Words to Live by – from Catholic Tradition

God is more pleased by one work, however small, done secretly, without desire that it be known, than a thousand done with the desire that people know of them.  Those who work for God with purest love not only care nothing about whether others see their works, but do not even seek that God Himself know of them.  Such persons would not cease to render God the same services, with the same joy and purity of love, even if God were never to know of these.

St. John of the Cross, Saying of Light and Love, #20 (emphasis added).

To Reach Heaven Should Be Our Life’s Main Work

If you think it is too hard to get to Heaven, then think again!  As children, we were taught that we have to earn Heaven.  We earn Heaven by loving and serving God as well as by avoiding sin.  If we slip up and commit sin, God in His goodness and mercy has established the Sacrament of Penance.  The sin is forgiven, but in God’s justice, there is temporal punishment still due for the sin.  This debt of punishment must be paid before a person can enter Heaven, and this can be accomplished, in part, through prayers that grant indulgences.

What is an indulgence? 

An indulgence is an extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God’s justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the supplication of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive.[1]

A partial indulgence commutes only a certain portion of the penalty; and this portion is determined in accordance with the penitential discipline of the early Church.

To say that an indulgence of so many days or years is granted means that it cancels an amount of purgatorial punishment equivalent to that which would have been remitted, in the sight of God, by the performance of so many days or years of the ancient canonical penance.  Here, evidently, the reckoning makes no claim to absolute exactness; it has only a relative value.  God alone knows what penalty remains to be paid and what its precise amount is in severity and duration. 

Finally, some indulgences are granted on behalf of the living only, while others may be applied on behalf of the souls departed.  It should be noted, however, that the application has not the same significance in both cases.  The Church, in granting an indulgence to the living, exercises her jurisdiction; over the dead she has no jurisdiction and therefore makes the indulgence available for them by way of suffrage (per modum suffragii), i.e., she petitions God to accept these works of satisfaction, and in consideration thereof to mitigate or shorten the sufferings of the souls in Purgatory.[2] 

Following is the remarkable prayer that Pope Eugenius III, at the earnest request of St. Bernard, has granted three thousand years (!) indulgence to all who with a contrite heart, recite the Lord’s Prayer and Hail Mary 3 times, in honor of the Wound of the Shoulder of Our Blessed Redeemer.

The Prayer

O Loving Jesus, meek Lamb of God, I a miserable sinner, salute and worship the most Sacred Wound of Thy Shoulder, on which Thou didst bear Thy heavy Cross, which so tore Thy Flesh and laid bare Thy Bones as to inflict on Thee an anguish greater than any other Wound of Thy Most Blessed Body.  I adore Thee, O Jesus most sorrowful; I praise and glorify Thee and give Thee thanks for this most sacred and painful Wound,  beseeching Thee by that exceeding pain and by the crushing burden of Thy heavy Cross to be merciful to me, a sinner, to forgive me all my mortal and venial sins, and to lead me on towards Heaven along the Way of Thy Cross.  Amen.[3]

If this prayer was said each day for years, your time in Purgatory would be considerably shortened, due to the mercy and goodness of our Creator. 

There are many other prayers that have indulgences attached that would help even further – especially those with a Plenary Indulgence.  A Plenary Indulgence is one that obtains a complete remission of all temporal punishment due for sins.  Since we need all the help we can get to save our souls, this is an extraordinary mercy that God offers us.  However, to obtain a plenary indulgence, we usually must pray for the intentions of the pope.  One might ask how we can do that, without compromise, when the pope has many bad intentions?  For example, Pope Francis uses his monthly prayer intentions to promote his politically-correct climate alarmism, which is a basis for his promotion of a one-world government to regulate the ecology of the world and of the oceans in particular.

However, despite Pope Francis’s own bad intentions, there are always some good intentions which are automatically included in the intentions of the pope.  God wants us to pray for these Traditional Catholic intentions of the pope, but of course, not pray for any evil intentions.  Thus, it would be a good thing for you to make your intent explicit – for yourself and for others – by stating that you are praying for the Traditional intentions of the pope, thereby reminding yourself and others that you reject his evil and radical intentions.  The Traditional intentions of the pope are these six: 

  1. The Exaltation of the Church;
  2. The Propagation of the Faith;
  3. The Extirpation of Heresy;
  4. The Conversion of Sinners;
  5. The Concord between Christian Princes; and
  6. The Further Welfare of the Christian People.

Another condition of gaining the plenary indulgence is going to Confession and receiving Holy Communion.  That, of course, is a proviso that all of us have fulfilled for years (never dreaming that there might come a time when this was not possible).  How then can we gain a plenary indulgence without access to uncompromising priests and Sacraments?  Should uncompromising Traditional Catholics even “bother” praying for the Traditional intentions of the pope to obtain a plenary indulgence, when, in our times of Great Apostasy, there is little or no opportunity to fulfill the other usual conditions, viz., going to confession and receiving Holy Communion?

The answer is "yes"!

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

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

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

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

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

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



[1]           Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 7, article title: Indulgences, The Gilmary Society, New York, 1910, p. 783.        

[2]           Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 7, article title: What an Indulgence is, The Gilmary Society, New York, 1910, p. 783-4.

[3]           Published by Our Lady of the Rosary Library, 4016 Preston Hwy, Louisville, KY, 40213, Imprimatur: Thomas D. Beven, Bishop of Springfield, Ma.

Lesson #35 About the Temperaments – An Introduction

Philosophy Notes

Mary’s School of Sanctity

Lesson #34  About the Temperaments – An Introduction

There are many things one can say about the subject of temperaments.  In the next series of lessons, we will be investigating this topic.  We will set about probing the following questions:

1.    What is the definition of temperament?

2.    What is the definition of character?

 

3.    What is the definition of personality?

4.    Why do we bother learning about temperaments?

a.    Because we can know ourselves better by knowing our own temperament.

b.    Because the knowledge of temperaments can help us understand others    better and, thus, improve our relationships with other people.

5.    Can knowing one’s own temperament help a person with the work he must do for his salvation?

 

a.    Yes, because one can see the typical strengths and weaknesses of his temperament and thus, he can see how to foster the strengths of his temperament in order to overcome his weaknesses.

b.    Yes, because a person’s temperament will incline him to view spirituality in a particular way.

 

6.    Can understanding the temperaments help parents and others in positions of authority guide those in their care?

a.    Yes, understanding the temperaments can help superiors see the best way to deal with those in their care.

b.    Yes, superiors can teach those in their care about the temperaments and help them to understand how to use strengths to overcome weaknesses.

7.    Can understanding the temperaments help spouses live more harmoniously together?

a.    Yes, the couple can get along better by knowing how the particular temperaments interact with each other.

b.    Yes, the couple can also strategize better in the raising of their children by observing and studying the temperaments of their children.

8.    Can understanding the temperaments help a young adult find a more compatible spouse?

a.    Yes, because the young adult will be able to find out what temperament might best suit his/her own.

b.    Yes, knowing the temperaments will help the young adult see how crucial it is to find a compatible spouse and one who is working with the strengths of his/her temperament to overcome the weaknesses of that temperament. 

Getting started – 1) What is the definition of temperament?

We learn in our catechism that man is composed of body and soul.  The body is made of matter and the soul is spiritual.  Each human souls are created like every other one, although each soul is a separate creation of God.  At conception, when the parts of matter are united, God creates the soul which informs that particular matter.  Therefore, souls are individualized by the matter in which they are placed.  Each person has a separate soul in separate matter.

With this information in mind, we can begin our investigation of the matter which distinguishes persons[1] and determines a person’s temperament.  This matter is genetic and so our temperaments are derived from the genetic code which we inherit from our parents.  Each temperament has a typical set of traits. 

The word temperament comes from the Latin word temperamentum, meaning “a mixing in due proportion” and this word in turn comes from the Latin word tempare, meaning “to combine or mingle in due proportion.”  Temperament refers to “the peculiar physical and mental character of an individual, as the sanguine, phlegmatic, choleric (or bilious), or melancholic temperament, denoted types formerly believed to be due the preponderance of one or the other of these humors; Frame of mind or type of mental reactions characteristic of an individual”.[2]  

The humors referred to here are “In old physiology, a fluid or juice, especially one of the four fluids—blood, phlegm, choler (yellow bile), and melancholy (black bile)—conceived as disposition or state of mind; mood.”[3]

Hence, it is with reference to these four bodily humors that there springs the idea of the four basic temperaments listed below:

Sanguine –very generous, giving all [characterized by having an abundant circulation of blood; warm; ardent; disposed to be hopeful; anticipating the best.

Melancholic [melas-anos, black + chole, gall, bile] a thick, dark, acrid bile formerly imagined to be a secretion of the kidneys or spleen, and the cause of gloominess, irascibility, or mental dejection, later, extreme depression of spirits, painful delusions, or brooding [Sadness].

Choleric [characterized by choler or bile] hot-tempered, easily angered or irritated, also angry.

Phlegmatic [one of the four “humors” of early physiology.] It was supposed to be cold and moist, and to cause sluggishness.  Sluggishness of temperament; apathy; calmness, equanimity.[4]

There are various schools of thought of how these humors actually influence our bodies and determine what temperament we each have.  Nevertheless, these humors can be thought of as follows:

Fourfold classification seems fairly to represent certain markedly contrasted types of disposition, though they leave room for subdivision and intermediate forms. Moreover, though scientists are still far from being agreed as to the precise elements in the organism on which the temperament depends, the fact that different forms of temperament have an organic basis seems certain.  The transmission from parent to offspring of hereditary dispositions, therefore, involves no conflict with the doctrine of the creation of each human soul.[5]


2) What is the definition of character?

The Catholic Encyclopedia discusses character as follows:

Although our original temperament is thus given to us independently of our will, we ourselves play an important part in the molding of our character, and we thus become responsible for certain ethical qualities in it.  Character has been defined as “a completely fashioned will.”  It would be more accurate to say that character is “natural temperament completely fashioned by our will.”  It is in fact, a resultant of the combination of our acquired habits with our original disposition [temperament] ….

Among the acquired elements to which the building up of character may be distinguished are those pertaining to cognition, whether sensuous or intellectual, and those belonging to the emotional and volitional activities of the soul.  Exercise strengthens the power and widens the range of each faculty, creating, not uncommonly, a craving for further exercise in the same direction.  The regular use of the intellect, the reflection, contributes to the formation of habits of mind more or less thoughtful and refined. The frequent indulgence in particular forms of emotion, such as anger, envy, sympathy, melancholy, fear, and the like fosters tendencies towards these sentiments which give a subconscious bent to a large part of man’s behavior.  But finally, the exercise of the will plays the predominant part in molding the type of character which is being formed.   The manner and degree in which currents of thought and waves of emotion are initiated, guided, and controlled by the will, or allowed to follow the course of spontaneous impulse, has not less effect in determining the resultant type of character than the quality of the thoughts or emotions themselves.  The life of the lower animal is entirely ruled by instinct within, and by accidental circumstances from without.   It is therefore incapable of acquiring a character.  Man, through the awakening of reason and the growth of reflection, by the exercise of deliberate choice against the movements of impulse, gradually develops self-control; and it is by the exercise of this power that moral character is especially formed.  Character is in fact the outcome of a series of volitions, and it is for this reason we are responsible for our characters, as we are for the individual habits which go to constitute them [viz., characters].[6]


3) What is the definition of personality?

Personality is: 1) Quality or state of being personal, or of being a person; personal existence or identity. 2) Quality of referring directly to an individual. 3) Distinction or excellence of personal and social traits.[7]

Personality also applies to the aggregate of qualities which distinguish an individual, but the term differs from character in that it implies his [the individual’s] being distinguished as a person rather than as a moral being.   In general, personality may be said to be revealed in unconscious as well as in conscious acts or movements, in physical and emotional as well as in mental and moral behavior, and especially, in a person’s relations to others; thus, one may know very little about the character of an acquaintance, yet have a very definite idea of his personality.   Therefore, personality is qualified as not as good, bad, or the like, but by an adjective implying the extent to which it pleases, displeases, or otherwise impresses the observer.  …Hence, personality often distinctively means personal magnetism or charm.[8] 

Now that we have made the necessary distinctions concerning these three words, that is, temperament, character, and personality, let us briefly consider our 4th question from above.


4) Why do we bother learning about temperaments?

    a) Because we can know ourselves better by knowing our own temperament.

     b) Because the knowledge of temperaments can help us understand others    better and thus improve our relationships with our neighbors.

With our fallen human nature, we are not inclined to want to know ourselves better. We have a kind of fear to see our defects, but self-knowledge has been spoken of by the saints repeatedly as being a very crucial part of our salvation and sanctification.  Acquiring self-knowledge is worth all the efforts one can make—especially because it helps us obtain humility.  Self-knowledge of the inclinations found in our temperament and knowledge of the tendencies of other people help us to avoid misjudging others.  In addition to this favorable result, we can make more allowances for others and also be more forgiving of others. 


So, let’s set about getting to know ourselves.

We have given the classes or types of temperaments that are most commonly spoken of.  Of course, there have been many who have studied the temperaments and have tried to classify them into more subdivisions with different names.  Each of us has a primary temperament and a secondary one.  In other words, we are usually a combination of two temperaments with one of them being predominant in us and the other one a clear second. What percentage is our predominant temperament?  We will need to study all four temperaments in order to discover our combination.

In upcoming Lessons concerning temperaments:

We will be discussing each of the four historically accepted temperaments incorporating the list of queries noted above.  We will likewise endeavor to give the spiritual difficulties that each temperament has as well as its positive spiritual traits. We will discuss the typical combinations found of the four types of temperaments.  In this way we can improve our interactions with others, discover our own temperament if we do not already know it, and assist ourselves in our life’s work, namely, the salvation or our souls.  After treating each of the four temperaments we will supply a couple of comparative charts so all the temperaments can be viewed side by side for analysis and a better understanding of how they interact.

 



[1]           St. Thomas defines a person as an individual substance of an intellectual nature.  Therefore, only humans and angels can properly be called persons.  The Divine Persons have a different definition unique to the Essence of the Trinity, and these Persons are not being discussed here.

[2]           This definition is taken from the Merriam-Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1949.

[3]           All four of these definitions are taken from the Merriam-Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1949.

[4]           These definitions are taken from the Merriam-Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1949.

 

[5]           Taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 edition, under the article entitled Character.

[6]           Taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913 edition, from the article entitled Character, (bold added for emphasis; bracketed words added for clarity).

[7]           These definitions are taken from the Merriam-Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary copyright 1949.

[8]           This quote is taken from Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Synonyms copyright 1951, found under disposition.

