CC in brief — The Existence of Time in the Afterlife

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

Q.         While sanctifying the Sunday at home, I read in a sermon recently that stated:

“Time is a blessing which we enjoy only in this life; it is not enjoyed in the next; it is not found in heaven nor in hell.”

Is this true that there is no time in heaven or in hell?

  1. There is time in heaven and in hell.

Anywhere that there are bodies which move, there is time.  In fact, time is the measure of the motion of a body.  When a body moves, there is a “before” and an “after” of time, with the movement continuing between this beginning and its ending.  By contrast, angels are not, properly speaking, in time because they do not have bodies.


In heaven

We hold that it will be possible for the blessed to move their bodies in heaven.  We hold that they will be able to smile, to sing, and to move from place-to-place.  In fact, they will have the gift of agility in their glorified bodies.  This will make their movement effortless and extremely fast.  We reject the idea that the bodies of the blessed will be frozen in perpetual immobility.  Because the blessed will move their bodies, there will a “before” and an “after” to these movements and there will be time in heaven.

Further, we hold that it will be possible, e.g., for Our Lord and the Blessed Mother to turn their heads and to smile upon the saints.  

Because of all such movements, there will certainly be time in heaven.


In limbo

The limbo of the babies is a part of hell (but is not a part of the hell of the damned).  We hold that limbo is a place of natural happiness.  We hold that the resurrection of the bodies at the end of the world will include the bodies of those in limbo.  We hold that those persons in limbo will be able to move their bodies.  

Perhaps those in limbo will stroll in beautiful surroundings.  Perhaps they will sing or talk together.  Any such activities (which are part of living in natural happiness) will involve their bodies and will require movement and, thus, time.

In the hell of the damned

It would seem that the damned in hell will not be able to do any activities which will give them relief or enjoyment.  So, in that regard, they might be fixed in immoveable pain and misery.  

However, there are some bodily activities that might occur in hell.  Perhaps the damned will torture each other, or scream at each other, or shout curses and words of hatred at each other.  

So, is there time in heaven and hell?

Thus, we hold that there is unending time in heaven, in the limbo of the babies, and in the hell of the damned.  

Where is there eternity?

In fact, one could ask whether there is any eternity in hell.  Loosely speaking, never-ending time is sometimes called eternity. Since the time in hell is literally unending, we could loosely call it “eternal” in this way.  

Further, we talk about an unpleasant experience being eternal.  For example, if the dentist was drilling my tooth for a long time, we might say, as a manner of expression, that “I sat in the dentist’s chair for an eternity.”

But strictly speaking, it seems that eternity belongs most properly only to heaven, and not to hell.  Whereas time is similar to a point moving along a line, and for which there is a “before” and an “after”, by contrast, eternity is an ever-present “now” which is like a point that does not move.  

Thus, properly speaking, God is in eternity.  He never moves in any way.  He thinks only one thought and has only one act of love without end.

The blessed in heaven are also, properly speaking, in eternity not as they smile at Our Lord (or whatever other acts they do which involve their bodies), but rather as they are immersed in the greatest happiness of heaven, which is the Beatific Vision.  

In this vision, their minds will see God in His essence, without any movement.  As the blessed see God, their minds will not go from “point to point” in the manner in which we think on this earth.  Their minds will see a single vision of God’s essence without movement or weariness, without end.

Thus, in summary, God, the angels, and the saints are in eternity, properly speaking in the Beatific Vision.  The blessed in heaven are also in unending time, along with all humans in limbo and in hell.

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

 

CC in brief

 

The Existence of Time in the Afterlife

 

Q.        While sanctifying the Sunday at home, I read in a sermon recently that stated:

 

“Time is a blessing which we enjoy only in this life; it is not enjoyed in the next; it is not found in heaven nor in hell.”

 

Is this true that there is no time in heaven or in hell?

 

 

A.        There is time in heaven and in hell.

 

Anywhere that there are bodies which move, there is time.  In fact, time is the measure of the motion of a body.  When a body moves, there is a “before” and an “after” of time, with the movement continuing between this beginning and its ending.  By contrast, angels are not, properly speaking, in time because they do not have bodies.

In heaven

 

We hold that it will be possible for the blessed to move their bodies in heaven.  We hold that they will be able to smile, to sing, and to move from place-to-place.  In fact, they will have the gift of agility in their glorified bodies.  This will make their movement effortless and extremely fast.  We reject the idea that the bodies of the blessed will be frozen in perpetual immobility.  Because the blessed will move their bodies, there will a “before” and an “after” to these movements and there will be time in heaven.

 

Further, we hold that it will be possible, e.g., for Our Lord and the Blessed Mother to turn their heads and to smile upon the saints. 

 

Because of all such movements, there will certainly be time in heaven.

 


In limbo

The limbo of the babies is a part of hell (but is not a part of the hell of the damned).  We hold that limbo is a place of natural happiness.  We hold that the resurrection of the bodies at the end of the world will include the bodies of those in limbo.  We hold that those persons in limbo will be able to move their bodies. 

 

Perhaps those in limbo will stroll in beautiful surroundings.  Perhaps they will sing or talk together.  Any such activities (which are part of living in natural happiness) will involve their bodies and will require movement and, thus, time.

 

 

In the hell of the damned

 

It would seem that the damned in hell will not be able to do any activities which will give them relief or enjoyment.  So, in that regard, they might be fixed in immoveable pain and misery. 

 

However, there are some bodily activities that might occur in hell.  Perhaps the damned will torture each other, or scream at each other, or shout curses and words of hatred at each other. 

 

 

So, is there time in heaven and hell?

 

Thus, we hold that there is unending time in heaven, in the limbo of the babies, and in the hell of the damned. 

 

 

Where is there eternity?

 

In fact, one could ask whether there is any eternity in hell.  Loosely speaking, never-ending time is sometimes called eternity. Since the time in hell is literally unending, we could loosely call it “eternal” in this way. 

 

Further, we talk about an unpleasant experience being eternal.  For example, if the dentist was drilling my tooth for a long time, we might say, as a manner of expression, that “I sat in the dentist’s chair for an eternity.”

 

But strictly speaking, it seems that eternity belongs most properly only to heaven, and not to hell.  Whereas time is similar to a point moving along a line, and for which there is a “before” and an “after”, by contrast, eternity is an ever-present “now” which is like a point that does not move. 

 

Thus, properly speaking, God is in eternity.  He never moves in any way.  He thinks only one thought and has only one act of love without end.

 

The blessed in heaven are also, properly speaking, in eternity not as they smile at Our Lord (or whatever other acts they do which involve their bodies), but rather as they are immersed in the greatest happiness of heaven, which is the Beatific Vision. 

 

In this vision, their minds will see God in His essence, without any movement.  As the blessed see God, their minds will not go from “point to point” in the manner in which we think on this earth.  Their minds will see a single vision of God’s essence without movement or weariness, without end.

 

Thus, in summary, God, the angels, and the saints are in eternity, properly speaking in the Beatific Vision.  The blessed in heaven are also in unending time, along with all humans in limbo and in hell.

The Feminist Program is the same as that of Satan and Marx – Part V

Catholic Candle note:

In February 2022, Catholic Candle began a multi-part examination of how the feminists follow the same program as Satan and Marx.  This article is entitled The Feminist Program is the same as that of Satan and Marx

Part 1 analyzes Satan’s program and begins to analyze how Marx has the same program.  Part 1 can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/02/24/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx/

Part 2 completes the analysis showing how Marx’s program is the same as Satan’s program.  Part 2 can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/03/27/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-ii/.  

As shown in those first two parts of this article, Satan’s and Marx’s eight-point program:

1.    Is anti-God (and anti-worship of God);

2.    Promotes disobedience and opposition to the authority ordained by God;

3.    Seeks to divide people;

 

4.    Promotes discontent, envy, and discord;

 

5.    Promotes hatred;

 

6.    Is result-oriented and self-interested; Satan neither acts according to immutable principles nor encourages his followers to do so;

 

7.    Is full of lies; and

 

8.    Is against Nature and is anti-Natural Law.

Part 3 begins the study of modern feminism and feminist leaders to see how they follow this same satanic and Marxist program.  Part 3 shows how feminism and feminist leaders are anti-God and anti-worship of God.  This article can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/04/20/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-iii/.

 

Part 4 covers three additional aspects of how the feminist leaders and feminist principles follow Satan’s and Marx’s program:

A.   They promote disobedience, revolt, and opposition to the authority ordained by God;

B.   They seek to divide people; and

C.   They promote discontent, envy, and discord.

Part 4 of this article can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/05/27/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-2/

 


Part 5:


(Continuing where we left off last month)

This month, we cover two aspects of the feminist program:

1.    Modern feminism promotes the program of Satan and Marx by promoting hatred; and

 

2.    Feminist leaders are result-oriented and unprincipled just like Satan and Marx.

 

1.   Modern feminism and feminist leaders promote hatred.

Since Satan is full of extreme hatred and Marx called himself “the greatest hater of the so-called positive”[1], we know that all of Satan’s and Marx’s works are imbued with their hatred, too.  This is one reason why it is immediately plain to persons with greater discernment that feminism is a work of Satan – because it is imbued with a share of Satan’s hatred. 

When Catholic journalist, Mrs. Donna Steichen, attended many so-called “women’s empowerment” conferences, the satanic hatred at those feminist gatherings struck her so strongly that she called her book-length report, Ungodly Rage.[2] 

Whereas God made women to be the hearts of their homes, by contrast, the feminism on display at these conferences showed how completely Satan has twisted those women so that Mrs. Steichen said those women showed “feminism’s anti-feminine heart”.[3]  Satan and feminism turned these women and their movement into vehicles of rage and hatred.

Most feminist leaders do not declare that they hate men.  This would tend to be bad “public relations” for the feminist movement.  However, some feminist leaders are very candid about their hatred of men.  For example, secular feminist leader, Robin Morgan, Editor of Ms. Magazine, counted hating men as a virtue.  Here are her words:

I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.[4]

Similarly secular feminist leader, Marilyn French said:

You think I hate men.  I guess I do ….   I think that men are rotten and women are great.[5]

Hatred is wanting evil for another person, especially his ultimate evil.  We see that Satan’s hatred causes him to especially want the greatest evil for people, viz., their eternal damnation. 

Among feminist leaders who don’t use the word “hate” with regard to men, you see their hatred in the evil they wish for men.  For example, secular feminist leader, Andrea Dworkin, showed her hatred for men in these words:

I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.[6]

Other feminist leaders express their hatred for men more generally, wishing evil for men as a group.  Here is how secular feminist leader, Sally Miller Gearhart, expressed her hatred for men, in her essay entitled, The Future – If There Is One – Is Female:

The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.[7]

Similarly, secular feminist leader, Kate Millett, routinely opened her “women’s empowerment” meetings by declaring that their goal is to destroy men, i.e., to destroy “the American patriarch”.[8]

Here is how feminist leader, Robin Morgan, urged women to commit patricide:

Sexism is not the fault of women – kill your fathers, not your mothers.[9]

The hatred which is inseparable from feminist principles is not reserved for men alone.  Feminist leaders also sometimes attack conservative women viciously.  For example, one feminist called conservative women “white nationalist racist gender traitors.”[10]  Like Satan’s hatred, feminist hatred can target women as well as men.

Feminist leaders also incite women to hate men by promoting the idea that men hate them.  For example, secular feminist leader, Germaine Greer, declared:

Women fail to understand how much men hate them.  …  All men hate some women some of the time and some men hate all women all of the time.[11]

Greer also told women that no man exists who is free from hating women.  Here are her words:

The man is not born who will not hate some woman on some occasion.  Odds on, it will be the woman with the greatest claim on his love.[12]

Feminist principles also try to root out the maternal love God put into women by trying to convince them that, however their sons might appear good and loving, there is male treachery in all of them which they should fear and hate.  Here is how feminist Andrea Dworkin stated it:

Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.[13]

What we are showing in this section, is that feminism and feminist leaders follow their founders, Satan and Marx, in promoting hatred.  Of course, just as there are naïve Masons who simply view Freemasonry as an aid to career advancement or as a way to be accepted in a particular social circle, without understanding the deep evil of Freemasonry, likewise, there are naïve feminists that don’t look deep enough to understand the magnitude of the evil that is integral to feminism. 

