Our Lord’s Life on earth that will demonstrate for us the Way, the Truth, and the Life that we should follow for our salvation.

Phase I – Our Lord’s Hidden Life

His first examples for us started with His birth in a stable, a humble beginning.  He preferred poverty and humility to show Himself a friend of the poor, at the same time showing us the best way to heaven is through humility and detachment from earthly goods.

The Holy Family lived in Nazareth, and every year they went to Jerusalem to worship at the temple.  When Jesus was 12 years old, He went with them, but failed to return home with them.  Instead, He went to the temple to be in the midst of the wise men there.  We all know the familiar story.  After a day’s journey, Mary and Joseph could not locate Jesus in the caravan and returned to Jerusalem.  They found Him in the temple, and Mary said, “Behold thy father and I have been seeking Thee, sorrowing.”  Jesus replied, “How is it that you sought Me?  Did you not know that I must be about My father’s business?”  (Luke, 2:49)

He then meekly followed His parents to Nazareth and was subject to them.  He worked hard as a simple Carpenter, with St. Joseph.

Phase II – Our Lord’s Public Life, beginning at age 30

He started by an act of great humility: being baptized by St. John.  He then went to the desert to fast and pray for 40 days and nights.  This teaches us to do penance and prepare ourselves to fight the devil by mortification and prayer.  Jesus’ public life was to give us an example of how we should live day-to-day until our personal judgment.  Words and example directly from the God-man have a greater effect in preparing souls with instructions and training necessary for salvation.  He spoke in parables to help the less educated to understand.  Another lesson taught many times was empathy for the sick and disabled.

Phase III   Our Lord’s Passion and Death

Here again, He taught humility when He washed the feet of His Apostles at the Last Supper.  After that, He instituted the Blessed Sacrament, using common bread and wine, changing them into His own Divine Body and Blood.  

Jesus suffered and died for us, setting the example that no man has greater love than to give his life for another.  Also, He set us the perfect example how we should endure and persevere.  He suffered bitter agony of blood and sweat.  He was cruelly scourged, crowned with thorns, carried His cross, and suffered the excruciating death on the cross – all in silence.  He could not have set a better example for us to follow.  Jesus said, “I have given you an example, that as I have done to you, so you also should do.”  (John, 13:15)

He taught us to practice humility, penance, mortification, and perseverance before we presume to set an example and lead others.

His life on earth illustrated this.  He established the perfect religion, the Catholic Religion, with none of the worthless trappings and false teachings of man-made religions.

Our Lord’s perfect lessons especially fit our needs, in the true Resistance.  We must be humble and longsuffering.  We must stand firm for principle when others “bend” their principles to obtain the sacraments or find acceptance in a particular “traditional” group.  We must persevere without expecting that people will ever
understand us, or accept our stand for Christ.


[1]          Taken from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, article: Salvation, sub-article Salvation of the Human Race, Vol. 13, page 407.

[2]
         Taken from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, article,
Incarnation, Vol. 7, page 706.

St. Paul taught this same truth in these words:

Having therefore a great high priest that hath passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God:  let us hold fast our confession.  For we have not a high priest, who cannot have compassion on our infirmities: but one tempted in all things like as we are, without sin.

Hebrews, 4:14-15 (emphasis added).

The Conciliar Church Abuses the Phrase “People of God” to Promote Heresy

Catholic Candle note: When you read the word “conciliar” in the following article, think “anti-Catholic” or “anti-Christ”.

The devil and evil men in the conciliar church know that they can control people’s thinking if they control how people speak.  For example, “Christian” truly means one who follows Christ.  But only Catholics truly follow Christ and so only Catholics are really Christian.[1]

One who truly follows Christ enters heaven.  No one truly follows Christ unless he is a Catholic in the state of grace.  It is a dogma of the Catholic Faith that there is No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church!  If a person is not Catholic, he is not a Christian and cannot save his soul.[2]

The conciliar church abuses the word “Christian” by calling heretics and schismatics “Christian”, to promote the heresy that non-Catholics can go to heaven.

To promote Heresy, the Modernists adopted the phrase “the People of God”

Just as the conciliar church abuses “Christian” to corrupt people’s thoughts by corrupting speech, so also the conciliar church abuses “the People of God”.  Although one can use this phrase in a Catholic way (viz., to refer only to Catholics), the modernists have hijacked this phrase to promote two conciliar errors: ecumenism and collegiality.

Whereas Catholics seldom called the Church “the People of God” before Vatican II, the conciliar church has been continually using this phrase since the 1960s.

 

The conciliar church claims this phrase, “the People of God” as its own.

Vatican II (and the conciliar church it caused), increased the use of “the People of God” so dramatically that the conciliar church claims this phrase as its own innovation.  Pope John Paul II remarked that “the doctrine in which the Church is presented as the People of God” is a “novelty of the Second Vatican Council”.[3] 

Although the phrase is not completely new, nonetheless, because Vatican II widely popularized the phrase to promote heresy, a faithful and informed Catholic risks confusing and scandalizing others by using “the People of God”.

Vatican II’s use of this expression is traceable to the writings of a 20th Century Lutheran heretic.

Former Pope Benedict XVI (who served as a peritus, i.e., an expert, at Vatican II) traces the origin of Vatican II’s usage of the phrase “the People of God” to a Lutheran heretic, Ernst Käsemann.  Here is how this former pope explains Käsemann’s influence upon Vatican II:

There is a third factor that favored the idea of [using the phrase] the “People of God”.  In 1939, the Evangelical exegete, Ernst Käsemann, gave his monograph on the Letter to the Hebrews the title, The Pilgrim People of God. In the framework of Council discussions, this title became right away a slogan because it made something become more clearly understood in the debates on the Constitution on the Church [i.e., Lumen Gentium] ….[4]

The conciliar usage of the expression “the People of God” promotes heretical ecumenism with non-Catholics.

The conciliar church falsely teaches that the Church of Christ encompasses more than just the Catholic Church, and that therefore one need not belong to the Catholic Church to save one’s soul.  The conciliar church uses the phrase “the People of God” to spread this heresy (viz., there is salvation outside the Catholic Church).[5]

Here is the way former Pope Benedict XVI explains how the phrase “the People of God” promotes Vatican II’s ecumenism with the heretics and schismatics:

[T]he Council introduced the concept of “the People of God” above all as an ecumenical bridge.  It applies to another perspective as well: the rediscovery [sic!] of the Church after the First World War that initially was a phenomenon [sic!] common to both Catholics and Protestants. …

[T]he phrase “People of God” … expresses the ecumenical dimension, that is, the variety of ways in which communion and ordering to the Church can and do exist, even beyond the boundaries of the Catholic Church.[6]

The conciliar notion of the Church as “the People of God” allows the conciliar church to falsely posit different degrees of “communion” with the Church.  Here is the way former Pope Benedict XVI explains how the phrase “the People of God” promotes the conciliar idea of degrees of “communion”:

If we use the image of a body to describe “belonging” we are limited only to the form of representation as “member”.  Either one is, or one is not, a member; there are no other possibilities.  One can then ask if the image of the body was too restrictive, since there manifestly existed in reality intermediate degrees of belonging.  

The Constitution on the Church [viz., Lumen Gentium] found it helpful for this purpose to use the concept of “the People of God”.  It could describe the relationship of non-Catholic Christians [sic] to the Church as being “in communion” and that of non-Christians as being “ordered” to the Church where in both cases one relies on the idea of the People of God (Lumen Gentium, nn. 15, 16).[7]

The conciliar usage of the expression “the People of God” promotes the heretical notion of a “horizontal”, non-hierarchical church.

This emphasis on “the People of God”, instead of the Mystical Body of Christ, de-emphasizes the hierarchical nature of the Church, since a body is hierarchical (with some parts more exalted and which control other parts) but “the people” is non-hierarchical.   This de-emphasis of hierarchy panders to the Protestants, as well as to the “we are church” modernist Catholics.[8]

Whereas priestly and Episcopal orders, and the delegation of Divine authority distinguish the clergy from the laity, describing the Catholic Church as “the People of God” obscures these differences.  For example, in Lumen Gentium, §13, Vatican II lumps together the hierarchy and clergy along with laymen as “members of the People of God”.[9]

Here is how former Pope Benedict XVI explained (with approval) how the phrase “the People of God” deemphasizes the hierarchical nature of the Church:

The expression does not lend itself easily to a description of the hierarchical structure of this community, especially if “People of God” is used in “contrast” to the ministers ….[10]

Conclusion

One can correctly describe the Catholic Church as “the People of God”.  However, Catholics seldom used this phrase.  Beginning at Vatican II, the modernists hijacked this phrase, and the conciliar church has used it ever since to promote two heresies.  

The “New” SSPX now uses the phrase “the People of God” as an additional step accustoming their followers to the way the conciliar church speaks
 

Because the SSPX formerly differed greatly from the conciliar church, to merge the SSPX into the conciliar church required enormous changes in how the SSPX thought and spoke.  

Thus, the leaders of the revolution in the SSPX had to tell its followers that they must “continually reposition”[11] themselves, i.e., continually change.  Bishop Fellay declared that the SSPX will try to maintain the support of its followers for a deal with Rome, by working hard to get its followers to understand the “new reality” in the Church.[12]

The “new” SSPX is steadily adopting the vocabulary of the conciliar church so that its followers will get used to how the conciliar church speaks.  The N-SSPX meters out its new conciliar terminology slowly enough to accustom its followers to hearing and using conciliar terms – without waking up those followers.  

The SSPX now speaks of “the People of God”, to accustom its followers to this conciliar lingo so they feel comfortable with it.[13]

But the SSPX also now uses many other conciliar phrases as part of its ongoing revolution against Catholic Tradition.  Here are a few more examples of the N-SSPX’s shift to conciliar terminology:

  1. Just as the conciliar church does, the N-SSPX describes the true Catholic Faith together with false heretical faiths, as “the Christian Faith” (in the singular).[14]

  1. The “new” SSPX promotes what it falsely calls “tradition”, by expanding this term to include groups that promote the new mass, the Assisi ecumenical gatherings, and the writings of Pope Francis.[15]

  1. Following the conciliar church by promoting the heresy of naturalism, the N-SSPX now defines the Catholic term “sacred” to include things such as any kind of bread and any eating together,[16] as well as all human life.[17]  Faithful and informed Catholics know that these are all only natural goods and are not sacred.

