The Christian Triumph in God's Terms

+

JMJ

Feast of Christ the King

 

Giving thanks to God the Father, Who hath made us worthy

to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light:

Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness,

and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love,

In Whom we have redemption through His Blood,

the remission of sins

(Col. 1.12-14, from the Epistle of today's Mass)

The Lord and Savior Jesus Christ fled away when the Jews wished to make Him their national king. It was a repudiation of their narrowly materialist conception of messianism which for the Synagogue meant their political salvation: not just deliverance from their imperial enemies but final victory: the submission of nations to the rule of Israel (the present-day Zionism).

In today's Gospel (Jn. 18.33-37), the Savior denies once more the Synagogue's term for the manifestation of God's saving sovereign Kingship. In His trial which preceded His Passion and Death, Pilate questioned Him on the subject: "Art Thou the King of the Jews?" To this Our Lord did not reply - He Is not king of any one determined nation; His Kingdom has nothing to do with the kingdoms of earth. But to Pilate's second and more precise question, "Art Thou a King then?" the Savior replied unhesitatingly: Thou sayest it; I Am a King. Notice carefully how Our Lord and Savior proclaims His Kingship in the most formal manner before the highest civil authority in Palestine; He proclaims it, not in the midst of an enthusiastic crowd whose 'sensibilities' were pleased, nor in the triumph of His miracles; but bound with chains before an inferior authority who is about to condemn Him to death, before a crowd thirsting for His Blood a few moments before being banished out of Jerusalem and dragged to Calvary - in the midst of the unspeakable humiliations of His Passion - thus affirming in the clearest manner that His Kingdom is not of this world, that His Kingdom is so sublime that no dishonor, no insults can eclipse it. By this, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ teaches us that He prefers to manifest His Lordship far more as a conquest of His Love - and far more precisely as a conquest of His Blood, we have redemption through His Blood, the remission of sins - than as a title belonging to Him in virtue of His divine nature (... all things were created by Him and in Him... by Him all things consist, Col. 1.16,17, from today's Epistle).

Christ's kingly majesty is therefore intimately linked to His immolation: first, for the sake of God's glory - total, unreserved submission to God's incomprehensible plans and designs; second, for the salvation of souls: He hath appeared for the destruction of sin, by the sacrifice of Himself (Heb. 9.16). He that commiteth sin is of the devil: for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose, the Son of God appeared, that He might destroy the works of the devil (1 Jn. 3.8). Far from trying to escape and resist Christ's absolute dominion by varied pretexts and contrivances as is the New 'Order' of today, let us heed the appeals of the Immaculate Heart of Our Blessed Mother (kindly refer to the section on the right-side bar of this site) that Christ our King may be the sole Lord and Ruler of our whole mind and heart, and the complete Master of our will and all that belongs to us. Thus, that we might be preserved in His transfixed Heart blazing with love for us and so be spared from the destruction to which the 'flow', the 'spirit', of the day's [Dis-]Order rushes innumerable souls, for behold they that go far from Him shall perish: He hast destroyed all them that are disloyal to Him (Ps. 72.27).

A most blessed Feast to all!

Related post: "The Measure of Loving God"

"Credo in... Unam, Sanctam, Catholicam, et Apostolicam Ecclesiam" (I)

+

JMJ

21st Sunday after Pentecost

Be strengthened in the Lord, and in the might of His power. 
Put you on the armor of God, 

that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil... 

in all things, taking the shield of Faith, wherewith you may be able to extinguish 

all the fiery darts of the most wicked one (Eph. 6.10,11, from today's Epistle).

It is a common objection today that Catholicism can not be the true divine Religion given the sexual scandals  that has infested Catholic seminaries and parishes. Consequently, Catholics ought rather to shut their mouths up in the face of the rampant promiscuity and homosexuality that is the order of the day.

