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

Q. If God loves our souls to the extent that we are holy, He would be changing with every good or bad act that we do (which is impossible, because God is immutable). Could you explain this for me?

A. You are correct that God loves all creatures to the extent of the good He put into them (including creating them). This includes God loving even the devils to the extent of the good that He Himself put into them, although He hates the evil of their wills (which evil is not His work).

The love of God includes the supernatural good He puts into some creatures. So, He loves men as His friends to the extent of the goodness of their wills – that is, to the extent that they are holy.

God never changes. His very Being is His own single, unchangeable Act and it is an Act of love and an Act of understanding of Himself and this Act is always the same for all Eternity. So, God loves Himself from all Eternity and as part of this single Act of love (of Himself) He loves His work (which is everything else that He loves) from all Eternity too.

God is not in time. He sees (i.e., knows) all of His creatures in this way (outside of time). He loves every creature as the “collection” of all good that He Himself put into them as He sees (i.e., knows) them throughout all Eternity. So God does not constantly change His “opinion” about a creature, loving that creature more at one time and then less at another time, as that creature – which is in time – becomes more loveable at one time and then less loveable at another time.

Instead, God has an eternal, immutable knowledge and love of that creature according to the measure of the good that He put into the creature.

Here is an analogy to help you see how God loves creatures according to the good in them (as seen from God’s Eternity) but God does not change His “opinion” of creatures as they change:

Suppose that you love mangos exceedingly. You know that a crate of mangos is being shipped to you and you know that they are presently perfect and luscious. But suppose that you have perfect knowledge of the future and that you know that when the crate reaches you, there will be no edible mangos in the crate and all of them will be rotten, will reek exceedingly, and will have to be thrown out. Your view of those mangos right now will not change as those mangos change from luscious to rotten. You will view them now as if they were already disgusting.

Likewise, God knows and loves all creatures in this same way. In fact, it could not be otherwise, since God does not change. So, Our Lord chose Judas as one of his apostles and at that time, Judas was a good man.¹ But God knew that Judas would commit the horrific sin of Deicide.² Thus, God’s “opinion” of Judas did not change as Judas himself went from a special, chosen friend of Christ, to an infamous pariah to all good men. At all times, God viewed Judas as the vile man that he would become.

Similarly, in the case of the man who is now an enemy of God but whom God has chosen as one of His elect, God views this man even now as the friend and fellow inhabitant of heaven that this man will become.

So from all Eternity and for all Eternity, God’s “view” of every man is according to the state of soul that the man will have at his Particular Judgment and in the unending Hereafter.

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

Below is a Question Asked by an Incarcerated Catholic Candle Reader Who Receives Catholic Candle Intermittently When the Mailed Copy Is Allowed Through by the Prison Censors.

Q. What is your opinion on the new American Pope Leo 14? Do you think he will be a pope who preaches Traditional Catholic Teaching? I know Vatican 2 and the last four popes were leftists, Pope Francis (R.I.P.) being the most Woke!

A. Let us pray hard for Pope Leo XIV. His pontificate is just beginning, and yet there seems sufficient evidence this this reign will be one of continued destruction and revolution.

The Slim “Positive Side”

But first, on the positive side, Pope Leo is not the attention-grabbing showman that Pope Francis was.

Also, on the positive side, he follows certain customs of his office more than Pope Francis did. For example, Pope Leo wears certain customary papal attire that is appropriate to his office, more than Pope Francis did. (This is good. This is like the fact that a civil judge should wear judicial robes in court as a sign of his office and not wear a tee shirt, shorts, and flipflops.)

But there is Much on the “Bad Side“

On the bad side, Pope Leo XIV has shown many signs that he is a leftist. Below are a few examples.

Pope Leo’s Environmental Alarmism

Pope Leo is the first one to use the newly-issued “mass” for the care of our planet. (This “mass” was an initiative of Pope Francis.) At this “mass”, he preached a sermon which was as extreme in environmental alarmism as any discourse of Pope Francis. This sermon clearly showed he has a “Green Peace” leftist agenda. In this sermon, the pope stated:

We hear the cry of the Earth. We hear the cry of the poor because this cry has reached the Heart of God. Our indignation is His indignation. Our work is His work.¹

Pope Leo Condemns National Borders

Pope Leo has echoed Pope Francis in condemning national borders:

Where there is love, there is no room for prejudice, for “security” zones separating us from our neighbors, for the exclusionary mindset that, tragically, we now see emerging also in political nationalisms.

