Catholic Calendar Corrigenda

We are sorry that we made some mistakes in the 2021 Catholic Candle calendar.  A corrected version of this calendar is at this link:

Alternatively, you could correct the original version by making these changes:

  On April 25, the feast of St. Mark takes precedence over the 3rd Sunday after Easter;

  The ember days don’t fall on May 19, 21, and 22.  Instead they fall during Pentecost Week, that is, May 26, 28, and 29;

  The Epiphany of Our Lord doesn’t fall on April 9th and Sept. 6th;

  The feast of St. Stephen, the martyr, on Dec. 26, takes precedence over the Sunday within the Octave of Christmas;

  December 30 is not St. Martina’s feast day.  Instead, it is “Within the Octave of the Nativity”; and

  The feast of St. Joseph, Husband of the Blessed Virgin Mary, falls on April 28, not on April 29.

Hireling-Priests in the Time of Coronavirus

Our Lord is the Good Shepherd and is the model of His priests who are good shepherds.  Our Lord contrasts the selflessness of a good shepherd-priest, with a hireling-priest.  Here are Our Lord’s words:

I am the good shepherd.  The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.  But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth; and the wolf catcheth, and scattereth the sheep; and the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling, and he hath no care for the sheep.[1] 

A hireling puts his own safety and self-interest before the good of his flock.  He withdraws from his flock in times of fear and trial.

When times are easy and peaceful, it is hard to distinguish hireling-priests from good shepherd-priests.  The proof that a particular priest is a hireling comes during times of fear and trial.  Here is how Pope St. Gregory the Great, Doctor of the Church, explains this truth:

Whether he [viz., a priest] is a shepherd or a hireling cannot be truly known unless a time of trial arise.  For as a rule, in times of peace, both shepherd and hireling alike remain watching their flocks.  It is only when the wolf comes that each one shows the purpose for which he has been standing guard over his flock.[2]

In any tribulation – whether a religious persecution or a plague – a priest has a duty to continue administering to souls.  Although a hireling withdraws from the flock, a true shepherd continues to tend the flock.

There are only two circumstances in which a priest may withdraw from his flock:

  when he is in special danger not shared by other good priests who remain to give good care to that flock; or

  when the priest can take his entire flock with him to safety and administer to their souls in that safe place.

Here is how St. Augustine, Doctor of the Church, teaches this truth:

Let the servants of Christ, the ministers of His Word, and of His sacraments, flee from city to city whenever one of them is especially sought for by persecutors; but so that the Church is not abandoned by those who are not thus pursued.  But when the danger is common to all, that is, to bishops and clergy and to the laity, let those who need the help of others be not abandoned by those whose help they need.  Therefore, either let all pass over to a place of safety, or else let those who must of necessity remain be not abandoned by those through whom their need for the rites of the Church are to be fulfilled.

The ministers of the Church, therefore, must then fly, under pressure of persecution, from those places in which we dwell when there is either no people of Christ there to whom we must minister, or when the needed ministry can be fulfilled by others who have not the same reason for flight. But when the people remain, and the ministers take to flight, and their ministry is withdrawn, what then have we but that condemnable flight of hirelings who have no care for the sheep.[3]

So, when the people remain in any tribulation – whether a religious persecution or a plague – only a hireling abandons them and withdraws his spiritual care. 

Fear for his personal safety is the hallmark of a hireling-priest.  He “seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth” for his own safety.[4]  In this time of coronavirus, the two main fears of a hireling-priest are:

1.    He fears the government threats if he continues caring for his flock instead of “sheltering in place”; and

2.    He fears the coronavirus itself.

Below we will examine each of the hireling’s fears.

1. A priest who is a true shepherd continues caring for his flock even when threatened by the government for doing so.

Our godless civil governments have ordered priests to “lock down” and to “shelter in place” and to not go out to attend to the souls of their flocks.[5]  These godless governments assert that religion is not an “essential service” for the people and that, for the (supposed) “good of the people”, priests must not attend to their flocks.

It has happened many times in the history of the Catholic Church that the civil government ordered priests not to attend to their flocks.  A true shepherd would never submit to those evil commands.  In contrast to true shepherds, hirelings submit out of their own self-interest.