  1. The “new” SSPX follows the conciliar church in falsely saying that heretics and schismatics are “Christians”.[18]

  1. The “new” SSPX follows the conciliar church by falsely describing as “martyrs” those heretics who are killed for their heresies (e.g., by Muslims).[19]

  1. The “new” SSPX uses the phrase “faithful Catholics” to include those who attend the new mass.[20]

  1. Like the conciliar church, the “new” SSPX heretically teaches the vice of presumption, calling it the Theological Virtue of Hope.[21]

  1. The N-SSPX uses the conciliar jargon “Catholic Community” to refer to a parish, just as the conciliar church does.[22]        

  1. The N-SSPX uses the conciliar lingo degrees of communion (viz., full communion and partial communion), just as the conciliar church does.[23]

  1. The N-SSPX has begun to call the Traditional Mass by the conciliar name “Extraordinary Form” (just as the conciliar church does).[24]

  1. The N-SSPX follows the modernists by using the conciliar lingo “New Evangelization”, which is a program of indoctrination into conciliar errors.[25]

Conclusion

After Vatican II, most people who disliked the changes nonetheless stayed in their parishes, assuring themselves and each other that they would be strong enough to continue secretly rejecting the changes.  Those people gradually became conciliar.  

In the same way, most SSPX followers who dislike the SSPX’s changes have stayed in their local SSPX parish, assuring themselves and each other that they are strong enough to secretly reject the changes.  These people are gradually becoming conciliar.

Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it!


[1]        Read the explanation of this Catholic principle here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/heretics-are-not-christians.html

[3]          Sacrae Disciplinae Leges, 25 January 1983 (emphasis added).

[4]          The Ecclesiology of Vatican II, 15 September 2001 conference given by (former) Pope Benedict XVI before he became pope, found at http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfeccv2.htm (bracketed words added for clarity).

[5]          For a thorough explanation of this Vatican II heresy about a (so-called) “Church of Christ” which the conciliar church teaches is broader than the true Catholic Church, read the explanation in Lumen Gentium Annotated, by the editors of Quanta Cura Press, © 2013, p.47 et seq.  This book is available:


and

[6]          The Ecclesiology of Vatican II, 15 September 2001 conference given by (former) Pope Benedict XVI before he became pope, found at: http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfeccv2.htm (emphasis and bracketed words added).

[7]          The Ecclesiology of Vatican II, 15 September 2001 conference given by (former) Pope Benedict XVI before he became pope, found at: http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfeccv2.htm (parenthetical citation is in the original; bracketed words added for clarity).

[8]          When promoting the non-hierarchical expression, “the People of God”, former Pope Benedict XVI stated:

  1. “[S]omeone should ask what must I do to become Church and to grow like the Church”;
  2. [E]ach one of us can and ought to say, ‘we are the Church’”; and

  1. “[W]e must be the Church.  We are the Church”.

The Ecclesiology of Vatican II, 15 September 2001 conference given by (former) Pope Benedict XVI before he became pope, found at: http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfeccv2.htm

Promoting conciliar collegiality, former Pope Benedict the XVI also warned that there is always a danger that the papal monarchy could have too much power.  Here are his words:

The idea of reform became a decisive element of the concept of the People of God, while it would be difficult to develop the idea of reform within the framework of the Body of Christ.  …  yet above and beyond all distinctions, all are pilgrims in the one community of the pilgrim People of God. … It is certainly true that there are imbalances that need correcting.  We should watch for and root out an excessive Roman centralization that is always a danger.

The Ecclesiology of Vatican II, 15 September 2001 conference given by (former) Pope Benedict XVI before he became pope, found at: http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfeccv2.htm (emphasis added).

[9]         For a thorough explanation of the hundreds of heresies in Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium, read: Lumen Gentium Annotated, by the editors of Quanta Cura Press, © 2013.  

This book is available:


and

[10]          The Ecclesiology of Vatican II, 15 September 2001 conference given by (former) Pope Benedict XVI before he became pope, found at: http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfeccv2.htm

[11]          Read the N-SSPX’s own words cited to its own sources here:

https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/pfluger-traditional-catholics-change.html

[12]          When Bishop Fellay was asked if the SSPX [can] be confident of the support of SSPX churchgoers for reconciliation (i.e., a “deal”) with Rome, he stated:

It will be quite a work, and it will take time to be able to bring the faithful to realize this new face in the history of the Church, this new reality ….

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/sspxs-bishop-fellay-little-by-little-rome-is-giving-us-all-we-need-for-reco#ixzz4BfvbVEms

In other words, Bishop Fellay recognizes that, over time, he has to change the way the priests and laymen see things, and get them accustomed to accepting the “new reality” of the conciliar church.  How else could the “new” SSPX ever fit into the conciliar church?  Reflect for a moment: how often has he and the “new” SSPX assured us that “nothing has changed”, while the revolution advances?

[13]          For example, liberal Fr. Jurgen Wegner, N-SSPX U.S. District superior wrote a recent letter which stated:

It is hard to imagine such strong medicine for grave moral ills being prescribed by Rome today, yet that is what the Church requires if she is ever to recover.  In the meantime, the People of God cannot sit idly by waiting for a new Pius V to ascend to the Papal Thone with a divine mandate to secure the faithful and drive the unrepentant from the temple.

Quoted from Fr. Wegner’s undated letter mailed to the N-SSPX’s U.S. mailing list in late October 2018 (emphasis added).

[14]          Read the N-SSPX’s own words cited to its own sources here:

https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-refers-christian-faith.html

[15]          Read the N-SSPX’s own words cited to its own sources here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-meaningless-definition-tradition.html

[16]          Read the N-SSPX’s own words cited to its own sources here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-the-new-sspx-falsifies-catholic-terminology.html

[17]          Read the N-SSPX’s own words cited to its own sources here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/it-is-a-modernist-error-that-human-life-is-sacred.html

[18]          Read the N-SSPX’s own words cited to its own sources here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-calls-heretics-christian.html

[19]          Read the N-SSPX’s own words cited to its own sources here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-ecumenism-heretics-martyrs.html

[20]          Read the N-SSPX’s own words cited to its own sources here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-novus-ordo-faithful.html

[22]          Read the N-SSPX’s own words cited to its own sources here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-conciliar-lingo-community.html

[23]          Read the N-SSPX’s own words cited to its own sources here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/schmidberger-conciliar-ideas-jargon.html

[24]          Read the N-SSPX’s own words from its own source here: http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=print_article&article_id=2658

[25]          Read the N-SSPX’s own words cited to its own sources here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-promote-new-evangelization.html

Final Perseverance is the Last Great Battle with The Devil

Catholic Candle note: The article below was written by a man who has always been Traditional Catholic and who has been continually fighting liberalism since before Vatican II.

Most people put off till later preparing for death and this battle, because it is something they don't want to think about.  That is a mistake.  It will be the biggest and most important and final spiritual combat of your life.  Being that it will be the devil’s last chance to escort your soul to the everlasting fires of hell, he will “pull out all the stops” to ensure his success.  He will come after you in a different or more promising way, something that he has been saving for you in this final battle.

The definition of perseverance is to persist in an undertaking in spite of counter-influences or opposition. This will be your final test, and you must prepare for it.  As a student, you prepared to do your best for the big test at the end of the school year.  It goes without saying that the most significant test of your life – with the results lasting for an eternity – will take your earnest preparation.  When success is important in some endeavor, you certainly should never wait till the last minute to prepare.

How does one prepare for this encounter?  Let me list a few goals:

  1. Conquer pride

  1. Practice humility

  1. Gain complete control of your passions

     4)  Make the uncompromising Catholic Faith your whole life

     5)  Establish a deep love for God with a definite and regular prayer life

     6)  Practice self-denial daily

     7)  Set a good example in this pagan world

     8)  Study the lives of the Saints to see what they did to succeed

     9)  Say little indulgenced prayers regularly and often

    10) Pray (at least) twice daily for final perseverance: first thing in the morning

and last thing at night

In this endeavor, prayer is certainly the most important preparation.  The Saints, filled with the love of God, would gladly pray all night, following Our Lord’s example.[1]  They were talking to the Love of their life.  Most people pray like they are talking to their strict boss at work and can’t end the conversation soon enough.  Learn to love God and pray gladly.

Most people take a chance that they will be strong and able to withstand the onslaught of the devil at the end of life.  That is wishful thinking without the proper preparation.

I know of a situation where a pious and humble, bed-ridden traditional Catholic was in veterans’ hospice care.  On his death bed, he was under attack by the devil to such an extent that fear took over and he was able to get out of bed and run down the hall shouting, “They [viz., the devils] are trying to get me to commit mortal sin!”  And then he dropped dead.

From all appearances, he did what he had to do to win the battle with the devil.  He had prepared himself to do whatever it took to win.

For Satan does not tempt unbelievers and sinners whom he already holds securely, but he does tempt and trouble the faithful servant in many ways.

Quoted from The Imitation of Christ, Book 4, chapter 18.

We will all face death and this final great battle with the devil.  However, there is powerful help available: prayers to St. Joseph, who is the Patron of a Happy Death and also the Terror of Demons.

So prepare yourself for this great battle that will come.  Don’t risk failure by putting off the important and necessary preparation to win that battle.

Catholic Candle note: To learn more about how to prepare well for death, read Preparation for Death, by St. Alphonsus de Liguori, Doctor of the Church.  This book is available for free, here: https://www.goodcatholicbooks.org/alphonsus.html


[1]          Then Jesus “went out into a mountain to pray, and he passed the whole night in the prayer of God.”  St. Luke’s Gospel, ch.6, v.12.

Conscience is a Great Gift from God

The Catholic Encyclopedia definition of conscience is: “A feeling of pain accompanying and resulting from our non-conformity to principles.”[1]  You have a duty to inform your conscience with the highest principles by consulting great philosophical leaders like St. Thomas and St. Paul.

St. Thomas defines conscience as “The judgment or dictates of the practical intellect which (arguing) from the general principle (of Morals) pronounces that something in particular here and now is to be avoided, inasmuch as it is evil, or to be done, inasmuch as it is good.”[2]

Most people living in our immoral world consider their conscience a problem they are stuck with, that it stands in their way of having fun and really isn’t necessary.  They fail to realize that it is a most important gift to be used throughout the day, to obtain salvation.  Oh, what a gift that actually lets you know if you’re on the correct (narrow) path to a heavenly reward, or on the (wide) road to eternal damnation.  A gift beyond your imagination.

You must avoid going through life with an uninformed conscience or a lax conscience.  It is a “minimizer” if it falsely judges actions to be harmless which are sinful.  God has established an objective moral order and cannot be presumed to be indifferent to its maintenance.[3]  Both passion and ignorance interfere with correct dictates of an informed conscience.