But this does not take away from the fact that feminism is fundamentally the devil’s work.  We must fight feminism!  One element of this fight is to love God with all our hearts and to honor, love, and treat women as God wants us to do – not with Satan’s false “luv” for them and an unnatural pretense of equality (as opposed to the true, natural complementariness of the sexes).

 

2.   Feminist leaders are result-oriented and unprincipled (just like Satan and Marx are) because they neither act according to immutable principles nor encourage their followers to do so.

Feminist leaders are unprincipled, like Marx and Satan.  They are committed to their (evil) goals and so, to accomplish these goals, they say and do whatever they can to achieve them.  They are devoid of firm, overarching principles that regulate the choice of which means they can and should use to achieve their goals.  Instead, feminist leaders use any means which they think will be effective.

For example, feminists follow Marx in his goal of pushing all women out of their homes and into the workforce.  Thus, feminist leaders see the “need” to prevent children from coming into existence because children would be an obstacle to a woman’s career.  This is because caring for children would make her unable to be a fully-independent worker – which is a feminist and Marxist goal.  Thus, pursuing this goal, feminists tirelessly promote methods to frustrate fecundity and the Natural and Divine Laws in order to prevent children from being such “obstacles”. 

Thus, feminists promote contraception as safe and good because it furthers this feminist-Marxist goal (viz., moving all women into the workforce), as well as some of their other evil goals, too.  Of course, contraception is always evil, and sometimes kills a baby who has already been conceived.  Further, contraception is always harmful to the mother physically, spiritually, and socially – harming her relationship with her husband as well as harming society more generally.

For the same reason, feminists also promote the cold-blooded, deliberate murder of innocent babies in abortion.  Thus, they also promote the lie that a mother murdering her baby is “health care” for the mother and that such murder is “safe”, although it is fatal for the baby, is sometimes fatal to the mother and is always harmful – physically, spiritually, and socially – harming her relationship with her husband as well as harming society more generally.

But because such evils promote feminist goals, feminists vociferously insist that an unborn baby is not a human being but only a “clump of cells”.  This feminist assertion is so obviously false that no one really believes it – not even the feminists.  To take two reasons, among many others:

1.    The baby has a different genetic code than the mother so obviously is not part of the mother’s body. 

 

2.    Further, the baby has his own head, hands, feet, and the rest of the body.  When the feminists lie by saying that this baby is simply the mother’s tissue, this absurdly means that she has two heads, four hands, and four feet. 

Although everyone, including the feminists, know the baby is a separate human being, they insist otherwise because they are unprincipled and take whatever position serves their goals.

Although the feminists want to promote the Marxist goal of getting (and keeping) all women in the workforce, nonetheless, these feminist leaders know that the strong maternal instinct which God put into women will cause many of them to have some children.  Therefore, the feminists devise strategies to get the women back in the workforce as quickly as possible after the children’s births.  For example, the feminists (and Marxists) ensure that women can foist-off the responsibilities of motherhood onto other independent workers whose job it is to feed and babysit those children, i.e., daycare. 

Although common sense and the maternal instinct make it clear that daycare is greatly inferior to a loving mother’s care of her own children, the feminists disregard this principle and say and do whatever is expedient to accomplish their goal of removing mothers from their homes.  They declare that daycare is better for children (or at least not worse) than a woman fulfilling her God-given role as a nurturing, loving mother.[14]

A further example is that the feminists profess (falsely) that they are seeking the best-interests of (and the advantages of) women.  But the feminist leaders are really promoting Marxist principles which are ruthlessly anti-woman.  That is why the feminists viciously attack conservative women whenever it is expedient because feminist leaders attack whoever and whatever stands in the way of their (Marxist) agenda.

Another example of unprincipled feminist leaders is their promotion of the idea that if women allege that they were mistreated by men, then everyone should “believe women”.  This is such a stupid position that no one really believes it.  It is merely unprincipled feminist expediency.  When conservative Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh was accused by a woman (Christine Blasey Ford), President Joe Biden declared to the media that we must “believe women”.  But when Biden himself was accused by a different woman (Tara Reade), he told the media she was lying and not to believe her.  Biden (who continually promotes Marxism and feminism) never really thought we should always “believe women” over men.  Nor, does anyone else really believe that.  This “believe women” nonsense is merely leftist politics using any method whatever to achieve Marxist and feminist goals.  Biden merely said we should always “believe women” because this was expedient while trying to derail Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. 

Michelle Malkin summed up this truth well, in these sensible words:

Let me repeat the themes of my work in this area for the past two years to counter the “Believe Women” baloney:

The role of the press should be verification, not validation.

Rape is a devastating crime.  So is lying about it.

It’s not victim-blaming to get to the bottom of the truth.  It’s liar-shaming.

Don’t believe a gender.  Believe evidence.[15]


Summary

Satan, Marx and the feminist leaders are devoted to their goals and are unprincipled enough that they are willing to employ any means – however perverse – to achieve those goals.  In this, Satan, Marx, and the modern feminists are completely different from Catholics and from anyone living the life of reason and virtue. 

A good man knows that he cannot simply use any expedient means to achieve his end.  A Catholic and anyone trying to lead a virtuous life knows that both his means and his end must be good, otherwise his action is evil.[16] 

So, we see that feminist leaders are unprincipled and follow Marx (and Satan) by taking whatever means they think will accomplish the (evil) goal they seek to achieve.



[1]           https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/56204 (emphasis added).

[2]           Ungodly Rage, The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism, Mrs. Donna Steichen, Ignatius Press, San Francisco ©1991.

 

[3]           Ungodly Rage, page 165.

 


[8]           Here is part of the chant Kate Millett used to open these meetings:

 

“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,”

https://mallorymillett.com/?p=37 (emphasis added).


[12]         Secular feminist Germaine Greer, from her book, The Whole Woman, quoted here: https://skepticink.com/backgroundprobability/2015/11/05/germaine-greer-and-the-hatred-of-men/

[13]         Andrea Dworkin quote, found here: https://quotefancy.com/andrea-dworkin-quotes

[14]         For a fuller treatment of motherhood as the God-given great work of a woman’s life, read these articles:

 

Ø  https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/02/the-role-and-work-that-god-gave-to-woman/

 

Ø  https://catholiccandle.org/2020/10/01/the-importance-and-need-for-stay-at-home-moms/

 

[15]         The Dangers of ‘Believe Women’, by Michelle Malkin, found here: https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/09/19/the-dangers-of-believe-women/

[16]         For a fuller treatment of the moral principle that the end never justifies the means, read this article: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/01/05/does-the-end-ever-justify-the-means/

 

A “Good” Life is Possible in the Catacombs

Catholic Candle note: We received this article from a reader. 

 

Regarding reasons why (self-described) traditional Catholics remain in a compromise group, see this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/why-do-traditional-catholics-stay-in-a-compromise-group.html

 

Regarding how to sanctify the Sunday when there is no uncompromising Mass available to attend, read this article: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/sanctifying-sunday-no-mass.html

 

 

 

When it is God’s Will for us, we can do without the Mass and the Sacraments But With Our Lord in a Special Way

 

We’re not alone in the catacombs.  Our Lord compensates in a special way when we stand up against compromising priests and church leaders.  How does He compensate in that special way?  Well, I’ll tell you with first-hand experience.  To summarize in a few words: I’ve been happy and confident I’m following His will.

Without the Mass we might think we would be lost, but no, not so.  It is true that at Mass, the priest does act “in the person of Christ” (as the theologians say), and Christ then acts as our Mediator with God.   But many of us somewhat took advantage of that (while we still had Mass), and we let the priest “do all the work”.   Now, without the Mass and the priest, our relationship with Our Lord has to be one-on-One. 

God sent us the current circumstances in which we need to speak directly to God without a priest who stands in place of Christ for us.  As God sent us these circumstances and Wills that we be in them for His glory and our salvation, this circumstance can make us feel so much closer to Him.  He can feel like a part of us now as never before.

Without that weekly Confession available, we can have a much greater understanding of just how evil sin is, and how it hurts Our Lord – because we can’t confess every week and “start over, no problem”.  We can now realize it is far better not to sin even in the smallest way (i.e., venial sin), and we can do this with God’s help, because we’re now much closer to Our Lord one-on-One.

Without weekly reception of Our Lord in Holy Communion, it would seem to be a real loss, but we can make up in a special way with frequent, very slow and devout Spiritual Communions at least four times per day.  Doing this, it is twenty-eight Spiritual Communions per week vs. one “Sunday Catholic” Sacramental Communion.  The many Spiritual Communions can bring us closer to Our Lord when said with devotion and love.

Also, with the Mass on Sunday, compensation comes from reading each word from our missals with greater devotion and understanding, rather than attending a Mass expecting the priest to do most of the understanding and devotion.

The above four things we can willingly do without, for the Love of God.  Of course, the Mass and the Sacraments are an infinite treasure, which we should ardently long to receive when God sends them to us.  However, it is incomparably better to be in the catacombs with Him, but without the Mass and Sacraments, than to sin by attending compromise Masses and receiving compromise Sacraments!

We know also, sadly, that there are other things – like the beautiful liturgical music at Mass and parish devotions.  Plus, social parish gatherings, etc.  However, Our Lord will more than compensate for loss of these, with many spiritual graces.  He is never outdone in generosity!

To be sure, there are, unfortunately, only a few like-minded traditional Catholics in the catacombs, but their friendship is strong and loving.  The good Lord has always provided – and will continue to provide – what is needed for those who stand up for Him.  Bet on it!

 

Lesson #11 The Principle and Foundation – Part II

                    Mary’s School of Sanctity                   

St. Ignatius says,

Man is created to praise, reverence, and serve God Our Lord, and by this means to save his soul.  All other things on the face of the earth are created for man to help him fulfill the end for which he is created.  From this it follows that man is to use these things to the extent that they will help him to attain his end.  Likewise, he must rid himself of them in so far as they prevent him from attaining it.

Therefore, we must make ourselves indifferent to all created things, in so far as it is left to the choice of our free will and is not forbidden.  Acting accordingly, for our part, we should not prefer health to sickness, riches to poverty, honor to dishonor, a long life to a short one, and so in all things we should desire and choose only those things which will best help attain the end for which we are created.

In our last lesson we considered the end of man, which is to give glory to God Our Creator.  (This end is set forth in the first paragraph above.)  We discussed how one can meditate on this first paragraph examining what service we owe to God Who is so great and good to us.  

Now we will consider the rest of the first paragraph concerning our proper use of creatures, and the second paragraph which pertains to the holy detachment that God wants us to have concerning creatures.  Basically, Lesson #10 is the first part of the meditation on the Principle and Foundation, and this current Lesson #11 is the second part of the same meditation on the Principle and Foundation

This meditation is so rich in materials for consideration that this second part can be addressed in two subparts.  As we mentioned before, in Lesson #10, this meditation on the Principle and Foundation is so extremely important for our salvation that we can meditate upon it very often.  This is because St. Ignatius’s principle here must set the tone for our entire outlook on life. 

But how does one meditate on these two Ignatian paragraphs quoted above?  By carefully analyzing St. Ignatius’s two paragraphs to find out what he means.  By analyzing what he says and applying what he says to our own conduct, we can learn about ourselves and what our priorities have been in our life so far.  We can also learn to amend our priorities as needed in order to serve God in a way that is most pleasing to Him.  St. Ignatius has us begin by studying creatures, the use of which, are a means to our eternal salvation (and the misuse of which, to our everlasting damnation).