In Mexico, in the early 20th Century, when the godless, anti-Catholic, Masonic government ordered priests not to administer to their flocks, many hireling-priests fled to the United States, following the example of their hireling-bishops.  Many of the remaining priests in Mexico abandoned their flocks, married, and settled in the cities.[6]  However, here is what happened to the good shepherd-priests:

A courageous minority of priests refused to compromise.  They went into hiding and roamed Mexico at night, in disguise, doing their best to bring the True Faith and the Sacraments to the faithful.  If caught, they were arrested, fined, jailed, and sometimes tortured and executed.  In February 1915 alone, the Mexican government martyred 160 priests.[7]

Those were faithful shepherds indeed!  They imitated Our Lord, the Good Shepherd, Who laid down His Life for His sheep.  Those priests rejected the civil government’s order telling them to withdraw from their flocks “for the good of the people”.

Saints John and Paul are models for our time, showing the danger of the civil authority stifling the Church’s work by “little steps”.

Saints John and Paul (who are mentioned in the Canon of the Mass) are special models for our time.  They were martyred in 363 A.D., under the Emperor Julian the Apostate, because they would not compromise with the civil authority’s restrictions on the Catholic Church’s work spreading the true religion and saving souls.

The Roman Emperor, Julian the Apostate, attempted to stifle the Catholic religion by placing restrictions on Catholics teaching the youth.[8]  These restrictions were much more perilous to the Church than the preceding bloody persecutions under Nero and Diocletian because of the danger that Catholics would acquiesce to these limits on the work of the Catholic Church (whereas there was no danger Catholics would acquiesce in the government’s bloody persecution and martyrdom of Catholics).  Dom Guéranger explains that “never was Holy Church menaced with greater peril”.[9]

Dom Guéranger explains that during the previous persecutions, Catholics went to martyrdom with unmixed nobility.  Because of this, the civil government changed its strategy and instead attempted to destroy the Church through “small” compromises to slowly snuff out Her life.  Dom Guéranger continues:

[The civil government sought to] now make a slave of her [viz., the Church] whom they had beheld still holding her royal liberty in the face of executioners – fain would they [viz., the persecutors] now await the moment when, once enslaved, she would at last disappear of herself, in powerlessness and degradation.[10]

However, the bishops of the time were true shepherds, not hirelings that went along with the civil government stifling the Church in a “bloodless” weakening.  Dom Guéranger continues the account:

[T]he bishops of that time found vent for their indignant soul, in accents such as their predecessors had spared to princes whose brute violence was then inundating the empire with Christian blood.  They now retorted upon the tyrant, scorn for scorn; and the manifestations of contempt that consequently came showering in, from every quarter upon the crowned fool [viz., Julian], completely unmasked at last his feigned moderation [viz., his not putting Catholics to death].  Julian was now shown up as nothing but a common persecutor of the usual kind – blood flowed; the Church was rescued.[11]

In other words, Dom Guéranger explains that the Church was in great danger from the slow stifling of Her life by the civil authorities.  She was rescued by the renewed bloody persecutions and martyrdoms.  Dear readers, beware!  We are now undergoing this same slow snuffing out the Catholic religion!  Bloody persecution would be much less dangerous!

Dom Guéranger continues his account of Saints John and Paul, writing that cowardly Catholics would doubtlessly think that the best course would be to accept “small” compromises and “small” limitations on the Catholic Church’s care for souls.  Below, Dom Guéranger provides an imitation of the soothing words of cowardly Catholics who would advise accepting restrictions which are “prudent” compromises with the civil government. 

Here is Dom Guéranger’s warning, which imitates the cowards, trying to justify compromise:

[Julian the Apostate did not require] the renouncing of Jesus Christ, [as] a condition [for peace]. Well then, it may be retorted [viz., by weak compromisers], why not yield to the Imperial whim?  Could they [viz., Saints John and Paul] not do so without wounding their conscience?  Surely too much stiffness would be rather calculated to illdispose the prince [viz., Julian], perhaps even fatally.  Whereas to listen to him would very likely have a soothing effect upon him; nay, possibly even bring him round to relax somewhat of those administrative trammels, unfortunately imposed upon the Church by his prejudiced government.  Yea, for aught one knew, the possible conversion of his soul, the return of so many of the misled who had followed him in his fall, might be the result!  Should not such things as these deserve some consideration should they not impose, as a duty, some gentle handling?[12]

Dom Guéranger is warning us that this is a temptation of the devil under the appearance of good!  Dom Guéranger acknowledges that, if Saints John and Paul would have gone along with the government’s limitations on the Church, some people would have found a way to “justify” their compromise.  Here are Dom Guéranger’s words:

[T]he most exacting casuist[13] could not find it a crime for John and Paul to dwell in a court, where nothing was demanded of them contrary to the divine precepts.[14]

But true Soldiers of Christ are not compromisers!  Saints John and Paul openly opposed this stifling of the Catholic Faith and were gloriously martyred. 