Marriage and Purity under Satanic Attack

Marriage is under Attack

In past articles, Catholic Candle has shown how Satan, Marx, and the feminists are anti-marriage and anti-family.[1]  These evil forces even admit their hostility to marriage and family.[2]  There are many reasons for their hostility.  For example, they hate marriage and the family because they hate the Natural Law.[3]

Another reason Marxists and feminists seek to destroy marriage and the family, is because this destruction results in discontented and angry “apostles” for the leftist causes.  The Marxists and feminists can get those “apostles” to protest, to march in the street, and in other ways be useful tools of the ongoing cultural and political revolution.[4]

By contrast, spouses who are living the life that God and Nature intended them to lead, and who are raising stable families, are too contented with their lives and too busy with their important life’s work to spend a lot of time at rallies and “community organizing”, etc

A third reason that the Marxists and feminist leaders attack marriage and the family, is that married voters – especially those with children – are more likely to vote Republican.[5]  This is true both of men and women, including all minority voters.[6]  These voters, including blacks, incline toward the standard Republican agenda, such as wanting greater police presence in their neighborhoods.[7]  In fact, one of the best predictors of what political party a person will vote for, is whether he/she is married.[8] 

In God’s wonderful Providence, marriage and raising children are incredibly helpful for instilling self-sacrifice and conservatism in parents.  Motivated by their natural love for their children, parents are moved to willingly sacrifice themselves in countless ways for their children. 

For example, they are motivated by love for their children to avoid bad language and scandalous deeds (which those parents might otherwise commit) for fear that their children would witness the sin or learn about it later.  In a marvelous way, marriage and children make adults more serious and responsible.  Based on our decades of seeing this happen in parents, we think it is clear that there would be far fewer laymen in heaven were it not for this wholesome and strong effect that marriage and children have on the spouses’ characters.

It is no wonder that, under the Natural Law, marriage is the “universal” vocation because it not only prepares the next generation for adulthood, but also is a spectacular school of virtue and character development for the parents as well.  Perhaps this help to the virtue of the parents is the greatest blessing of marriage and greater even than the good they do for their children!

Obviously, these truths (above) certainly do not mean that all parents are straight-to-heaven saints.  Far from it!  But there is a general improvement of the souls of the parents in most cases.  Sometimes this improvement is very great.  Regardless, marriage is a great blessing from God for time and for eternity – and the Marxists and feminists hate it and attack marriage as “patriarchal”.

For example, feminist leader, Germaine Greer, asserted that, after they achieve their goal of destroying the enemy (which she identifies as the “patriarchal family”), the state will wither away into a Marxist paradise.  Here are her words:

Women’s liberation, if it abolishes the patriarchal family, will abolish a necessary substructure of the authoritarian state, and once that withers away Marx will have come true willy-nilly, so let’s get on with it.[9]

This Marxist and feminist hatred for marriage has resulted in their very longstanding and effective attack on marriage.  One of the Catholic Candle team has taken a daily commuter train for more than 35 years.  One sign that he has noticed of the effective attack on marriage, is the plummeting number of persons wearing wedding rings.  In the 1990s, among the women whom he saw on the train during this daily commute, roughly 3 in 4 of them wore wedding rings.  Now, roughly 1 in 15 wears one – roughly a 90% decrease in wedding rings! 

Purity is under Attack

The holy and beautiful Virtue of Purity goes “hand-in-hand” with marriage.  So, Satan, the Marxists, and the feminists not only hate marriage and but also hate purity.[10]  This is obvious to anyone who takes the briefest look at modern society.  We see that the enemies of Our Lord have succeeded amazingly well in their attacks on purity (as well as everything else which is True and Good).

·         We see the promiscuous attire most women wear.[11] 

·         We see the most putrid “entertainment” all around society which constantly promotes lust even more than all of the other deadly sins.

 

·         We see the foulest impure language is commonplace in society.[12] 

It is amazing how fully impurity has forced its way into every corner of society!

The feminists brand their enemies as “patriarchal” and so, they attack both marriage and purity as “patriarchal”.    

Thus, the feminist (and Marxist) mouthpiece, Planned Parenthood, has been attacking virginity as “patriarchal”.  Here are Planned Parenthood’s words in one such attack:

The idea of virginity comes from outdated – let’s be real, patriarchal – ways of thinking that hurts [sic] everyone.[13]

Further, Planned Parenthood tweeted a picture of one of its billboards (shown below):

Featured Image

Planned Parenthood (@PPFA) published this picture of its billboard at this link: https://twitter.com/PPFA/status/1674462837425446912https://t.co/QYmNbEZzbw

Let us reflect on what Planned Parenthood is saying in this billboard.

A social construct is defined as:

A complex concept or practice shared by a society or group, not arising from any natural or innate source but built on the assumptions upheld, usually tacitly, by its members.[14]

We see that feminist/leftist Planned Parenthood is promoting the idea that there is no good reason why a woman or girl should not be promiscuous.  This is the feminist and Marxist position that refraining from a dissolute and wanton life of impurity is merely based on assumptions arising from patriarchy (which the feminists hold to be always evil).[15]

The devil and his minions know that sins of the flesh are fallen man’s greatest weakness.  He falls easily into these sins and they “rot” his soul.  This is why Our Lady stated at Fatima that more people go to hell because of sins of the flesh than any other kind of sin.

With impurity everywhere and with mankind so thoroughly imbued with moral decay, society becomes completely unable to resist the ongoing leftist revolution – just as a tree would be unable to resist the force of the wind after that tree has become thoroughly rotten to its core.

These are the conditions of the exceedingly degraded world we live in.  But God has allowed this demonic filth and it is part of the prelude to the coming of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  Our Lady prophesied at Quito, Ecuador, that she will completely triumph.  However, she added that her triumph will only occur when all seems hopeless.  Here are her words:

When everything will seem lost and paralyzed, that will be the happy beginning of the complete Restoration. This will mark the arrival of My hour, when I, in a marvelous way, will dethrone the proud and cursed Satan, trampling him under My feet and chaining him in the infernal abyss.[16]

We seem to be approaching that time “when everything will seem lost and paralyzed”, when Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart will then triumph.  Of course, we don’t know exactly when this will occur but let us pray for this triumph.

Meanwhile, even Our Lord’s enemies can unintentionally work our Good and our Salvation if we respond to their evils in the way which God intends us to respond.  Everything, including these traps and assaults of the Devil, work together unto the good, for those who love God”.  Romans, 8:28.

Let us firmly avoid unnecessary occasions of sin, particularly of impurity, and let us fight strongly against those occasions of the sin of impurity which we cannot avoid.  This fight is necessary for holiness and for our friendship with God.  Let us remember that:

Religion clean and undefiled before God and the Father, is this:  to visit the fatherless and widows in their tribulation:  and to keep one’s self unspotted from this world.

St. James, 1:27 (emphasis added).

With strong hearts, let us fight for Christ the King and against His enemies!



[7]           See, e.g., Black Americans Want Police to Retain Local Presence, the Gallup Poll dated August 5, 2020, in which the majority of blacks said they wanted a greater police presence in their neighborhoods, not a smaller one.  Of course, this does not fit with the leftist agenda so it is not mentioned by the mainstream media.  This poll can be found here: https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/black-americans-police-retain-local-presence.aspx

 

[10]         Two of the Communist’s 45 Goals which have been thoroughly fulfilled, are:

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, and healthy.”

These two goals are among the 45 communist goals which are published in:

§  The 1963 Congressional Record – Appendix, pp. A34-A35, Current Communist Goals, Extension of Remarks of Hon. A. S. Herlong, Jr. of Florida in the House of Representatives, Thursday, January 10, 1963; and

§  The Naked Communist, p. 261, a 1962 book by a former FBI agent and communism expert, W. Cleon Skousen, based on the best sources and best FBI intelligence during its investigation of communist infiltration into the United States.  President Ronald Reagan praised Skousen, saying: “No one is better qualified to discuss the threat to this nation from communism.”

Seeing every country’s seemingly total subversion – including through impurity – reminds us that Our Lady foretold that “every country, without exception, will be overcome by Communism”.  Our Lady of Fatima, by William Thomas Walsh, Doubleday, © 1954, p.229 (emphasis added).

[11]         For an analysis of the Catholic standard of modesty, read these articles:

 

v  Women should Wear Dresses and Skirts, Not Pants: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/03/21/women-should-wear-dresses-and-skirts-not-pants-2/

 

v  Mary-like Neckline Modesty: https://catholiccandle.org/2023/05/21/marylike-neckline-modesty/

 

[12]         Read about the crucial importance of pure and upright speech here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/sins-caused-by-obscene-speech

 

[13]         Here is where you can read Planned Parenthood’s words on its twitter feed: Planned Parenthood (@PPFA): https://twitter.com/PPFA/status/1674462837425446912

 

[14]         https://www.dictionary.com/browse/social-construct (emphasis added).

[15]         Read this article about the feminists’ attack on patriarchy: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/12/18/how-to-fight-feminism-part-ii/

 

[16]         Words of Our Lady of Quito, Ecuador, in 1634, to Mother Marianna de Jesus.

Leftist Destruction of Fatherhood Causes Sons to Be Failures

Catholic Candle note: This is a companion article to Catholic Candle’s article on the role and glory of womanhood.  This article is available here: https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/02/the-role-and-work-that-god-gave-to-woman/

The article below can also be viewed as a companion article to the ones concerning the leftist attack on motherhood.  You can read these articles here: https://catholiccandle.org/2022/08/26/the-feminist-program-is-the-same-as-that-of-satan-and-marx-part-vii/

Leftist Destruction of Fatherhood in Families Causes Sons to Be “Dad-Deprived” Failures

The leftist revolution is focused on destroying fatherhood.  One of the key reasons Marxists and feminists want to destroy the family is in order to destroy paternity and paternal authority.  No matter what else the leftists do, their revolution would fail if society were full of strong fathers fulfilling their duties of state.

The Marxists and feminists follow their founder and leader, Satan, attacking paternity because they hate God, Who is the Creator and Model of all fatherhood and “from Whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth receives its name”.  Ephesians, 3:14-15. 

Also, paternity is part of the Natural Law.  The feminists and Marxists hate paternity because they hate the Natural Law.[1]

Further, in order to enhance the power of the government (which is increasingly controlled by them), the enemies of Our Lord Jesus Christ want to destroy the basic “building block” of society (viz., the family) and substitute the individual in its place.  If society were founded on the individual instead of the family, then there would be no familial society to nurture the children and to be a haven of security and assistance for the members of the family.  This arrangement is like the one in communist countries, where they have “free” state-sponsored “child care” to minimize the influence of parents and families and to increase the role and influence of the state.

Under this arrangement, everyone who needs help of any type (especially the children) would have to depend on the government.  Along with destroying the family, the leftists also subvert, weaken, or destroy other non-governmental institutions such as the Human Element of the Church and non-government schools).  So, this on-going, leftists’ attack is made against the family and, secondarily, against other non-government institutions, in order to break down society’s mutual bonds and to make everyone depend more on the government, giving the government the power to increasingly control everything.

This attack on patriarchy and the family has been Satan’s plan for centuries but is succeeding much more fully now.  We see this plan sometimes stated openly.  For example, Cambacérès, the French revolutionary[2] and legislator, declared that:

Paternal power no longer exists.  A man should not have direct power over another, even if it be his own child.[3] 

This plan of Satan and his servants then, is that without fatherhood, only the government would have power over people.

Similarly, the French socialist, Benoît Malon, attacked fatherhood in these words: 

What must happen is to completely abolish the authority of the father and his almost royal power in the family.  In effect, equality only will be perfect if this is achieved.  Aren’t the children of as great a value as the parents?  By what right do the latter command the former?  Enough of obedience! Enough of inequality![4]

It is obvious under whose banner Benoît Malon (and the other enemies of Our Lord) are marching when they declare: “Enough of obedience!”  This declaration is another way of voicing their leader’s battle cry: “Non serviam!”

Benoît Malon and the other leftists have learned from Satan to also echo his words: “Enough of inequality!”  This malicious temptation comes from the original one who sewed discontent, who told Eve that God was trying to keep her from becoming equal with Him:

For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as gods.

Genesis, 3:5.

In fact, inequality is crucial to the proper order in everything.  Here is St. Thomas Aquinas’ explanation of this fundamental truth:

It must be said that as the wisdom of God is the cause of the distinction of things, so the same wisdom is the cause of their inequality.[5]

So, to the extent that the leftists destroy fatherhood in society, they destroy the family and the children, especially the sons.  One way the boys are destroyed is by not learning discipline and manly virtue from their father.


Dad-Deprived Boys Are More Likely to be Criminals.

Not only do the leftists successfully destabilize society by destroying the family, but they are also destabilizing society through the young criminals who are turned loose on society after growing up in dysfunctional families. 

Marxist revolutionaries know that marauding criminals destroy society’s peace and stability.  That is why one of the first things such revolutionaries do (when they are beginning to gain control) is to open the prisons and free the criminals.[6]   

One of the crucial harms resulting from the destruction of the family as an institution, is that boys are Dad-deprived.  The number of boys growing up without their fathers has almost doubled since 1960 (from 17% to 32%).[7] 

Those boys who don’t live with their fathers are about 50% more likely to be arrested by age 19 and more than twice as likely to be arrested by age 34.[8]

This connection (viz., between the father being present in the family home and the decreased likelihood of the sons going to prison) remains strong and statistically significant even after accounting for family income, race, maternal education, and age.[9]

It is striking that the most common aspect of a mass-shooter’s profile (besides that he is male) is that he was dad-deprived – i.e., he lacked a father figure in his life.[10]

To take just three infamous examples:

  Stephen Paddock, who killed 58 in a mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017, had a father who was imprisoned and had little contact with his son. 

  Adam Lanza, (Newtown, Connecticut in 2012), who murdered 26 people, did not often see his father, who was divorced from his mother.[11]

 

  Patrick Wood Crusius (El Paso Walmart on August 3, 2019) who murdered 23 people, had a father who was divorced from his mother when he was three years old.[12]

Of course, there are many higher, more hidden ways in which fathers are crucial to a family.  But this increased criminality of boys who are raised without their fathers, shows one dramatic type of loss to those families and society.


Without Their Fathers at Home, Boys are More Likely to Be Failures in Other Ways, Too.

There are many ways in which the father of a family has an irreplaceable role, as shown by the Natural Law and the Catholic Faith.  (Of course, the mother’s role is crucial too, but in an irreplaceably different way.)  Above, we saw that when the father lives with his family, his sons are more likely to stay out of trouble and avoid becoming criminals.

When, however, the father lives with his family, the family will also (statistically) have a larger income and more assets.[13]  This adds stability to a family.