There are many aspects that we can discuss concerning man’s usage of creatures. We know from the Book of Genesis that creatures were created for the needs and use of man.  Man was given dominion over all the material creatures. We must not forget that besides these creatures, there are immaterial creatures, e.g., time and the angels.  Even though man does not have dominion over time or the angels, he can still make use of them.  St. Ignatius says above, “All other things on the face of the earth are created for man to help him fulfill the end for which he is created.”


Creatures help man attain his last end.

Creatures help man in the following ways:

  by instruction,

  by example,

  by use,

  by sacrifice, and

  by being a source of crosses.

They help man by instruction because creatures show us God’s omnipotence when we consider them.  Creatures show how great God is by their vastness and variety, their beauty, and their order.  We can clearly see God’s greatness and majesty.  We can likewise see how we owe God praise for His wondrous works of nature.

They help by example because they faithfully serve God by doing what He intended for them to do.  We see that we need to do the same.   

They help by use because we obviously need to use them to sustain our life and our duties, e.g., for health, nourishment, and strength.

They help by sacrifice because man can use them in the practice of religion and as objects of self-denial when man offers up using them as a means of detachment and penance.

They help by being the source of crosses, e.g., sicknesses, accidents, etc. [1]


We can examine how we have used creatures.

Unfortunately, we do not use creatures as we should.  This is precisely because we do not keep St. Ignatius’s rule in mind that if the creature is not good for our eternal end, we should reject it.  Is this because we simply do not take our last end seriously enough?   St. Ignatius would say, “Yes!”  We tend to yield to our passions which seek sensual comforts.  Here are some questions to keep in mind when assessing how well we have used creatures:

  What view do I take of creatures? 

  Do I perhaps look upon them as my property, of which, as a master, I can dispose at pleasure and not as a benefice or alms from God?

  Do I regard them as an end, and not merely as a means to reach my end?

 

  Do I consider them as “talents” of the use of which I must give an exact account to my Lord and Creator?

 

  What rule or direction do I follow in the use of creatures? 

 

  Do I use them simply at my pleasure?

 

  Do I allow myself to be led by sensuality? 

 

  Do I adhere to St. Ignatius’ words “he must rid himself of them in so far as”?  That is, do I reflect whether they are useful or hurtful to my calling, to my destiny [or duty of state]?

 

  Do I ask myself what good I derive from all the disagreeable happenings that befall me, since God permitted them especially for my benefit or straightway sent them Himself?[2]

In the light of this meditation, we come to realize that we are guilty of manifold abuses of creatures.  Let us repent of it; and in the future let us plan and strive to use the world round about us to our true spiritual advantage.  “To them that love God, all things work together unto good!” [Romans 8:28][3]

What St. Ignatius means by Holy Indifference.

Now let us delve into what St. Ignatius teaches us in his second paragraph (quoted above).  He wants us to grasp the concept of holy indifference to creatures.  We must use our reason, led by our Faith, so that all we do and all of the choices we make are pleasing to God, and will lead to our salvation.  

God put creatures in our lives as means to be used in His service, to be conducive to our salvation and not to be a hindrance.  We must consider each creature we come in contact with and use it appropriately.  In order to do this efficaciously, we must be detached from creatures. “For if we are inclined to one thing or to another beforehand, and are too much attached to it, then this too-great attachment will hinder us from readily giving ourselves up to do what reason, Faith, and God command.”[4] 

For if our calling is to serve God, and creatures are but means to this end, reason demands that in the choice and use of them we should not be determined by their beauty and attractiveness, but solely by their usefulness as means to an end.

Hence, we should not be predisposed in favor of any creature, because this predisposition has an influence upon our choice and misleads us to make imprudent selections.  We must cut loose from creatures and be free from bias, so that only their adaptability or the will of God may be the guide in our selection of them.[5]

We do not accept the sufferings and difficulties that God permits in our lives or we generally do not accept them with perfect unselfishness.  The reason for this is that we lack indifference.  We must want to do God’s Will.  When something happens to us which is beyond our control, then we know it is the Will of God for us.  God wants us to accept events in a truly sacrificial manner and without complaint.  Furthermore, He expects us to use our reason in dealing with circumstances.

A religious complained to St. Francis de Sales about the many crosses she had to carry. “Do you know how the cross is made?” asked the saint.  “Take two little pieces of wood, lay one parallel upon the other – no cross.  But lay one piece across the other and the cross is made.  So in like manner when our will conforms to the Will of God – when it is opposed to the Will of God, when we murmur and complain – the cross is ready.  If we wish to escape the cross, then we must conform our will to the Will of God.[6]

We practice this indifference by accepting circumstances which are out of our control and by keeping ourselves detached from creatures, not complaining if they are taken from us.  In this way we acknowledge that our lives and everything in them are in the Hands of God and we simply trust in His Providence.  We remind ourselves that, “For to them that love God all things work together unto good.”


The advantages of indifference

Some basic advantages for practicing holy indifference are:

·         true peace;

·         joy; and

·         the practice of virtue becomes easy.

The mind so disposed with indifference has true peace and permanent rest of the heart.  For, come what may, it recognizes in all things the Will of God, and by doing that will it attains to its destiny.

It has not only peace but joy, for we know that “all things work unto good for those that love God,” so that from all things we can derive advantages.

This disposition of mind makes easy our efforts to acquire virtue and perfection.  When our attachment to creatures is excessive, it becomes more difficult to make the sacrifice which God’s service calls for.[7]


We can examine our level of indifference

  About what do I principally complain and murmur?  There, indifference is wanting; when we murmur about something, we can say to ourselves: “I caught myself in the act of being too attached to a creature”.

  Is my will prepared for all that God is likely to ask of me, or to choose for me?  (However, don’t waste time daydreaming about every possible situation God might send to us.)

  Is my heart too passionately attached to something, to a creature, to an occupation, to an office or position, so that the separation would be at the cost of a hard struggle?  I will begin even now to disengage my heart, that the possible sacrifice be not too bitter for me.[8]

Now that we have examined St. Ignatius’s concept of holy indifference and how we certainly need to improve in using it for our sanctification, we must not think we are finished with the work of self-reflection.

Some additional questions we can use to examine our use of creatures

Here are some additional points of self-reflection:

  How am I using creatures?

  What is my attitude toward creatures – from the lowest – air, food, clothing, shelter; to the highest angels, saints and the Queen of Angels and saints?

  Am I using all of these creatures well and in the manner in which God intends?

  Do I view the lowest creatures for what they really are, or do I use them as if they are something higher than what they are?

  How do I use Mary?  She is a special creature and gift of God created to help me.  Do I consult with her? Do I ever talk with her throughout the day and ask her help to reason better?

All of these points and the self-examining questions posited here are the heart of the meditation on the Principle and Foundation.  In fact, this meditation is a reflection upon what we owe to God in justice and how we ought to serve Him.  A crucial part of the service we owe to God is how we are employed in using the creatures that He put at our disposal.  Thus, this meditation involves a self-examination in how well we are doing what we ought to do.

When we do this long two-part meditation, it is best to focus on the point or aspect that strikes us the most and sparks a real flame in our soul.  This spark of desire is meant to help us tell God that we love Him and to tell Him that we need His all-powerful assistance. 

The fruit of this meditation is the heart-to-heart talk that we have with God.  We may find ourselves making all four kinds of prayer, adoration, thanksgiving, reparation, and petition.  

We close our meditation time with some prayers of thanksgiving to God for assisting us in our meditation and with making firm resolutions to use creatures better in the future and/or in practicing holy indifference.

Of course, we should not forget to write down any insights given to us and to examine how much effort we put into our meditation.

In our next lesson we will discuss St. Ignatius’s 1st exercise on sin.



[1]           Considerations taken from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, ©1918, third edition 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, pages 9-15.

 

[2]           Considerations taken from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, ©1918, third edition 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, pages 16-17.

 

[3]           Considerations taken from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, ©1918, third edition 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, page 17.

 

[4]           Considerations taken from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck ©1918, third edition 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, page 21.

 

[5]           Considerations taken from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck ©1918, third edition 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, page 22.

 

[6]           Considerations taken from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck ©1918, third edition 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, page 23.

 

[7]           Considerations taken from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck ©1918, third edition 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, page 24.

 

[8]           Considerations taken from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, ©1918, third edition 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, page 25.

 

The Feminist Program is the same as that of Satan and Marx – Part IV

Catholic Candle note:

In February 2022, Catholic Candle began a multi-part examination of how the feminists follow the same program as Satan and Marx.  This article is entitled The Feminist Program is the same as that of Satan and Marx.  

Part 1 analyzes Satan’s program and begins to analyze how Marx has the same program.  Part 1 can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/02/24/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx/.  

Part 2 completes the analysis showing how Marx’s program is the same as Satan’s program.  Part 2 can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/03/27/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-ii/.  

As shown in those first two parts of this article, Satan’s and Marx’s eight-point program:

  1. Is anti-God (and anti-worship of God);
  2. Promotes disobedience and opposition to the authority ordained by God;
  3. Seeks to divide people;

  1. Promotes discontent, envy, and discord;

  1. Promotes hatred;

  1. Is result-oriented and self-interested; Satan neither acts according to immutable principles nor encourages his followers to do so;

  1. Is full of lies; and

  1. Is against Nature and is anti-Natural Law.

Last month, Catholic Candle published Part 3 of this series.  Part 3 begins the study of modern feminism and feminist leaders to see how they follow this same satanic and Marxist program.  Part 3 shows how feminism and feminist leaders are anti-God and anti-worship of God.  This article can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/04/20/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-iii/.


Part 4


(Continuing where we left off last month)

This month, we cover three of the aspects of how the feminist leaders and feminist principles follow Satan’s and Marx’s program:

  1. They promote disobedience, revolt, and opposition to the authority ordained by God;
  2. They seek to divide people; and
  3. They promote discontent, envy, and discord.

Below we examine each of these parts of the satanic, Marxist, feminist program.

  1. The feminist leaders and feminist principles are revolutionary and are against the authority ordained by God.

Modern feminist leaders are the “spiritual daughters” of Karl Marx (as well as Satan).  Here is how one secular feminist leader described the feminist program at the 1852 Woman’s Rights Convention:

My friends, do we realize for what purpose we are convened?  Do we fully understand that we aim at nothing less than an entire subversion of the present order of society, a dissolution of the whole existing social compact?[1]

This feminist leader echoes Marx when he declares that communism aims at “overthrow of all existing social conditions”.[2] 

This feminist aim of “subversion” (i.e., “dissolution”) of present society is shown by feminists when they describe their movement as “the feminist revolution.”[3]

It would be false and naïve to think that by promoting feminism, the Marxists (or Satan) really care about women, any more than they really care about other groups who are pawns in their game.  Instead, the Marxists are focused on achieving their evil goals.  They are not looking to give women “choices”, if those choices include seeking that which is traditional or according to the Natural Law.  

Here, for example, are the candid words of one secular feminist writer, Simone de Beauvoir, in an interview with another secular feminist leader, Betty Friedan, in which Beauvoir declared that their aim is a totalitarian system which inflicts compulsion on women (as well as men):

No, we do not believe that any woman should have this choice.  No woman should be authorized to stay home to raise her children.  Society should be totally different.  Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.[4]

Instead of “advocating” for women and giving them “choices”, feminists are rebelling against patriarchy, i.e., against authority.  Here is how one feminist leader, Mary Daly, framed feminism’s total opposition to, and rebellion against, patriarchy:  

Almost everything has been stolen from us by the patriarchy.  Our creativity has been stolen, our creative energies, our religion [viz., the goddess religion]. I want it back.[5]

Feminist leader, Kate Millett, and other feminist leaders would sometimes open their “women’s empowerment” meetings by focusing those in attendance on the principle that the enemy was “patriarchy” and their goal was revolution.  Here is one eyewitness account of the ritual exchange at the opening of one of these meetings:

“Why are we here today?” she [i.e., Kate Millett] asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” …
[6]

This war on patriarchy includes rebelling against God Himself, since He is a Father and the model of all fathers.  He is also the Power Itself and the Authority Itself behind all authority and all fatherhood.