Dom Guéranger warns his readers that, in our modern age, the civil authorities are again seeking to stifle the Catholic Church through slow suppression.  Here is his warning given through the means of a prayer addressing those two martyrs themselves:

Now-a-days there has arisen a persecution not dissimilar to that in which you gained the crown; Julian’s plan of action is once more in vogue ….[15]

In the present world, we see the tactics of Julian the Apostate again being used, in the civil governments’ ordering the priests to “lock down” and cease administering to their flock.  Only hireling–priests would submit to that order.

St. Edmund Campion, a good shepherd who firmly resolved to administer to his flock against the civil government’s command

About 1580, St. Edmund Campion, a Catholic priest, firmly declared his determination to continue administering to souls in Elizabethan England, despite the government’s order to Catholic priests to not attend to souls.  Here is St. Edmund Campion’s courageous response to the civil government’s order:

Whereas I have come out of Germany and Bohemia, being sent by my superiors, and adventured myself into this noble realm [viz., England], my dear country, for the glory of God and benefit of souls, I thought it like enough that, in this busy, watchful, and suspicious world, I should either sooner or later be intercepted and stopped of my course [viz., his administering to souls].

Wherefore, providing for all events, and uncertain what may become of me, when God shall haply deliver my body into durance [imprisonment], I supposed it needful to put this in writing in a readiness, desiring your good lordships [i.e., England’s ruling council] to give it your reading, to know my cause.  This doing, I trust I shall ease you of some labor.  For that which otherwise you must have sought for by practice of wit, I do now lay into your hands by plain confession.  …

Many innocent hands are lifted up to heaven [in prayer] for you daily by those English students [in Catholic seminaries on the continent], whose posterity shall never die, which beyond seas, gathering virtue and sufficient knowledge for the purpose, are determined never to give you over [i.e., give up on the rulers’ conversion], but either to win you heaven, or to die upon your pikes [weapons].  And touching our Society [of Jesus], be it known to you that we have made a league – all the Jesuits in the world – whose succession and multitude must overreach all the practice of England – cheerfully to carry the cross you shall lay upon us, and never to despair your recovery [to the Catholic Faith], while we have a man left to enjoy your Tyburn [a place of execution], or to be racked with your torments, or consumed with your prisons.  The expense is reckoned, the enterprise is begun; it is of God; it cannot be withstood.  So the faith was planted: So it must be restored.[16]

St. Edmund Campion was a true shepherd!  He did not withdraw from his flock even though the civil government told him that the Catholic religion is not an “essential service”!  Instead, this faithful shepherd courageously tells the civil authorities that nothing will stop him from attending to his flock until they catch him and kill him.

What a contrast this true shepherd is to the corona-cowards who withdraw from their flocks because the civil government ordered them to “shelter in place”!  For example, in April 2020, the French (so-called) bishops spinelessly said they were “regretting” the civil government’s order that “Catholic worship will be obliged to wait three weeks longer than stores, businesses, and public transport in order to take place publicly.”[17]

Where are the true shepherds?  Not there!  These are hirelings![18]

As St. Augustine teaches:

[W]hen the people remain [in need], and the ministers take to flight [or stay home to “shelter in place”], and their ministry is withdrawn, what then have we but that condemnable flight of hirelings who have no care for the sheep.[19]

Summary of this section

Good shepherd–priests continue administering to their flocks and do not abandon them even when the government orders a “lock down”.  By contrast, hireling–priests “shelter in place” for fear of the government.

2. A priest who is a true shepherd continues caring for this flock even during a plague.

Although hireling–priests “shelter in place”, good shepherd–priests stay with their flocks in times of plague.