We reply that the responsible institution* which the secular press reports to be the Catholic Church is indicatively twisted and therefore misleading. We saw that in the 1930s (cf., "The Year That Was 1929"), Catholic institutions, specifically seminaries and monasteries, became the home and breeding ground of the modern "Judaizers" - those anti-Catholic "elements" of the Synagogue of Satan (Apoc. 2.9; 3.9), secretly entered in... ungodly men, turning the grace of our Lord God into riotousness (Jude 1.4) - who carried out orders to "work in a still more efficient way for the disintegration of the [Catholic]Church, by creating scandals within her" (the Jewish B'nai-B'rith, directors of the international Freemasonry, in The London Catholic Gazette, February 1936). They are donned either in the traditional episcopal and clerical trappings or in the Neo-Catholic apparel after the Lutheran or Anglican fashion. It shall be the habitation of dragons (Is. 34.13). And I will make Jerusalem to be... dens of dragons (Jer. 9.11). What the late Fr. Malachi Martin, S.J. referred to as the "element... called the superforce of the anti-Church... lodged in the Vatican" (cf., commentary on our post "Upheaval") or what the late Ms. Bella Dodd, the former Secretary General of the US Communist Party, pointed out to be infiltrated revolutionary "mock prelates and priests" finally had their appointed day of temporary success in making a mockery of Catholicism by way of promotion of their propaganda - the Neo-Catholicism: "the [R]eligion of the God-Man meeting the religion of [the 'dignity' and 'rights'] of man," Pope Paul VI in our post "The Great Tribulation'") all the way from the Vatican (cf., also our post "A Perilous 'Catholic' Voyage). The rotten fruits must be blamed on the rotten root (Neo-Catholic Theology) of the rotten tree (Vatican II "New Ecclesial Reality" or the Novus Ordo, that is, the "New 'Catholic [Dis-]Order'") transplanted into the Catholic grounds!
---
* The Catholic Church as the "Mystical Body" of Christ is distinct from its institutional organs, offices, etc., which could be taken by her enemies for their possession even without the characteristically savage anti-Catholic assaults perpetrated by the 16th century, 1789, 1917 and 1930s Revolutionaries. We saw this in the 4th century when the institutional Catholic Church was overran by the Arians; the Holy See instrumentalized as if it were a rubber-stamp; and, St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, exiled and 'excommunicated', was the "Voice of [Catholic] Orthodoxy".
---

Moreover, it is an absurd a conclusion that the divine Religion fails when the appointed pastors themselves fail to conform to it. St. Paul retorts, We preach not ourselves, but Jesus Christ our Lord (2 Cor. 4.5) Who Is the Author and Finisher (Heb 12.2) of the Catholic Faith (cf., Col. 1.23; also, Rom. 1.5,8). The divine Religion fails when the Truth once infallibly taught and preached is infallibly contradicted. It is a travesty were the ancient Church established by Christ on Cephas be examined according to Luther's moralistic standard.

Therefore, the Holy Church urges in her Roman Catechism that her [true] pastors ought to explain, with great diligence, to the faithful the truth of the ninth article of her Holy Creed. For two important considerations:

First, as St. Augustine observes in his exposition on Psalms 95, the Prophets of Old spoke more plainly and openly of the Church than of Christ. Why is that so? They foresaw that it was on the mystery of the truth of God's Ecclesia that a much greater number may err and be deceived than on the mystery of the Incarnation of the Eternal Word. For in after ages there would not be wanting wicked men who, like the ape that would fain pass for a man, would claim that they were 'Catholics', and with no less impiety than effrontery assert that with them alone is the 'Catholic Church' (cf., the pseudo-Catholic Church in our posts "The Year That Was 1929", "Upheaval", and "What is Truth").

Second, he whose mind is strongly impressed with the truth taught in this Article, will easily escape the awful danger of heresy (nay of apostasy wherein they shall no longer have any remedy, Pr. 6.15)... But, he is a heretic who, having disregarded the authority of the Church, maintains impious opinions with pertinacity; whereas, he is an apostate who denies, gives up, or repudiates his Christian Faith.