Further, feminism’s war against patriarchy includes warring against the Catholic Church and Sacred Scripture, since they uphold the Natural Law principle that the husband is the head of the family and his wife must obey him.  Here is one of the ways that St. Paul states this truth:

Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church.  He is the Savior of His Body.  Therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be, to their husbands in all things.

Ephesians, 5:22-24.


Conclusion of this Part

It is clear that feminism and feminist leaders seek revolution and rebel against God’s authority and against the authority of God’s representatives on earth, especially fathers (i.e., patriarchs).  

Thus, we see that the feminist leaders and feminist principles follow the second point of Satan’s and Marx’s program: viz., promoting disobedience and opposition to the authority ordained by God.
        

  1. The feminist leaders and feminist principles seek to divide people.

Feminist leaders and their principles seek to divide people.  They set one group against another.  This is a classic Marxist (as well as a satanic) tactic, as we saw earlier in this multipart article.

One way feminists seek to divide groups of people is by name-calling.  They call men “sexists”, “male chauvinists”[7], and “misogynists”[8].  They describe the traditional family as “domestic slavery” for the wife and mother, in which she (supposedly) suffers “social oppression” and “economic oppression”.[9] 

One secular feminist leader, Simone De Beauvoir, showed that such characterizations are merely a tactical attempt to win sympathy for the feminist movement from the gullible and naïve.  Although De Beauvoir does indeed call the family “domestic slavery”, she candidly expressed her concern that so many women want to live the life of a wife and mother in a traditional family.  (This is not surprising, since this is the natural role God created them to have.)  Here are De Beauvoir’s words:

No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children.  Society should be totally different.  Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.[10]

Although the feminist movement can sway many fuzzy-thinking people, nature is a strong force and the feminists must constantly remind women that they are “victims”, in order to try to prevent them from choosing this traditional, God-given vocation.  Thus, these feminists must work hard to remind women they are “oppressed” by men, i.e., by patriarchy.  Here is how secular feminist, Kate Millett put it:

A sexual revolution begins with the emancipation of women, who are the chief victims of patriarchy ….[11]

As we saw earlier in this multipart article, Marx and Satan have always promoted their goals in terms of “liberating” and “freedom”.  As we see, the feminist movement is no exception.

Phyllis Schlafly, the astute anti-feminist founder of Eagle Forum, remarked that:

The feminist movement taught women to see themselves as victims of an oppressive patriarchy.  …  Self-imposed victimhood is not a recipe for happiness.[12]

Indeed, as Mrs. Schlafly observes, Marxist “victimhood” never brings happiness.  But notice that neither Satan, nor Marx, nor the modern feminists state that happiness is one of their goals.  Instead, their goals are power and “liberation” (which, in one way or another, means rebelling against the authority established by God) so that they can be “powerful” and can “be as gods”.  Genesis, 3:5.

Patriarchy, properly understood, means men meeting their vocational responsibilities selflessly, as Christ gave Himself for His Body, the Church.[13]  This is beautiful and sublime.  Plainly, this is nothing Satan, Marx, or the modern feminist leaders would ever want.  

In feminism, this war against authority is framed as a war of women against the other group, viz., men.  It is framed as women fighting for “liberation” against patriarchy, i.e., against men meeting their vocational responsibilities to lead their families and/or to lead various aspects of religious and civil society for the good of the group they lead.  So modern feminists declare their fight is to destroy patriarchs[14] and patriarchy.[15] 

  1. Like Satan and Marx, feminism promotes discontent, envy, and discord.

Feminists spurn femininity as well as all of the particular qualities and characteristics of a woman.  Although feminists oppose real men, feminists imitate the masculine aspects of creation.  They seek complete egalitarianism[16] between men and women based on the natural characteristics of men.  In this way, they take masculinity as their aspiration and model.

One illustration of this is located on LinkedIn.com (the business “social” media website).  While browsing through this website, one can observe the adjectives used to describe women who are managers and executives.  A great many of these descriptions assert that the woman is “strong” or “powerful”.  Why is this?  It is in order to claim that those women have just as much of this masculine trait as the men do.  Do the men’s profiles say this too?  No.  Few or none of them do.  The men’s profiles don’t need to say “I am like a man”.  But these members of the “weaker sex” want the world to believe that they are as strong as the “stronger sex”.

In 1917, Pope Benedict XV deplored the evil practice in modern society that women:

take up occupations ill-befitting their sex, took to imitating men; others abandoned the duties of the house-wife, for which they were fashioned, to cast themselves recklessly into the current of life.[17]

One of the ways that feminism inherently promotes discontentment and envy is by causing women to desire that which for them is impossible, i.e., to be just like a male.  However hard they try, theirs will be a poor, failed-attempt to be male.  Theirs is the same unhappy path of discontentment trodden by a man who is “transgender” and is trying to convince himself that he is female – a change which is impossible and delusional.

In a section of this article above, we saw how modern feminists divide women from men by constantly emphasizing that men are opposed to them.  This feminist “gospel” of division also effectively makes women discontented because they continually hear that they are “oppressed”, “enslaved”, and that they are victims of men.[18]  Feminists tell women that they need emancipation from patriarchy[19] and even that patriarchy is a form of terrorism waged against them![20]

The women’s discontent and envy are an important goal for Satan, Marx, and the feminist leaders.  For if women are content and happy, they will not be “apostles” of rage, protesting, fighting for feminism and other satanic causes.  Instead, they will be suitable for God to mold into the members of the Catholic Church and into His friends and citizens of heaven.  But this is exactly the opposite of what Satan wishes.

Next month, we will examine how the feminist leaders and feminist principles follow the fifth point of Satan’s and Marx’s program by promoting hatred.

To be continued next month …


[1]          From Manfred Hauke, God or Goddess? Feminist Theology: What Is It? Where Does It Lead? (Ignatius Press, 1995), p.79, quoting convention speaker, Elizabeth Oakes Smith.

[2]          The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, published in 1848 (emphasis added).

[3]          One of countless examples of feminist leaders referring to their “revolution”, is when Mary Daly declared: “Courage to be is the key to revelatory power of the feminist revolution.”  https://www.quotes.pub/q/courage-to-be-is-the-key-to-revelatory-power-of-the-feminist-205124 (italic emphasis added).

[4]          Manfred Hauke, God or Goddess? Feminist Theology: What Is It? Where Does It Lead? (Ignatius Press, 1995), p.57 (emphasis added).

[5]          Words of Mary Daly, found here: https://quotesguru.org/mary-daly-quotes/  (bracketed comment added to show context).

[6]         https://mallorymillett.com/?p=37 (bracketed words added to show context).

[7]          “Chauvinism” is the unreasonable belief in the superiority or dominance of one's own group or people, who are seen as strong and virtuous, while others are considered weak, unworthy, or inferior.

[8]          A misogynist is “one who hates or mistrusts women.

[9]          See, e.g., The Second Sex, by secular feminist leader, Simone De Beauvoir, Vintage Books, New York, pages 88-89 (bracketed word and a semicolon added for improved clarity).  Here is the longer quote:

This is the advent of the patriarchal family founded on private property.  In such a family woman is oppressed.  Man reigning sovereign permits himself, among other things, his sexual whims: he sleeps with slaves or courtesans, he is polygamous.  As soon as customs make reciprocity possible, woman takes revenge through infidelity: adultery becomes a natural part of marriage.  This is the only defense woman has against the domestic slavery; [that] she is bound to her social oppression is the consequence of her economic oppression.

[10]          Simone de Beauvoir, interviewed by secular feminist, Betty Freidan, published in the Saturday Review, June 14, 1974, p. 18 (emphasis added).

[11]         Words of Kate Millett, found here: Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/patriarchy-quotes

[12]          Quote from Eagle Forum Founder, Phyllis Schlafly, found here: https://www.quotemaster.org/q76bfbcd7f12c5e2bf6d9a15f7f8c1494

[13]          “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered Himself up for it”.  Ephesians, 5:25.

[14]
         As shown earlier in this multipart article, secular feminist leader, Kate Millett, sought to destroy the family by destroying the patriarch,
i.e., the man protecting his family.  Here is part of the chant she used to open their “women’s empowerment” meetings:

“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By
destroying the American Patriarch,”

https://mallorymillett.com/?p=37 (emphasis added).

[15]         Here is one way religious feminist, Mary Daly, framed women’s fight against men and their patriarchy:

I urge you to sin.  But not against these itty-bitty religions, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism – or their secular derivatives, Marxism, Maoism, Freudianism and Jungianism – which are all derivatives of the big religion of patriarchy.  Sin against the infrastructure itself!

Quote from former nun and apostate Catholic, Mary Daly, found here: https://www.quotemaster.org/q553ec7a243f69bb2f969cbd6bd5e3d1b

In Mary Daly’s call to sin, can anyone fail to notice the stench of Satan?

[16]          Egalitarianism is defined as “a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs.”

[17]         Pope Benedict XV, Encyclical Natalis trecentesimi, (Woman in the Modern World), December, 27 1917 (bracketed word added to show the context).

 

[18]          Here is one way that secular feminist leader Simone De Beauvoir emphasized the downtrodden state of women:

This is the advent of the patriarchal family founded on private property.  In such a family woman is oppressed.  Man reigning sovereign permits himself, among other things, his sexual whims: he sleeps with slaves or courtesans, he is polygamous.  As soon as customs make reciprocity possible, woman takes revenge through infidelity: adultery becomes a natural part of marriage.  This is the only defense woman has against the domestic slavery; [that] she is bound to her social oppression is the consequence of her economic oppression.

The Second Sex, Simone De Beauvoir, Vintage Books, New York, pages 88-89.

[19]         Here is how secular feminist leader, Kate Millett put it:

A sexual revolution begins with the emancipation of women, who are the chief victims of patriarchy ….

Words of Kate Millett, found here: Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/patriarchy-quotes

[20]          Here is how the secular feminist bell hooks (who is a woman who employed the gimmick of spelling her name without initial capital letters) strung together a laughable series of adjectives to characterize men, including that they are terrorists:

Often in my lectures when I use the phrase “an imperialist, white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy” to describe our nation’s political system, audiences laugh.  No one has ever explained why accurately naming this system is funny.  The laughter is itself a weapon of patriarchal terrorism.

Quote from bell hooks, found here: https://www.quotemaster.org/qd1b9809d204b3a0926962163ecf22929 (emphasis added).

What Special Help from God Most Don’t Take Advantage Of?

It is our Guardian Angel.  A special Angel is assigned to us by God to help us in all ways – from our birth to our death.  This is such a significant help for our salvation that it would seem to be a sin of negligence to ignore his help (as well as a sin of ingratitude to God).

It also demonstrates how a loving God and Creator looks after us in every way possible.  This is important because one of the wounds of Original Sin is that man is inclined toward evil.  It is said that Lucifer assigns a devil to every person at birth.  Regardless of whether or not Lucifer does this, one thing is clear: man in his weakened condition is in dire need of the divine assistance that God, in His fatherly care for us, provides.

By God’s providence Angels have been entrusted with the office of guarding the human race and of accompanying every human being so as to preserve him from any serious dangers.  Just as parents whose children are about to travel a dangerous and infested road, appoint guardians and helpers for them, so also in the journey we are making towards our heavenly country, our heavenly Father has placed over each of us an Angel under whose protection and vigilance we may be enabled to escape the snares secretly prepared by our enemy, repel the dreadful attacks he makes on us, and under his guiding hand keep the right road, and thus be secure against all false steps which the wiles of the evil one might cause us to make in order to draw us aside from the path that leads to heaven.[1]

We read many examples in the Bible in which Angels wrought wondrous miracles right before our eyes.  This leads us to consider what other wonders they perform of which we are unaware.