For example, when the plague struck Milan, here is what St. Charles Borromeo did:

He visited the plague–stricken with unwearied zeal, assisted them with fatherly affection, and, administering to them with his own hands the Sacraments of the Church, singularly consoled them.[20]

St. Charles Borromeo and St. Aloysius Gonzaga both died attending victims of the plague.[21] 

When the plague was raging in Rome, Saint Joseph Calasanctius joined St. Camillus, and not content in his ardent zeal, with bestowing lavish care upon the sick poor, he even carried the dead to the grave on his own shoulders.[22]

When the plague struck Valencia, here is what St. Louis Bertrand did:

The plague that decimated the inhabitants of Valencia and the vicinity in 1557, afforded the saint [viz., St. Louis Bertrand] an excellent opportunity for the exercise of his charity and zeal.  Tirelessly, he ministered to the spiritual and physical needs of the afflicted.  With the tenderness and devotion of a mother, he nursed the sick.  The dead he prepared for burial and interred with his own hands.[23]

When the plague struck Switzerland, here is what St. Francis de Sales did:

Though the plague raged violently at Thonon [Switzerland], this did not hinder [St.] Francis [de Sales] either by day or night from assisting the sick in their last moments; and God preserved him from the contagion, which seized and swept off several of his fellow-laborers.  …  In a plague which raged there [viz., Annecy, Switzerland], he daily exposed his own life to assist his flock.[24]

When the plague struck Wales, here is what St. Theliau did:

When the yellow plague depopulated Wales, he exerted his courage and charity with a heroic intrepidity.  Providence preserved his life for the sake of others ….[25]

There are countless other examples of good shepherd–priests faithfully attending their flocks during a plague.  This is their duty – to assist their flock during a plague (and always).  A good shepherd–priest’s selfless devotion to his flock compels the admiration even of non-Catholics.  For example, here is how one protestant admired the religious priests of Manila during the plague there:

Of undaunted courage, they have ever been to the front when calamities threatened their flocks.  In epidemics of plague and cholera they have not been dismayed, nor have they ever in such cases abandoned their flocks ….[26]

Summary of this section

Good shepherd–priests continue administering to their flocks and do not cower for fear of the plague.  By contrast, hireling–priests “shelter in place” and withdraw from administering to their flocks.

In times of plague the prayers should be public.

The Catholic Church has always known what Pope Francis now denies, viz., that plagues are a just punishment of God for sin.[27]  In times of plague, the Catholic Church redoubles Her public prayers.  By contrast, the conciliar church and hirelings “lock down” and stay home.

When the plague ravaged Rome, this is what Pope St. Gregory the Great did:

[T]he plague continued to rage at Rome with great violence; and, while the people waited for the emperor’s answer, St. Gregory took occasion from their calamities to exhort them to repentance.  Having made them a pathetic [very moving] sermon on that subject, he appointed a solemn litany, or procession, in seven companies, with a priest at the head of each, who were to march from different churches, and all to meet in that of St. Mary Major; singing Kyrie Eleison as they went along the streets.  During this procession there died in one hour’s time fourscore [i.e., eighty people] of those who assisted at it.  But St. Gregory did not forbear to exhort the people, and to pray till such time as the distemper ceased.[28]

But as [St.] Gregory was passing over the bridge of St. Peter’s, a heavenly vision consoled them [viz., the people] in the midst of their litanies.  The archangel Michael was seen over the tomb of Hadrian, sheathing his flaming sword in token that the pestilence was to cease.  [Saint] Gregory heard the angelic antiphon from heavenly voices – Regina Coeli, lætare, and added himself the concluding verse – Ora pro nobis Deum, alleluia.[29]

How great was St. Gregory’s Faith compared to modern hirelings!  In April 2020, Cardinal Cupich of Chicago blasphemously scoffed at the power of prayer to help with the Coronavirus.  He said “religion is not magic where we just say prayers and think things are going to change.”[30]

Hireling–priests stay home.  They don’t see the importance of public prayer and penance in the time of plague because they are men of little faith.  But good shepherds are the opposite! 

When the plague struck Milan, here is what St. Charles Borromeo did:

[T]he plague appeared in Milan.  [Saint] Charles was at Lodi, at the funeral of the bishop.  He at once returned, and inspired confidence in all.  He was convinced that the plague was sent as a chastisement for sin ….[31]

[H]e ordered public supplications to be made, and himself walked in the processions, with a rope round his neck, his feet bare and bleeding from the stones, and carrying a cross; and thus offering himself as a victim for the sins of the people, he endeavored to turn away the anger of God.[32]

There is no end to the other examples we could give of the Catholic Church praying and processing publicly during times of plague.  Such a Catholic response, though, requires firm Faith.  Hireling-priests “shelter in place” and agree with Cardinal Cupich that “religion is not magic where we just say [public] prayers and think things are going to change.”[33] 

Hireling-priests are like Ohio’s (so-called) “bishops” who cowardly canceled all services because of fears that large gatherings could spread the coronavirus.[34]

Conclusion of this article

Hireling-priests cower at home when the government orders them to “shelter in place”.  Hireling–priests flee from coronavirus to save their own skin.  Good shepherd-priests stay with their flocks despite persecutions from the government or the danger from plague.[35]

[1]           St. John’s Gospel, Ch. 10, vv. 11-13 (emphasis added).