Of course, there are more important things than more money, which are involved in growing up.  It is important for those sons to “make something of themselves”.  Sons who “drift” through life are on the path of failure rather than accomplishment.

But young men who are raised in a home with their father are more than two times as likely to graduate college by their late-20s, compared to those who grow up in families without their father (35% vs. 14%).[14]  See the graph of this data below.[15] 

This disparity and that benefit of the father’s presence is true regardless of race and family income (i.e., “controlling” for those factors).[16]  Further, this is statistically true even though many fathers do a poor job of fulfilling their paternal responsibilities.

A college degree is not the only way to see that a young man has some employment success and does not become a derelict.  As an alternative to the college route, a young man can live a productive life by getting a high school diploma and then holding a full-time job.

If the young man grew up in a home without his father present, that young man is almost twice as likely to live an idle life (i.e., having neither a job nor being in school) in his mid-twenties as compared to the boy who grew up in a home which includes his father.[17]  This disparity and that benefit of the father’s presence is true regardless of race and family income (i.e., “controlling” for those factors).[18]  See the graph below.[19]

We see that the family is a natural institution and has an essential need for its father.  This is a reflection of the perfect wisdom of God and the Natural Law!  He made the family to have a father as its head and a mother as its heart.  That is how the family ever was, how it is, and how it will be until the end of the world. 

It is crucial that boys are raised by their fathers and are taught by their fathers how to be men and how to live lives of sacrifice and virtue.  They must learn how to spend their lives fulfilling their manly role and responsibilities, how to fight in the Church Militant for Christ the King and against His enemies!

Those who reject God’s Plan are rejecting reality.  They are part of the wreckage which litters the history of mankind, and, if they continue on this path of failure, they will become desolate souls buried in the tomb of hell.



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

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

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

Summa, Ia IIae, Q.91, a.2, respondeo.

[4]           Quoting Malon from his book Le Socialisme Intégral, as quoted in The Authority of the Father, by Msgr. Henri Delassus, found here:   https://www.traditioninaction.org/Cultural/B002cpFathers_deLassus.htm  (emphasis added).

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

[6]           In his warning about the ongoing Marxist takeover of the U.S., KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov taught that the Marxists have four phases to their takeover of a nation (in this case, the U.S.):

  The first phase is called demoralization (that is the translation of the Russian word).  It involves the ideological brainwashing of an entire generation of people.  This includes moral corruption.  Bezmenov holds (correctly, we think), that this phase is sufficiently accomplished (although in the U.S., conditions continue to worsen).

  The second phase is called destabilization (again, that is the translation of a Russian word).  It consists of stirring up severe societal problems in the target country to create a crisis.  We are now in this stage.
 

  The third state is the crisis (likewise, that is the translation of a Russian word).  Bezmenov explains that this is a short period in which society experiences a sudden emergency which the Marxists take advantage of, to either seize full control of the country by force or they are invited (as a “savior”) to exercise control of the country because the people are so desperate for peace and stability and to end the great crisis.

  The fourth stage is called normalization (that is the translation of a Russian word).  This is where Marxists “stabilize” the nation, under their control.  This stabilization results from the iron fist of the totalitarian regime having full control of society causing everything to be quiet.  China has been “stable” like this for most of the last decades.

The above summary of Bezmenov’s presentation of this Marxist plan can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQPsKvG6WMI

[10]         https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/most-mass-shooters-dad-deprived-males-author-warren-farrell_3786721.html

Another key factor in mass-shootings is that so many of these mass-shooters are on “attitude adjusters”, i.e., psychotropic drugs for their “psychological problems”.  See, e.g. these analyses here:

  https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/the-decades-of-evidence-that-antidepressants

  https://www.ammoland.com/2013/04/every-mass-shooting-in-the-last-20-years-shares-psychotropic-drugs/

In St. Thomas Aquinas’ Commentary on Aristotle’s Treatise on the Soul (“De Anima”), St. Thomas shows the truth that, aside from (unusual) medical problems in the brain as a bodily organ which are caused by disease or physical trauma, what people need, who have “psychological” problems, is wise advice, sometimes over a prolonged period, about how to change their thinking about life and what moral choices they should make. 

 

Thus, what is needed by people who have “psychological” problems is not someone with a particular academic degree or license but rather an advisor who has the virtue of Prudence, the Gift of the Holy Ghost which is called “Counsel”, and the other virtues and Gifts of the Holy Ghost.

[13]         For example, in a Newsweek article, citing U.S. Census data, it states:

Married mothers, ages 18-55, have a mean household income of $133,000, compared to $79,000 for childless, single women, 18-55 ….

https://www.newsweek.com/why-conservative-women-report-being-happiest-how-you-can-too-opinion-1748894

Words to Live by – from Catholic Tradition

We must Show Ourselves to be Valiant Members of the Church Militant And Not Cowards and Quitters.

The teaching of the Mystical Doctor, St. John of the Cross:

Though the path is plain and smooth for people of good will, those who walk it will not travel far, and will do so only with difficulty if they do not have good feet, courage, and tenacity of spirit.

St. John of the Cross, Saying of Light and Love, #3 (emphasis added).

CC in brief — May 2024

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 readers to submit their own questions.

Q.        Is it permissible for a priest to receive conditional ordination even though he himself has no doubts about the validity of his earlier ordination?

A.        Anytime there is even the smallest reasonable doubt about the validity of a priest’s ordination, he should be conditionally ordained.[1]

When a priest’s ordination is doubtful, that ordination should be treated as invalid.  This is the whole point of conditional ordination.  If a doubtful ordination were treated as valid, then there would never be a reason for a conditional ordination.

However, this smallest doubt (which requires conditional ordination), must be a real, (i.e., an affirmative) doubt.  In other words, there must be a reason to doubt the validity of the ordination. 

A doubt for no reason at all, that is, a wholly negative doubt (“dubium est mere negativum”), is not sufficient to require or even allow conditional ordination.[2]  Such a negative doubt is “entirely imprudent and empty” (“omnino imprudens atque inane”).[3]

Thus, the Catholic Church’s test for determining the need for conditional ordination, is whether there is the smallest real reason to doubt, but (of course) excluding any doubt for no reason at all.

Some priests who received an earlier conciliar “ordination” before coming to tradition, subsequently received a traditional conditional ordination but they have claimed that they themselves had no doubt about the validity of their own prior ordination but received conditional ordination only because some laymen had doubted the prior ordination.

However, in the case where an ordination was really free from even the smallest reasonable doubt, then receiving even a conditional ordination would be a sacrilege.

Further, consider this: if a validly-ordained priest were permitted to receive conditional ordination anyway, without committing sacrilege, then what is the limiting principle?  Would he be permitted to receive conditional ordinations after having already received 100 prior conditional ordinations, simply because some other people continued to have unreasonable doubts about his ordination?  The answer is obviously “no”. 

Therefore, it is clear that a doubt concerning a prior ordination must be a reasonable doubt, at least a small one.  Any doubt which is “entirely imprudent and empty” is not enough to allow conditional ordination regardless of how many people hold such an empty, unreasonable doubt.


Catholic Candle
Note:

For further information about the inherent doubtfulness of the conciliar “ordination” rite, read these analyses:

   https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/new-ordination-doubtful.html

  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B49oPuI54eEGd2RRcTFSY29EYzg/view

For further information about the doubtfulness of the conciliar “consecration” rite, read this analysis:

  https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B49oPuI54eEGZVF5cmFvMGdZM0U/view

 



[1]           See, e.g., Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Hunter, S.J., Benziger Bros., 1896, vol. 3, p. 219 (requiring conditional ordination wherever there is even the “smallest doubt” about the validity of the ordination).  Cf., Denzinger 1151 (Condemnation by Pope Innocent XI in 1679 of those accepting probably-valid sacraments and not taking the safer course).

[2]           See, H. Nolin, S.J., Summa Theologiae Moralis, Oeniponte, 1920, vol. III, p.27.

[3]           See, H. Nolin, S.J., Summa Theologiae Moralis, Oeniponte, 1920, vol. III, p.27.

Lesson #34 Afterword on the Spiritual Exercises

Philosophy Notes

Mary’s School of Sanctity

A Reflection on Mary and the Principle and Foundation

Having finished the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, let us take this lesson to reflect on how Our Dear Mother Mary lived the Principle and Foundation to perfection. 

First we will need to recall the actual text that St. Ignatius gives us for the Principle and Foundation:

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.

Our Catechism teaches us that the chief creatures of God are angels and men.  We say “chief creatures” because both angels and men were created with an intellectual power.  Angels and men are the type of creatures that can know God, not as He comprehends Himself, but understanding God is the Supreme Being with His infinite perfections.  When we humans ponder our ability to know God, we can see that it is astounding that God gave us such a wonderful capacity.

Man’s highest faculties are his intellect and his will.  He must use these powers to praise, revere, and serve God his Creator.  The more a man uses his will and intellect properly, the better he serves God.  In fact, God wants man to perfect his intellect.

But how does man perfect his intellect?  He pursues truth and studies it.  He is able to look at and study divinely revealed truths.  He also needs to look at the world around him in order to examine it through his senses and discover reality on many levels. [Romans 1:20][1]

In addition to learning through observation and study, man can learn by God infusing truth in him.[2]  God has done this wonderful thing to His saints.  He did this on the highest level for Mary.

Now let us consider some additional facts in order to better see God’s magnificent plan for Mary and for us.  The angels also were created with the moral obligation to praise, revere, and serve God.  There intellects are far superior to ours.  

Lucifer was the highest angel and had the strongest intellect of all the angels.  Yet, in his pride and abusing his free-will, he failed the test that God put forth to the angels.  We are not sure of the exact nature of the test, but one could think that Lucifer and one-third[3] of the total number of angels refused to accept the fact that God would become incarnate as Man.  Not only this, but also the angels would have to serve God made man and His Holy Mother who was merely a human – a woman at that.[4]  Therefore, Lucifer failed to fulfill the purpose for which he was created.

Let us contrast his failure with Mary.  Mary is God’s masterpiece and she fulfills His Plan the best.  We must remember that God gave her all of her prerogatives because God chose her to be His Mother.  God loves Mary more than He loves all the angels and saints put together.  God gave her more knowledge and virtue than all the angels and saints put together.  She took Lucifer’s place, as it were.  Thus, it is not surprising that Satan hates her and her humility, her exact obedience, and the fact that God has given such power and majesty to her.  Satan hates the fact, too, that God made her our Mother, our model and our protectress. 

Let us reflect how she followed the Principle and Foundation perfectly.  She praised God from the moment of her Immaculate Conception.  She had perfect use of her reason from that moment.  She spent her earthly life always in the deepest contemplation of God and His truths.

Her love for God exceeds the love for Him of all of the angels and the other saints combined.  As a result, she revered God the most during her earthly sojourn.  She was presented in the temple when she was a tender three-year-old and learned the Scriptures.  She prayed for the redemption of Israel.  

When the angel Gabriel appeared to her, she humbly wondered what his greeting meant.  She was well-aware how to discern the spirits and how to protect herself from pride.  She tested Gabriel’s message by referring to her vow of chastity and then she was satisfied by the way Gabriel expressed God’s holy plan.  She had no doubt that God would preserve her virginity.  She revered His Divine Plan for the Incarnation.  She most willingly gave her “fiat”.  She understood she would have a life of suffering because the Son of God was to be born as an oblation to God for the salvation of mankind.

St. Joseph, too, had taken a vow of perpetual chastity.  Both Our Lady and St. Joseph understood the chastity that would be sacred in their marriage.  Both were committed to serving God with their whole hearts.  They would serve God together in monastic married life.  In their midst God-made-Man would grow to manhood.

Think of their anguish when Our Lord stayed behind in Jerusalem at age twelve.   God kept His intention hidden from them in order to increase their merit.  Their suffering was in reparation for the sins of men and they were setting examples for parents for all the generations to come.

Mary as a wife is such a resplendent model for all wives.  She was subservient to St. Joseph, as this was part of her service to God.  Wives should obey their husbands and follow Mary’s example.  She loved God so much and was devoted to her duty because she loved God.

Mary was also a perfect example for all mothers.  She was ever ready to sacrifice all for her family.  Of course, Our Lord was her Son and her God.  Hence, her role of Mother was a unique one.  Nevertheless, Our Lord was subservient to His parents. 

All through Our Lord’s Public Life, Our Lady served Him in countless ways.  We know, too, of her ultimate gift of herself at the Foot of the Cross where she endured a bloodless martyrdom.  Her anguish was like that of no other earthly mother because hers was the most that any human person could possibly suffer.  Yes, she earned the martyr’s palm, Our dear Mother of Sorrows.

The remainder of her days on earth was spent in the service of God as she ministered to the needs of the Apostles and the nascent Church.  Our Lord gave her to us to be Our Mother while He hung on the Cross.  She was faithful in serving her Son by giving her services to the Church which He founded.  Of course, she is ever Our faithful Mother, even as Queen of Heaven and all Creation.  She is our Protectress too.

With these reflections in mind, we see that we could never find a better model (besides Our Lord Himself) of someone who kept the Principle and Foundation perfectly.  Mary is a model not only for women, but for men, too.  We, like Mary, were created to praise, revere, and serve God.  Our mission in life is not as sublime as Mary’s was, but nevertheless, we must be always ready to do whatever He may ask of us.  Let us go to Our Mother, Our Model, and Our Protectress and beg her for guidance on how to make the best effort we can to seek God’s plan and to fulfill His Will for us.

Queen of Angels, pray for us.   Help us to faithfully praise, revere, and serve God so that by this means, we can save our souls.



[1]           Romans 1:20 “For the invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made: His eternal power also, and divinity: so that they [viz., men who pervert the truth ] are inexcusable.”   To put this quote in context, St. Paul had been speaking of those who “detain the truth of God in injustice: because that which is known of God is manifest in them.  For God had manifested it unto them”, and St. Paul was here showing how it was manifested to them.

 

[2]           Angels have only infused knowledge because they do not have bodies and therefore do not have bodily senses.

 

[3]           Apocalypse 12:3-4 “And there was seen another sign in heaven: and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads, and ten horns and on his heads seven diadems: and his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth:”

[4]           The proud angels of the lower choirs might have also rebelled because of the thought that God would assign some of them to be the guardians, helpers, and companions to humans – who were so low compared to their angelic selves!

Live Preparing for Your Particular Judgment

We should live our life today as if we will face God for our Particular Judgment tomorrow.  God is the Judge at our Particular Judgment, and we have to give an account of our whole life: every thought, word, act, or omission.

More specifically, Jesus Christ as Man will be our Judge at the Particular Judgment.  Before Him each soul must stand.  The soul will stand in the awful presence of God the Son, to give and account of its whole life: of every thought, word, act, and omission.