Since, therefore, it is impossible that anyone be infected with the contagion of heresy (or be drawn into the quagmire of modern-day apostasy) so long as he holds what this Article proposes to be believed, the pastors are exhorted to use every diligence that the faithful, having known this mystery and guarded against the wiles of Satan, may persevere in the true Faith....

The Measure of Loving God

+

JMJ

Feast of St. Teresa of Jesus

Virgin, Reformer of Carmel, 'Doctor' of the Science of  Divine Love, and our Mother

"Make up your minds, my [children], that you came here [to our Reformed Carmel] to die for Christ and not to have a good time for Christ." - St. Teresa of Jesus

It is said that "virtue lies in the golden mean." This maxim which is so exact for the moral virtues, cannot be applied to the theological virtues [Faith, Hope, and Charity], which, having an Infinite Object - that is, God - can have no limit. The measure of our faith, hope, and charity is to believe, to hope, and to love without measure. However much we love God, we can never love Him too much, nor can we love Him as much as He is lovable. By its very nature then, the precept of charity admits of no limit and we could never say, "I shall love God up to a certain point and that will be enough," for by doing so, we would renounce tending toward the perfection of charity, which consists in loving God in a way that is as nearly proportionate as possible to His infinite lovableness. Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect (Mt. 5.48). This is why it is necessary never to stop in the practice of Christian charity - not mere love or philanthropy - employing all our strength that it may continually increase in our soul.

Because the precept of charity concerns the love of God - the Infinite, Supreme Good - it possesses an absolute character: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength (Mk. 12.30). If we so little and so limited, do not employ in the love of God all the little that we have are, how can we truly tend toward the perfection of charity?

Furthermore, even human love by its nature is 'totalitarian'. The more intimate and intense a friendship, the more it demands the exclusive give of the heart; and when a friend begins to make reservations or to give his affection to others, the friendship loses its vigor, grows cold, and may even vanish. Therefore, we must guard against any coldness in our friendship with God, being careful to keep for Him alone the first fruits of our heart and to employ our self wholly in loving Him with our whole heart, with our whole soul, with our whole mind, and with our whole strength.

It is true that only in heaven will we be able to love God with our whole soul (that is, with our whole mind and heart) and our whole strength and in such a way that our love tends always and actually toward Him. Although this absolute totality and stability in charity is not possible to us here on earth, it is possible to love God above all things. He that loveth father or mother more than Me, is not worthy of Me (Mt. 10.37). This precept, however, can be interpreted in two ways. To love God more than any creature to the point of being ready to give up everything rather than offend God gravely is the first degree of charity. It is indispensable for all who desire to be friends of God and to possess His grace, and therefore, it is required of all. But in a more profound sense, to love God above all things means to prefer Him to everything else, not only to what might be an occasion of mortal or venial sin, but even to all that does not fully correspond to His good pleasure [which means also corresponding to the good pleasure of our legitimate superiors - especially of our spiritual fathers in so far as it is not evil in itself, against the Rule, or against our Faith* and Morals]. This is the degree of perfect charity toward which every soul aspiring to intimate friendship with God must tend. this degree requires absolute detachment and renouncement, and absolute purity - that is, the total absence of every shadow of sin or attachment to creatures (persons, things, comfort, pleasures, devotional practices, spiritual consolations, etc.). The exercise of perfect charity requires, therefore, a work of total purification of the heart so that it can be employed in loving and serving God alone.
---
* For this reason, we can never share in the 'pleasure' of our Holy Father in declaring his renewed commitment to Vatican II - of which he stood as one of its 'guiding lights' - and we can never participate in the 'New Evangelization' which, according to the intervention of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, must be "open to others" (a search for a 'gospel' subject to a never-ending discussion or debate).
---