[2]           Pope St. Gregory the Great, quoted from The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, translated and edited BY M. F. Toal, D.D., Volume II, Second Sunday after Easter, Henry Regnery Co., Chicago, ©1958. p.292.


[3]           St. Augustine, quoted from The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, translated and edited BY M. F. Toal, D.D., Volume II, Second Sunday after Easter, Henry Regnery Co., Chicago, ©1958. p.292 (italic emphasis in the original; bold emphasis added).


[4]           Quoting St. John’s Gospel, Ch. 10, vv. 11-13.


[5]           See, e.g., these news reports which are a small sample of available reports:


§  Michigan’s governor banning all "public and private gatherings of any kind" including all religious services.


§  A mayor bans religious services:


§  Police break up religious services.


§  Mississippi’s Governor, Tate Reeves, issued a shelter-in-place order on April 3, 2020, that was followed by an executive order from Greenville Mississippi’s mayor, mandating all church buildings close for both in-person and drive-in church services.


§  Canadian police threaten a group of people because they are parked in a church parking lot, even though they stayed in their cars.


Catholic Candle note: this article leaves aside the fact that leaders in the human element of the Church might not be valid priests and bishops and that the “sacraments” they offer are really conciliar poison. 


For an explanation why conciliar ordinations and consecrations are inherently doubtful and so should be treated as invalid, read these articles:








For an explanation why the conciliar sacraments anger God and give no grace, read these articles:






[6]           Latin America: A Sketch of its Glorious Catholic Roots and a Snapshot of its Present, by the Editors of Quanta Cura Press, pp.39-40, © 2016.

[7]           Quoted from: Latin America: A Sketch of its Glorious Catholic Roots and a Snapshot of its Present, by the Editors of Quanta Cura Press, p.40, © 2016.

[8]               The second thing Julian the Apostate did was to ban Catholics from holding government offices.


[9]           The Liturgical Year, by Dom Guéranger, June 26, Feasts of Saints John and Paul, volume 12, (also called volume 3 for the Time After Pentecost) James Duffy, Dublin, 1890, pp. 348-350.

[10]         The Liturgical Year, by Dom Guéranger, June 26, Feasts of Saints John and Paul, volume 12, (also called volume 3 for the Time After Pentecost) James Duffy, Dublin, 1890, pp. 348-350 (bracketed words added for clarity).

[11]         The Liturgical Year, by Dom Guéranger, June 26, Feasts of Saints John and Paul, volume 12, (also called volume 3 for the Time After Pentecost) James Duffy, Dublin, 1890, pp. 348-350 (bracketed words added for clarity).

[12]         The Liturgical Year, by Dom Guéranger, June 26, Feasts of Saints John and Paul, volume 12, (also called volume 3 for the Time After Pentecost) James Duffy, Dublin, 1890, pp. 348-350 (bracketed words added for clarity).

[13]         A casuist is a person who is trained in “the resolving of specific cases of conscience, duty, or conduct through interpretation of ethical principles or religious doctrine”.


[14]         The Liturgical Year, by Dom Guéranger, June 26, Feasts of Saints John and Paul, volume 12, (also called volume 3 for the Time After Pentecost) James Duffy, Dublin, 1890, pp. 348-350.

[15]         The Liturgical Year, by Dom Guéranger, June 26, Feasts of Saints John and Paul, volume 12, (also called volume 3 for the Time After Pentecost) James Duffy, Dublin, 1890, pp. 348-350.

[16]         Apologia of St. Edmund Campion, a/k/a “Campion’s brag” (bracketed words added for clarity).


[18]         This article leaves aside the fact that these actions taken by the human element of the Church involve leaders who might not be valid priests and bishops and that the “sacraments” they offer are really conciliar poison. 

[19]         St. Augustine, quoted from The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers, translated and edited BY M. F. Toal, D.D., Volume II, Second Sunday after Easter, Henry Regnery Co., Chicago, ©1958. p.292 (italic emphasis in the original; bold emphasis added; bracketed words added).


[20]         The Liturgical Year, by Dom Guéranger, November 4, Feast of St. Charles Borromeo, volume 15, (also called volume 6 for the Time After Pentecost) New York, Benziger Bros., 1903, p. 189.