Neither does the Father judge any man, but all judgment He has given to the Son.

St. John’s Gospel, 5:22.

A man’s whole life will be spread before him like a great picture.  He will remember everything, although he might have forgotten much at the moment of death.  How he will wish then that he had done only good![1]

He who dies in mortal sin, even if only with one single mortal sin, will be sent at once to hell.[2]

How can we be careless about a matter of such importance, when we are absolutely certain of being judged by God?  “For what shall I do, when God shall rise to judge?” Job, 31:14.[3]

One of the most important “topics” of our Particular Judgment, is whether we have compromised our perfect Catholic Faith.

Webster defines “compromise” as “coming to an agreement by concession” or “making a shameful concession.” It is no secret that today’s N-SSPX has become liberal following the death of its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1991.  

Thus, today’s followers of the Society – in order to remain in it – have had to compromise and accept its very liberal teachings.  At the top of the list of such compromises is the disgrace of accepting parts of the evil anti-Catholic Second Vatican Council with the insistence that it was okay to accept VII because the council “it was just misunderstood”.  The “new” SSPX also teaches many other errors which jeopardize the faith of their followers.

The conclusion is inescapable in our minds:  Today’s “new” liberal SSPX is not the same SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre.  Here are a few of the reasons we hold this.

1.    The SSPX previously taught that the rubella vaccine and other vaccines developed through abortion are always sinful.  By contrast, the SSPX now says this same rubella vaccine is justifiable for some people and similarly justified are the COVID vaccines which were also developed through abortion.[4] 

2.    The SSPX says it now accepts 95% of Vatican II[5] and says that Vatican II contains no direct heresy and “not so many” errors.[6] 

 

3.    The SSPX now teaches that the religious liberty taught by Vatican II is “a very, very limited one, very limited”.[7]  The truth is that the scope of religious liberty that Vatican II teaches is unlimited as long as public order is not breached.[8]

 

4.       The new SSPX falsely teaches that “many Vatican II texts are traditional”.[9]  The truth is that there are no traditional documents of Vatican II (much less “many”). 

 

5.       Among these Vatican II documents, is Lumen Gentium.  The SSPX now teaches that this document is free from errors/liberalism.[10]  The truth is that there are hundreds of liberal and false statements in Lumen Gentium?[11] 

 

6.    The SSPX called the new mass “Holy Mass”.[12]  Besides this, the SSPX now calls the Traditional Mass by its conciliar name, viz., the “Extraordinary Form”.[13]  The “new” SSPX teaches that the new mass is good (though not as good as the Traditional Mass), by likening the new mass to a tin trumpet, and likening the Traditional Mass to a silver trumpet.[14] 

7.    Indeed, while Bishop Fellay was superior general, he attended the new mass and afterwards praised it.[15]  His two assistants (who were second and third in authority in the SSPX) also attended a new mass on another occasion.[16]  The SSPX has blamed the dispute between the Vatican and the “old” SSPX concerning the new mass, on how “profound” Archbishop Lefebvre’s “motives” were and the bewilderment of the SSPX priests and followers because they were “fed up” with the “way in which the new mass was being celebrated.”[17]  Bishop Fellay says that “what needs to be corrected” in the new mass are things like making a better vernacular translation.[18]  By contrast, the truth is that the new mass itself (even in Latin, and under the “best” conditions) is evil and sacrilegious.

 

8.    The “new” SSPX falsely indicates that Pope Francis abides in the truth, and is preserved from error.[19]  When he was superior general, Bishop Fellay declared that he is “very happy” with a lot of what Pope Francis teaches.[20]  Bishop Fellay falsely says that Pope Francis’s Amoris Laetitia is like a “beautiful boat” with a “very small” hole in it.[21]  This SSPX praise is false and liberal and the SSPX is minimizing the evil of Pope Francis’s teachings.

 

9.    We know that Jesus Christ is God.  For this reason, Mary is the Mother of God because she is the mother of a Person Who is God.  For the same reason, the Jews committed Deicide because they killed a Person Who is God.  Vatican II contradicted the traditional teaching from the time of the apostles, that the Jews committed Deicide.[22]  The SSPX has adopted this conciliar error and denies the Church’s teaching that the Jews did commit Deicide.[23] 

 

10. Catholics should not hold it as certain that we will go to heaven.  But the liberal SSPX now teaches that Hope makes us certain of going to heaven.[24]  The “new” SSPX is teaching the vice of presumption not the Theological Virtue of Hope. 

 

11. The new SSPX falsely teaches that Vatican II does good, because the “Second Vatican Council … illuminates – i.e. deepens and further makes explicit – some aspects of the life and of the doctrine of the Church”.[25]  The truth is that Vatican II does no good.

 

12. Among countless other conciliar errors, is the error that there supposedly exist “degrees of being in communion with the Catholic Church”.[26]  The “new” SSPX indicates it accepts this conciliar theory by now using the term of “full communion”, as if there were any other kind.  Id.

 

13. While he was superior general, Bishop Fellay said that Pope Francis’s exhortation on marriage “contains many things that are correct and beautiful”.[27]  This is false!  These teachings on marriage are vile and are thoroughly-conciliar.

 

14. The SSPX teaches that Vatican II’s Optatam Totius is free from errors/liberalism.  The truth is that there are many liberal and false statements in this conciliar document.[28] 

 

15. The “new” SSPX published an article about Islam’s hostility toward other religions.  This article stressed the importance of religious liberty for every religion and omitted to state the Catholic truth that error (including religious error) has no rights.[29]  The truth is that only the true Catholic Faith has the right to be taught.[30]

 

16. The “new” SSPX says we must continually change.[31]   This echoes the conciliar hierarchy, which continually emphasizes the need to change, to “renew” ourselves, and to “ride the wave of revolution of faith”.[32]

17. The conciliar church refers to promotion of conciliar errors as The New Evangelization.[33]   The “new” SSPX proudly declared that Pope Francis sees the SSPX as a help in The New EvangelizationId.  How could this happen without the “new” SSPX showing a willingness to promote conciliar errors?

18. The SSPX now blurs or even omits the difference between the Catholic Church and the modernist conciliar church.[34]  Archbishop Lefebvre made this clear distinction.[35]

19. The SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre used to say that the indult groups “are doing the devil’s work”.[36]  Now the SSPX treats those groups as colleagues in the Lord’s vineyard.[37]

20. When he was superior general, Bishop Fellay said that by an agreement with Rome, the SSPX “will return to the Church”.[38]  The truth is that faithful and informed Catholics (i.e., Traditional Catholics) have always been in the Church.

 

21. The liberal “new” SSPX promotes the error that everyone is in the state of grace.[39]

Plainly, the “new” SSPX is liberal and teaches conciliar heresy.  Why their followers didn’t wake up and leave could be due to having a “hard” conscience.  As is shown in many Catholic Candle articles, a sensitive and informed conscience is critical to salvation.  Without such a conscience one cannot get to heaven.

Here is one way that St. John of the Cross, the Church’s Mystical Doctor, teaches this truth:

God desires the smallest degree of purity of conscience in you more than all the works you can perform.

St. John of the Cross, Saying of Light and Love, #12.

Here is how The Imitation of Christ teaches this truth:

A pure and good conscience shall bring more joy than learned philosophy. Then shall the contempt of riches far outweigh all treasures of the children of earth ….  Learn to suffer now in little things, that thou mayest be delivered from more grievous  sufferings ….  All is vanity except to love and serve God alone”.[40]

We should help the followers of today’s liberal N-SSPX by informing ourselves so that we can help to inform them.  We should stand our ground and our lives should demonstrate that one can live a holy, devout Catholic life without Sacraments for as long a period as God Wills for us.  Catholic history has given us many examples from past centuries for us to follow.

As we know, God understands what is best for us at all times.  So, thank Him for all He is doing and has done for us.  He will neither lead us astray, nor will He be outdone in His generosity to those serving Him.

 

 



[1]           My Catholic Faith, Bishop Louis Morrow, My Mission House, Kenosha, WI, 1949, Lesson 77, pp. 154-155.

[2]           My Catholic Faith, Bishop Louis Morrow, My Mission House, Kenosha, WI, 1949, Lesson 77, p.155.

[3]           My Catholic Faith, Bishop Louis Morrow, My Mission House, Kenosha, WI, 1949, Lesson 77, p.155.

 

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

 

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


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

 

Hear Bishop Fellay’s words here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuCOdk99mfA&spfreload=5, beginning at the 50 second mark.

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

 

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


[14]         Here are Bishop Fellay’s words:

 

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

 

Quoted from the Bishop Fellay June 30, 2018 interview found at: https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/bishop-fellay-interview-%E2%80%9Cwe-are-disturbing-factor-church%E2%80%9D-39449 (emphasis added).

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Quoted from the Bishop Fellay June 30, 2018 interview found at: https://fsspx.news/en/news-events/news/bishop-fellay-interview-%E2%80%9Cwe-are-disturbing-factor-church%E2%80%9D-39449

 

Despite what Bp. Fellay says in the quote above, the “motu proprio” does not free the Traditional Mass for faithful and informed Catholics.  https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/20-reasons-motu-proprio

 

Further, he misleads Catholics about the so-called lifting of the excommunications.  https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/tissier-defends-agreement-rome


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


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

 

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

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


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

 

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


[22]         Nostra Aetate, §4.

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


[31]        
Quotation, citation, and analysis here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/priests/pfluger-traditional-catholics-change.html

 

[32]         To read the conciliar quotes promoting continual change (and to read an analysis of them), see Lumen Gentium Annotated, by Quanta Cura Press, pp.66-78, ©2013, available at: scribd.com/doc/158994906 (free) & at Amazon.com (sold at cost).

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

[40]         Imitation of Christ, Thomas à Kempis; Book I, Ch. 24.

 

Women should Wear Dresses and Skirts, Not Pants – Part 4

  • Catholic Candle note: The article below is part 4 of an article showing that women should wear dresses and skirts and not pants.

     

    Recap of the first part of the article

     

    In part one of this article, we saw five reasons why men (as well as women) need to understand the Catholic standards of modesty for women (and men).

    The article then lists four reasons why women should not wear pants:

     

    1.    It is objectively a sin against the revealed Divine Law for a woman to wear pants;

    2.    It is objectively a sin of lewdness[1] under the Natural Law for a woman to wear pants, even apart from the issue of pants being more revealing of a woman’s body;

     

    3.    A woman who wears pants objectively commits a sin of feminist usurpation of man’s role and “nature” and denial of her own “nature” and role in God’s plan; and

    4.    A woman wearing pants objectively sins because pants are immodest for her due to their revealing too much of her figure.

     

    Then the article looks at the first of those reasons.  The first part of which is found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/02/19/women-should-wear-dresses-and-skirts-not-pants/

    Recap of the second part of the article

    In part two of this article, we saw the second reason why women and girls should wear skirts and dresses and not pants: viz., because it is objectively a sin of lewdness[1] under the Natural Law for a woman to wear pants, even apart from the issue of pants being more revealing of a woman’s body.  The second part of this article is found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/03/21/women-should-wear-dresses-and-skirts-not-pants-part-2/


    Recap of the third part of the article

    In part three of this article, we saw the third reason why women and girls should wear skirts and dresses and not pants: viz., a woman who wears pants objectively commits a sin of feminist usurpation of man’s role and “nature” and denial of her own “nature” and role in God’s plan.  The third part of this article is found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2024/04/17/women-should-wear-dresses-and-skirts-not-pants-part-3/

    This article is a companion article to our article about Mary-like Neckline Modesty, which can be found here: https://catholiccandle.org/2023/05/21/marylike-neckline-modesty/

    These articles apply to girls as well as women and assist them in fulfilling the role and great work for which God created women.  Read more about this role and great work here: https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/02/the-role-and-work-that-god-gave-to-woman/

    Women should Wear Dresses and Skirts, Not Pants – Part 4

    4.     A woman wearing pants also sins because pants are immodest for her due to their revealing too much of her figure.

    Let’s start this section with a recap to see the connection between rebellion and immodesty:

    Recap of the Three Types of Rebellion Present When Women Wear Pants

    The devil is the inventor of sin, as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches.[1]  The devil is the first revolutionary and his battle cry is “non serviam!”  We see Satan’s rebellious spirit in his inducing women to wear pants:

      He leads their rebellion against God, getting them to wear men’s clothes against the revealed Divine Law.  Deuteronomy, 22:5.

      He leads their rebellion against Nature (getting them to wear men’s clothes) against the Natural Law.  Summa, IIa IIae, Q.169, a.2, ad 3.

      He leads their rebellion against men’s authority (getting women to wear men’s clothes) as a feminist rebellion against living the role in life that God intends for women.

    But rebellion is only one of Satan’s favorite weapons.  Immodesty is the other.


    Satan Promotes Immodesty at the Same Time, Using These Rebellions

    Considering that Satan chooses women wearing pants as a tool of rebellion, we would expect (even before looking into the issue) that Satan’s tactics would not only foment rebellion but would also promote impurity, since impurity, like disobedience, is one of the most common sins that Satan promotes. 

    Satan knows what Our Lady warned at Fatima that “more people go to hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason.”[2]  Thus, Satan promotes impurity because he knows impurity is such an effective tool for damning souls.

    Upon reflection, we see that our preliminary expectation is correct that Satan’s tool of women wearing pants combines the sin of rebellion with the sin of immodesty because pants are too revealing of a woman’s body.   

    Let us now look at this issue of pants being immodest on a woman.


    Different Dangers for Men and Women Regarding Impurity

    Men and women are different and possess different tendencies towards impurity.  Men are more easily led into sins against purity through their sense of sight.  For this reason, modesty for men chiefly requires custody of their eyes as the guard of purity. 

    By contrast, women are more tempted in matters of impurity through vanity by seeking to attract the eyes of men by excessive exposure of their (viz., the women’s) bodies.  Thus, it is in the “nature” of women that they are more interested in being admired by men for their appearance rather than admiring men’s appearance.  That is why also, that men are more interested in the appearance of women than they are interested in women admiring their appearance.

    Of course, this does not mean that men should be unconcerned with the modesty of their own dress or that women should be unconcerned with custody of their eyes.  But the stronger, typical tendencies are for men to encounter dangers against purity because of looking at women, and women to encounter dangers against purity by the way they seek to attract men’s eyes by their appearance.  These different tendencies of the two sexes are why men are the usual consumers of pornography and women are the usual subjects of pornography.

    Further, God made woman the more beautiful and attractive sex, and He made women’s bodies more sensual.  Thus, the virtue of modesty requires that this greater attractiveness be concealed with womanly attire, which takes Nature into account.  So, women must wear clothes which cover up more.  They must wear loose-fitting dresses and skirts. 