It was on the feast of Pentecost that Pope Francis observed: “In our world today, there is so much discord, such great division. We are all ‘connected’, yet find ourselves disconnected from one another, anesthetized by indifference and overwhelmed by solitude” (Homily, 28 May 2023). The wars plaguing our world are a tragic sign of this. Let us invoke the Spirit of love and peace, that he may open borders, break down walls, dispel hatred and help us to live as children of our one Father who is in heaven.²

Pope Leo has “Canonized” Pope Francis

Pope Leo strongly praises Pope Francis and has declared several times that he is in heaven. For example, in May 2025, Pope Leo declared:

During Mass, I strongly felt the spiritual presence of Pope Francis accompanying us from heaven.³

Pope Leo Promotes the So-Called “Synodal Church”

Pope Leo showed clearly that he plans to continue Pope Francis’ error of a “synodal church”:

Aware, moreover, that synodality and ecumenism are closely linked, I wish to assure you of my intention to continue Pope Francis’ commitment to promoting the synodal character of the Catholic Church and developing new and concrete forms for an ever stronger and more intense synodality in the ecumenical field.⁴

Pope Leo Continues to Promote the False Conciliar “Union” with the Jews

Pope Leo showed clearly that he plans to continue the promotion of a false and merely apparent unity with the jews which does not involve their conversion to the only True Faith:

In a special way I greet our Jewish and Muslim brothers and sisters. Because of the Jewish roots of Christianity, all Christians have a special relationship with Judaism. The conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate (no. 4) emphasizes the greatness of the spiritual heritage shared by Christians and Jews, encouraging mutual knowledge and esteem. The theological dialogue between Christians and Jews remains ever important and close to my heart. Even in these difficult times, marked by conflicts and misunderstandings, it is necessary to continue the momentum of this precious dialogue of ours.⁵

Lastly, Pope Leo has mostly continued the same programs and legislation implemented by Pope Francis. This further indicates that Pope Leo is no conservative.

Let us watch vigilantly and pray fervently for him!

Catholic Candle note: We ask all Catholic Candle readers to please pray for this incarcerated man, who is trying to discern the truth and save his soul under very difficult circumstances.

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

CC in Brief

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Catholic Candle note: Sedevacantism is wrong and is (material or formal) schism. Catholic Candle is not sedevacantist. We recommend a small book explaining the errors of sedevacantism. It is available:

• Here, for free: https://catholiccandle.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/sedevacantism-material-or-formal-schism.pdf
  
  

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

Below is the first of a series of CC in Brief articles which cover specific aspects of the error of sedevacantism.

CC in Brief

Sedevacantist Questions

Q. If a pope publicly preaches heresy, does he cease to be pope?

A. Your question does not provide enough information (i.e., context) for a simple answer, and makes us wonder if you are perhaps failing to distinguish between a person being a public heretic and a formal heretic. If any person understands (i.e., knows) that he is denying what he is required to believe in order to be Catholic (i.e., to belong to the Catholic Church), then that denial causes him to cease to be Catholic. This is to be a formal heretic.

Such a person ceases to be Catholic even if he never reveals the matter to anyone. Such a person would not be excommunicated by Church authorities since (as we supposed in this example) he never revealed his opinion to anyone. But the very fact that this person holds a statement that he understands to be incompatible with being Catholic – i.e., by his being a formal heretic – he ceases to be Catholic and could not go to heaven because Outside the Church there is No Salvation.

But suppose that a person holds a heretical opinion but he does not know it to be incompatible with being a Catholic. Then in that case, he would hold the “matter” of heresy but would not cease to be a member of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. In other words, by unknowingly holding his error about the Faith he would be a material heretic.

It is not uncommon for a person to hold material heresy but it is, of course, always a bad thing. So, e.g., suppose a seven-year-old child holds that God has a body (which is a heresy). Suppose he thinks that this is what the Catholic Church teaches. He is a material heretic but remains a member of the Catholic Church. He is not a formal heretic because he does not understand that he is contradicting the Catholic Faith which is revealed by the Church.

No matter how publicly he declares his understanding that God has a body, he is a material heretic and is not a formal heretic. The child remains a Catholic – but is one who is in error on a matter of the Faith.

Even a pope is not immune from denying a dogma of the Faith. But if that pope did not know that he was denying a doctrine that he was required to believe in order to be Catholic, then he remains a Catholic and remains the pope.

The case of Pope John XXII (who lived in the 14^th century) is a useful example.

But before we get to that example, let us recall some important truths of the catechism which are necessary in order to understand the remainder of this article:

• All that God has divinely revealed to man is called Divine Revelation.

• Divine Revelation has two founts (i.e., sources): Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

• Since God is its author, all that is contained in Divine Revelation is certain, true, and is part of the Catholic Faith.

• The Catholic Church is the guardian and sole interpreter of Divine Revelation, and teaches the Faithful all the contents of Divine Revelation.

• To help her teach without err, God has given the Church the gift of infallibility – the gift of being unable to err when authoritatively teaching the whole Church anything about Faith or morals.

• All of these truths which she teaches infallibly are called dogmas (i.e., doctrines).

• Her teaching authority is called Her Magisterium.

• She can teach dogmas to the Faithful using either Her extraordinary infallible Magisterium or Her ordinary infallible Magisterium. The easier method to understand, and the one most Catholics are familiar with, is the extraordinary Magisterium, which most Catholics associate with precisely-worded ex cathedra statements from the popes.

• Both the ordinary and extraordinary magisterial methods faithfully transmit dogmas to the Faithful without error, but the extraordinary Magisterium has this advantage: that it is easier for the Faithful to recognize that a truth from Church authorities is indeed infallible, and must therefore be believed.
  