There is such a thing as a scrupulous conscience.  The scrupulous person is the victim of an imaginary spiritual impediment to his free action.  He is tormented in every action by the thought that he may be committing a sin.[4]  A scrupulous conscience is really the work of the devil hoping you will become frustrated and refuse to listen to your conscience in the future.  Such a conscience can be informed and corrected with guidance from an uncompromising confessor.  Before confession, we examine our consciences to ensure a “good” confession.  However, it is best to examine our conscience every night in order to avoid a lax conscience.

Let’s pledge to appreciate our conscience as a generous gift from God, and keep it informed and use it as He intended, cooperating with God to work out our salvation.


[1]          1913-1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 269.

[2]
         
Catholic Dictionary and Encyclopedia of Religious Information, Addis & Arnold, Entry: Conscience, page 215

[3]
         
Moral and Pastoral Theology, Davis, volume 1, page 78.

[4]
         
Moral and Pastoral Theology, Davis, volume 1, page 73.

God Allows Some People to Damn Themselves to Better Manifest His Perfection

God created man with free will.  He allows Sin and permits People to Damn Themselves to manifest His Justice, Mercy, and Goodness — for His Greater Honor and Glory.

God allows evil for His greater glory and in order to bring about greater good.[1]  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 universe which God made, in which He allows sin and damnation, is a better universe 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.[2]  For God’s only end is His Own Glory, that is, Himself.  Any other end (less than God) is unworthy of God.[3]

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.[4]

God chooses the elect, whereas the damned, with their free will, cause their own damnation.

God can and does save anyone He wishes to save.  God never forces anyone to sin and never forces anyone to damn himself.  However, there are some men that God allows to damn themselves.

Sacred Scripture infallibly declares:

The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord: whithersoever He will He shall turn it.

Proverbs 21:1 (emphasis added).

When this passage from Proverbs says God turns the heart of the king “whithersoever He will”, it shows that whenever God chooses to save the king (or anyone else), He does it without forcing a man’s free will.[5]  Notice that Sacred Scripture does not say that God can turn the heart of the king unless the king is one of those unconvertable souls.  There is no such thing (among the living) as a soul which God could not convert.  Although God can convert anyone, He allows some men to damn themselves.  St. Thomas Aquinas and other Doctors of the Catholic Church teach these same truths.[6]

In a certain way, it is true that God Wills all men to be saved, but this is (as it were) a “contingent will” or “antecedent will” subject to a condition that was not fulfilled.

St. Paul teaches that 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 eternal, unconditional Will (i.e., His “subsequent” Will) is that some persons are not saved and are not even “called” through grace.  Our Lord teaches: “many [not all] are called but few are chosen.” St. Matthew’s Gospel, 22:14 (bracketed words added).

Also, Our Lord teaches us that most people go to hell and few people even find the path to salvation (much less follow this path):

Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat.  How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!

St. Matthew’s Gospel, 7:13-14 (emphasis 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” (words of St. Ambrose, quoted in the note above).

Absolutely and unconditionally speaking, God does not desire all men to be saved but Wills to allow some men to damn themselves through their own free will.

Although God Wills (in a manner of speaking) to save all men, subject to a condition which was not fulfilled, unconditionally God Wills to bring about His greater glory by saving the elect He has chosen and He Wills to allow the damned to damn themselves by their own voluntary sins.  This is why Our Lord did not pray for everyone, in His prayer to His Father after the Last Supper.  Here are His words to His Heavenly Father:

I have manifested Thy name to the men whom thou hast given me out of the world.  Thine they were, and to me thou gavest them; and they have kept thy word.  Now they have known, that all things which thou hast given me, are from thee:  Because the words which thou gavest me, I have given to them; and they have received them, and have known in very deed that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.  I pray for them:  I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me: because they are thine …. 

St. John’s Gospel, 17:6-9.

God chooses His Elect.  They don’t choose Him.  As Christ told His Apostles, who were the beginning of His Church:

You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you ….

St. John’s Gospel, 15:16.

Since it is false that Christ desires absolutely and unconditionally that all men are saved, we should not hope to fulfill Christ’s (supposed) desire for universal salvation, promoted by the liberal N-SSPX and by the rest of the conciliar church.

We should not hope for impossible things.  So, for example, we should not hope we become angelic spirits or that we sprout wings and fly into the air.  Likewise, it is impossible for all men to be saved and so we should not hope for universal salvation, but rather we should hope to help bring about the salvation of whomever God chooses to save from their own voluntary sins.  

We don’t know with certainty which people around us God chooses as His elect,[7] so God Wills that we try to help everyone save his soul, although we know God does not choose to save everyone but allows some men to damn themselves.

Also, as shown above, Our Lord does not Will unconditionally that all men go to heaven.  If He had chosen to save all men, He could have saved them since He can turn their hearts “whithersoever He will” (Proverbs).  Instead God allows some men to damn themselves.  (It is important to note that God does not damn souls but He allows them to damn themselves!)

Thus, we see that the N-SSPX is wrong when it recently taught that we should hope to fulfill Christ’s desire for universal salvation.  Here are the N-SSPX’s words:

Only when the Church is brought back to full health can we hope to fulfill Christ’s desire that all men come to know Him and find salvation.  Supporting the SSPX is about bringing the Gospel to all of those with ears to hear in the hope that, by God’s grace, hearts will be converted, and souls saved.[8]

Conclusion

The elect in heaven have great reason to be humble and grateful, since, in God’s Goodness and Mercy, He gave them the undeserved, free gifts of grace and salvation.  God was not obligated to give them grace and not obliged to choose them as His elect.  

We hope to save our souls and hope to be among God’s elect.  We have great reason to be humble and grateful because God gave us grace and made us Catholics without our deserving these free gifts.  Thus, we must humbly beg God that He choose us to be among His elect.

Let us Glorify God for the Goodness and Mercy He showed us by making us Catholics, giving us the full Traditions of His true Church!


[1]          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).

[2]
         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).

[3]
         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

[4]
         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.

[5]          For an explanation how God never acts against man’s free will even in those whom He chooses to save, read the article here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/williamson-bishop-williamson-teaches-the-heresy-that-even-god-is-powerless-to-save-some-men.html

[6]          St. Thomas Aquinas, following and quoting the Doctor of the Church, St. Ambrose, teaches that:

God calls whom He deigns to call, and whom He wills He makes religious: the profane Samaritans, had He so willed, He would have made devout. 

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.82, a.3, respondeo (emphasis added).

Just as in the Book of Proverbs we see that God can convert the king if He chooses to do so, similarly St. Ambrose teaches that God can convert any profane Samaritans He chooses to convert.

St. Thomas Aquinas, following St. Augustine, the Doctor of Grace, teaches that God can save anyone He wishes to save.  Here are their words:

Hence it is impossible for these two things to be true at the same time — that the Holy Ghost should will to move a certain man to an act of charity, and that this man, by sinning, should lose charity.  For the gift of perseverance is reckoned among the blessings of God whereby “whoever is delivered, is most certainly delivered, ” as Augustine says in his book On the Predestination of the Saints (De Dono Persev. xiv).

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.24, a.11, respondeo (emphasis added).

Charity always comes with Sanctifying Grace and makes a man the friend of God.  In the quote immediately above, St. Augustine teaches that the Holy Ghost will move any man to charity (and Sanctifying Grace) if He chooses to convert him.

[7]          St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine assure us that we cannot know with certainty why God chooses some people as His elect and not others.  Here are St. Thomas’s words, quoting St. Augustine:

Yet why He chooses some for glory, and reprobates others [i.e., allows them to damn themselves], has no reason, except the Divine Will.  Whence Augustine says (Tract. xxvi. in Joan.):

Why He draws one, and another He draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.

Summa, Ia Q. 23 a.5, ad 3 (bracketed words added for context).

[8]          Emphasis added; quoted from the April 30, 2019 “Dear Friend” letter which Fr. Wegner mass-mailed to everyone on the SSPX U.S. District mailing list and also posted here https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/fr-wegner-pray-mary-remember-your-mothers-and-pray-holy-mother-church-47813?mc_cid=e244c8c82b&mc_eid=4fbfee0c0b

The Catholic Church’s “Fifth Mark” is Suffering Persecution

There are four Marks of the Catholic Church, by which She is known to be the one true Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.[1]

These Marks are certain signs by which the True Church is known and distinguishable from all other “churches” – which are all false and all do the devil’s work.[2]

However, besides these four Marks of the Church by which She can be definitely known, there is also another mark or sign by which we can know Christ’s true Church: viz., the persecution which the Church perennially suffers from the world and the devil because She always opposes them.

Here is one way that Our Lord teaches that the world’s hatred and persecution of the Church comes from the Church’s opposition to the world:

If you had been of the world, the world would love its own:  but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.  

St. John’s Gospel, 15:19.

For this reason, The Catechism Explained teaches that persecution is another mark, or sign, by which we know that the Catholic Church is the true Church:

The true Church is that one which is most persecuted by the world ….[3]

The Church must be persecuted, to be Christ-like and because She is Christ-like.

It is inevitable that the Church will be persecuted because She is the Mystical Body of Christ, Her Head.  Because His Body must be like Him, the Church must be persecuted as He was.

Further, the Church is the Spouse of Christ.  Christ ensures that His Spouse will be like Him and so She will be persecuted like Him.

The world hates the Church because it hates Our Lord, as He predicted in these words:

If the world hates you, know ye, that it hath hated Me before you.

 

St. John’s Gospel, 15:18.

The world’s hatred caused it to persecute Our Lord and similarly to persecute His Church.  Our Lord told his Apostles (who were the Church’s first hierarchy):

If they have persecuted Me, they will also persecute you ….

St. John’s Gospel, 15:20.

Thus, as Our Lord suffered His Passion, so His Church will suffer Her Passion.  Commenting on St. Matthew’s Gospel where St. Peter, the first pope, followed Our Lord from the Garden of Olives to the court of the High Priest, St. Augustine explains that this event shows:

that the Church will follow, i.e. imitate, the Lord’s Passion, but with a great difference.  For the Church suffers for itself, but Christ [suffered] for the Church.[4] 

Not only the Church as an institution, but individual Catholics also will suffer persecution.  St. Paul declared:

All who will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution ….[5]

The Church and Faithful Catholics benefit from Suffering Persecution.