    Three Ways Pants are Immodest for Women

    Pants reveal too much of a woman’s figure because:

    v  Pants make a woman’s legs more visibly defined.  A dress, compared to pants, fits the lower body in a way similar to how a mitten fits a hand, compared to a glove.  Plainly, a glove reveals more of the hand’s shape. 

    (This importance of a woman concealing her feminine silhouette is also the chief reason why modesty requires her to wear a slip under her dress, viz., to avoid the outline of her legs being visible.)

      Pants “allow daylight” (to show between her legs) all of the way up to her private parts.
     

      Pants also reveal more of the contours of a woman’s backside than does a dress or skirt.

    So, because women are obliged to dress in a manner that conceals the contours of their bodies, rather than reveals them, this is why they must wear dresses and skirts, not pants. 


    Answers to Six Objections

    There now remains only for us to answer six objections to this key moral principle (viz., that women should wear dresses or skirts, and not pants):

    1.    Objection:  A person could object that some (so-called) “modest” pants can be permissible because they conceal more of a woman’s figure than do “some skirts”. 

    Response:  This “justification” only shows that there are some skirts which are immodest also and should never be worn.  Further, although a woman should never wear an immodest skirt, nonetheless, such a skirt does not involve her committing the sins of rebellion which occur in wearing men’s clothes.


    2.    Objection:  Couldn’t we say that our modern society has now accepted women wearing pants so that pants have become women’s clothes (as well as men’s clothes)? 

    Response:  No.  As we already saw above, pants were not generally accepted by society as “women’s clothes” until relatively recently, when society got sufficiently corrupt so as to accept women wearing pants.  This was in the same period in which society began to accept various other evils (e.g., tattoos[3], cremation[4], rock and roll “music”, and wives and mothers being career women[5]), all of which showed and promoted the degenerateness of society.

     

    But what is accepted by a corrupt society is not the proper measure by which we should make the determination what is acceptable.  Here is one way that Pope Pius XII teaches this truth:

    [A] garment must not be evaluated according to the estimation of a decadent or already-corrupt society, but according to the aspirations of a society which prizes the dignity and seriousness of its public attire.[6]

    3.    Objection:  A person could say that women wearing pants is “no big deal” and that “I’m used to it”.

     

    Response:  Such excuse merely shows that the person has become used to sin and has suffered some moral taint.  Here is one way that Pope Pius XII warned against this attitude:

    The most insidious of sophisms, which are usually repeated to justify immodesty, seems to be the same everywhere.  One of these resurrects the ancient saying “let there be no argument about things we are accustomed to”, in order to brand as old fashioned the rebellion of honest people against fashions which are too bold ….[7]

    4.    Objection:  Suppose a woman has duties which “require” her to perform activities for which a dress is immodest because the wind blows her dress upwards, or she is on a ladder cleaning, or because of the way she “must” move her limbs during such activity.

    Response:  It might be that some activities would require a dress that is longer or of heavier fabric than modesty requires for other activities.  But there are no activities which a woman should perform which cannot be done under appropriate conditions and wearing modest and womanly clothes.  Furthermore, all activities suited for women have been performed in earlier generations, by good women in dresses or skirts.

    5.    Objection:  “But where I live it gets so cold in the winter!  So. I ‘need’ to wear pants to stay warm.”

    Response:  Cold weather is not a new phenomenon and winter is not a new invention.  Throughout the history of mankind, women have dressed modestly, in womanly clothes, and stayed warm.  But, of course, warm, womanly undergarments will help accomplish this, as well as long winter coats and dresses made of thick fabrics suitable for the season.

    6.   Objection: There can’t be anything wrong with a woman wearing pants when she is alone, when no one will see her.

     

    Response: 1) Notice that God’s Commandment in Deuteronomy does not forbid cross-dressing only when the person will be seen.  Cross-dressing is forbidden all times.  2) Further, it is a sin of lewdness under the Natural Law to cross-dress even in private.  Perhaps this is easiest to see in the case of a man who, in private only, dresses in a pink calico dress (as in the example given above).  3) Wearing pants changes a woman’s outlook even if she were to wear them only in private, since she is still wearing the “feminist uniform” and still showing (though in private) that she “wears the pants in the family”.  We are creatures of habit and this practice would have a deleterious effect on the woman.  4) It is generally unwholesome for a person to walk around nude without a good reason to do so such as showering, even if no one sees him/her.  Likewise, (although to a lesser degree than nudity), it is unwholesome and sensual for a person to dress indecently even when alone if there is no good reason to do this.


    Three Additional Consequences of this Standard of Womanly Modesty

    Please note the following consequences that flow directly from the above Catholic requirement of Mary-like modesty that women should never wear pants:

    1.    Just as women and girls should not wear pants, this same standard also applies to photographs, paintings, and statues, whether the woman or girl who is depicted is known or unknown.  It would obviously be illogical for a woman to carefully dress modestly herself but also to promote or display scandalous art on her wall (or scandalous pictures of her relatives hung with magnets on her refrigerator, etc.).  For the very same reason that she is forbidden to dress this way, a Catholic is forbidden to promote or display such immodest images.

     

    2.    Parents, especially mothers, have a duty to guide their daughters not only to comply with the Catholic standard of modesty but also to love this beautiful virtue.

     

    3.    If we somehow come into possession of pants that are meant to be worn by women or girls, we should not give them away or donate them, because then we would become an accomplice or accessory to someone else’s sin of wearing these pants.


    Conclusion

    From the above considerations, it is clear that women should not wear pants because the virtue of womanly modesty forbids this and also because it is a revolt against God in three ways.

    We live in pagan times.  Just as a living organism only stays alive (i.e., remains a living plant or animal), if it resists the corrupting influences (e.g., of bacteria) which are all around it, likewise we must protect the life of our souls (which live the life of grace) by resisting the moral corruption of sin all around us.

    Let us beware of rationalizing immodesty by saying that the standard of Mary-like modesty is too old-fashioned and that we live in modern times where the requirements of modesty are weaker.

    It is Catholic Common Sense that we should not adopt the dress or other practices of the anti-Christ revolution (including women wearing pants) no matter how many other people do so in our corrupt times.  So, however much the cultural revolution has accepted “unisex” clothes and women dressing in men’s clothes such as pants, nonetheless, when women wear pants “they are abominable with the Lord”.  Deuteronomy, 22:5.

    Let us live our Catholic Faith!  We need to restore all things in Christ!  One important aspect of this is for women to dress like women and to not be an abomination to the Lord.

    Catholic feminine modesty is a beautiful ornament of a good woman or girl.  All of us – men and women – should love and appreciate this virtue!



    [1]           St. Thomas Aquinas, Lectures on St. John’s Gospel, ch.8, §1250.


    [2]           The Whole Truth About Fatima, Frere Michel de la Sante Trinite, Vol. II, Ch.4 appendix II.

    [3]           Read about societal acceptance of tattoos not occurring until society became sufficiently corrupt, roughly beginning in the 1960s: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/tattoos-are-a-sin-to-obtain-and-a-sin-to-display.html

    [4]           Read about societal acceptance of cremation not occurring until society became sufficiently corrupt, roughly beginning in the 1960s: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/cremation-is-barbaric

     

    [5]           Society began to view it as acceptable for wives and mothers to abandon their role in life at roughly the same time (the revolutionary 1960s) as society began considering women wearing pants as acceptable and not shocking.  Read this article here: The Role and Work that God Gave to Woman, https://catholiccandle.org/2019/12/02/the-role-and-work-that-god-gave-to-woman/

     

    [6]           Pope Pius XII, Address to the Latin Union of High Fashion, November 8, 1957.


    [7]          
    Pope Pius XII, Address to the Latin Union of High Fashion, November 8, 1957.

  • Words to Live by – from Catholic Tradition

    Let Us Carry Our Crosses Courageously and Not Shrink Back from Them

    And here it ought to be pointed out why so few reach this high state of perfect union with God.  It should be known that the reason is not that God wishes only a few of these spirits to be so elevated; He would rather want all to be perfect, but He finds few vessels that will endure so lofty and sublime a work. Since He tries them in little things and finds them so weak that they immediately flee from work, unwilling to be subject to the least discomfort and mortification, it follows that not finding them strong and faithful in that little [Mt. 25:21, 23], in which He favored them by beginning to hew and polish them, He realizes that they will be much less strong in these greater trials.  As a result, He proceeds no further in purifying them and raising them from the dust of the earth through the toil of mortification.  They are in need of greater constancy and fortitude than they showed.

    There are many who desire to advance and persistently beseech God to bring them to this state of perfection.  Yet when God wills to conduct them through the initial trials and mortifications, as is necessary, they are unwilling to suffer them and they shun them, flee from the narrow road of life [Mt. 7:14] and seek the broad road of their own consolation, which is that of their own perdition [Mt. 7:13]; thus, they do not allow God to begin to grant their petition.

    St. John of the Cross, Mystical Doctor of the Church, Living Flame of Love, Stanza 2, #27 (emphasis and bracketed words added).

    When You Sin, You Join the Devil Against God

    Sin is any voluntary transgression of the laws of an all-loving and just Creator.  All sin is an infinite evil in three ways and mortal sin is an infinite evil of a fourth way too.[1]

    The Church strives continually to impress her children with a sense of the awfulness of sin that they may fear it and avoid it.  We are fallen creatures, and our spiritual life on earth is a warfare.  Sin is our enemy, and while of our own strength we cannot [i.e., would not] avoid [all] sin, with God’s grace we can.  If we but place no obstacle in the workings of grace, we can avoid all deliberate sin.[2]

    Adam and Eve were created by God, with free will, and were tested by being commanded not to eat from a certain tree.  Well, they failed the test and were expelled from Paradise, along with their future offspring.  As the world population grew and became steeped in sin, God flooded the world and killed everyone, with the exception of Noah and his family.

    However, the world continued along its evil path despite His wish for His creatures to be happy with Him in Heaven.   From time-to-time, God sent upon His creatures a number of catastrophes as warnings to repent and reform their lives.  Some people did reform; many did not. 

    In His mercy He sent His only begotten Son to suffer and die a horrible death for us.  The scope of this merciful gesture reflected the magnitude of man’s debt to his Maker for the evil and the sins committed over the centuries.

    Thinking of the phrase “Jesus was scourged” doesn’t truly give an accurate picture of what that meant.  (Nothing really could.)  The Son of God was “bound to the pillar and had His clothes torn off, while strong men with whips, cords, and straps with iron spikes scourged Him.  The whole body of Our Lord was one great wound.”[3]

    Yes, Good Friday and Lent are behind us now, but it behooves us to keep this scene in our minds and souls always, lest the enormity of Christ’s sufferings and death fade in our preoccupation with our busy lives. 

    So, wake up, readers of the Catholic Candle!  God sent His only-begotten Son to suffer and die a horrible death to demonstrate the very great evil of sin. 

    Here are salvific reminders from Fr. Paul O’Sullivan and Bishop Morrow, to help us rise from mediocrity:

    We know clearly that God is looking at us, and still, we deliberately offend Him; we offend Him to His very face. 

    The fire of Purgatory is the same terrible fire as the fire of Hell.  We may be kept in this awful fire for many years for a deliberate venial sin.  God could never punish us too severely.  He does not send us to Purgatory because He is angry with us, but because the malice of a deliberate venial sin is simply awful – mortal sin much more so.

    The Saints say there is nothing so terrible on earth as a deliberate sin.  Were we to see a dead body in horrible corruption, it would be nothing in comparison with even a venial sin.[4]

    The greatness and the duration of a soul’s sufferings in Purgatory vary according to the gravity of the sins committed.  One who has lived a long life of sin, but is saved from Hell only by a deathbed repentance, will stay in the purging fires of Purgatory longer, and suffer there more intensely than a child, who has committed only the venial sins of an ordinary child.[5]  

    If you love God, hate sin, and pray often and devoutly, then you’re cooperating with God’s grace, on the narrow and good road toward heaven.



    [1]           Read an explanation of this truth here: https://catholiccandle.neocities.org/faith/the-infinite-evil-of-sin (parenthetical words added for clarity).

     

    [2]           Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 14, article entitled Souls in Purgatory, The Gilmary Society, New York, 1912, p.11.


    [3]           My Catholic Faith, Bishop Louis Morrow, My Mission House, Kenosha, WI, 1949, Part 1, Ch. 34, entitled The Passion, p.69.

    [4]           An Easy Way to Become a Saint, Fr. Paul O’Sullivan, O.P., Tan Books, Rockford, IL, 1990, p.101.


    [5]           My Catholic Faith, Bishop Louis Morrow, My Mission House, Kenosha, WI, 1949, Part 1, Ch. 79, entitled Souls in Purgatory, p.158.

    Reminiscences of Pre-Vatican II Life and How It Came to Ruin

    Philosophy Notes

    Catholic Candle note: Below are the charming recollections we received from one of our senior readers.  Her account speaks from her heart and shows her love of what is truly Catholic and normal.  This is an edifying memoire of a faithful Catholic, rather than a work of meticulously-researched history.  So, we have left her words intact without footnotes or qualifications.

    Catholic Candle encourages other readers to submit articles for the glory of God and the salvation of souls.

    Chicago neighborhoods in the fifties and several decades before, were a clean, orderly, quiet patchwork of cottages, bungalows, and modest apartment buildings populated by nuclear families.  The fathers, even in the Depression of the ‘30s, went to work early in the mornings, freeing the mothers to maintain the home and nurture the children, who walked with their friends to school and then home again for lunch.  At 2:45, the children again walked home—the boys to play games like “cops and robbers”, “war”, “Cowboys and Indians”, etc., the girls to ride their bikes, or roller skate, or perhaps to walk their beloved dolls in their “doll buggies”.

    In the morning the mothers could leisurely comb the girls’ hair into “long curls” (unseen, of course, since pre-1940s).  A 1939 survey found the main complaint of Chicago Public High Schools to be “gum-chewing”.

    Among the hundreds of large parish churches in Pre-Vatican II Chicago, some seated a thousand or more congregants.  Sunday Mass times were 6:00, 7:00, 8:00, 9:00 (Children’s Mass), 10:00 High Mass, 11:00, and 12:00 p.m.  The parishioners, suitably attired, would walk in silent contemplation to the parish church (few had cars until the fifties), filling the pews for the 9:00, 10:00, 11:00, and 12:00 Masses – the noon Mass stretching to standing room only, to accommodate the young Saturday night revelers, who stood and knelt as appropriate throughout the forty-five-minute service.