[21]           “St. Aloysius and St. Charles Borromeo died of the plague, caught while nursing the sick in the hospital.”  Quoted from The Catechism Explained, Spirago, Section: The Fifth Commandment of God, Subsection: Duty in respect to our own life, §4, p.384 (emphasis added).


[22]         The Liturgical Year, by Dom Guéranger, August 27, Feast of Saint Joseph Calasanctius, volume 14, (also called volume 6 for the Time After Pentecost) New York, Benziger Bros., 1910, p. 88-89.


[23]         1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 9, article: Louis Bertrand.


[24]         Butler’s Lives of the Saints, January 29, Saint Francis de Sales (bracketed words added for clarity).

[25]         Butler’s Lives of the Saints, February 9, Saint Theliau.

[26]         Catholic Encyclopedia, article: Archdiocese of Manila.


[27]         Here is a news report of Pope Francis denying that a plague is a punishment of God for sin.


[28]         Butler’s Lives of the Saints, March 12, Pope St. Gregory the Great (bracketed words added).


[29]         Quoted from The Formation of Christendom, by Thomas William Allies, Volume VI, The Holy See and the Wandering of the Nations, from St. Leo I to St. Gregory I,

Ch. 5 St. Gregory the Great.


[31]         Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 2, article St. Charles Borromeo


[32]         The Liturgical Year, by Dom Guéranger, November 4, Feast of St. Charles Borromeo, volume 15, (also called volume 6 for the Time After Pentecost) New York, Benziger Bros., 1903, p. 189.

[35]         There is evidence that the danger of the coronavirus is greatly exaggerated in order to justify heavyhanded government intrusion and destruction of rightful liberty.  However, this article shows that even if the coronavirus were terribly deadly, the priests who withdraw from their flocks are hirelings.

No One Knows How to Feast Like a Traditional Catholic!

(Because no one knows how to fast like a Traditional Catholic)

Catholic Candle note: The holy time of Lent is upon us, which is a great occasion to reflect upon fasting (and the reason for feasting at the great feast of Easter).  The article below concerns feasting but does not imply eating in excessive quantities.

It might seem paradoxical, but in our age of laxity and over-indulgence, people don’t know how to feast properly.

Here are two elements that greatly enhance feasting:

1.    The best feasting is preceded by generous and strict fasting; and

2.    The best feasting has a great and celebratory motive.

Below, we discuss both of these elements which help us to feast well.


1.   The best feasting is preceded by generous and strict fasting.

Webster’s Dictionary defines a “feast” this way:

  an elaborate and usually abundant meal often accompanied by a ceremony or entertainment; banquet

  something that gives unusual or abundant enjoyment[1]

When a person satisfies his passions and his craves whenever he wants to, every day, then every day is largely the same.  To feast properly, we should fast properly!  Notice that Webster’s definition says that a proper feast should be “elaborate and unusually abundant”.  When a person eats with a usual great abundance, he is not feasting.

For the best feasting, there should be a strong contrast between the fasting just finished and the feasting now begun.  The greater the contrast, the better!  Such preceding fasting makes the subsequent feast more elaborate and more abundant by contrast.

Like other false religions, the conciliar church has virtually no fasting.  By contrast, Traditional Catholics are faithful to Holy Mother Church’s wholesome traditional commands to fast.  Because of this, Traditional Catholics also know well how to feast.

Easter is the greatest feast of the year.  It is fittingly preceded by the greatest fasting of the year (six-and-one-half weeks).[2]  The high feast of Christmas is preceded by its (fasting) vigil and its penitential season of Advent.  Other great feasts have their (fasting) vigils. 

Let us be generous!  The more generous we are in our fasting, the higher will be our feasting!  The conciliar church and other false religions can’t feast well because they don’t fast well.


2.   The best feasting has a great and celebratory motive.

Our motive for feasting should not be because we are inclined to indulge our passions and our craves.  That is not a wholesome reason to feast.  That is merely self-indulgence, resulting in the strengthening of our passions and the weakening of our will.

Notice that Webster’s Dictionary defines feasting as being “often accompanied by a ceremony”.[3]  In other words, feasting is best accompanied by important “ceremonies” – which show important reasons to feast.

A Catholic, whose heart if full of love and joy for his Risen Lord, can fully immerse himself in the Easter feasting, rejoicing in that sublime day with its great liturgical prayers, ceremonies and meaning.

But any person who is focused only on himself, and whose god is his belly[4], “celebrates” nothing except himself – and he already “celebrates himself” every day of the year.  So, every day is empty of special meaning.  There is no day with a fresh and high motive for celebrating and feasting.