St. Hilary, Doctor of the Church, teaches that persecutions help the Church.  Here are his words:

It is peculiar to the Church to flourish most when persecuted.[6]

St. Augustine declares that persecutions make Catholics into saints.  Here are St. Augustine’s words:

Persecutions serve to bring forth saints.[7]

Persecution is a type of purging.  Christ describes this purging not only as willed by God but also as brought about by God in some way, for the good of His Church.  Here are Our Lord’s words:

I am the true Vine; and My Father is the Husbandman.  Every branch in Me, that beareth not fruit, He will take away: and every one that beareth fruit, He will purge it, that it may bring forth more fruit.[8]

In our times, Traditional Catholics show they are faithful and belong to the true Church by bearing this Mark of Suffering Persecution.

Faithful Catholics might “second guess” themselves and wonder if they are on the true path, because they are everywhere discredited and marginalized.  Traditional Catholics are continually lied about and condemned.  With St. Paul, they could be called “deceivers, and yet true”.  2 Corinthians 6:8.  Such persecution puts Traditional Catholics in the good company of those who have followed in Our Lord’s Footsteps throughout Church history.

Cardinal Newman was a historian who wrote about Arian times and wrote the book called The Arians of the Fourth Century.  The persecution of faithful Catholics which occurred then presents obvious parallels to the persecutions Traditional Catholics suffer now.  Here is how Cardinal Newman described Arian times:

The body of bishops failed in their confession of the Faith ….  They spoke variously, one against another; there was nothing after Nicea, of firm, unvarying, consistent testimony [for the Faith], for nearly sixty years.  There were untrustworthy Councils, unfaithful bishops; there was weakness, fear of consequences, misguidance, delusion, hallucination, endless, hopeless, extending into nearly every corner of the Catholic Church.  The comparatively few who remained faithful were discredited and driven into exile; the rest were either deceivers or deceived.[9] 

As in Arian Times, likewise now.  We could paraphrase Cardinal Newman’s words to describe our own times, as follows:

The body of bishops failed in their confession of the Faith ….  The different factions of conciliar revolutionaries spoke one against another; there was nothing, starting with Vatican II, of firm, Traditional Faith, for nearly sixty years.  There were untrustworthy synods, unfaithful bishops; there was weakness, worldliness, fear of consequences, modernism in every corner of the human element of the Catholic Church.  The comparatively few, viz., Traditional Catholics, who remained faithful were discredited and marginalized; the rest were either modernists or deceived by modernists.

In the End Times, Bloody Persecution will especially show the true Church as it especially showed the Church in Her Infancy.

Future persecutions will be greater and bloodier than those now.  Sacred Scripture narrates these future persecutions by the anti-christ as follows:

It was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them.   And power was given him over every tribe, and people, and tongue, and nation.  …   And it was given him … that whosoever will not adore the image of the beast, should be slain.

The Apocalypse of St. John the Apostle, 13:7 & 15.

But God is always in charge and those persecutions will work to the good for the elect.  As St. Paul assures us; “All things work together unto the good for those who love God.”  Romans, 8:28.

We should rejoice to be persecuted for the love of Jesus Christ.

Although persecution is not comfortable, it is nothing to fear.  Rather, persecution is a great reason to rejoice.  Here are Our Lord’s words:

Blessed are they that suffer persecution for Justice’s sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.  Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you untruly, for My sake.  Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven.[10]

However difficult or painful these persecutions are at the time, they are a small price to pay for Christ’s love and for eternal happiness.  As St. Paul tells us: “I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come”.  Romans, 8:18.

The “new” SSPX is not persecuted like the “old” SSPX was.

The “old” SSPX was viciously attacked by the world and by the conciliar church (which is a false “church” which belongs to the world).[11]  But the “new” SSPX has been weakening for years, becoming more like the world and the conciliar church.[12] 

The N-SSPX itself says that it is not attacked like it used to be (although this change is not because the world and the conciliar church are becoming better).  Here are the N-SSPX’s words:

World-wide tradition started out very small.  As soon as it grew, it was attacked.  But now the times changed [sic].[13]

Conclusion

Persecution is (as it were) a “Fifth Mark” by which we can recognize the true Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church and faithful Catholics will face persecution.  

Let us face persecution with a strong heart!  Beware of Compromising to Avoid Persecution!

Let us never weaken through growing tired of the persecutions which come.  We must never compromise our Faith but instead live our Faith boldly and fully.


[1]          Here is how The Catechism of St. Pius X explains this truth:

Q. How can the Church of Jesus Christ be distinguished from the numerous societies or sects founded by men, and calling themselves Christian?

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

Quoted from The Catechism of St. Pius X, section: The Apostle’s Creed, subsection: The Ninth Article of the Creed, part concerning The Church in General, Q.13.

[2]          Here is how the Baltimore Catechism #3, Q.518, explains this truth:

Q. What is a mark?

A. A mark is a given and known sign by which a thing can be distinguished from all others of its kind.  Thus, a trademark is used to distinguish the article bearing it from all imitations of the same article.

[3]          Rev. Francis Spirago, The Catechism Explained, Benzinger Bros., New York, 1921, p.242.

[4]          Catena Aurea on St. Matthew’s Gospel, by St. Thomas Aquinas, ch.26, quoting Aug., Quaest. Ev., i, 46 (bracketed word added for clarity).

[5]          2 Timothy 3:12, emphasis added.

[6]          Rev. Francis Spirago, The Catechism Explained, Benzinger Bros., New York, 1921, p.236.  The catechism adds:

The Church comes triumphant out of every persecution.  …  The members of the Church increase under persecution.  The Church is a field, fruitful only when torn up by the plough, or it is a vine, stronger and richer for being pruned. “As fire is spread by the wind, so is the Church increased by persecution,” says St. Rupert.  

Id.

[7]          Rev. Francis Spirago, The Catechism Explained, Benzinger Bros., New York, 1921, p.236.

[8]          St. John’s Gospel, 15:1-2.  Here is how The Catechism Explained explains this truth:

Persecution purifies the Church; even if millions fall away, it is not a loss but

a cleansing.

Rev. Francis Spirago, The Catechism Explained, Benzinger Bros., New York, 1921, p.236.

[9]          John Henry Cardinal Newman, On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine (Kansas City: Sheed and Ward, ©1961), p.77 (emphasis added).

[10]          St. Matthew’s Gospel, 5:11-13 (emphasis added).

[12]          For evidence of the N-SSPX’s moral decline, read the many Catholic Candle articles on this subject, quoting and analyzing this decline, including this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-continues-moral-decline-2.html 

For evidence of the N-SSPX’s doctrinal decline, read the many Catholic Candle articles on this subject, quoting and analyzing this decline, including this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-the-new-sspx-claims-archbishop-lefebvre-endorsed-vatican-iis-lumen-gentium,-as-free-of-all-errors-and-ambiguities.html

The value of a Traditional Catholic school depends on it being different than all of the other schools.  The “old” SSPX knew this and made its schools different.  But the N-SSPX now wants its schools to be like all of the other schools.  Read this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/sspx-wants-fit-in.html

[13]          Quote from a June 29, 2019 article which included these words of N-SSPX District Superior in the U.S., Fr. Wegner, available at this link: https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/designs-budget-and-timeline-released-unveiling-new-immaculata-project-48917

God Wills Inequalities between People

 

Difference is the basis for the order in things.  If there were no differences between things, there could be no order between them.  The very idea of order includes within it the concept of priority and of posteriority, and hence, of difference and inequality.  In fact, that very separateness, i.e., the distinctions among things, is the principle of all order.[1]

 

 

God makes creatures unequal.

 

God made difference and inequality in all creatures.  As Ecclesiasticus teaches:

 

Why does one day excel another, and one light another, and one year another year…?  By the knowledge of the Lord they were distinguished.

 

Chapter 33, verses 7-8.

 

Therefore, just as God’s Wisdom is the cause of His making all creatures, so His Wisdom is the cause of Him making creatures unequal.[2]  By making some creatures inferior to other creatures, the whole of creation is more perfect than it otherwise would be.[3]

 

 

Inequality between individual persons

 

All men are equal in some ways.  For example, they are equal before the law, so that their rights as citizens are the same despite differences between them such as in height, in wealth, etc.

 

However, God made persons unequal in many ways and intends this inequality.  God made persons unequal in eyesight, mental acuity, natural prudence, athletic ability, beauty, musical talent, health, height, and in many other ways.  God intends these inequalities. 

 

All mankind is bound together with duties to help those individuals who are more in need of help because of these natural inequalities.  So, a person who can see, can guide a blind man across the street, a taller person might reach something on a high shelf to help a shorter person. 

 

Among all other inequalities between persons, some persons are naturally less prudent than some other persons.  These less prudent persons need to be helped and protected for their own good, including protecting them from their own imprudence.  There are many examples of this.  For example, for their own good, civil laws prohibit persons from making contracts which include interest charges greater than a statutory maximum interest rate.[4]  These laws and many other laws, are ways that society protects those persons against their own imprudence, because they are less able to protect themselves.

 

 

Differences between men in society

 

As explained above, the very idea of order includes within it the concept of priority and of posteriority, and hence, of difference.  In fact, that very separateness, i.e., the distinctions among people, is the principle of all social, political, economic, military and religious order, since difference is a principle of order.  For example, in a proper military order, an army cannot have all generals or all privates.  The army cannot have all equipment operators or all cooks.  Etc.

 

St. Paul emphasizes that God made men unequal and made them to have different roles, strengths and weaknesses.  Here are St. Paul’s words:

 

For as the body is one, and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ.  For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink.  For the body also is not one member, but many.  If the foot should say, because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?  And if the ear should say, because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?  If the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing?  If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling?  But now God hath set the members every one of them in the body as it hath pleased Him.  And if they all were one member, where would be the body?  But now there are many members indeed, yet one body.  And the eye cannot say to the hand: I need not thy help; nor again the head to the feet: I have no need of you.  Yea, much more those that seem to be the more feeble members of the body, are more necessary.  And such as we think to be the less honorable members of the body, about these we put more abundant honor; and those that are our uncomely parts, have more abundant comeliness.  But our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, giving to that which wanted the more abundant honor, that there might be no schism in the body; but the members might be mutually careful one for another.  And if one member suffer anything, all the members suffer with it; or if one member glory, all the members rejoice with it.

 

1 Corinthians, 12:12-27 (emphasis added).

 

As St. Paul shows us, God did not make every man to play whatever role that man chooses.  Some men are made more honorable members of society, some, less.  Some men are made the “eyes” of the collective group and some are made the “feet”.  Id.

 

St. Paul emphasizes that these differences between men give rise to the obligation that “the members might be mutually careful one for another”.  Id.