    My husband has told me that in the earlier days of the Vietnam War—on the battlefields, when a priest could get through – the Catholic soldiers would race to the Mass site.  I’ve never seen anyone race to a novus ordo mass.  The rallying cry of the fifteenth century English Catholic martyrs was, “It’s the Mass that matters”, (as opposed to the Protestant Novus Ordo, which finally at Vatican II, took down almost all of the rest of the Catholic world, leaving fewer than ever Traditional Catholics, who now await the proper Consecration of Russia and its effects).

    The Schools

    Educators came from around the country to study the Chicago Public Schools –  staffed mainly by teachers educated, as I was, by the Catholic Religious.  The many Catholic public-school teachers in Chicago founded the Aquin Guild, with a monthly Mass (Tridentine, of course), and conference.  The students paid the remarkable low price of $1.00 per month for their tuition.

    At my typical pre-Vatican II Catholic elementary school, staffed by Adrian Dominican Sisters, we prayed at the beginning of the day, and again to begin afternoon classes.  After morning prayers, the Sister would call the children alphabetically – who would reply, “Present, Sister”.  (For whatever reason the total number of children in my classroom always seemed to be 42).   Next came, as necessary, Catechism class in which the Sister called on the children individually to respond from memory to the Baltimore Catechism questions from their homework.  Math, reading, spelling, history/geography, English grammar, and sometimes art or music, completed the school day.

    In all eight years of grammar school, I can remember only one instance of “discipline”.   In fourth grade, the Sister left the room for a few minutes, and a few boys began to chat.  When she returned she directed the boys to hit their hands several times with their rulers. 

    The girls had their playground and the boys had theirs.  Inside the school building and out, the atmosphere was peaceful – playful on the playground, but peaceful. 

    In the earlier days of the SSPX, priests commented that in a classroom, children without a T.V. at home stood out as self-controlled and “normal.”


    Subversion of Curriculum

    The pre-Vatican II period was also, until the late 1940s, pre-television; in general, the population thought more clearly than now – but of “Liberty & Freedom”; not so much.  Misguided patriotism seems to have blinded the people.  Here is an example of the contradictory messages taught in Catholic schools:

    In the morning, we learned, substantially, that the purpose of free will, enabled by grace, was to choose the good.  In the afternoon history class, we would learn – for example, from Lincoln’s Gettysburg address, that “Our Fathers brought forth on this Continent, a new-nation, conceived in liberty” – as indeed the revolutionaries had done, as they immediately removed the cross from the flag –  (which, by the way, the Confederates from the next century, did not remove).

    Indeed, the Catholic French and Spanish spiritual forefathers of those American Catholic children had already brought forth on this Continent, (as originally mapped by the devout Catholic Americus Vespucci) – thriving Catholic civilizations, from the university level down, before Lincoln’s forefathers even got here.

    The (Traditional) Catholic Church of the Middle Ages conceived and executed the very idea of a “university,” – at Paris, Cambridge, Oxford, Bologna, Salamanca, the Sorbonne, Louvain, etc.  The French and Spanish governments made strenuous efforts to continue the process of establishing and encouraging education, sending ten thousand consecrated religious at a time to civilize, assimilate, educate the Indians of North, South, and Central America.  (This was in contrast to the Puritan forefathers who liked to shoot Indians for sport, while their [Puritan] cousins martyred the starving Catholics of Ireland by trampling them under the hooves of horses).

    Before Vatican II, graces available in the Church somewhat elevated and permeated U.S. society at large.  Women’s skirt lengths generally extended below the knee, with special occasions requiring hat and gloves. (Hats and silence, of course, were mandatory for women in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament.)  Before John F. Kennedy, men wore hats often and not just for special occasions.

    From the beginning of Vatican II until I discovered Archbishop Lefebvre’s Society of St. Pius X (unfortunately liberalized after his death), I forced myself to attend the Novus Ordo Mass, at which I never saw the pews filled.

    About women’s skirt lengths: I read in my post-graduate research, an 1820s extract from The Masonic Journal – I think that was its title – that though it seems absurd, the first step in the necessary corruption of women was to raise skirts from the floor.  I read this piece in the early heyday of the miniskirt. 

    Researching further to account for the apparently sudden collapse in the 1960s of the remnants of Christian civilization, I learned that in the 1920s the Vatican had forbidden women to make spectacles of themselves by performing athletics in public. 

    As readers know, in 1917, Our Lady of Fatima (correctly) predicted, “Fashions which offend My Son very much will be introduced”.  I read that Our Lady’s words compelled the Vatican, in 1931, to finally explain for the first time that, among other obvious requirements – skirts should extend several inches below the knee.  (Padre Pio required of his penitents’ skirts and dresses to be at least eight inches below the knee.) 

    As far as I have learned, no U.S. bishop disseminated either of the Vatican’s directives (viz., about women as public spectacles and concerning skirt-length).

    Speaking of women’s decorum in public – I once saw a picture in a magazine of mobs of men filling the streets of Sicily, in celebration of the allied World War II victory in 1945.  There were no women in the streets.  (In Chicago, men and women indiscriminately mobbed State Street for the same occasion.) 

    All this doesn’t begin to address the massive semi-nudity on the beaches and streets.  Such semi-nudity was directly caused by Vatican II serving its demonic purpose of virtually annihilating the Tridentine Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, that had acted as the chief restraint against the forces of hell. 

    A major demonic preliminary to Vatican II and major offense against Our Lord, was the destruction which Robert Oppenheimer demanded of the only two Catholic enclaves in Japan: Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Popular consensus, which was giddy with the Atom bomb and the unconditional surrender of the Axis side in World War II, celebrated with a new swim suit style of enhanced public semi-nudity, unseen since the Church civilized the barbaric hordes of Europe in the early Middle Ages.  Their new fashion icon “Bikini,” was named after an unpopulated Pacific atoll Bikini, which was destroyed by a then-experimental atomic bomb.  Indeed “Bikini” has become, over the decades, a catchword joke for women’s beachwear which covers almost nothing.  The U.S. bomber nuking Hiroshima sported on its fuselage, a large graphic of a voluptuous woman in a pre-Bikini, World War II vintage swim suit.

    Eight German Jesuit missionary priests lived near the small Hiroshima Cathedral, probably in the immediate area of the nuclear blast in Hiroshima – which Robert Oppenheimer demanded, and which the Freemason Truman readily authorized.  (He earned his honorary 33rd Masonic degree by his consent.)  The priests could see the flash as they cut their breakfast grapefruit, but felt no personal pain.  Medical examinations cleared all of these priests.  One of them (I think Father Schiffer was his name) traveled the world for decades, explaining that the Jesuit missionaries were merely living the Jesuit rule, incorporating the daily Rosary, as Our Lady of Fatima requested of everyone, and that they specifically had devotion to the Fatima message.  They were known as the “Amazing Hiroshima Eight”.  They not only survived the bombing, but also survived the radiation poisoning aftermath.

    U.S. Hierarchy and Laity Refuse to Resist

    Before Vatican II, people generally lived at home with their families – each girl building her “hope chest” of accessories for her future home; and the boys saving their money to support their future families.  In the ordinary middle-class standards of the era, I never encountered the various four letter-words now seemingly heard everywhere but which, before Vatican II, were not in common use.

    The Vatican II blitzkrieg of the mid-sixties took no prisoners.  Women wore mini-skirts or trousers almost everywhere; crucifixes disappeared from school walls; consecrated altars and statuary appeared in second-hand stores.  I read that one of Pope Paul VI’s tiaras turned up in a resale shop.  Religious Sisters abandoned their sacred habit for uniforms reminiscent of the blue jumpers of the postulancy; college administrators crumbled before girl-terrorists demanding Get Out of Vietnam Now or Else.  I read that the year Vatican II ended, the Vatican granted sixty-five annulments worldwide and, not many years afterwards, they granted sixty-five thousand worldwide.

    B’nai B’rith required that the Second Vatican Council repudiate its doctrine of “no salvation outside the Church”, and so it was.  The “Council Fathers” set in motion the request that nine Protestant ministers would help to gut the Tridentine Sacrifice and this happened, replacing it (of course) with their own Luther/Cranmer Novus Ordo of the 1500s. 

    The religion itself having been thrown out, the Church buildings came to resemble semi-empty railroad stations with disheveled, slouching congregants in the pews.  I once saw a college-level guy sitting in pew – eating an apple, in the otherwise-empty Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago.  I’ve seen twenty-something Marquette students squatting on the floor, attending, (or not) to the novus ordo mass at the Jesu Church in Milwaukee.

    Vatican II: The French Revolution within the Church
    (As Arch. Lefebvre used to say.)

    Having completed my many history-related courses in the best immediately Pre-Vatican II schools, I never encountered there, as far as I can recall, the words “Talmud”, “goyim”, “mason”, or “Free-mason.”  In general, the early English-speaking U.S. Bishops folded themselves and their compliant sheep eagerly into the Masonic pantheon of thirty-six thousand-plus sects of all religions, or no religion(s). 

    The Catholic school history books even today, for example, largely mirror the books of the “public” schools.  Had the early U.S. Bishops alerted the Catholic immigrants of the Luciferian-Talmudic-“Enlightenment” and its determination to eradicate the Traditional Catholic Church from the earth, perhaps the human element of the U.S. Catholic Church of the 1960s would not have almost-totally collapsed as it did at Vatican II.

    Indeed, Vatican II continued on a trajectory that began before the Masonic U.S. existed.  The century before the American and French revolutions, Our Lord, to defend against the coming onslaught, directed King Louis XIV to inscribe on the French flag, the image of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.  However, Louis XIV, Louis XV, and Louis XVI demurred; and then one hundred years later – to the day – after Our Lord gave this command to King Louis XIV, the French Assembly deposed Louis XVI from his throne.  In a street of Paris, the Masonic mob assassinated Louis XVI and his always-libeled wife, Queen Marie Antoinette. 

    Phi Beta Kappa researcher Solange Hertz reports that in her study of the French journalistic output of the era, nowhere does “Let them eat cake” appear.  Queen Marie Antoinette had ordered the expulsion of the spectacularly libertarian publishers, Franklin and Jefferson.  Perhaps this indignity provoked them to concoct and spread the “Let them eat cake” libel, which continues to this day.

    Jefferson and Madison, in their journal Citizen’s Gazette, had egged on their French Masonic brethren to the “Mother of all revolutions,” viz., the French Revolution.  The Masonic mob, after relieving the Bastille of its fourteen never-do-wells, enthroned a prostitute as “goddess of reason” on the desecrated main altar of Notre Dame (Our Lady) Cathedral in Paris. 

    This prostitute – the “goddess of reason” is the precursor of the eventually-created “Statue of Liberty”, which holds aloft the classic “light” of Luciferian/illuminist iconography.  This abomination is a gift of the Masonic French government to their brethren in the Masonic U.S. government, for unflagging support for the genocidal massacre totaling hundreds of thousands: of Bishops, priests, consecrated nuns and other religious; fathers, mothers, children, infants – and even farm animals and pets as occurred in the Vendee region of northern France.

    From the beginning, it was Franklin who brought Voltaire into Masonry, and not the reverse.  Voltaire was and is most admired for proclaiming, “I don’t agree with a word you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it” – except, of course, for the truths taught by the Catholic Church, which he was determined to annihilate. 

    Voltaire died a screaming madman, gulping down the contents of his chamber pot, with brother Masons, including Franklin in attendance. (Franklin, at the U.S. Constitutional Convention, warned his brethren that in their obsession to obliterate the Church of Rome, they were overlooking “the Jews,” “who” if admitted to the U.S. would usurp all the power in the U.S. within two hundred years.)

    This emphasis on the destruction of Catholic France sprang from the unpleasant reality that France was the leading Catholic power and the dominant political power of Europe.  Jefferson’s desire on his deathbed was that other nations follow the U.S./French lead in the destruction of “monkish ignorance and superstition”, as he put it.  This goal of destroying what is Catholic has been largely achieved in the Church’s human element, up to and including in the citadel of the Vatican, by Vatican II and its implementation, including the Vatican pressuring the few remaining Catholic nations to succumb.

    In addition to his four legitimate children, Jefferson fathered at least six illegitimate children by a slave he inherited from his father-in-law.  The affluent Jefferson rages in his writings against “monkish ignorance and superstition.”  The Protestant William Cobbett, an English contemporary who published his own book at about the time Jefferson died, wrote that since the 1500s, English children had been imbued from their mothers’ knees with gratitude for having been freed from “monkish ignorance and superstition.”  Cobbett himself had enjoyed no such freedom, having spent his Dickensonian childhood as a rabbit chaser, and probably a weed-picker, on the estate (previously part of the public patrimony of the monasteries) of an Anglican Bishop and his family as well as his entourage.  The word “pauper” entered the English language under Henry VIII and his illegitimate daughter Elizabeth, the original plunderers of the public patrimony of the monasteries.  The descendants of some of those who were kicked off the stolen monastic lands, migrated to London where, years later, Charles Dickens described their plight.

    From his youth, Cobbett researched the phrase “monkish ignorance and superstition”; eventually publishing a one hundred-sixty-page book, the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland – concluding that it was monkish knowledge and wisdom (rooted in the means of grace), which throughout the Middle Ages elevated the barbarous European hordes into Christian civilization.

    One of the six causi belli (“causes of war”) of the U. S. revolution was the non-Mason King George’s permission to the citizens of Quebec to freely practice their Traditional Catholic Faith, in land adjacent to the New England colonies.  The Archbishop of Quebec excommunicated John Carroll, S.J., one of the rebel legates vainly pressuring Quebec to join the revolt – which was generously financed by wealthy Masons, according to the debriefings of General Howe.

    The Catholic establishment in the U.S., obsequious from the first to their Masonic masters, submitted to – in fact originally suggested – the Masonic requirement that for citizenship, all must first accept the objective legitimacy and equality of all “religions” – thus gutting the core of the Catholic Faith.  

    Our Lord, having established His Church at the price of His atrocious sufferings, mandates His Church as essential to salvation.  Obviously what Our Lord has established is true and anything “protesting” this is false.  The ten million Catholic martyrs of the first three centuries of the Christian era, under the popes of this period – almost all of them martyrs also – refused the absurdity of the then–pantheon of false gods of the self-proclaimed 30,000 “religions” at the time.

    Had the U.S. founding fathers crafted a First Amendment of Mutual Tolerance to Prevent Violence, as had been forged at the Treaty of Westphalia, for example, or as warring nations have forged a truce to stop bloodshed, all “religions” and “nonreligions” could at least maintain a semblance of intellectual honesty.  The Traditional Catholic Church condemns Protestantism for its determination to supplant the Church.  The Protestants condemn the Church for claiming to be infallible in Faith and Morals – especially morals.  