The austere St. Francis of Assisi knew the worthiness of celebrating a high feast.  Here is one account, giving us insight into St. Francis’s thoughts about feasting:

When a friar once asked him [viz., St. Francis of Assisi] if you could eat meat when Christmas coincided with Friday, the traditional day of abstinence, St. Francis replied: "I would like that on Christmas even the walls could eat meat.”[5]

Like St. Francis of Assisi, St. John Chrysostom knew the great fittingness of celebrating a high feast.  Read St. John Chrysostom’s sermon (below) showing his contagious joy when celebrating the magnificent Easter feast:

Easter Sermon of St. John Chrysostom, Doctor of the Church

If any man be devout and love God, let him enjoy this fair and radiant triumphal feast.

If any man be a wise servant, let him enter rejoicing into the joy of his Lord.

If any have labored long in fasting, let him now receive his recompense.

If any have wrought from the first hour, let him today receive his just reward.

If any have come at the third hour, let him with thankfulness keep the feast.

If any have arrived at the sixth hour, let him have no misgivings, because he shall in no wise be deprived.

If any have delayed until the ninth hour, let him draw near, fearing nothing.

If any have tarried even until the eleventh hour, let him also be not alarmed at his tardiness; for the Lord, who is jealous of his honor, will accept the last even as the first; He gives rest unto him who comes at the eleventh hour, even as unto him who has worked from the first hour.

And He shows mercy upon the last, and cares for the first; and to the one he gives, and upon the other he bestows gifts.

And He both accepts the deeds, and welcomes the intention, and honors the acts and praises the offering.

Wherefore, enter ye all into the joy of your Lord, and receive your reward, both the first and likewise the second.

You rich and poor together, hold high festival.

You sober and you heedless, honor the day.

Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast.

The table is fully laden; feast sumptuously!

The calf is fatted; let no one go hungry away.

Enjoy the feast of faith; receive all the riches of loving-kindness.

Let no one bewail his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed.

Let no one weep for his iniquities, for pardon has shone forth from the grave.

Let no one fear death, for the Savior’s death has set us free: He that was held prisoner of it has annihilated it.

By descending into hell, He made hell captive.

He embittered it when it tasted of His flesh.

And Isaiah, foretelling this, cried: “Hell was embittered when it encountered thee in the lower regions.”

It was embittered, for it was abolished.

It was embittered, for it was mocked.

It was embittered, for it was slain.

It was embittered, for it was overthrown.

It was embittered, for it was fettered in chains.

It took a body, and met God face to face.

It took earth, and encountered heaven.

It took that which was seen, and fell upon the unseen.

O Death, where is your sting?

O Hell, where is your victory?

Christ is risen, and you are overthrown.

Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen.

Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice.

Christ is risen, and life reigns.

Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the grave.

For Christ, being risen from the dead, is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

To him be glory and dominion unto ages of ages. Amen.[6]

In this sermon, St. John Chrysostom shows us the attitude we should have: feasting with joy when we have high motives to celebrate.  Truly, this is feasting worthy of the name!  What a contrast this is to the unworthy, joyless “feasting” which is merely a “celebrating” of the fact that we are indulging ourselves!



Let us Traditional Catholics fast well and then feast well.  Let us enter with all of our hearts and with complete generosity into our fasting, thereby forming a worthy contrast to our joyful celebrating of the great feast to come!

[1]           Quoted from Webster’s Dictionary, found here:  Note: In this article, by the word “feasting”, we do not imply over-eating.

[2]           Here is a handy table of the Church’s Traditional rules for fasting and abstaining.


[4]           St. Paul describes worldlings, unwilling to fast, in these words: “[T]hey are enemies of the cross of Christ; whose end is destruction; whose god is their belly; and whose glory is in their shame; who mind earthly things.”  Philippians, 3:18-19.

[6]           We recommend using this sermon as part of sanctifying the up-coming great feast of Easter.

New doctrines are not Catholic. They are heresy.

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

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

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

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

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

The Council of Trent Catechism teaches:

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

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

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

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

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

Emphasis added.

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

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

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


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

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

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

The testimony of Pope John Paul II:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ecclesia Dei, (1988), ¶5b.

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

The testimony of Pope Benedict XVI:

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

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

December 22, 2005 Christmas address (emphasis added).