 

 

God intends differences and inequalities between groups as well as between individuals.

 

Just as God intends the countless inequalities between individuals, He also fully intends the inequalities between different groups/peoples/ethnicities/tribes.  To take a few of countless examples:

 

Ø  one people is better at a sport such as basketball, than any other peoples;

 

Ø  one people is more emotional, with a high-strung temperament, while another ethnic group is more calm, staid and reason-oriented;

 

Ø  one people is more creative in the fine arts, than some other peoples;

 

Ø  one people more apt to the sciences than some other peoples; and

 

Ø  one people is more capable in leadership in society than some other peoples. 

God intends all these natural differences, both the strengths and the weaknesses.

 

Pope Leo XIII assures us that “there will ever be differences and inequalities of condition in the State.  Society cannot exist or be conceived of without them.”  Rerum Novarum, §34.

 

These differences between one people and another, are differences between the members of society on a larger scale.  St. Paul teaches us that these differences oblige “the members [to be] mutually careful one for another”.  1 Corinthians, 12:25.

 

All peoples and groups are bound together with duties in justice and charity.  Some peoples are more capable of leading and other peoples need more guidance, more protection and need to be led because of these natural inequalities that God Wills. 

 

These inequalities include that some peoples are naturally less prudent and don’t guide themselves and others as well as other peoples do.  Such peoples need to be helped and protected for their own good.  A striking example of this need occurred in Colombia, after the Masonic revolution in the early 1800s:

 

The liberal revolutionary governments wanted to decrease the authority of the Catholic Church and to enact land “reforms”, including the abolition of the somewhat-feudal system governing the lives of the Indians (who comprised about one-third of the population).

 

The previous (Spanish) government had protected these Indians (like Medieval serfs were protected) by restricting their ability to freely sell the plots of land which they possessed and farmed.  In the name of freedom and the free market, the new liberal government allowed the Indians to sell their little plots of land.  Rich, unscrupulous men quickly induced most of the Indians to (naïvely and shortsightedly) sell their little plots, thus ruining the small amount of independence the Indians had enjoyed.  Within a few years, the ownership of the Indians’ lands was concentrated in the hands of a few rich and powerful families.  The Indians became landless tenants.  The land which had been cultivated by the Indians was then mostly used for grazing cattle.

Quoted from: Latin America: A Sketch of its Glorious Catholic Roots and a Snapshot of its Present, by the Editors of Quanta Cura Press, p.111, © 2016.

 

In light of the natural inequalities between peoples, and because the men of society are bound together in justice and charity, persons and peoples more capable of leading have a duty to guide and protect those who are less capable.

 

It denies reason and these natural inequalities between peoples, to insist that a society’s or an organization’s leaders would be subject to “quotas” and include a “sampling” of “everybody”, i.e., representatives from each different group or people.  This is as foolish as insisting that a basketball team must fulfill “quotas” and have members who “represent” every people in proportion to every part of the public.

 

 

God’s intent that there be inequality in society includes His intent that there be economic inequality (viz., rich and poor).

 

The revolutionaries in society stir up discontent by complaining there is an “income gap” between the rich and the poor, or that this income “gap” is increasing.  However, an inequality in economic conditions is a natural reflection of other inequalities between men.  God Wills these inequalities.

 

Quoting earlier Doctors of the Church, St. Thomas explains that God Wills wealth inequality for both the rich and the poor, so that the rich might acquire the virtue of liberality and so that the poor might acquire the virtue of patience.  Here are his words:

 

The temporal goods which God grants us, are ours as to the ownership, but as to the use of them, they belong not to us alone but also to such others as we are able to succor out of what we have over and above our needs.  Hence Basil says [*Hom. super Luc. xii, 18]: “If you acknowledge them,” viz., your temporal goods, “as coming from God, is He unjust because He apportions them unequally?  Why are you rich while another is poor, unless it be that you may have the merit of a good stewardship, and he the reward of patience?  It is the hungry man’s bread that you withhold, the naked man’s cloak that you have stored away, the shoe of the barefoot that you have left to rot, the money of the needy that you have buried underground: and so you injure as many as you might help.”  Ambrose expresses himself in the same way.[5]

 

The Socialists seek to abolish private property, pretending that men are equal and that private property destroys this supposed equality.  Here is how Pope Leo XIII explains this truth:

 

Socialists proclaim the right of property to be a human invention repugnant to the natural equality of man ….[6]

 

The Catholic Church, however, recognizes that all men are unequal and their differences in wealth proceeds from their many natural inequalities.  Here is how Pope Leo XIII explains this truth:

 

[T]he Church, much more properly and practically, recognizes inequality among men, who are naturally different in strength of body and of mind; also, in the possession of goods, and it orders that right of property and of ownership, which proceeds from nature itself ….[7]

 

Pope St. Pius X condemned the false idea that:

 

every inequality of condition is an injustice, or at least, a diminution of justice.  Here we have a principle that conflicts sharply with the nature of things, a principle conducive to jealousy, injustice, and subversive to any social order.[8]

 

 

Conclusion

 

God made creatures different and unequal.  God made all men different and unequal to each other.  God made the peoples and groups of society different and unequal.  God intends that we help each other in our deficiencies and not that we try to impose a false equality and quota system so that all roles in society would be composed from “every group”.

 

 

 



[1]           Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Church, teaches this important point, quoting Aristotle:

 

As the Philosopher says (Metaph. v, text. 16), the terms “before” and “after” are used in reference to some principle.  Now order implies that certain things are, in some way, before or after.  Hence wherever there is a principle, there must needs be also order of some kind.

 

Summa, IIa IIae, Q.26, a.1 respondeo.

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

 

[I]t must be said that as the wisdom of God is the cause of the distinction of things, so the same wisdom is the cause of their inequality.  This may be explained as follows.  A twofold distinction is found in things; one is a formal distinction as regards things differing specifically; the other is a material distinction as regards things differing numerically only.  And as the matter is on account of the form, material distinction exists for the sake of the formal distinction.  Hence, we see that in incorruptible things there is only one individual of each species, forasmuch as the species is sufficiently preserved in the one; whereas in things generated and corruptible there are many individuals of one species for the preservation of the species.  Whence it appears that formal distinction is of greater consequence than material.  Now, formal distinction always requires inequality, because as the Philosopher says (Metaph. viii, 10), the forms of things are like numbers in which species vary by addition or subtraction of unity.  Hence in natural things species seem to be arranged in degrees; as the mixed things are more perfect than the elements, and plants than minerals, and animals than plants, and men than other animals; and in each of these, one species is more perfect than others.  Therefore, as the divine wisdom is the cause of the distinction of things for the sake of the perfection of the universe, so it is the cause of inequality.  For the universe would not be perfect if only one grade of goodness were found in things.

 

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


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

 

It is 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.

 

[4]           Here, for example, is a prohibition of excessive interest, taken from New York’s civil code of law:

 

4. Except as otherwise provided by law, interest shall not be charged,   taken  or  received  on any loan or forbearance at a rate exceeding such   rate of interest as may be authorized by law at the  time  the  loan  or forbearance  is  made,  whether  or  not the loan or forbearance is made   pursuant to a prior contract or commitment providing for a greater  rate   of  interest,  provided, however, that no change in the rate of interest prescribed in section fourteen-a of the banking law shall affect (a) the validity of a loan or forbearance made before the date such rate becomes effective, or (b) the enforceability of  such  loan  or  forbearance  in accordance  with  its  terms,  except  that  if  any loan or forbearance provides for an increase in the rate of interest during the term of such loan or forbearance, the increased rate shall not exceed  such  rate  of interest  as  may  have  been authorized by law at the time such loan or forbearance was made.

 

Quoted from the 2012 New York Consolidated Laws, General Obligations, Article 5 – CREATION, DEFINITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS

Title 5 – (5-501 – 5-531) INTEREST AND USURY; BROKERAGE ON LOANS

5-501 – Rate of interest; usury forbidden.

 

[5]           Summa, IIa IIae, Q.32, a.5, ad 2.


[6]          
Encyclical, Quod Apostolici muneris, Dec. 28, 1878, Denz. 1851.  Here is the longer quote from Pope Leo XIII:

 

But also, Catholic wisdom most skillfully provides for public and domestic tranquility, supported by the precepts of divine law, through what it holds and teaches concerning the right of ownership and the distribution of goods which have been obtained for the necessities and uses of life.  For when Socialists proclaim the right of property to be a human invention repugnant to the natural equality of man, and, seeking to establish a community of goods, think that poverty is by no means to be endured with equanimity; and that the possessions and rights of the rich can be violated with impunity, the Church, much more properly and practically, recognizes inequality among men, who are naturally different in strength of body and of mind; also in the possession of goods, and it orders that right of property and of ownership, which proceeds from nature itself, be for everyone intact and inviolate; for it knows that theft and raping have been forbidden by God, the author and vindicator of every right, in such a way that one may not even look attentively upon (i.e., covet) the property of another, and “that thieves and robbers, no less than adulterers and idolators are excluded from the kingdom of heaven” [cf. 1 Cor. 6:9f.].

Encyclical, Quod Apostolici muneris, Dec. 28, 1878, Denz. 1851.


[7]          
Encyclical, Quod Apostolici muneris, Dec. 28, 1878, Denz. 1851.

 

[8]           Here is the longer quote from Pope St. Pius X, condemning the ideas of a liberal and modernist group called the Sillon:

 

Teaching such doctrines, and applying them to its internal organization, the Sillon, therefore, sows erroneous and fatal notions on authority, liberty and obedience, among your Catholic youth.  The same is true of justice and equality; the Sillon says that it is striving to establish an era of equality which, by that very fact, would be also an era of greater justice.  Thus, to the Sillon, every inequality of condition is an injustice, or at least, a diminution of justice.  Here we have a principle that conflicts sharply with the nature of things, a principle conducive to jealously, injustice, and subversive to any social order.  Thus, [according to the claims of the Sillon] Democracy alone will bring about the reign of perfect justice!  Is this not an insult to other forms of government which are thereby debased to the level of sterile makeshifts? 

 

Quoted from the encyclical sometimes called, On the Sillon and sometimes called Our Apostolic Mandate.

 

Gaining Plenary Indulgences

Catholic Candle note:  Sedevacantism is wrong and is schism.  Catholic Candle is not sedevacantist.  On the contrary, we published a series of articles showing that sedevacantism is false (and also showing that former Pope Benedict is not still the pope).  Read the articles here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/against-sedevacantism.html 

A reader would be mistaken to believe that the article below gives any support to sedevacantism.  The article simply shows that we must be careful to not cooperate with (or pray for the success of) the evil intentions of a pope or any other superior.