    Again, Jefferson desired to obliterate Catholicism and this was the goal of the Luciferian/Talmudic/Masonic/“Enlightenment” establishment.  Perhaps this goal would not have been so well fulfilled at Vatican II (as to the Church’s human element), if the early U.S. Catholic Bishops had warned the early Catholic immigrants about this plot.

    At this point, the only solution to obtain world peace remains: the Pope and Bishops together must consecrate Russia to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary as Our Lord directed through Our Lady, and Sister Lucia and her superiors in 1929.

    In 1931, Our Lord expressed His exasperation to Sister Lucia that virtually nothing had been done to accomplish the Consecration.  The intransigent refusal of the Popes and Bishops since 1929, to consecrate Russia precisely and simply, as Our Lord directed, has of course provoked the magnitude of the world’s horrors since then.  Our Lord told Sister Lucia that the Consecration would be done, but it would be “late”.  When the Consecration is performed, she then said that the resulting blessings would last “for a time.” 

    Sister Lucia, in her memoirs of 1957, wrote that Our Lady had revealed that in response to the escalating corruption engulfing the world from the Papacy down (including Vatican II), Our Lord was making the rosary – which is accessible to all – more efficacious than ever.  Our Lady told Sister Lucia, “There is no problem which cannot be solved” by seriously praying the daily rosary, the “rosary” being a chronological series of meditations on redemptive events in the lives of Our Lord and Our Lady.  Our Lord told Sister Lucia that the Consecration would be done when a sufficient number of souls were praying the daily rosary for this intention.

    Photographs of Sister Lucia before 1957 bear no resemblance to “photographs” of her after then.

    About the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, as codified at Trent: the Papal decree enforcing the Tridentine Sacrifice of all time admonishes the world that anyone attempting to alter this Sacrifice of all time, would “incur the wrath of the holy apostles Peter and Paul.”

    Among the scores of caskets of canonized saints in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, only two caskets remain open: those of the incorrupt bodies of Pope St. Pius V, who implemented the Council of Trent and the Tridentine Sacrifice; and of Pope St. Pius X, who more than four hundred years later, would advise Theodore Herzl that the unrepentant descendants of the Talmudic Jews who engineered the crucifixion of Our Lord, should never exercise authority in the Holy Land.  (The perennial Talmudic/Islamic chaos in the Holy Land since 1947, of course, speaks for itself).

    The French Revolutionary Army General Francois Westermann wrote the following:

    There is no Vendee ….  According to the orders that you gave me, I crushed the children under the hooves of the horses, massacred the women who at least for these will not give birth to any more brigands.  I do not have a prisoner to reproach me.  I have exterminated all, including farm animal and family pets.

    Quoted from a letter to the French Committee of Public Safety, 1794.

    In delighted response to the final Masonic victory, Jefferson wrote:

    The liberty of the whole earth was depending on the issue of this contest (the French Revolution) and was ever a prize (hundreds of thousands of guillotined Catholics) won with so little innocent [Masonic] blood?  I have expressed to you my sentiments, because they are really those of 99 of a hundred of our citizens.  The universal feasts and rejoicings which have lately been had on account of the successes of the French showed the genuine effusions of their hearts.

    Quoted from http/founders. archives.gov/document/Jefferson01-25-02-001

    Thomas Jefferson wrote this concerning Our Lord Jesus Christ:

    If we could believe that he (Jesus) really countenanced the follies, the falsehoods, and the charlatanism which his biographers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) claim he taught, and (if we could) admit the misconstructions, interpretations, and theorizations of the fathers of the early ages (St. Augustine, St. Jerome, etc.) and fanatics of the latter ages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind that he (Jesus) was an imposter.

    Jefferson, Memoirs, Correspondence and Private Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 1829, p. 333.

    Meanwhile, the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe continues to reign in humility, modesty, and dignity, at the geographic center of the Americas, as it has since 1531 A.D., as we see so many North, South, and Central Americans continue to pervert their reason and free will and repudiate Our Lady and her Divine Son Whom she brings us in His Traditional Catholic Church.

    May God help us and them!

    Lesson #33 Additional meditation points on the Life of Our Lord

     

                        Mary’s School of Sanctity                   

    Lesson #33  The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius –—ST. IGNATIUS’S ADDITIONAL MEDITATION POINTS ON THE LIFE OF OUR LORD

    This lesson might be viewed as a kind of appendix.

    LIST OF ALL THE IGNATIAN POINTS FOR THE MYSTERIES OF THE LIFE OF OUR LORD

    THE ANNUNCIATION OF OUR LADY                                                                          (Luke 1:26-38)

    First Point – The Angel, St. Gabriel, greeted Our Lady and announced to her the conception of Christ Our Lord.  And when the Angel had come to her, he said: “Hail, full of grace…Thou shalt conceive in thy womb and shalt bring forth a son.”

     

    Second Point— The Angel confirms what he had said to Our Lady by announcing the conception of St. John the Baptist, saying to her: “And behold, Elizabeth thy kinswoman also has conceived a son in her old age.

     

    Third Point—Out Lady replied to the Angel: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word.”

     

    THE VISITATION OF OUR LADY TO ELIZABETH

    (Luke 1: 39-56)

     

    First Point—When Our Lady visited St. Elizabeth, St. John the Baptist, in his mother’s womb, felt the visitation made by Our Lady.  When Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe in her womb leapt. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost, and cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb!”

     

    Second Point— Our Lady chants the canticle, saying: “My soul magnifies the Lord.”

     

    Third Point— And Mary remained with her about three months and returned to her own house.

     

    THE BIRTH OF CHRIST OUR LORD

    (Luke 2: 1-14)

     

    First Point—Our Lady and her spouse, St. Joseph, go from Nazareth to Bethlehem.  And Joseph also went from Galilee to Bethlehem, in obedience to Caesar, with Mary his espoused wife who was with child.

     

    Second Point—And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger.

     

    Third Point—And suddenly there was a multitude of the heavenly host prainsing God and saying: “Glory to God in the highest.”

     

    THE SHEPHERDS

    (Luke 2: 8-20)

     

    First Point—The birth of Christ Our Lord is made known to the shepherds by an angel: “I bring you god news of great joy, for today a Savior has been born to you.”

     

    Second Point—The shepherds go to Bethlehem.  So they went with haste, and they found Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in the manger.

     

    Third Point—And the shepherds returned glorifying and praising God.

     

    THE CIRCUMCISION

    (Luke 2: 21)

     

    First Point—They circumcise the Child Jesus.

     

    Second Point—His name was called Jesus, the name given him by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

     

    Third Point— They return the Child to His Mother, who felt compassion at the blood shed by her Son.

     

    THE THREE MAGI KINGS

    (Matt. 2: 1-12)

     

    First Point—The three Magi Kings, guided by the star, came to adore Jesus, saying: “We have seen His star in the East and have come to worship Him.”

     

    Second Point—They adored Him and offered Him gifts. And falling down they worshipped Him, and offered Him gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.

     

    Third Point—And being warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they went back to their own country by another way.

     

    THE PURIFICATION OF OUR LADY AND THE PRESENTATION OF THE CHILD JESUS

    (Luke 2: 22-39)

     

    First Point—They take the Child Jesus to the Temple to be presented to the Lord as the firstborn, and they offer for Him a pair of turtle doves and two young pigeons.

     

    Second Point—Simeon, coming into the Temple, also received Him into his arms, saying: “Now thou dost dismiss thy servant, O Lord, according to thy word, in peace.”

     

    Third Point—Anna, coming up at that very hour, began to give praise to the Lord, and spoke of Him to all who were awaiting the redemption of Jerusalem.

     

    THE FLIGHT INTO EGYPT

    (Matt. 2: 13-15)

     

    First Point—Herod wanted to kill the Child Jesus, and so he slew the Innocents.  Before their slaughter an angel warned Joseph to fly into Egypt: “Arise and take the child and his mother and flee into Egypt.”

     

    Second Point—He set out for Egypt. So he arose, and took the child and his mother by night, and withdrew into Egypt.

     

    Third Point— There he remained until the death of Herod.

     

     

    THE RETURN FROM EGYPT

    (Matt. 2:19-23)

     

    First Point— The angel admonishes Joseph t return to Israel: “Arise, and take the child and his mother and go into the land of Israel.”

     

    Second Point—So he arose…and went into the land of Israel.

     

    Third Point—Since Archelaus, the son of Herod, ruled in Judea, he withdrew to Nazareth.

     

     

    JESUS COMES TO THE TEMPLE AT THE AGE OF TWELVE

    (Luke 2:41-50)

     

    First Point—When Christ Our Lord was twelve years old, He went up from Nazareth to Jerusalem.

     

    Second Point—Christ Our Lord remained in Jerusalem and His parents did not know it.

     

    Third Point—After three days had passed, they found Him in the Temple, seated in the midst of the doctors and disputing with them.  When His parents asked where had he been, He replied, “Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?”

     

    THE LIFE OF OUR FROM THE AGE OF TWELVE TO THE AGE OF THIRTY

    (Luke 2: 51-52)

     

    First Point—He was obedient to His parents.

    Second Point—Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace.

    Third Point—He seems to have practiced the trade of a carpenter, as St. Mark seems to indicate in Chapter VI: “Is not this the carpenter?”

     

    THE BAPTISM OF CHRIST

    (Matt. 3: 13-17)

     

    First Point—After He took leave of His Blessed Mother, Christ Our Lord, went from Nazareth to the River Jordan where St. John the Baptist was.

     

    Second Point—St. John baptized Christ Our Lord.  When he wanted to excuse himself, considering that he was unworthy to baptize Him, Christ said to him: “Let it be so now, for so it becomes us to fulfill all justice.”

     

    Third Point—The Holy Ghost descended upon Him, and the voice of the Father testified from Heaven: “This is my beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased.”

     

    THE TEMPTATION OF CHRIST

    (Luke 4: 1-13; Matt. 4:1-11)

     

    First Point—After Jesus was baptized, He went to the desert where he fasted for forty days and nights.

     

    Second Point—He was tempted by the enemy three times. And the tempter came and said to Him, “If thou art the Son of God, command that these stones become loaves of bread….Throw thyself down, …All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.”

     

    Third Point—Angels came and ministered to Him.

     

    THE VOCATION OF THE APOSTLES

     

    First Point—It appears that St. Peter and St. Andrew were called three times.  They were first called to some knowledge, as is shown in the first chapter of St. John [35-42].  They were called a second time to follow Christ in some way, with the intention of returning to the possessions which they had left, as St. Luke relates in Chapter 5: 10-11.  The third time they were called to follow Christ Our Lord forever, in St. Matthew 4: 18-22 and St. Mark, 1:16-18.

     

    Second Point—He called Philip, as described in the first chapter of St. John [43], and Matthew, as Matthew himself relates in Chapter 9:9.

     

    Third Point— He called the other Apostles of whose particular vocation no mention is made in the Gospel.

                Three other points are also to be considered:

                            1. The Apostles were uneducated men, from a low station of life.

                            2.  The dignity to which they were so gently called.

                            3. The graces and gifts by which they were raised above all the Fathers                  of the Old and New Testament.

     

    THE FIRST MIRACLE, PERFORMED AT THE MARRIAGE FEAST OF CANA IN GALILEE

    (John 2: 1-11)

     

    First Point—Christ Our Lord and His disciples were invited to the marriage feast.

     

    Second Point— The Mother calls her Son’s attention to the lack of wine, saying: “They have no wine,” and she tells the attendants: “Do whatever He tells you.”

     

    Third Point—He changed the water into wine…and He manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.

     

    CHRIST DRIVES THE SELLERS OUT OF THE TEMPLE

    (John 2: 13-16)

     

    First Point—He drove all of the sellers from the temple with a scourge made of cord.

     

    Second Point—He overturned the tables and scattered the money of the rich money changers that were in the temple.

     

    Third Point—To the poor who were selling doves, He gently said: “Take these things away, and do not make of the house of My Father a house of business.”

     

    THE SERMON CHRIST DELIVERED ON THE MOUNT

    (Matt. 5)

     

    First Point—He speaks apart to His beloved disciples, about the eight beatitudes: “Blessed are the poor in spirit…the meek…the merciful… they who mourn…they who hunger and thirst for justice…the clean of heart…the peacemakers…they who suffer persecution.”

     

    Second Point—He exhorts them to use their talents well: “Even so let our light shine before men, in order that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.”

     

    Third Point—He shows that He is not a transgressor of the law but a fulfiller.  He explains the precept not to kill, not to commit adultery, not to swear falsely, and to love our enemies; “ I say to you, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.”

     

    CHRIST CALMS THE STORM AT SEA

    (Matt. 8: 23-27)

     

    First Point—While Our Lord was sleeping in the boat a great storm arose.

     

    Second Point—His terrified disciples awakened Him; He reproved them for their little faith, saying to them: “Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?”

     

    Third Point—He commanded the winds and the sea to cease, at once the wind ceased and the sea became calm.  The men marveled at this, saying: “What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?”

     

    CHRIST WALKS UPON THE SEA

    (Matt. 14:22-33)

     

    First Point—While Christ Our Lord remained upon the mountain He made His disciples get into the boat, and when He had dismissed the crowd He began to pray alone.

     

    Second Point—The boat was buffeted by the waves, Christ came to them walking  upon the water, and the disciples thought it was an apparition.

     

    Third Point—And Christ said to them: “It is I, fear not.” St Peter, at His command, came to Him, walking upon the waters, but when he doubted, he began to sink, and Christ Our Lord saved him, and reproved him for his little faith.  Afterwards, when He entered the boat, the wind ceased.

     

    THE APOSTLES ARE SENT FORTH TO PREACH

    (Matt. 10: 1-16)

     

    First Point—Christ calls His beloved disciples and gives them power to cast out devils from the bodies of men and to cure all infirmities.

     

    Second Point—He instructs them in prudence and patience. “Behold, I am sending you forth like sheep in the midst of wolves. Be therefore wise as serpents and guileless as doves.

     

    Third Point—He tells them how they are to go: “Do not keep gold nor silver.  Freely you have received, freely give.” And He tells them what they are to preach: “And as you go, preach the message, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’

     

    THE CONVERSION OF MAGDALENE

    (Luke 7: 36-50)

     

    First Point—Magdalene enters the house of the Pharisee where Christ Our Lord is reclining at table.  She is carrying an alabaster vessel full of ointment.

    Second Point—Standing behind the Lord near His feet, she began to bathe them with her tears and to wipe them with her hair.  And she kissed His feet and anointed them with ointment.