Before he became pope, Cardinal Ratzinger taught:

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

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

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

The testimony of Pope Paul VI:

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

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

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

Statements Made by other Members of the Hierarchy

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

Near the close of the council, Cardinal Congar stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fr. Pfluger says modesty depends on the local culture

In an interview posted 12-31-14, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger (Bishop Fellay’s First Assistant) says it is merely our “tradition” (with a small “t”) that women wear dresses/skirts, not pants.  He asserts that the “tradition” is the opposite in (pagan) India.  Fr. Pfluger says we should expand our horizons and should see that different countries have different “traditions” which are “precious and justified”, even when they are opposites.  Here are Fr. Pfluger’s words:

it is tempting to confuse the true dimension of Tradition with traditions, that is to say, with the way they behaved in the last two centuries in matters of Church and religion.  Travel at low cost, globalism and multiculturalism, as many elements of opening and expanding horizons.  Traditions can be so different, precious and justified, without falling under the natural law.  What is considered normal here is considered unthinkable elsewhere and vice versa.  I returned from India a few weeks ago and I immediately think of the "Dhoti", the traditional dress of men and of the "Sari" for women; in simple terms, men wear the dress and women, the pants.

Quoted from interview to an SSPX magazine in Germany, Der Gerade Weg  English translation:


This is the new SSPX: softening moral standards and making them relative to local pagan culture (Hindu, in the case of India).  Likewise, it follows from Fr. Pfluger’s statements that the more deeply Western countries are immersed in neo-pagan “traditions” such as women wearing trousers, the more justified Catholic women are here in following along.


That is not the counter-cultural way that Catholic Tradition used to talk!  Here is the SSPX’s Angelus Magazine, publishing what the Dominican Sisters taught on modesty in 1992:


There are degrees of sin, of mortal sin, of every kind of sin.  But let me tell you now, that we are not allowed to commit any sin!  Not even the smallest sin!  A sin is a sin.  A mortal sin is a moral sin.  But the importance of the sin is different according to several things: 1) the seriousness of the matter, the conscience we have of the seriousness of the matter, 3) the importance of the person offended.  …etc.


In itself, a sin against the spirit will always be more serious than a sin against the flesh because the spirit is above the flesh…a sin against the spirit is a revolt of our mind against God’s thought, and it is the worst kind of sin.  So you are not at all allowed to wear mini skirts because wearing pants is worse!


Angelus, November 1992, p.29, ellipses in original.


Here are the Sisters of the Society of St. Pius X, in their modesty pamphlet entitled The Marylike Standards of Modesty in Dress:


What about pants?


God made men and women different; He gave them their own roles to play in the divine plan.  Pants are appropriate apparel for a man’s nature and figure; whereas dresses and skirts are fitting attire for a woman, since they help her maintain her identity and dignity.  On the other hand, when a woman wears men’s clothing, the respect due to her God-given nature is lowered.


Girls, dress like true women and daughters of the Virgin Mary.  Be courageous enough to get rid of all your pants and shorts.  Show that you are proud to be what God has made you!  This is your glory before Him and before others.



Here is the SSPX as late as 2013:


For the ladies, to dress like a man (such as wearing pants) is improper and contradicts a woman’s God-given femininity. That this is not merely an “old fuddy duddy’s” quibble, should be evident when we realize that the proponents of unisex clothing have also been the same “gender theory” people behind the promotion of sins against nature.


It is interesting to note that the “Lion of Campos”, Bishop de Castro Mayer, once famously remarked in a pastoral letter that he would prefer a woman to wear a mini-skirt rather than pants. For while the mini-skirt was immodest, it was at least feminine, while pants contradicted a woman’s nature (thus the former attacked the senses, while the latter warped the intellect).


Therefore, so-called “woman’s pants” (usually worn out of pleasure or commodity) are not the proper garb of a Catholic (or Marian-like) girl or lady, either in the parish, domestic or social life.


We don’t quote from Bishop Richard Williamson’s well-known 1991-92 condemnations of the practice of women wearing trousers, although those condemnations serve as one part of the explanation why he does not “fit in” with the SSPX’s new direction.


The point of this article is to mark the on-going slippage in the SSPX.  Thus, we leave aside many other well-known 20th Century Catholic condemnations of the practice of women wearing trousers, such as Cardinal Siri’s 5-page condemnation on June 12, 1960 and Padre Pio’s many condemnations of this practice.


Lastly, Fr. Pfluger appears to be uninformed about a sari being trousers.  But regardless of what a sari is, Fr. Pfluger uses the sari to promote the idea that it depends on local “culture” whether a woman should wear trousers.