 

Gaining Plenary Indulgences

In our Times of Great Apostasy


We need all of the help we can get to save our souls.  One help available to Catholics is obtaining plenary indulgences (i.e., complete remission of all temporal punishment due for sins).  But to obtain plenary indulgences, we usually must pray for the intentions of the pope.  How can we do that, without compromise, when the pope has many bad intentions?


The pope’s official intentions are often evil

The Vatican publishes the monthly prayer intentions of Pope Francis and many of them are evil and they often promote political correctness.  For example, Pope Francis uses his monthly prayer intentions to promote his Politically-Correct climate-alarmism, which is a basis for his promotion of a one-world government to regulate the ecology of the world and of the oceans in particular.[1]

To ensure that his climate-alarmism stays in the news, Pope Francis published this politically-correct, ecological prayer intention for September 2019:

 

The Protection of the Oceans

That politicians, scientists, and economists work together to protect the world’s seas and oceans.[2]

Pope Francis uses his prayer intentions to promote many other evils of the conciliar church.  For example, Pope Francis published this ecumenical prayer intention promoting inter-religious dialogue, as his November 2019 prayer intention:


Dialogue and Reconciliation in the Near East

That a spirit of dialogue, encounter, and reconciliation emerge in the Near East, where diverse religious communities share their lives together.[3]

 

However, despite Pope Francis’s own bad intentions, there are some good intentions which are always included in the intentions of the pope.  Here is how The Raccolta[4] explains this:


PRAYER ACCORDING TO THE POPE’S INTENTION

The Pope’s intention always includes the following objects:

                     i.        The progress of the Faith and triumph of the Church.

                    ii.        Peace and union among Christian Princes and Rulers.

                  iii.        The conversion of sinners.

                  iv.        The uprooting of heresy.[5]

God wants us to pray for these Traditional Catholic intentions of the pope, but of course, not pray for any evil intentions.

We suggest that you make your intent explicit – for yourself and for others – by stating that you are praying for the Traditional intentions of the pope, thereby reminding yourself and others that you reject his evil and radical intentions.[6]

Further, Traditional Catholics are not sedevacantists.  Thus, we suggest you remind yourself and others of this fact by praying “for the Traditional intentions of Pope Francis” by name, rather than merely for the “intentions of the pope”.

Finally, we suggest you refer to the purpose of those prayers for the pope: “for the purpose of fulfilling a requirement for obtaining a plenary indulgence”.

 

Conclusion of this section

To gain plenary indulgences during these times of Great Apostasy, we suggest you pray an Our Father, Hail Mary, and Glory Be:

for the Traditional intentions of Pope Francis, for the purpose of gaining a plenary indulgence.

 

How can we gain a plenary indulgence without access to uncompromising priests and sacraments?

As we see above, it is a good thing to pray for the pope’s Traditional intentions in order to obtain a plenary indulgence.  But how can we gain a plenary indulgence without access to uncompromising priests and sacraments?

Should uncompromising Traditional Catholics “bother” praying for the Traditional intentions of the pope to obtain a plenary indulgence, when, in our times of Great Apostasy, there is little or no opportunity to fulfill the other usual conditions for gaining a plenary indulgence, viz., going to confession and receiving Holy Communion?

The answer is “yes”!

God has not abandoned His children!  Although He has – for now – willed to take away most of the Sacraments from most uncompromising Traditional Catholics, 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.”[7]

So, when God takes away most sacraments, He gives us other means and gives those means greater efficacy.  So, e.g., God greatly increased the power of the Holy Rosary during our times.[8]

God understands that we cannot do the impossible, nor does He expect us to do it.  He does not expect, or want us to receive the Sacraments or go to Mass when it is not available without compromise.  Compromise Masses and Sacraments don’t help us and they offend Him![9]

Thus, because we know that the current unavailability of the Sacraments works for our good, if we love God, our inability to fulfill those conditions for a plenary indulgence also works for our good and does not harm us.  God will provide! 

One way that God is able to provide for us is to give us a plenary indulgence when we piously and diligently fulfill the conditions for a plenary indulgence as closely as we can.[10]  God can treat this as if it were literal compliance with the usual conditions for obtaining a plenary indulgence.  Thus,

  When confession is not available without compromise, then God expects us to make an Act of Contrition as perfectly as we can. 

  When we cannot receive Holy Communion without compromise, He expects us to make as fervent a Spiritual Communion as we can. 

Along with fulfilling these conditions as closely as we can, we also pray “for the Traditional intentions of Pope Francis”.


Conclusion to the entire article

Let us have a strong heart and complete confidence in God.  Let us always have complete confidence that God is providing perfectly for us. 

Let us continue to fulfill the conditions for obtaining plenary indulgences to the extent that we are able, knowing that God provides for us.



[1]           Here are Pope Francis’s words, citing and quoting (former) Pope Benedict XVI and (supposed) “saint” Pope John XXIII:

 

¶174. Let us also mention the system of governance of the oceans.  International and regional conventions do exist, but fragmentation and the lack of strict mechanisms of regulation, control, and penalization end up undermining these efforts.  The growing problem of marine waste and the protection of the open seas represent particular challenges.  What is needed, in effect, is an agreement on systems of governance for the whole range of so-called “global commons”.

 

¶175. The same mindset which stands in the way of making radical decisions to reverse the trend of global warming also stands in the way of achieving the goal of eliminating poverty.  A more responsible overall approach is needed to deal with both problems: the reduction of pollution and the development of poorer countries and regions.  The twenty-first century, while maintaining systems of governance inherited from the past, is witnessing a weakening of the power of nation states, chiefly because the economic and financial sectors, being transnational, tend to prevail over the political. Given this situation, it is essential to devise stronger and more efficiently organized international institutions, with functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions.  As Benedict XVI has affirmed in continuity with the social teaching of the Church: “To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security, and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago”.

 

Laudato Si, ¶¶ 174-5 (emphasis added).

 

[4]           A raccolta is a book which collects prayers and other acts of piety, for which specific indulgences were granted by the pre-conciliar popes.

[5]           The Raccolta, translated by Ambrose St. John, Benzinger Bros., New York, 1910 edition, quoted from the preface, page xiii (emphasis added).

 

[6]           Pope Francis’s conciliar intentions reflect and promote conciliar novelties.  These new doctrines are so foreign to Catholicism that St. Thomas Aquinas defines heretics as follows: A heretic is someone who devises or follows false or new opinions. Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q.11, a.1 Sed contra (emphasis added). Notice St. Thomas does not say “false and new opinions”. The newness of a doctrine is already sufficient reason to reject it.

[7]           Romans, 8:28. 

 

[8]           Sister Lucy, seer at Fatima, revealed 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

 

[9]           Read these articles showing that compromise masses and sacraments offend God and do not give grace:

 

·         https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/new-mass-never-grace.html

 

·         https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/williamson-least-contaminated-mass.html

 

·         https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/williamson-contradicts-archbishop-lefebvre.html

 

[10]         Just as God bountifully gives graces to us without expecting the impossible, likewise the Catholic Church bountifully grants indulgences without expecting the impossible.  For this reason, Pope Pius IX granted:

 

to all the faithful who are habitually prevented by chronic illness or permanent physical inability of any kind, from leaving their dwellings – excepting those who live in religious communities – the privilege of gaining each and all of the plenary indulgences already granted, or which may be hereafter granted by the Sovereign Pontiffs; provided that, being truly penitent and having confessed their sins and fulfilled the other conditions prescribed, they perform faithfully, in place of receiving Holy Communion, some pious work enjoined by their confessors.

 

Quoted from The New Raccolta, published in 1898 by order of His Holiness, Pope Leo XIII, Peter F. Cunningham & Son, Philadelphia, English edition ©1900, quoted from the section On Holy Indulgences, pp.21-22.

The Blessed Virgin Mary, the Co-Redemptrix of the World

Catholic Candle note:  The article below pertains to another scandalous error of Pope Francis.  However, a reader would be mistaken if he assumed that Pope Francis’s grave error somehow means that he is not the pope.

Sedevacantism is wrong and is (material or formal) schism.  Catholic Candle is not sedevacantist.  On the contrary, we published a series of articles showing that sedevacantism is false (and also showing that former Pope Benedict is not still the pope).  Read the articles here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/against-sedevacantism.html 

Here is what St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Doctor of the Church, teaches concerning the need to recognize and respect the authority of a superior – such as the pope – even when he is very bad:

Even should the life of any superior be so notoriously wicked as to admit of no excuse or dissimulation, nevertheless, for God’s sake, Who is the source of all power, we are bound to honor such a one, not on account of his personal merits, which are non-existent, but because of the divine ordination and the dignity of his office.[1]

However, even while recognizing the pope’s authority and our duty to obey him when we are able, we know we must resist the evil he says and does.  Read more about this principle here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/against-sedevacantism.html#section-7

 

Defending the pre-Vatican II teaching against Pope Francis’s Scoffing

What the title “Co-Redemptrix” means

God caused the universe to be the best possible one for His own greater honor and glory.[2]  “The Lord hath made all things for Himself”.  Proverbs, 16:4.  No other motive would be worthy of Him.

God could have caused the universe to be different than it is.  Two ways God could have caused the universe to be different, is not to redeem man after his fall, or not to use the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in redeeming man.  However, God did redeem man and did use the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary because God does all things in the best possible way.[3] 

One way God used the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary is to have God the Son become Man through her Divine maternity.  Another way God chose to use the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary is to employ her as an integral part of His redemption of mankind, as Co-Redemptrix. 

Here is how Dom Guéranger explained this truth in The Liturgical Year:

Our Lady’s co-operation in the redemption of the world gives us a fresh view of her magnificence.  Neither the Immaculate Conception nor the Assumption will give us a higher idea of Mary’s exaltation than the title of co-redemptress.  Her dolors were not necessary for the redemption of the world, but, in the counsels of God, they were inseparable from it.  They belong to the integrity of the divine plan.[4]

Again, God could have redeemed man in a different way, without the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  But He chose the best way for His own glory and this way involved using her unique and integral help.

 

The Feminine Suffix of the word “Redemptress” (and of the word “Redemptrix”)

The Divine Law and the Natural Law[5] require that men and women have different roles in our life on earth.[6]  The differences between the sexes are naturally (and traditionally) manifest in countless visible ways, e.g., in clothing, as Sacred Scripture commands:

A woman shall not be clothed with man’s apparel, neither shall a man use woman’s apparel: for he that doth these things is abominable before God.