Whoever we are, wherever we are, each of us has always a Guardian Angel at our side.  He sees everything we do: both good and evil.  We should always be very careful not to offend or hurt him.  We should pray to him often, especially in temptation or danger.[2]

 In what way do our Guardian Angels help us?

Our Guardian Angels help us by praying for us, by protecting us from harm, and by inspiring us to do good.  Our Guardian Angels are given special care of us, watching over each from birth to death.  We should always love and pray to our Guardian Angel who never leaves our side.  The Church celebrates the Feast of the Guardian Angels on October 2nd.

Our Guardian Angels suggest good and holy thoughts, and help to incline our wills to what is good.  They protect us in dangers of soul and body.  They offer our prayers and good works to God.  They pray for us.  They help us in our work and needs.  “He hath given His Angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways” (Ps. 90:11).  For instance, Angels kept Daniel safe in the lions’ den, and the three young men in the fiery furnace.  We often hear of little children meeting with accidents and escaping unhurt.  But the chief work of our Guardian Angels is to keep us safe from the devil.[3]  

Our Guardian Angel wants to fulfill his assignment as often and as much as possible.  He loves God and wants to do as God commands.  So, take advantage of God’s gift in every aspect of your life on the “road” to eternal salvation.  Don’t believe that your Guardian Angel would not want to help in this or that situation because it is so insignificant and small.  No, he wants to help in all situations, large or small.  So, start the day by reciting this prayer:

Angel of God, my guardian dear, to whom God’s love commits me here.  Ever this day, be at my side, to light, to guard, to rule and guide.  Amen

Let him help you avoid distraction in your prayers, become humble, persevere in prayer, and increase your love for God.  Let him help you in anything you need, to make you a better person, always living according to God’s will.

Lastly, it’s all very good to depend on your Guardian Angel, but the good Lord expects you to do your part in everyday safety in driving, walking, riding, etc. 

Below are two small devotions we recommend you use daily.


TO THE HOLY ANGELS                                       

Bless the Lord, all you His Angels.
You who are mighty in strength and do His will,
Intercede for me at the throne of God.
By your unceasing watchfulness
protect me in every danger of soul and body.
Obtain for me the grace of final perseverance,
so that after this life I may be admitted
to your glorious company and with you may sing
the praises of God for all eternity.[4]


ANGELS AT OUR SIDE

Hand in hand with Angels
Through the world we go.
Brighter eyes are on us
Than we blind ones know.
Sweeter voices cheer us
Than we deaf will own.
Never, walking heav’nward
Do we walk alone.
Hand in hand with Angels
In the busy street,
Home, or school, or office
Everywhere we meet.
Wondrous shining spirits
Straight from paradise,
Ever bending on us
Watchful, loving eyes.
Shielding us in danger,
Keeping us from sin,
Helping us each moment
Heaven’s crown to win.[5]

Angel Raphael and Tobias



[1]           Catechism of the Council of Trent, Section: The Lord’s Prayer, subsection: Our Father Who Art In Heaven.

[2]           My Catholic Faith, Bishop Louis Morrow, My Mission House, Kenosha, WI, ©1949, page 30.

 

[3]           My Catholic Faith, Bishop Louis Morrow, My Mission House, Kenosha, WI, ©1949, page 31.

[4]           Author Unknown.

[5]           Author Unknown.

Words to Live by – from Catholic Tradition

 

If you say that you cannot suffer much, how will you endure the fire of purgatory?  Of two evils, the lesser is always to be chosen.  Therefore, in order that you may escape the everlasting punishments to come, try to bear present evils patiently for the sake of God.

 

Imitation of Christ, Thomas à Kempis, Book 3, Chapter 12.

Lesson #10 The Principle and Foundation – Part I

                    Mary’s School of Sanctity                   

Having covered the Rules for the Discernment of Spirits, it is now time to examine and study the foundation which St. Ignatius gives as the preparation to do his actual Spiritual Exercises.

Before beginning to give the actual exercises, St. Ignatius gives an introductory meditation in which he expounds to the exercitant the true purpose of life.  Because St. Ignatius knew that in order for the purpose of life to be deeply rooted into the soul, a person must generously ponder the very reason why man was created.  This pondering naturally includes understanding more about the Creator.  Hence, St. Ignatius intends that this particular meditation has such an impact on the soul that it is never forgotten.  Consequently, this meditation on the purpose of man’s existence is meant to give the exercitant a firm foundation that he can use for the remainder of his life.  Indeed, this meditation sets the tone for all of his actions.

St. Ignatius calls this meditation the Principle and Foundation.  Every retreat or setting out to do all of the Spiritual Exercises begins with this meditation.  It is such a fundamental and rich meditation that this one lends itself to be done frequently even outside of a retreat per se.  It could be done as a meditation even as often as once per week as a means to keep one working out his salvation with the intense, necessary seriousness we need in this work.

In other words, this meditation on the Principle and Foundation is a powerful way to humble the soul and firmly cement the virtue of humility in the soul.  This is mainly true because this meditation helps a person grasp exactly where he fits in God’s plan of creation.  He sees how crucial it is to fulfill God’s plan for man’s existence and how our entire eternity is determined by how well we love and obey   God’s plan for us.

As the reader may recall, Lesson #2 in Mary’s School of Sanctity[1] explains how to do a meditation.  So here we give the “meat”, as it were, of the meditation which one can use for this introduction meditation of St. Ignatius of Loyola.

First, we give the text of St. Ignatius and then expound on the various points one can use for his considerations in his actual meditation.  St. Ignatius says:

Man is created to praise, reverence, and serve God Our Lord, and by this means to save his soul.  All other things on the face of the earth are created for man to help him fulfill the end for which he is created.  From this it follows that man is to use these things to the extent that they will help him to attain his end.  Likewise, he must rid himself of them insofar as they prevent him from attaining it.

Therefore, we must make ourselves indifferent to all created things, insofar as it is left to the choice of our free will and is not forbidden.  Acting accordingly, for our part, we should not prefer health to sickness, riches to poverty, honor to dishonor, a long life to a short one, and so in all things we should desire and choose only those things which will best help us attain the end for which we are created.

There are actually two parts here which one must consider.  The first part regards man’s service to God, and the second part is man’s proper use of creatures when serving God.  Therefore, we will divide this beginning meditation into two parts, only considering the first part now.  In our next lesson, we will take the second part.

Man’s Service of God – the reason God created man

God made us to praise, revere, and to serve Him.  We often think of our catechism answer to the question of why God made us, “God made me to know, love, and serve Him in this life so I can be happy with Him in the next.”  Although this is true, it often, unfortunately, makes us focus too much on ourselves.  St. Ignatius would have us direct our main focus on the service of God.  Ad majorem Dei gloriam was St. Ignatius’s motto, which means “all for the greater glory of God.”

St. Ignatius tells us that it is God Who must come first in our lives.  We owe Him praise, homage, and our service.  We must give Him all our praise.  We owe and ought to give Him all of our homage.  We owe Him our complete service.

In this meditation St. Ignatius wants us to think deeply of all the aspects of what it means to say that “Man is created”.  There are many consequences of God creating man.   Let us try to penetrate the most obvious ones.

1) “Whence am I?  I am from God.”[2]

God made man out of nothing.  God made man in His Image and likeness.[3] This means that God made man rational. Man can think and reason things out.  Indeed, man has the obligation to use his reason.  This use of reason is what makes a man’s action moral.[4]

I owe to the Almighty all that I am and possess: my body and soul, my intellect and will, my five senses, my talents and my powers, my health and my life…What gratitude do I not owe to Him?  “What shall I return to the Lord for all the things that He hath rendered to me?” Ps. 115:12[5]

Indeed, we should ponder each and every benefit that God has given to us as creatures and be very grateful.  Hence, “I can attribute nothing to myself, to my own merits; not the least thing did I give to myself.  I must, therefore, be humble and not presumptuous.”[6]

Likewise, I must think about the fact that:

I am the property of God, [and] that I belong entirely to Him.  He that makes a thing has also a claim to it.  As I am the property of God, I must keep myself holy!  I must not desecrate the property of God.  I must keep myself holy, my will, my heart, my imagination, my eyes, my ears, my tongue.  Hence the warning of St. Paul: “Or know you not that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost, Who is in you, Whom you have from God, and you are not your own?   Glorify and bear God in your body.” [I Cor. 6:19-20][7]

Another point to ponder about being owned by God is the fact that God can do what He wills with His own property, namely, me.  He has given me everything to be used for His service and He can take everything away if He wishes.  “He can exalt me and lower me.  I must be entirely submissive to His holy will, and be disposed as Job was.”[8]

Knowing that we are the work of God’s Hands we must marvel at the honor that He bestows on us as being His highest material creatures. 

What an honor, what a joy to be able to glory in having such an originator, such a Creator!  With what confidence in God’s help and assistance ought I not to be filled!  The Almighty will not forsake the work of His Hands: “For thou lovest all things that are, and hatest none of the things which thou hast made: for thou didst not appoint or make anything, hating it …  But thou sparest all, because they are all thine, O Lord, Who lovest souls.” [Wisdom 11:25, 27].[9]

2) “Why am I here? I am for God.”[10]

“For what end did God create me?”[11]  “We were not created for this world; He created everything else in this world for us, [12] but us He created for Himself, to praise Him, to honor Him, and to serve Him.”[13]  Then it is clear that God determined what we must do and what our role in His Creation exactly is, namely:

1.    “To honor God in His infinite majesty, in His house, in His Church, in the representatives whom He has placed over us.

 

2.    “To praise God, not only with our tongue, but with our heart also; that His sharp rebuke may not strike us: ‘This people honoreth Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me.’ [Matt. 15:8]. We must praise God by our good works, by our good example; for the glory of parents are their virtuous children: ‘Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father Who is in heaven.’ [Matt. 5:16].

 

3.    “But our principal duty to God is to serve Him, for He is Our Lord and we are His servants.  Now what does it mean to serve?  It means to do the will of the superior, to submit oneself to him.  But how can we know the will of God in order to serve Him?

 

a.    “From His commandments.

 

b.    “From His holy Church.

 

c.     “From our conscience, through which He speaks to us, to warn us against evil and urge us on to do good.

 

d.    “From our parents and superiors, who take His place in our regard.

 

e.    “From the vocation which He has given us; for quite often very definite duties come along with it.

 

f.     “From evils permitted by God, that strike us even against our will.  In spite of all precautions, you get sick –– the permission of God.  It is His holy will that you accept this sickness patiently from His Hands.  You are unjustly slighted, accused and calumniated –– the providence of God.  It is His will that you do not complain and murmur, but humble yourself under the hand of God. ‘Be humbled therefore under the mighty hand of God.’ [I Peter, 5:6].  The time for you to die arrives: submit yourself; it is the will of God. ‘Whether we live we live to the Lord, or whether we die, we die to the Lord.  Therefore, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s’ [Romans, 14:8]”[14]

3) “Whither am I going?  We must go back to God.[15]

What will happen if we do what we were created to do?  We shall go back to God for He Himself is our reward.  Yet if we do not do what we were created to do, we shall receive the eternal perdition that we deserve. The following points are crucial to penetrate in this aspect of the meditation:

a.    “How important then our destiny is: this business of which we, here upon earth, have charge and care, –– the glorification, the praise, and the service of God.  On it depends our whole eternity of bliss or misery.

 

b.    “It is our only business, because for it alone we are here on earth.

 

c.     “Precisely because this business is so important and our only one, all other business to which we must attend must be made subordinate to this, so that it [the other business] does not interfere, but supports and promotes our destiny. [The purpose of our existence in the first place]. We must ask ourselves, with St. Stanislaus: ‘What has this to do with eternity?’  Is this or that business conducive to my salvation?

 

d.    “This is a personal business.  I can let friends and servants take care of all other business, but of this I must take care myself.

 

e.    “It is a constant and everyday business, because I am always the servant of God, and He is always my Lord.