     

    Third Point—When the Pharisee accused Magdalene, Christ defended her, saying: “I say to thee, her sins, many as they are, shall be forgiven her, because she has loved much”…and he said to the woman: “Thy faith has saved thee; go in peace.”

     

     

    CHRIST FEEDS FIVE THOUSAND MEN

    (Matt. 14:13-21)

     

    First Point—The disciples asked Christ to dismiss the multitude who were with Him, since it was now late.

     

    Second Point—Christ Our Lord commanded them to bring the loaves to Him, and ordered the multitude to sit down to eat.  He blessed and broke the loaves and gave them to His disciples and they gave them to the multitude.

     

    Third Point—And all ate and were satisfied; and they gathered up what was left over, twelve baskets full of fragments.

     

    THE TRANSFIGURATION OF CHRIST

    (Matt. 17: 1-9)

     

    First Point—Christ Our Lord took with Him His beloved disciples Peter, James, and John.  And He was transfigured before them and His face shone as the sun and His garments became white as snow.

     

    Second Point—He spoke with Moses and Elias.

     

    Third Point—While St. Peter was saying that they should build three tabernacles, a voice from heaven was heard, saying: “This is my beloved Son…hear him.” When the disciples heard this voice, they fell on their faces in great fear.  Jesus came and touched them, and said: “Arise and do not be afraid… Tell the vision to no one till the Son of Man has risen from the dead.

     

     

     

    THE RESURRECTION OF LAZARUS

    (John 11:1-45)

     

    First Point—Martha and Mary make known to Christ Our Lord the illness of Lazarus.  After Jesus heard of this He remained two days longer in the place where He was, that the miracle might be more evident.

     

    Second Point—Before He raises Lazarus, He asks Martha and Mary to believe, saying : “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, even if he die, shall live.”

     

    Third Point—He raises Lazarus after He had wept and said a prayer.  The manner of raising him was by the command, “Lazarus, come forth.

     

    THE SUFFER IN BETHANY

    (Matt. 26: 6-13)

     

    First Point—Our Lord takes supper in the house of Simon the leper together with Lazarus.

     

    Second Point—Mary pours the precious ointment upon the head of Christ.

     

    Third Point—Judas murmurs, “To what purpose is this waste of ointment?” But Jesus again excuses Magdalene saying: “Why do you trouble the woman? She has done me a good turn.

     

    PALM SUNDAY

    (Matt. 21: 1-11)

     

    First Point—Jesus sends for the ass and the colt, saying: “Loose them and bring them to me , and if anyone say anything to you, you shall say that the Lord hath need of them and immediately he will sent them.

     

    Second Point—He mounts the ass which is covered with the garments of the Apostles.

     

    Third Point—The people come forth to meet Him, spreading their garments and branches along the way, saying: “Hosanna to the Son of David!  Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest.

     

    JESUS PREACHES IN THE TEMPLE

    (Luke 19:47)

     

    First Point—And He was teaching daily in the Temple.

     

    Second Point—After His teaching, since there was no one to receive Him in Jerusalem, He returned to Bethany.

     

    THE LAST SUPPER

    (Matt. 26:17-30; John 13:1-30)

     

    First Point—Jesus ate the Paschal Lamb with His twelve Apostles, to whom He foretold His death: “Amen I say to you, one of you will betray Me.”

     

    Second Point—He washed the feet of His disciples, even those of Judas.  He began with St. Peter, who, considering the majesty of the Lord and his own lowly estate, would not permit it.  He said, “Lord, dost thou wash my feet?” Peter did not understand that Jesus was giving them an example of humility by this.  Jesus therefore said to him, “I have given you an example, that as I have done for you, so you also should do.”

     

    Third Point—He instituted the most Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist, as the greatest proof of His love, saying, “Take and eat.” When the supper was finished, Judas went forth to sell Our Lord.

     

     

    FROM THE SUPPER TO THE AGONY IN THE GARDEN, INCLUSIVE

    (Matt. 26:30-46; Mark 14:26-42)

     

    First Point—After they had finished supper and sung a hymn, Our Lord went to Mount Olivet with His disciples, who were full of fear.  He left eight of the in Gethsemane, saying to them: “Sit down here while I go yonder and pray.

     

    Second Point—Accompanied by Peter, James, and John, He prayed to the Father, saying, “Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me; yet not as I will, but as thou willest.And falling into an agony he prayed the more earnestly.

     

    Third Point—So great was the fear that possessed Him, that He said: “My soul is sad, even unto death” and He sweated blood so copiously that St. Luke says: “His sweat became as drops of blood running down upon the ground.” This supposes that His garments were now saturated with blood.  

     

     

    FROM THE AGONY IN THE GARDEN TO THE HOUSE OF ANNAS, INCLUSIVE

    (Matt. 26: 47-56; Luke 22: 47-53; Mark 14:43-52; John 18: 1-23)

     

    First Point—Our Lord allows Himself to be kissed by Judas, and to be seized like a thief.  He says to the crowd: “As against a robber you have come out, with swords and clubs, to seize me.  I sat daily with you in the temple teaching, and you did not lay hands on me.” And when He said: “Whom do you seek?” His enemies fell to the ground.

     

    Second Point—St. Peter wounded a servant of the high priest.  The meek Lord said to him: “Put back thy sword into its place.” And He healed the servant’s wound.

     

    Third Point—Jesus is abandoned by His disciples and dragged before Annas.  There St. Peter, who had followed him at a distance, denied Him the first time. Then a servant struck Christ in the face, saying to Him: “Is that the way thou answer the high priest?” 

     

    FROM THE HOUSE OF ANNAS TO THE HOUSE OF CAIPHAS, INCLUSIVE

    (Matt. 26: 57-75; Mark 14: 53-72; Luke 22: 54-65)

     

    First Point—Jesus is led bound from the House of Annas to the House of Caiphas where Peter denied Him twice.  And when Jesus looked upon Peter, He went out and wept bitterly.

     

    Second Point—Jesus was left bound the entire night.

     

    Third Point—And those who held Him prisoner blindfolded Him, and struck Him and buffeted Him, and asked Him, “Prophesy, who is it that struck thee?” And in like manner they continued to blaspheme Him.

     

     

    FROM THE HOUSE OF CAIPHAS TO THE HOUSE OF PILATE, INCLUSIVE

    (Matt. 27: 1-26; Luke 23:1-5; Mark 15:1-15)

     

    First Point—The whole multitude of the Jews brought Him before Pilate and accused Him, saying: “We have found this man perverting the nation, and forbidding the payment of taxes to Caesar.

     

    Second Point—After Pilate had examined Him several times, he said: “I find no crime deserving of death in Him.

     

    Third Point—Barabbas the robber was preferred to Him. The whole mob cried out together saying, Away with this man, and release to us Barabbas!

     

    FROM THE HOUSE OF PILATE TO THE HOUSE OF HEROD

    (Luke 23: 6-10)

     

    First Point—Pilate sent Jesus the Galilean to Herod, the Tetrarch of Galilee.

     

    Second Point—Herod, through curiosity, asked Jesus many scribes and priests unceasingly accused Him.

     

    Third Point—Herod and his entire court mocked Jesus, clothing Him in a white garment.

     

    FROM THE HOUSE OF HEROD TO THAT OF PILATE

    (Matt. 27: 24-30; Luke 23: 12-23;Mark 15: 15-19; John 19: 1-11)

     

    First Point—Herod sent Him back to Pilate.  Because of this, they became friends, although before this they were enemies.

     

    Second Point—Pilate took Jesus and scourged Him, and the soldiers mad a crown of thorns and placed it upon His head.  They put a purple cloak about Him, and came before Him, saying: “Hail, King of the Jews!” and they struck Him.

     

    Third Point—Pilate had Him brought forth before all the people; Jesus came forth, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple cloak. And Pilate said to them: “Behold the man.” When they saw Him, the chief priests cried: “Crucify Him! Crucify Him!

     

    FROM THE HOUSE OF PILATE TO THE CROSS, INCLUSIVE

    (John 19:12-24)

     

    First Point—Pilate, sitting as judge, delivered Jesus to the Jews to be crucified, after they had denied that He was their king, saying: “We have no king but Caesar.

     

    Second Point—He carried the cross upon His shoulders, and as He could not carry it, Simon of Cyrene was forced to carry it after Jesus.

     

    Third Point—They crucified Him between two thieves placing this title above Him: Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.

     

    JESUS UPON THE CROSS

    (John 19: 23-37; Matt. 27: 35-39; Mark 15: 24-38; Luke 23: 34-46)

     

    First Point—He spoke seven words on the Cross.  He prayed for those who crucified Him; He pardoned the thief; He entrusted His Mother to St. John; He said in a loud voice: “I thirst,” and they gave Him gall and vinegar; He said that He was forsaken; He said: “It is consummated!”; He said, “Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit.

     

    Second Point—The sun was darkened; rocks rent, graves opened; the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

     

    Third Point—They blasphemed Him, saying: “Thou who destroyed the Temple…come down the Cross.” His garments were divided; His side was pierced with a lance, and blood and water flowed forth.

     

     FROM THE CROSS TO THE SEPULCHER, INCLUSIVE

    (John 19: 38-42)

     

    First Point—He was taken down from the Cross by Joseph and Nicodemus in the presence of His sorrowful Mother.

     

    Second Point—His body was carried to the sepulcher, and buried with aloes placed around it.

     

    Third Point—Guards were set.

     

    THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST OUR LORD AND HIS FIRST APPARITION

     

    First Point—He appeared to the Virgin Mary.  Although this is not mentioned in Scripture, it is considered as mentioned when the Scripture says that He appeared to so many others, for the Scripture supposes that we have understanding, as is written “Are you also without understanding?

     

     THE SECOND APPARITION

    (Mark 16: 1-11)

     

    First Point—Very early in the morning Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome go to the tomb.  They say to one another: “Who will roll the stone back from the entrance of the tomb for us?”

     

    Second Point—They see the stone rolled back and an angel who says: “You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth… He has risen, He is not here.

     

    Third Point—He appeared to Mary, who remained near the tomb after the others had departed.

     

    THE THIRD APPARITION

    (Matt. 28: 8-10)

     

    First Point— The other two women go from the tomb with great fear and joy.  They want to announce the resurrection of the disciples.

     

    Second Point—Christ Our Lord appeared to them on the way, and said to them, “Hail!” and they came up to Him, and prostrated themselves at His feet, and adored Him.

     

    Third Point—Jesus said to them: “Do not be afraid; go, take word to my brethren that they are to set out Galilee: there they shall see Me.

     

    THE FOURTH APPARITION

    (Luke 24:10-12; and 33-34)

     

    First Point—When Peter heard from the women that Christ had risen, he hastened to the tomb.

     

    Second Point—He entered the tomb and saw nothing but the linen cloths with which the Body of Christ Our Lord had been covered.

     

    Third Point—While Peter was thinking about these things, Christ appeared to him.  Therefore the Apostles said: “The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon.

     

    THE FIFTH APPARITION

    (Luke 24: 13-35)

     

    First Point—He appeared to the disciples, who were on the way to Emmaus and were talking of Christ.

     

    Second Point—He reproaches them, and shows them by the Scriptures that Christ had to die and rise again: “O foolish ones and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Did not Christ have to suffer these things before entering into His glory?

     

    Third Point—At their entreaties, He remained with them until He gave them Communion; then He disappeared.  And they returned to the disciples and told them how they had known Him in the Communion.

     

    THE SIXTH APPARITION

    (John 20: 19-23)

     

    First Point—The disciples, except Thomas, were gathered together, “for fear of the Jews.

     

    Second Point—Jesus appeared to them, the doors being closed, and standing in their midst said: “Peace be to you.

     

    Third Point—He gives them the Holy Ghost saying to them: “Receive the  Holy Ghost; Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

     

    THE SEVENTH APPARITION

    (John 20: 24-29)

     

    First Point—Thomas was incredulous since he had not been present at the preceding apparition, and said: “Unless I see…I will not believe.”

     

    Second Point—Eight days later Jesus appeared to them, the doors being shut, and said to Thomas: “Bring here thy finger and see… and be not unbelieving, but believing.”

     

    Third Point—Thomas believing, said: “My Lord and my God.” And Christ said to him: “Blessed are they who have not seen, and have believed.”

     

    THE EIGHTH APPARITION

    (John 21: 1-17)

     

    First Point—Jesus manifested Himself to seven of His disciples who were fishing.  They had been fishing all night and had caught nothing.  At His command they cast forth the net and now they were unable to draw it up the great number of fishes.

     

    Second Point—John recognized Him by this miracle, and said to Peter “It is the Lord.” Peter cast himself into the sea and came to Christ.

     

    Third Point—He gave them part of a broiled fish and bread to eat.  After he had questioned Peter three times on his love for Him, He commended His sheep to him, saying: “Feed My sheep.

     

    THE NINTH APPARITION

    (Matt. 28: 16-20)

     

    First Point—At the command of the Lord, the disciples went to Mount Thabor.

     

    Second Point—Christ appeared to them, and said: “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

     

    Third Point—He sent them to preach throughout the world, saying: “Go, therefore, and make disciple of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

     

    THE TENTH APPARITION

    (1 Corinth 15: 6)

     

    Then He was seen by more than five hundred brethren at one time.

     

    THE ELEVENTH APPARITION

    (1 Corinth 15:7)

     

    After that He was seen by James.

     

    THE TWELFTH APPARITION

     

    He appeared to Joseph of Arimathea,as may be piously thought, and as we read in the Lives of the Saints

     

    THE THIRTEENTH APPARITION

    (1 Corinth 15:8)

     

    After His Ascension He appeared to St. Paul:— And last of all, as by one born out of due time, He was seen also by me.

    He appeared also in soul to the holy fathers in Limbo, and after He had freed them and take His Body again, He appeared many times to the disciples and discoursed with them.

     

    THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST OUR LORD

    (Acts 1:1-11)

     

    First Point—After Christ Our Lord had manifested Himself for forty days to His Apostles, giving them many proofs and signs, and speaking of the Kingdom of God, He commanded them to await in Jerusalem the Holy Ghost that He had promised them.

     

    Second Point—He led them to Mt. Olivet And He was lifted up before their eyes, and a cloud took Him out of their sight.

     

    Third Point—While they were looking up to heaven, angels said to them: “Men of Galilee why do you stand looking up to heaven? This Jesus Who has been taken up from you into heaven, shall come in the same way as you have seen Him going up to heaven.

     

    This work has been a labor of love brought to our readers by the staff of Catholic Candle.  It is our desire that many will draw spiritual fruit from St. Ignatius’s Spiritual Exercises.  For this reason we have tried to preserve them for the future.  These Exercises have had a huge impact on the lives of many including many of the Church’s saints and our staff longed to make them available to the public.