Deuteronomy, 22:5.

God and Nature require these distinctions in dress not only for modesty’s sake but also because such exterior manifestations reinforce these truths in our thoughts, help us to live them, and to oppose the errors and corruptions of the world around us.

Another important way in which the natural distinction between the sexes is (and should be) manifest in everyday life, is in grammatical differences in our speech, which reinforce this distinction between the sexes.  For example, we use feminine pronouns for women and girls and male pronouns for men and boys.  Likewise, in a wholesome society, parents don’t give their children unisex names or (even worse) names of the other gender.  Parents give feminine names to girls and masculine names to boys. 

The destruction of these wholesome customs is perverse and corrupts society.  The enemies of Our Lord have advanced far in trying to destroy these good practices.  Minimizing the outward signs which show the differences in gender leads to blurring the distinction between the sexes.  Gender-blurring is designed to minimize our understanding of the differences between the sexes.  The eventual goal is to promote gender confusion (a lunacy we see today).  This whole corrupting process has its roots in the centuries-old apostasy from the Catholic Faith.[7]

Among many other wholesome grammatical distinctions between the sexes, is using sex-specific endings to indicate the gender of a person who has a certain role.  For example, a man who delivers food to the tables in a restaurant is called a “waiter” and a woman who does this is called a “waitress”.  This “-tress” ending feminizes the word.  There are countless words with such feminized endings, e.g., empress and shepherdess.

A similar Latinized feminine ending to words is “-trix” (instead of “-tress”).  Thus:

  a female executor of a person’s will is called an “executrix”.[8]
 

  likewise, Our Lady is called the “Mediatrix of all Graces”.

Because we make these wholesome grammatical distinctions between the sexes, a female redeemer is called a “redemptrix” or a “redemptress”.  Thus, the Blessed Virgin Mary is called the “Co-Redemptrix” because she co-redeems man with her Son.

 

Comparison of Our Lady’s titles, “Co-Redemptrix” and “Mediatrix of all Graces”

To better understand the Blessed Virgin Mary’s title “Co-Redemptrix”, let us compare it to her title “Mediatrix of all Graces”.  These two titles correspond to her two unique roles helping her Son, in meriting and distributing all Graces.

Her title “Co-Redemptrix” refers to her unique role (and privilege) assisting her Son in His Redemption of the world, through which she assisted Him in meriting forgiveness and grace for sinners, in a fitting way (as explained below).  By contrast, her title “Mediatrix of all Graces” refers to her unique role (and privilege) assisting her Son in distributing all those Graces to sinners.

Our Lady’s assistance to her Son in the works of redemption and salvation is analogous to a nurse playing a uniquely important role in both helping a physician prepare a lifesaving medicine and also distribute the medicine for him to his patients.  Our Lady uniquely aided her Son although she is not Divine and although she herself depends on her Son, just as the nurse is not a physician but can be a unique aid in his work.

 

Pre-Vatican II teaching that Mary is Co-Redemptrix of the world


Pope St. Pius X

Pope St. Pius X taught that, in the work of redemption, the Blessed Virgin Mary merited in a way of fittingness, what her Son merited strictly speaking.  Here are St. Pius X’s words:

We are then, it will be seen, very far from attributing to the Mother of God a productive power of grace – a power which belongs to God alone.  Yet, since Mary surpasses all in holiness and union with Jesus Christ, and has been associated by Jesus Christ in the work of redemption, she merits for us “de congruo,” [i.e., according to fittingness] in the language of theologians, what Jesus Christ merits for us “de condigno,” [i.e., according to strict deserving] .…[9]

Also, St. Pius X’s Holy Office (viz., his guardian of the Catholic Faith) approved the orthodoxy of a prayer praising Our Lady as “Co-Redemptrix”.  Here is a portion of this prayer:

I praise thine exalted privilege of being truly Mother of God, ever Virgin, conceived without stain of sin, Co-Redemptrix of the human race.[10]

 

Pope Benedict XV 

Pope Benedict XV taught that the Blessed Virgin Mary redeemed the world, along with Christ.  Here are his words:

As the Blessed Virgin Mary does not seem to participate in the public life of Jesus Christ, and then, suddenly appears at the stations of his cross, she is not there without divine intention.  She suffers with her suffering and dying Son, almost as if she would have died herself.  For the salvation of mankind, she gave up her rights as the mother of her Son and, in a sense, offered Christ’s sacrifice to God the Father as far as she was permitted to do.  Therefore, one can justly say that she together with Christ has redeemed the human race.[11]

 

Pope Pius XI

Pope Pius XI called the Blessed Mother the Co-Redemptrix.  Here are his words:

By necessity, the Redeemer could not but associate [non poteva, per necessità di cose, non associare] his Mother in His work.  For this reason, we invoke her under the title of Co-Redemptrix.  She gave us the Savior, she accompanied Him in the work of Redemption as far as the Cross itself, sharing with Him the sorrows and the agony and in the death in which Jesus consummated the Redemption of mankind.[12]

 

Honoring Our Lady as Co-Redemptrix, in the devotional life of the Church

Before Vatican II, not only did the popes teach that Our Lady is Co-Redemptrix, but she was also honored under this title in Catholic devotion.  For example, Dom Guéranger quotes and promotes a 600-year-old liturgical sequence and hymn, praising Our Lady as Co-Redemptrix.  Here is this sequence:

Come, sovereign Lady,

Mary, do thou visit us,

illumine our sickly souls,

by the example of thy

duties performed in life.

 

Come, Co-Redemptrix of the world,

take away the filth of sin,

by visiting thy people,

remove their peril of chastisement.

 

Come, Queen of nations,

extinguish the flames of the guilty,

rectify whatsoever is wrong,

give us to live innocently.

 

Come, and visit the sick,

Mary, fortify the strong with

the vigor of thy holy impetuosity,

so that brave courage droop not.

 

Come, thou Star, O thou

Light of the ocean waves,

shed thy ray of peace upon us,

let the heart of John exult with

joy before the Lord.[13]

Similarly, traditional devotional books contemplate Mary’s role as Co-Redemptrix.[14]

 

Pope Francis scoffs at Our Lady’s title and privilege of being Co-Redemptrix

On December 12, 2019, the great feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Pope Francis scoffed at Our Lady’s title and her privilege of being “Co-Redemptrix”.  Here are his words, as quoted in a news report:

“She never wanted for herself something that was of her son,” Francis said. “She never introduced herself as co-redemptrix.  No.  Disciple,” he said, meaning that Mary saw herself as a disciple of Jesus.

Mary, the pope insisted, “never stole[15] for herself anything that was of her son,” …

When they come to us with the story of declaring her this or making that dogma, let’s not get lost in foolishness [in Spanish, tonteras],” he said.[16]

Pope Francis then showed his contempt not only for Our Lady’s title and privilege of being Co-Redemptrix, but also his contempt for all of her titles which show her unique glory and which show how Our Lord has honored His Mother through the Church.  Here are Pope Francis’s words of contempt for all of her glorious titles:

“Mary woman, Mary mother, without any other essential title,” Francis insisted.[17]

 

Pope Francis’s words are merely part of Vatican II’s and the conciliar church’s blasphemous minimization of the Glorious Mother of God

Pope Francis’s words (above) are among the countless conciliar attempts to “pull down” Our Lady from her unique, exalted position, and to put her on the level of everyone else.  According to him, she is merely “woman” and “mother”.

In his scandalous minimizing of Our Lady’s glory, Pope Francis reflects the teaching of Vatican II.  For example, Lumen Gentium says the Blessed Virgin Mary is only one of many examples of persons cooperating with Our Lord.[18] 

In his words (above), Pope Francis merely follows Vatican II’s warning not to “exaggerate” devotion to our Heavenly Mother.[19]  Here is Vatican II’s admonition:

[The council] exhorts theologians and preachers of the divine word to abstain zealously both from all gross exaggerations as well as from petty narrow-mindedness in considering the singular dignity of the Mother of God.

Lumen Gentium §67 (emphasis added).

 

Conclusion

One of the hallmarks of the conciliar revolution is its continual efforts to minimize the Glorious Mother of God.

One of the ways we must be counter-revolutionary is by devoting ourselves to her and honoring her at every opportunity, including as Co-Redemptrix! 

Let us continually pray to her and for Pope Francis!



[1]           Quoted from St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Third Sermon for Advent, entitled: On the Three Advents of the Lord and the Seven Pillars which we ought to erect within us.


[2]          
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.


[3]          
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, 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).

 

[4]           The Liturgical Year, by Dom Guéranger, volume 14, (also called volume 5 for the Time After Pentecost) New York, Benziger Bros., 1910, p. 212 (emphasis added).

 

[5]           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 (emphasis added).

[7]           For further analysis of this issue, read the article The Direct Road from Apostasy to Gender Confusion, published in the December 2019 Catholic Candle.

[9]           Ad diem illum laetissimum (On the Immaculate Conception), Pope St. Pius X, February 2, 1904, §14 (emphasis added; bracketed words added for clarity).


[10]         January 22, 1914 decree of the Holy Office, taken from The Raccolta, Benziger Bros., 1957, pp. 228-229.  This prayer was indulgenced by the Vatican office of indulgences, which is part of the Sacred Apostolic Penitentiary, on Dec. 4, 1934.


[11]         Pope Benedict XV, Apostolic Letter Inter soldalica, March 22, 1918 (emphasis added), cited and quoted in The Church Teaches, John F. Clarkson, S.J., et al. (translators), Herder & Co., St. Louis, © 1955, pp. 210-211.

 

[12]         Pope Pius XI, Allocution to Pilgrims from Vicenza, Italy (a city west of Venice), November 30, 1933 (quoted in L’Osservatore Romano, December 1, 1933, p. 1; emphasis added.)

 

[13]         The Liturgical Year, by Dom Guéranger, volume 12, (also called volume 3 for the Time After Pentecost) James Duffy, Dublin, 1890, pp. 523-524 (emphasis added).

[14]         For example, this title is used in a meditation given in Divine Intimacy: Meditations on the Interior Life for Every Day of the Liturgical Year, By Father Gabriel of St. Mary Magdalen, TAN Books, Rockford, contained in the meditation for February Second – The Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

[15]         Pope Francis insultingly suggests that the way Our Lady would receive a title or an honor is by “stealing” it from her Son.  On the contrary, her Divine Son is the One who Wills that these honors be given to her.  For example, in 1929, Our Lady of Fatima revealed God’s Will that she be honored through Russia being consecrated to her Immaculate Heart and that Russia would be saved by this means.  Here are her words to Sister Lucy of Fatima:

 

The moment has come when God asks the Holy Father to make, in union with all the bishops of the world, the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means.…

 

The Whole Truth About Fatima, Frére Michel de la Sainte Trinité, translator John Collorafi, vol. II, Immaculate Heart Publications, Buffalo, NY, © 1989 for English translation, p.464 (emphasis added).