 

f.     “Furthermore, I have this business on hand but once, as a concern of my present life.  Should I neglect it, I can never repair it, not even in eternity.”[16]

All of these points are extremely serious and help one to have a proper perspective of life and look on all of life decisions as important in direct reference to pleasing God and eternal salvation.  Each point should be considered and when the exercitant is struck by any of the points and finds himself saying something to God, he should feel free to express what is in his heart at that moment.  Whether these be words of awestruck wonder and amazement or words of contrition for past ingratitude, or words of overwhelming love and thanksgiving, the exercitant should not hold back his heart from speaking to His Creator.  This is the colloquy that St. Ignatius speaks of.  This colloquy is a heart-to-heart talk with God and the fruit of the careful considering of the points.  Namely, we want these acts of the will to arise in us so that we can express them to God.

Some further points in concerning our service of God should be taken.  These points foster a healthy self-examination of how one has viewed God and God’s intended purpose of one’s life.  These points are also very striking and tend to make the exercitant be shaken with the awesome responsibilities that we creatures have in owing God praise, honor, and service.

1.    “Which is the pivot of my life, upon which everything turns, I or God?

 

2.    “Which is my most important business here on earth:  my honor, my praise, my service, the gratification of my passions; or the honor, praise, and service of God?

 

3.    “Is my life a constant service of God, a continuous hymn of praise, a continuous ‘Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost’?

“In the light of this meditation we now understand our destiny [God’s plan for us].  Let us repent of our many deviations from our course, and give back to our life its right direction to God. ‘Come let us adore and fall down and weep before the Lord that made us.  For He is the Lord Our God and we are the people of this pasture, and the sheep of His hand.’ Ps. 94; 6-7.[17]

This is certainly a very striking examination of one’s priorities in life.  How full of shame we find ourselves because God is not high enough in our estimation!  The distractions of life are continually tugging us away from this crucial center of our existence.  Even if we think we are trying very hard to have a God-centered life, when doing this meditation, we always find ourselves lacking.

One should ponder this topic as much as possible in the time period of the meditation, trying to draw fruits and humbling himself by seeing how little he is within the plan of God and what he owes to God.  Two strong conclusions that one should take away with from this meditation are that the purpose of life is our service to God and that our goal in life should be to serve God to our maximum capacity.  After the meditation, it is good to jot down some notes of the insights that especially struck one so he can keep these inspirations in mind and truly appreciate them.  Also, it is a good idea to say some prayers in thanksgiving after the meditation to thank the Holy Ghost for His assistance in the meditation.  And it is important to examine the meditation to see if one was generous in his efforts to cooperate with the Holy Ghost in giving glory to God and drawing fruits from the meditation.

In our next lesson we will consider the second half of St. Ignatius’s Principle and Foundation and how we can do a meditation on our proper use of creatures in our service of God.



[2]               Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918, third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO, and London, page 2.

 

[3]           Genesis,1:2

[4]           St. Thomas Summa I-II Q.18 Art. 8 Whether any action is indifferent in Its Species? Respondeo; Art. 9, Whether an Individual Action Can Be Indifferent?

 

[5]           Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918, third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO, and London, page 2.

 

[6]           Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918, third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO, and London, page 3.

 

[7]           Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918, third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO, and London, page 3 [bracketed word added for clarity]

[8]           Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918, third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO, and London, page 3.

 

[9]           Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918, third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO, and London, page 4.

 

[10]         Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918, third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO, and London, page 2.

 

[11]         Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918, third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO, and London, page 4.

 

[12]         While God did make other creatures to help man to attain his end, God did of course make all creatures to glorify Him, according to their capacity.

 

[13]         Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918, third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO, and London, page 5.

[14]         Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918, third edition, 1926, St. Louis, MO, and London. Page 5 – 6,

(bi-level list taken from the original).

 

[15]         Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck copyright 1918.; third edition 1926, St. Louis, MO and London, page 2.

[16]         Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918, third edition 1926, St. Louis, MO, and London. Page 7 – 8

(lettered list taken from the original).

[17]         Considerations from Sketches for the Exercises of An Eight Days’ Retreat by Hugo Hurter, SJ., Ph.D., D.D., Professor Emeritus of Theology in the Catholic University of Innsbruck, copyright 1918, third edition 1926, St. Louis, MO, and London, page 8, (Numbered list taken from the original).

Take hold of the Shield of Faith to Drive Away All Cowardice!

 

We are being continually attacked by the devil and by the Marxists.[1]   For this reason, many Catholics are scared.

 

Further, we know that the end never justifies the means.[2]  A perfect, current example of the application of this principle is in the context of the leftists manifesting their alarm at the prospect of women (at least in some places in the U.S.) being unable to murder their unborn babies (so-called “reproductive rights”), if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.  It is obvious that a Catholic could never make it appear that he agrees with those who bemoan the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

As Our Lord told us:

Every one that shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven.  But he that shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.  Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth:  I came not to send peace, but the sword.

St. Matthew’s Gospel, 10:32-34.

But many Catholics are scared to stand up for the truth in the face of the opposition that they know they will encounter.  However, as always, and in everything, our Catholic Faith has the answer – and also is our comfort. 

After the Last Supper, Our Lord told His apostles that He would soon be killed and that they were about to abandon Him.  In their own weakness, they were afraid and dismayed at the opposition they would encounter.  He told them, “Let not your heart be troubled”.  St. John’s Gospel, 14:1. 

In this same tender discourse, Our Lord gave them the solution to their fear, viz., the Catholic Faith.  His very next words were: “You believe in God, believe also in Me.”  St. John’s Gospel, 14:1.  Our Lord assured his apostles (and He assures us): “have confidence, I have overcome the world.”[3] 

Here is how St. Cyril of Alexandria, Doctor of the Church, teaches this truth using military terms in order to call to mind that we are soldiers of Christ in the Church Militant:

Faith, therefore, is a weapon whose blade is stout and broad, that drives away all cowardice that might spring from expectation of coming suffering, and that renders the darts of evil-doers utterly void of effect and utterly profitless of success in their temptations.[4]

Our Lord responds in the same way to us as He did to His apostles, when we are afraid or dismayed at how His enemies also oppose us.  We are certain that when we live the way that we should (viz., knowing, loving, and serving God), then nothing can truly hurt us and there is nothing to fear.  Even our crosses are for our good!  As St. Paul exclaimed: since “God be for us, who is against us?”[5]  What a source of confidence and peace this is!

Being on Christ’s side, we are on the side that has already won the war against the powers of darkness.[6]  We can’t lose and we know that everything will go in our favor.  We know by Faith that “all things work together for the Good for those who love God.”  Romans, 8:28.

Thus, we should be of good heart!  This truth is what St. Paul calls the “shield of Faith”[7].  In other words, the Catholic Faith shields us from the fears of our times.  This is the consolation of the Catholic Faith, i.e., as St. Paul put it, “the comfort of the Scriptures”: 

For what things soever were written, were written for our learning: that through patience and the comfort of the Scriptures, we might have hope.

Romans, 15:4.

Thus, to the extent we are scared, it is because we have weak Faith.  St. Cyril tells us how to remedy our fears, viz., that the increase of our Faith “drives away all cowardice”.  We should continually strive to increase our Faith as a remedy for this fear we have. 

Just as the virtue of patience is strengthened and increased by repeated actions of patience, so also, the virtue of Faith is strengthened and increased by repeated actions of Faith.  Of course, praying for greater Faith is important, but we must also perform actions of this virtue. 

So, for example, it is an action of the Catholic Faith that we refuse the mortally sinful Covid “vaccine”.[8]  Refusing the COVID “vaccine” – this action of Faith – is required under pain of grave sin.  However, there are many other opportunities to increase our Faith by actions of this virtue – such as making a Sign of the Cross in public and praying our meal prayer without fear, when we are about to eat with co-workers.

Let us always strive to strengthen our Faith through frequent actions of this virtue!  As our Faith gets stronger, it “drives away all cowardice”, as St. Cyril assures us.  That stronger Faith pleases God and He richly rewards it.

Therefore, let us go onward to the battle, with stout hearts on fire for God, knowing that “if Christ be for us, who can be against us”!

We are soldiers fighting together, side-by-side, in the “trenches” of the Church Militant.  Let us not only fight fearlessly for Christ the King, but also let us give great moral support and encouragement to our fellow soldiers who are timid, wavering, and fearful!




[3]           St. John’s Gospel, 16:33.
 

[4]           Quoted from St. Cyril of Alexandria’s commentary on St. John’s Gospel, 14:1 (emphasis added).


[5]           Romans, 8:31.

 

[6]           Read this further source of comfort and hope in these times of great apostasy: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/hope-during-the-current-great-apostasy.html

[7]           “In all things taking the shield of faith, wherewith you may be able to extinguish all the fiery darts of the most wicked one.”  Ephesians, 6:16.

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

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

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

The Feminist Program is the same as that of Satan and Marx – Part III

Catholic Candle note:

In February 2022, Catholic Candle began a multi-part examination of how the feminists follow the same program as Satan and Marx.  This article is entitled The Feminist Program is the same as that of Satan and Marx

Part 1 can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/02/24/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx/

Part 2 can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/03/27/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-ii/   This second part begins at the discussion of the third point of Marx’s implementation of Satan’s eight-point program.  This third point is entitled: “Like Satan, Marx fundamentally sought to divide people and set one group in opposition to another.”

As shown in the first two parts of this article, Satan’s and Marx’s program:

1.    Is anti-God (and anti-worship of God);

2.    Promotes disobedience and opposition to the authority ordained by God;

3.    Seeks to divide people;

 

4.    Promotes discontent, envy, and discord;

 

5.    Promotes hatred;

 

6.    Is result-oriented and self-interested; Satan neither acts according to immutable principles nor encourages his followers to do so;

 

7.    Is full of lies; and

 

8.    Is against Nature and is anti-Natural Law.

Now we begin examining how the modern feminist movement follows the same eight-point program promoted by Satan and Marx.


Part 3:

The Feminist Program is the same as that of Satan and Marx

(Continuing where we left off last month)

We now begin to study feminism and (more recent) feminist leaders to see how they follow this same satanic and Marxist program.  It makes sense that feminism follows this same program because feminism is an important tool of Satan and Marx. 

Rosemary Ruether, a modern feminist leader, showed this Marxist connection in 1977, during her keynote address to Minnesota’s International Women’s Year meeting, when she identified feminist theology as a species of [Marxist] liberation theology.[1]

Mrs. Donna Steichen, the author of Ungodly Rage, is a Catholic journalist who attended many “women’s empowerment” conferences in many locations, investigating the feminist movement.  Here is part of her biography from a May 31, 2011, interview:

In the 1970s, Steichen began working as a Catholic journalist, writing for her diocesan newspaper.  She was also active in the pro-life movement, the Catholic League and religious education.

Long an avid reader of Catholic publications, in the 1980s Steichen became increasingly concerned about the effect of feminism on American Catholicism.[2]

Mrs. Steichen studied religious feminism because, as she explained, “it is the ultimate manifestation” of feminism.[3]  She explained further how she came to write her book, Ungodly Rage:

This book is a report on the subterranean phenomena of religious feminism as observed over more than a dozen years. …[4]

1.   Like Satan and Marx, Modern Feminists and Feminist Principles are Anti-God.

Mrs. Steichen explains feminism’s anti-God agenda:

Feminism is about overthrowing the structure of the family and society.  It rose out of the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels [authors of The Communist Manifesto].  They saw that the family was at odds with their vision of society.  Owning the factories is not enough; you can’t change society unless you get rid of the family.  When you attack the family, you attack society itself, including its institutions, authority, and traditions, as well as the Ten Commandments and God.

Religious feminists, and even secular feminists, want to overthrow God.  The religious feminists have set about replacing the Trinitarian God with a mishmash of New Age spirituality[5], paganism, psychology, and anything that is not structured, that is not traditional, that is not Christianity.[6]

Like Satan and Marx, feminism and its leaders are anti-God.  This is because God is a Father and the model of all fathers.  St. Paul emphasizes this fact here:

For this cause, I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named.