  

• When the Church infallibly formulates the specific, precise wording of a dogma, She is said to define that dogma.

• The Church has defined only a small percentage of all dogmas; thus, notice that although all dogmas are part of Revelation and thus infallible, yet not all dogmas have been precisely defined. That is the very beautiful advantage of the Church’s definitions: they give us exact wording which incapsulates the meaning (substance) of the dogma. For this reason, the Faithful can rejoice when the Church defines a dogma.

With those reminders stated, we can now investigate the case of Pope John XXII, who publicly denied a dogma of the Faith but was not a formal heretic.

Pope John XXII (reigned 1316-1334)

It is a defined dogma of the Catholic Faith that the saints see the Beatific Vision immediately after they die (and after they have been purged in Purgatory, if necessary).¹ However, this dogma was not always defined.

In fact, Pope John XXII lived before this dogma was defined by the Church’s Extraordinary Magisterium. He publicly denied that the saints immediately see the Beatific Vision after they die, i.e., before the General Judgment.²

But further, before Pope John XXII became pope, he wrote a book publicly denying this dogma of the Catholic Faith, viz., that the saints see the Beatific Vision immediately after they die (and after they have been purged in Purgatory, if necessary).³ Instead, he taught the opposite heresy. Id.

Not only before Pope John XXII’s papal reign but also during it he caused a “great commotion” by denying this doctrine of the Catholic Faith on several occasions and publicly teaching the opposite heresy.⁴ Yet he reigned as pope until his death.⁵

Yet both before and after this doctrine was defined, the Church has always recognized the validity of Pope John XXII’s election and reign as pope.⁶ In other words, his public teaching of this heresy did not prevent his election or his reigning as pope.

We know that dogmas are already true and have always been doctrines of the Faith, even before those dogmas become defined by the Church’s Extraordinary Magisterium. In other words, the Church’s extraordinary definition of a dogma does not all of a sudden “make” a doctrine true (and make it part of the Faith).

Rather, an extraordinary definition of a doctrine of Faith merely gives certitude to anyone in doubt concerning a truth which was already a dogma of the Catholic Faith. This is why the First Vatican Council declared: “the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine”.⁷

Thus, we know that the dogma which Pope John XXII denied was always true and was a doctrine of the Faith at the time he denied it.

As scandalous as it was for Pope John XXII to publicly teach heresy, he was elected pope while professing this heresy and reigned as pope while continuing to profess this heresy.

Thus, we see that a pope who publicly teaches heresy would remain Catholic if he does not know that his teaching is a rejection of what he must believe in order to be Catholic. In other words, a pope who teaches heresy remains the pope if he is a material heretic. However, if the pope were to become a formal heretic, then he would cease to be a Catholic and cease to be pope (since a pope cannot be the head of the Church if he is not a member of the Church).

Afterword

When Pope Francis teaches heresy, that does not tell us whether he remains pope precisely because we do not know that Francis knows he is contradicting the Catholic Faith. He would have to make it known that he knows he is contradicting the Catholic Faith.

But the sedevacantists would reply (often in a tone of exasperation): “Oh, come on! He knows he is contradicting the Catholic Faith.” That reply raises the topic of the sedevacantists’ sin of rash judgment. Beware of that sin! But that sin is a topic that we will cover in a different CC in Brief.

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

The very short article below is an aid to help us to “peer a little more deeply” into the answer to the catechism question “Where is God?”  

Q:        What do we mean when we say that God is everywhere?

1. St. Thomas Aquinas, greatest Doctor of the Catholic Church, gives this simple, clear, and profound answer, explaining how God is everywhere, in three ways:

It is customary to say that God is in all things by His essence, presence, and power.  To understand what this means, we should know that someone is said to be by his power in all the things that are subject to his power; as a king is said to be in the entire kingdom subject to him, by his power.  He is not there [i.e., in his entire kingdom], however, by presence or essence.  

Someone is said to be by presence in all the things that are within his range of vision; as a king is said to be in his house by presence.

And someone is said to be by essence in those things in which his substance is; as a king is in one determinate place [e.g., on his throne].

Now we say that God is everywhere by His power, since all things are subject to His power: “If I ascend into heaven, you are there ….  If I take my wings early in the morning, and dwell in the furthest part of the sea, even there your hand will lead me, and your right hand will hold me” (Ps 138:8).

He is also everywhere by His presence, because “all things are bare and open to His eyes,” as is said in Hebrews (4:13).

He is present everywhere by His essence, because His essence is innermost in all things.  For every agent, as acting, has to be immediately joined to its effect, because mover and moved must be together.  Now God is the maker and preserver of all things with respect to the esse [i.e., the being] of each. Hence, since the esse [i.e., the being] of a thing is innermost in that thing, it is plain that God, by His essence, through which He creates all things, is in all things.  [In other words, God creates all things by His Own essence and so God’s essence must be together with all creatures and so is everywhere.]

Lectures on St. John’s Gospel, St. Thomas Aquinas, ch.1, #134.

Conclusion.  God is in all things in these three ways, by His essence, His presence, and His power.