[18]         The council says Our Lady is one of many [“manifold”] ways of cooperating with her Son just like ministers and laymen have various ways of cooperating with Christ’s priesthood.  Here are the council’s words concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary, in the section of Lumen Gentium pertaining to her:

 

[T]he Blessed Virgin is invoked by the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix .  This, however, is to be so understood that it neither takes away from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficaciousness of Christ the one Mediator.

 

For no creature could ever be counted as equal with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer.  Just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by the ministers and by the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is really communicated in different ways to His creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source.

 

Lumen Gentium, §62 (emphasis added).

 

[19]         This pulling down of the Blessed Virgin Mary is like the conciliar church minimizing Our Lord Jesus Christ.  For example, he is called a “superstar” in a blasphemous (so-called) “rock opera”. 

 

To take only one more example of gross disrespect for Our Lord, the conciliar church has named many (of the relatively few) churches built after Vatican II, with the blasphemous title Christ the Servant Church.  (Do an internet search for the websites of the many conciliar churches given that name.)

 

Faithful Catholics honor the greatness of Our Lord’s Divinity and His Kingship, as well as the unique and sublime role of the holy Mother of God.  By contrast, the revolutionaries emphasize Our Lady being a “normal” woman and her Son being a servant.

 

New doctrines are not Catholic. They are heresy.

Catholic Candle note: Sedevacantism is wrong and Catholic Candle is not sedevacantist. In fact, we published a nine-part series setting out the errors of sedevacantism (and also why it is wrong to believe that former Pope Benedict XVI continues to be pope).

A reader would be mistaken to believe that the article below gives any support to sedevacantism. This article simply shows that Vatican II’s teachings, because they are new, cannot be Catholic and must be rejected. In this way, Vatican II’s teachings are like any other erroneous teachings of a pope or bishops. See, e.g., Pope John XXII’s denial (in the 14th century) of a doctrine that the Church has always taught infallibly (although this denial did not prevent him from being pope).

The First Vatican Council infallibly teaches that new teachings are not the proper subject matter for the guidance of the Holy Ghost:

For the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or Deposit of Faith transmitted by the Apostles.

Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, Sess. 4, ch.4, #6 (emphasis added).

The Council of Trent Catechism teaches:

[The Catholic Church’s] doctrines are neither novel nor of recent origin, but were delivered, of old, by the Apostles, and disseminated throughout the world. Hence, no one can, for a moment, doubt that the impious opinions which heresy invents, opposed, as they are, to the doctrines taught by the Church from the days of the Apostles to the present time, are very different from the faith of the true Church.

Council of Trent Catechism, under Creed: Apostolicity (emphasis added).

New doctrines are so foreign to Catholicism that St. Thomas Aquinas defines heretics as follows: A heretic is someone who devises or follows false or new opinions. Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q.11, a.1 Sed contra (emphasis added). Notice St. Thomas does not say “false and new opinions”. The newness of a doctrine is already sufficient reason to reject it.

The Second Council of Nicea, in 787 AD, condemned doctrinal innovators and rejected all innovations, with these words:

[W]e declare that we defend free from any innovations all the written and unwritten ecclesiastical traditions that have been entrusted to us. … Therefore, all those who … devise innovations or who spurn anything entrusted to the Church …, we order that they be suspended if they are bishops or clerics, and excommunicated if they are monks or lay people.

Emphasis added.

Pope St. Pius X describes modernists in terms of their break with tradition and their embrace of novel doctrines:

[T]hey pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true meaning of religion; in introducing a new system in which they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the Holy and Apostolic Traditions.

Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, ¶13, quoting from the encyclical Singulari nos of Pope Gregory XVI, June 25, 1834 (emphasis added).

Summary

It is clear that the Holy Ghost is not promised as a guide for the teaching of new doctrines. Further, the Catholic Church has always taught that Her doctrines are not new. Rather, the Catholic Church condemns new doctrines and considers them heresy.

As Admitted by the Conciliar Revolutionaries, Vatican II’s Teachings Are New, Which shows that Those Teachings are False.

Having seen above that the Catholic Church rejects new doctrines and certainly does not teach them infallibly, we next look at whether Vatican II’s teachings are new. If they are, then they cannot be infallible and must be rejected. Below, we set forth the testimony of the hierarchy that the teachings of Vatican II are new. (This is merely one “level” of proof among many, showing that we must reject the teachings of Vatican II.)

The testimony of Pope John Paul II:

[W]hat constitutes the substantial “novelty” of the Second Vatican Council, in line with the legislative tradition of the Church, especially in regard to ecclesiology, constitutes likewise the “novelty” of the new Code [of canon law].

Among the elements which characterize the true and genuine image of the Church, we should emphasize especially the following: the doctrine in which the Church is presented as the People of God (cf. Lumen Gentium, no. 2), and authority as a service (cf. ibid., no. 3); the doctrine in which the Church is seen as a “communion”, and which, therefore, determines the relations which should exist between the particular Churches and the universal Church, and between collegiality and the primacy; the doctrine, moreover, according to which all the members of the People of God, in the way suited to each of them, participate in the threefold office of Christ: priestly, prophetic and kingly. With this teaching there is also linked that which concerns the duties and rights of the faithful, and particularly of the laity; and finally, the Church’s commitment to ecumenism. …

[T]he Second Vatican Council has … elements both old and new, and the new consists precisely in the elements which we have enumerated ….

Pope John Paul II, Sacrae Disciplinae Leges, January 25, 1983 (emphasis added).

As quoted above, Pope John Paul II specifically identified key doctrines of Vatican II as novelties. Among the chief novel teachings of Vatican II (and which are contained in the 1983 code of canon law), he lists: the Church, the universal sacrament of salvation [meaning everyone goes to heaven] is shown to be the People of God and its hierarchical constitution to be founded on the College of Bishops together with its head. Pope John Paul II, Sacrae Disciplinae Leges, January 25, 1983.

We have other warnings that the conciliar doctrines are novelties, (for which the Holy Ghost was not promised). Pope John Paul II admitted the council’s novelties in these words:

Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.

Ecclesia Dei, (1988), ¶5b.

The pope is calling for deeper study because 23 years after the council, he acknowledges that Vatican II’s continuity with Sacred Tradition is still not shown (nor can it be)!

The testimony of Pope Benedict XVI:

In the first year of his pontificate, Pope Benedict XVI said:

[W]ith the Second Vatican Council, the time came when broad new thinking was required.

December 22, 2005 Christmas address (emphasis added).

Before he became pope, Cardinal Ratzinger taught:

If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus. … Let us be content to say that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789 [by the Masonic French Revolution].

Principles of Catholic Theology: Building Stones for a Fundamental Theology, translator, Sr. Mary Frances McCarthy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press 1987), pp. 381-382; French edition: Les Principes de la Theologie Catholique – Esquisse et Materiaux, Paris: Tequi, 1982, pp. 426-427 (emphasis added; bracketed words added; parenthetical words are in the original).

Note: Obviously, whatever is the opposite (that is, the “countersyllabus”) of the Catholic Church’s prior teaching, must be a novel teaching which the Church did not previously teach. Yet this is how Pope Benedict XVI described some of the main teachings of Vatican II! Thus, clearly, Vatican II’s teachings contain novelties (which are therefore false).

The testimony of Pope Paul VI:

The new position adopted by the Church with regard to the realities of this earth is henceforth well known by everyone …. [T]he Church agrees to recognize the new principle to be put into practice …. [T]he Church agrees to recognize the world as ‘self-sufficient’; she does not seek to make the world an instrument for her religious ends ….

August 24, 1969 Declaration of Pope Paul VI, L’Osservatore Romano; (emphasis added).

Further, Pope Paul VI also referred to the “newness” of the doctrine of the Second Vatican Council, in a general audience on January 12, 1966.

Statements Made by other Members of the Hierarchy

Other members of the hierarchy have also made clear statements concerning the novelty and rupture of the teachings of Vatican II.

Near the close of the council, Cardinal Congar stated:

What is new in this teaching [regarding religious liberty] in relation to the doctrine of Leo XIII and even of Pius XII, although the movement was already beginning to make itself felt, is the determination of the basis peculiar to this liberty, which is sought not in the objective truth of moral or religious good, but in the ontological quality of the human person.

Congar, in the Bulletin Etudes et Documents of June 15, 1965, as quoted in I Accuse the Council, Archbishop Lefebvre, p. 27, Angelus Press, 2009 (emphasis added; bracketed words added).

Yves Cardinal Congar was made a Cardinal by Pope John Paul II in recognition for Cardinal Congar’s lifelong dedication to the conciliar revolution. Cardinal Congar likened Vatican II to the triumph of the communists in Russia, calling Vatican II the “October Revolution” in the Church. Yves Congar, The Council Day by Day: Second Session p. 215, (1964).

By this parallel, Cardinal Congar is telling us that Vatican II was an overthrow of the established order in the Catholic Church. Note that, by making this particular comparison, Cardinal Congar saw fit to compare Vatican II to the triumph of the anti-God communists in Russia!

Cardinal Suenens compared Vatican II to a different anti-God revolution. He made the same parallel as Cardinal Ratzinger did (quoted above), comparing Vatican II to the anti-God, Masonic French Revolution, saying that Vatican II was the “1789” in the Church. Quoted in the Catechism of the Crisis in the Church, Pt., 5, by Fr. M. Gaudron, SSPX.

In all three of the cardinals’ comparisons of Vatican II with a communist or Masonic revolution, it is clear that they are stating that Vatican II’s teaching is revolutionary, and thus it is new and false.

Conclusion Regarding the Non-Infallibility (and Falsity) of Vatican II’s Teachings based on their Newness (Novelty)

We have seen that the Holy Ghost is not promised for the teaching of new doctrines. Further, the Catholic Church has always taught that Her doctrines are not new and cannot change. Rather, the Catholic Church condemns new doctrines and considers them heresy.

We have also seen that Pope Benedict XVI, Pope John Paul II and Pope Paul VI (as well as some cardinals), have all stated that Vatican II’s doctrines are new. Therefore, Vatican II’s teachings cannot be infallible (and further, they must be rejected because they are new and heretical).