Ephesians, 3:14-15.

Feminism and feminists are anti-God because they are anti-patriarchy, which is the order that God created.

Mrs. Steichen explains that “the ultimate feminist objective is the obliteration of Christianity.”[7]  She explains that even the leaders of the secular feminist movement know that feminism is, at bottom, a revolution against traditional religion.  Mrs. Steichen quotes secular feminist leader, Gloria Steinem, as saying, “Women-Church [which is a feminist movement] is the women’s movement.”[8]

Secular feminist leader, Betty Friedan, bluntly stated: “the Church is the enemy”.[9]

But feminist leader, Carol P. Christ, in her essay “Why Women Need the Goddess,” argued that women need a substitute for the traditional religion that they seek to overthrow.  Here are her words:

Symbol systems cannot simply be rejected; they must be replaced.  Where there is not any replacement, the mind will revert to familiar structures at times of crisis, bafflement or defeat.  …  A question immediately arises, Is the Goddess simply female power writ large, and if so, why bother with the symbol of Goddess at all?  Or does the symbol refer to a Goddess “out there” who is not reducible to a human potential?[10]

According to Starhawk, who is a feminist leader and a practicing witch:

The symbolism of the Goddess is not a parallel structure to the symbolism of God the Father.  The Goddess does not rule the world; She is the world ….  The importance of the Goddess symbol for women cannot be over-stressed. The image of the Goddess inspires women to see ourselves as divine, our bodies as sacred, the changing phases of our lives as holy, our aggression as healthy, and our anger as purifying.  Through the Goddess, we can discover our strength, enlighten our minds, own our bodies, and celebrate our emotions.[11]

Religious feminist leader, Mary Daly, a former Catholic nun, wrote many influential feminist books, in which she mocked the Blessed Trinity, Our Lord, Holy Communion, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and was anti-God in many other ways.  Here is one way she mocked the Most Blessed Trinity:

I see myself as a pirate, plundering and smuggling back to women that which has been stolen from us.  But it hasn’t simply been stolen; it’s been stolen and reversed.  For example, the christian [sic] trinity [sic] is the triple goddess reversed.  The trinity [sic] is aptly described as a closed triangle.[12]

Daly wrote that feminism is Antichrist.  Here are her words:

Does this mean, then, that the women’s movement points to, seeks, or in some way constitutes a rival to “the Christ”?  …  Michelet [a different feminist author] wrote that the priest has seen in the witch “an enemy, a menacing rival.”  In its depth, because it contains a dynamic that drives beyond Christolatry, the women’s movement does point to, seek, and constitute the primordial, always present, and future Antichrist.[13]

Mrs. Steichen also quotes secular feminist leader, Betty Friedan, about the feminist agenda being, at bottom, anti-God:

When asked what the feminist movement could hope to accomplish in the future, Betty Friedan told reporters, “I can’t tell you that now.  You wouldn’t believe it anyway.  It’s theological.”[14]

This “theological” is not God’s religion; it is Satan’s.  As Mrs. Steichen explains, “Feminism appears to be the bait, moral disintegration the hook and the occult the dark and treacherous sea into which the deluded are towed.”[15]

“Women’s empowerment” conferences frequently feature occult rituals.  Here is one eyewitness account:

By Sunday morning, the Mankato conference crowd had declined to about three hundred.  While two other feminist services were held down a hallway, some 150 women gathered for the Wiccan rite described in the program as combining “both ancient matriarchal concepts and contemporary feminist issues”.  The large room was unfurnished except for a table altar, decorated with corn and gourds, four unlighted candles, a conch shell and a small brass cauldron.  Priestesses Patti Lather and Antiga said the service would be conducted in the “Dianic Wiccan tradition”.  The women formed a loose circle and followed Antiga and Lather in a vigorous opening chant:

We are strong and loving women;

We will do what must be done,

Changing, feeling, loving, growing,

We will do what must be done.

It was repeated, in accelerating tempo, half a dozen times.  Next came a song in a quick folk-blues rhythm. The women sang eagerly, clapping in time, some singing the harmony:

Woman am I, Spirit am I,

I am the infinite within my soul;

I have no beginning and I have no end,

All this I am.[16]

Antiga called the large circle together again with a blast from her conch shell.  The women stood with hands linked, eyes closed, while she led them in the hypnotic “centering meditation”, a “Tree of Life ritual largely taken from Starhawk’s Dreaming the Dark and almost identical to the one used earlier in Joan Keller-Marcsh’s workshop.[17]


Conclusion

It is clear that feminism is anti-God.  The religious feminists show this more often and more plainly than the secular feminists.  But the secular feminists show they are anti-God also.  Thus, we see that the feminist leaders and feminist principles follow the first point of Satan’s and Marx’s program.

Next month, we will examine how the feminist leaders and feminist principles follow the second point of Satan’s and Marx’s program by promoting disobedience and opposition to the authority ordained by God.

To be continued next month …



[1]           Ungodly Rage, The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism, By Mrs. Donna Steichen, Ignatius Press, San Francisco ©1991, page 17.

 

[2]           May 31, 2011 interview found here: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2011/05/31/incalculable-damage/

 

[3]           Ungodly Rage, The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism, By Mrs. Donna Steichen, Ignatius Press, San Francisco ©1991, page 237.

[4]           Quoted from the May 31, 2011 interview found here:

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2011/05/31/incalculable-damage/ (bracketed words in the original).

 

[5]           See, further information in Ungodly Rage, The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism, By Mrs. Donna Steichen, Ignatius Press, San Francisco ©1991, page 122.


[6]           Quoted from the May 31, 2011 interview found here:

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2011/05/31/incalculable-damage/ (bracketed words in the original).

 

[7]           Ungodly Rage, page 79.

 

[8]           Ungodly Rage, page 117-118 (emphasis in the original).

 

[9]           Mary Daly, Beyond God the Father, p.155, as quoted in: http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2163 (2010).

[10]         Carol P. Christ, quoted from her essay “Why Women Need the Goddess”, as quoted here: http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2163

[11]         Starhawk, The Spiral Dance, (Harper & Row, 1989), pp. 23-24, as quoted here: http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2163

[13]         Daly, Beyond God the Father, (Beacon Press, 1973) p.96, as quoted in http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=2163 (emphasis added; bracketed words added).

[14]         Ungodly Rage, page 20.

 

[15]         Ungodly Rage, page 27.

[16]         Ungodly Rage, page 35.

 

[17]         Ungodly Rage, page 35.

 

Did the Pope’s Consecration Fulfill Heaven’s Command?  No!

 

As our readers know, Pope Francis[1] consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on March 25, 2022.  Does this consecration fulfill Heaven’s request?  No!

 

We know that Our Lady of Fatima came to Sister Lucy in Tuy, in 1929, and told her:

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.

So numerous are the souls which the justice of God condemns for sins committed against me, that I come to ask for reparation.  Sacrifice yourself for this intention and pray.[2]

We are more familiar with the first paragraph of this quote, but Sr. Lucy assures us that Our Lady told her both paragraphs.


A similar, alternate, phrasing of Our Lord’s request for consecration

In 1930, Sr. Lucy repeated Heaven’s request in different words.  She wrote that:

The good Lord promises to end the persecution in Russia, if the Holy Father will himself make a solemn act of reparation and consecration of Russia to the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, as well as ordering all the bishops of the Catholic world to do the same.  The Holy Father must then promise that upon the ending of this persecution he will approve and recommend the practice of the reparatory devotion already described [viz., of the five First Saturdays].[3]

In this 1930 phrasing of what is necessary for this consecration, Sr. Lucy mentions two additional conditions which Heaven revealed to her, which are not mentioned in the 1929 quote.  The consecration must be to both the Sacred Heart of Jesus as well as the Immaculate Heart of Mary and also the pope must promise to approve and promote the reparatory devotion of the Five First Saturdays.

Thus, based on Our Lady’s words in 1929 and 1930, we know that the consecration has seven conditions.  It must be performed:

1.    by the pope;

2.    together with all of the bishops;

3.    consecrating Russia specifically;

4.    to Our Lord’s Sacred Heart specifically and

5.    to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart specifically;

6.    to make reparation for sins against Our Lady; and

7.    must be accompanied by the pope’s promise to approve and promote the reparatory devotion of the Five First Saturdays.

Below we examine each of these seven conditions to determine whether it was fulfilled in Pope Francis’ March 25 consecration.

1.   Condition one was fulfilled by the pope performing the consecration.

Pope Francis actually recited the consecration prayer, fulfilling the condition that he must do it.

 

2.   Condition two was not fulfilled, since the consecration was not performed in union with all of the world’s bishops.

The consecration appears to plainly have not been performed as Our Lady (and Her Son) commanded because Condition 2 was not fulfilled, viz., it was not performed jointly with all of the bishops[4] of the world.

Although we do not know the exact number of Catholic bishops in the world, it seems certain there are thousands of them (including all those with doubtful consecrations but with true jurisdictional authority).  The leftist source, Wikipedia, says that in 2020, there were about 5,600 bishops in the world.[5] 

A relatively small number of local ordinaries announced they would join the pope in the consecration.  Whatever the number was of these “bishops” who joined in the pope’s consecration, we know of no reason to think it was even a quarter of the total number in the world.  In fact, the video of Pope Francis reciting the consecration show cardinals and “bishops” attending but not participating.

We note that the 1930s statement of Heaven’s request says that the pope must order the world’s bishops to participate.  Presumably this is necessary because otherwise many (most) of them would not do so.  However, we note that a question would arise under the strange (hypothetical) circumstance where the pope failed to order the world’s bishops to perform the consecration but they all joined in voluntarily.  Perhaps the consecration would suffice to fulfill Heaven’s command, although the pope did not fulfill Heaven’s command that he order the “bishops” to join him, under obedience.

 

3.   Condition three was probably fulfilled, relating to the consecration of Russia in particular.

Condition 3 required Russia specifically, to be consecrated.  This condition was not fulfilled in the plainest and most straightforward way.

The text of Pope Francis’ consecration states:

Mother of God and our Mother, to your Immaculate Heart we solemnly entrust and consecrate ourselves, the Church and all humanity, especially Russia and Ukraine.  …  To you we consecrate the future of the whole human family, the needs and expectations of every people, the anxieties and hopes of the world.[6]

It is true that Russia was mentioned specifically.  However, there were other subjects of the consecration including “all humanity”.  Although Heaven required Russia to be consecrated by name, Our Lady did not say that the consecration must be of “only Russia with absolutely nothing else”. 

On the other hand, Heaven simply and straightforwardly commanded the consecration of Russia in particular.  This aspect was at least not fulfilled in the simplest, most straightforward way possible.   

Although Russia is specifically named, nonetheless, when other subjects are added to the consecration of Russia, it detracts from the focus on consecrating Russia.  If we were to take this point “to the extreme”, in the case of the pope mentioning hundreds of other subjects in the consecration, this would seem to entirely nullify the mention of Russia.  For example, suppose the pope had individually mentioned each and every one of the countries in the world.  That is, Russia is just one of 195 countries consecrated by name.  Would that fulfill Heaven’s command to consecrate Russia?   It would seem not.  That consecration would seem not to differ from consecrating “the world” to the Immaculate Heart – and that (previous) consecration was insufficient. 

Although Pope Francis did not mention every country, yet the principle stands: viz., at least “in the extreme” a consecration would be insufficient even when Russia is named in particular – viz., if the mention of Russia were diluted by too many other subjects of consecration. 

Catholic Candle tends to think that Pope Francis’ consecration was not so extremely diluted so as to fail to fulfill Condition #3 (see above) that Russia in particular be consecrated.  But the consecration did fail to pertain simply to Russia, and it failed to fulfill this aspect of Heaven’s simple, straightforward command in the simplest, most straightforward way.

4.   Condition four was not fulfilled, because there was no consecration to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

There was no consecration to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, as Sr. Lucy affirms to be necessary, in her 1930 letter on this subject.  The Sacred Heart of Jesus was not even mentioned in Pope Francis’ consecration.

5.   Condition five was fulfilled, because the consecration was specifically made to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

As quoted above, the text of Pope Francis’ consecration states:

Mother of God and our Mother, to your Immaculate Heart we solemnly entrust and consecrate ourselves, the Church and all humanity, especially Russia and Ukraine.[7]

6.   Condition six was not fulfilled, because the consecration was not made in reparation for sins against Our Lady.

To make reparation is to amend or repair a wrong done.  Here is how one dictionary defined “reparation”:

1. The act or process of making amends for a wrong.

2. Something done or money paid to make amends or compensate for a wrong.

3. reparations, compensation or remuneration, as for damage or economic loss, required from a nation defeated in war.

4. The act or process of repairing or the condition of being repaired.[8]

In Pope Francis’ consecration, there is no mention of reparation for sins against Our Lady in particular, as she requested.  In fact, there is no mention of reparation at all. 

Pope Francis’ consecration asks for forgiveness.  The prayer states: “with shame we cry out: Forgive us, Lord!”[9]  However, there is nothing promised or done in reparation.  Although contrition is an essential element of forgiveness, asking for forgiveness is not amending the wrong.  For example, if one man damaged another man’s car, apologizing is appropriate but that apology does not repair the wrong (the damage).  An example of reparation which Pope Francis could have made – but didn’t – would be approving and promoting the Five First Saturdays of reparatory Holy Communions, as Our Lady requested. 

Likewise, Pope Francis’ consecration prayer asks for other things that are not reparation.  He asks Our Lady to:

Ø  “help us and grant us your comfort”;  

Ø  “grant that war may end and peace spread throughout the world”; and.  

Ø  “help us to foster the growth of communion”.[10]  

But none of these requests are reparation, i.e., amending past wrongs (sins).  Again, there is no reparation made or promised in these requests for help.

7.   Condition seven is not fulfilled (so far) by Pope Francis promising to approve and promote the reparatory devotion of the Five First Saturdays.

The consecration which Heaven requests includes the requirement that the pope must “then” make a promise.  We do not know if this must be part of the consecration prayer itself.  Here is how Sr. Lucy phrased Our Lady’s request for this:

The Holy Father must then promise that upon the ending of this persecution he will approve and recommend the practice of the reparatory devotion already described [viz., of the five First Saturdays].[11]

If this promise must be made at the time of the consecration, then it plainly was not done and cannot be done now.  During the consecration, the pope did not mention or promise to approve and recommend this devotion.  Thus, this condition was not fulfilled – as least so far.  Perhaps this promise could yet be made.

Summary and assessment

For the above reasons, it seems clear that Heaven’s command has not been fulfilled and the consecration has not occurred as Heaven ordered.

Conditions 1 and 5 were fulfilled.  Conditions 2, 4, and 6 were not fulfilled. Condition 7 was not fulfilled, at least so far.  And condition 3 was probably fulfilled.


A few additional observations

In the cover letter addressed to the world’s bishops, the pope does not request them to recite the consecration with him, much less does it command them to do so (as Our Lady directed).  The pope says that the way they can join him is by inviting their subordinates to recite this consecration.  Here are his words:

I[12] ask you to join in this Act by inviting the priests, religious and faithful to assemble in their churches and places of prayer on 25 March, so that God’s Holy People may raise a heartfelt and choral plea to Mary our Mother.[13] 

Maybe one could suppose that the pope implied that he wanted the world’s “bishops” to join in the consecration also.  Perhaps this is true.  Nonetheless, the pope does not specifically ask them to consecrate Russia in union with him, much less does he command them to do so.

Also, the pope does not ask that anyone recite this consecration at the same time he does.  He says people can recite it “throughout the day”.  Here are his words:

I am sending you the text of the prayer of consecration, so that all of us can recite it throughout that day, in fraternal union.[14]

Further, there is a conciliar and globalist “stench” to the text of the consecration, implying or saying things such as:

Ø  it is a sin for a nation to “stockpile weapons”, thereby implying that unilateral disarmament is necessary;

Ø  we must all be stewards of the world because it is our “common home”, suggesting that nations must support global environmental projects;

Ø  we sinned because we “ravaged the garden of the earth” apparently because we were not environmentally conscious; and

Ø  Pope Francis says "we have disregarded the commitments we made as a community of nations”.  This certainly seems to refer to the globalist commitments of the United Nations, the European Union, the World Economic Forum, etc., where nations have committed themselves to the globalist agenda, e.g., ecological targets to reduce carbon emissions.[15]  

Then after listing the world’s “failures” to sufficiently promote globalist evils, Pope Francis – ever the showman – dramatically exclaims “Forgive us, Lord”.  However, it is these globalist evils themselves, not failure to implement them, which anger God.

Conclusion: Pope Francis’ consecration does not fulfill Heaven’s command!  Let us pray for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the Consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart in the way that Heaven has commanded for almost 100 years!

 

Postscript:  The SSPX continues to find ways to praise what comes from the conciliar church and to obscure the truth.

 

The SSPX publicly said how “happy” it is that Pope Francis’ consecration has “taken into account” Our Lady of Fatima’s request, even though the consecration fails to fulfill Heaven’s command.  Here are the SSPX’s words:

 

After a long wait, punctuated by fervent crusades and assiduous recitation of rosaries, the Society of Saint Pius X is happy to see the request of Our Lady of Fatima taken into account, which called for a solemn act by the Pope in union with all the bishops.[16]

 

 

In this public statement, the SSPX scandalously implies that Pope Francis is following Our Lady’s request.  That is false!

 

To “take into account” means to “make allowances for”.[17]  Pope Francis did not change his planned consecration to comply with Our Lady’s request.  Perhaps it is even true that, if Pope Francis took Our Lady’s request “into account”, it was in order to reject her wishes.

 

On the day of the consecration, Bishop Fellay said:

 

We have for years and years asked for this, begged God for this consecration to happen.  Thus, we rejoice, we do rejoice, with our whole heart we unite ourselves to this act of consecration.  The promise is not directly in the message of the pope’s text: Russia will convert.  …  [L]et’s hope that this is the right one … this consecration.  …  It is not certain that this is the right one ….[18]

 

Lastly, notice that the “new” SSPX impliedly takes credit Pope Francis is performing this consecration.  The “new” SSPX points to its own “fervent crusades”, “assiduous recitation of rosaries”, and its years of “begging God for this consecration”.[19]



[1]           Sedevacantism is a grave error.  Catholic Candle is not sedevacantist.  For an explanation of why sedevacantism is an error and why Francis is our pope (as bad as he is), read the small book, Sedevacantism, Material or Formal Schism, by Quanta Cura Press: which is available here:

 

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

or

 

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

[2]           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).

[3]           The Whole Truth about Fatima: The Secret and the Church, Volume II, by Br. Michel de la Sainte Trinité, Immaculate Heart Pub., 1989, Chapters 6, p. 465, quoting a letter received by Father Gonçalves on May 29, 1930 (Doc., p. 405). The letter of next June 12, addressed to the same person, literally employs the same formula (Doc., p. 411).

[4]           It might occur to the reader here that the new conciliar rite of consecration of a bishop is inherently doubtful.  For an explanation of why this is true, read this analysis: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B49oPuI54eEGZVF5cmFvMGdZM0U/view?resourcekey=0-d98Ksw0xkbtafE2fYSTq8A


Because this conciliar rite is doubtfully valid, it should be treated as invalid (as far as having the effect of the sacrament).  Read this explanation here of why a doubtful sacrament should be treated as invalid: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/new-ordination-doubtful.html

 

However, the Catholic Church continues to have a full hierarchy (a pope and the local ordinaries governing the dioceses of the world).  The Church leaders’ jurisdictional power (authority to govern) remains intact (including the pope’s) even though their Episcopal consecrations are doubtful (including the pope’s) and should be treated as invalid.  For a full explanation of this fact, read the article at this link: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/against-sedevacantism.html#section-10

 

These local ordinaries of the world’s dioceses can be called “bishops” even if they lack Episcopal sacramental powers because they are bishops in their authority and office governing the Church.  Look how the Catholic Encyclopedia uses that term to refer to a man who has Episcopal governing authority but not Episcopal sacramental power:

 

Internal jurisdiction is that which is exercised in the tribunal of penance.  It differs from the external jurisdiction of which we have been speaking, in that its object is the welfare of the individual penitent, while the object of external jurisdiction is the welfare of the Church as a corporate body.  … 

[F]or the exercise of external jurisdiction the power of orders is not necessary.  A bishop, duly appointed to a see [i.e., a diocese], but not yet consecrated, is invested with external jurisdiction over his diocese …

 

The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 3, article: Church, §VIII (2), p.755 (emphasis added; bracketed words added).

 

Liturgical Historian, Fr. Adrian Fortescue, used the term “bishop” to describe those possessing the power to rule a diocese but who were not yet consecrated a bishop.  Here are his words:

 

The bishop must be canonically appointed and confirmed, otherwise he is not mentioned [in the Canon of the Mass].  But he need not yet be consecrated.

 

The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, article Canon of the Mass, author: Fr. Adrian Fortescue, vol. 3, article Canon of the Mass, p.262 (emphasis added; bracketed words added).

 

Of course, we should avoid confusing such bishops (who govern the world’s dioceses), with those bishops who without any doubt possess Episcopal sacramental powers.  For this reason, we suggest that, presently, it is better not to refer to the local ordinaries as bishops simply (i.e., without qualification) wherever there might be confusion, because their conciliar episcopal “consecrations” make it doubtful that they possess a bishop’s sacramental power.  Catholic Candle makes this distinction clear by referring to the local ordinaries as “bishops” (in quotes).

 

The consecration of Russia apparently does not require Episcopal sacramental powers.  This consecration must be performed by the Catholic Church’s rulers, who govern the Church.  Thus, it seems, this consecration invokes the bishops’ governing (jurisdictional) authority under, and in union with, the pope.

[6]           This is the official text published by the Vatican’s website and found here: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2022/documents/20220321-lettera-consacrazione-cuoredimaria.html (emphasis added).

[7]           This is the official text published by the Vatican’s website and found here: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2022/documents/20220321-lettera-consacrazione-cuoredimaria.html (emphasis added).

[9]           This is the official text published by the Vatican’s website and found here: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2022/documents/20220321-lettera-consacrazione-cuoredimaria.html (emphasis added).

[11]         The Whole Truth about Fatima: The Secret and the Church, Volume II, by Br. Michel de la Sainte Trinité, Immaculate Heart Pub., 1989, Chapters 6, p. 465, quoting a letter received by Father Gonçalves on May 29, 1930 (Doc., p. 405). The letter of next June 12, addressed to the same person, literally employs the same formula (Doc., p. 411), which indissociably unites the Holy Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

[12]         The pope uses the singular pronoun “I” to refer to himself, not the plural pronoun “we”, continuing this practice of his post-conciliar predecessors.  This is a departure from the traditional practice of the popes using the “royal we” before Vatican II. 

[15]         This is the official text published by the Vatican’s website and found here: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2022/documents/20220321-lettera-consacrazione-cuoredimaria.html (emphasis added).

[17]         Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Definition: “to take into account”.

[18]         March 25, 2022 Interview of Bishop Bernard Fellay, quoted in April 8, 2022 letter of Fr. Yves le Roux, to friends and benefactors.


[19]         This last quoted phrase was grammatically changed from “begged” to “begging” for grammatical agreement.

Words to Live by – from Catholic Tradition

 

Let us be fearless in defending the truth!  Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church, explains this zeal we should have, quoting Alcuin, Father of the Church:

 

Zeal, in the good sense of the word, is a certain fervor of soul, by which we set aside all human fear, for the sake of defending the Truth.

 

Catena Aurea on St. John’s Gospel, St. Thomas Aquinas, quoting Alcuin, ch.2, §4.