It must be emphasized then that whoever aspires to sanctity should have a generous, magnanimous heart, which is not satisfied with doing little things for God, and tiny acts of virtue, but is determined and eager to do great things and give great proofs of love: there is no sanctity without heroic virtues. This virtue of magnanimity inclines the soul to do great things for God, but never to the detriment of true obedience, true humility, or the fulfillment of duty required by our state of life. Generous souls, precisely in this domain, will often meet arduous, difficult things which call for much virtue, but which usually remain hidden from the eyes of others. In circumstances such as these, we are often tempted to give up, under the pretext that it is not necessary to push virtue to such extremes; we excuse ourselves, saying that we are not angels nor saints. La Madre (our holy Mother Teresa of Jesus) says, "We may not be; but what a good thing it is for us to reflect that we can be if we will only, and if God gives us His hand!" Our holy Mother strongly insists that those who have dedicated themselves to the spiritual life should nor nourish petty desires, but generous ones, nor should they fear to emulate the Saints; she affirms with authority, "I have never seen any courageous person hanging back on this road, nor any soul, that, under the guise of humility, acted like a coward, go as far in many years as the courageous soul can in a few."

The contrary of magnanimity is pusillanimity, or faintheartedness, a defect which prevents souls from accomplishing great things through excessive fear of failure [the Cross, the most eloquent expression of a heroically magnanimous love towards God and souls, is it not a sign of apparent failure and even of defeat?]. Certainly, of our own volition, we should not rashly attempt to do what is beyond our strength. This, too, is a defect, evincing imprudence and presumption, which displease God. But when, in particular circumstances, and after sufficient examination with the guiding light of an orthodox and devout Spiritual Director, we see clearly what Our Lord wishes of us, we should not refuse, however difficult it may seem to be. Can God not give us the strength to do what He asks? Why do we doubt Him?

A pusillanimous person who withdraws on such occasions, under the pretext that he does not feel capable of doing so much, may believe that he is humble; but in reality he is a coward, proud, and lacking trust in God. He is a coward because, preoccupied with himself, he fears failure, he is afraid to expose himself to the criticism of others, he dreads fatigue and sacrifice. He is proud because he relies more on his own erroneous judgment than on God's and His grace.

Our Lord once said to St. Teresa: "Knowest thou what it is to love Me in truth? It is to realize that everything which is not pleasing to Me is a lie [For all that is not of Faith is sin (Rom. 14.23)]." Without sound of words, the Holy Ghost gives this lesson to every soul that lets itself be formed and purified by Him. The more He enlightens it also on the truth of its own misery and that of all creatures, the more the soul remains disinclined toward them; it withdraws all its hope from them and comes truly to esteem God above all things and to prefer Him to everything else. I count all things to be but loss for... Jesus Christ, my Lord, for Whom I have suffered the loss of all things and cout them but as dung, that I may gain Christ (Phil. 3.8). Just as this soul is not concerned about acquiring any possession except the possession of God, neither is he concerned about any loss, if it be not the loss of God. Everything can be taken from it: health, riches, honors, esteem, trust, the affection of the most cherished persons, and these persons themselves; but never could the soul endure that God should be taken from it, or that it should be prevented from loving Him. Thus have the Saints thought and acted. "Let your desire be to see God [face to face in heaven]; your fear, that you may lose Him; your sorrow, that you are not having fruition of Him; your joy, that He can bring you to Himself," wrote St. Teresa to her Discalced religious.

Such is the characteristic of the measure of true love: to create but one preoccupation in the soul, one fear, one desire, and one joy - all which are concentrated on God alone.

A most blessed Feast to all!

See also "God's Purifying Love"

Upheaval

+

JMJ

95th Anniversary of the Last Visitation of the Apocalyptic Woman in Fatima, Portugal

“I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in her Liturgy, her Theology and her soul… I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past….

A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene, weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, ‘Where have they taken Him?’” (Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli, Secretary of State to Pope Pius XI, who succeeded the latter as Pope Pius XII).

In our 13^th July post, “The Great Secret of Fatima”, the Most Blessed Virgin Mary foretold that if the Holy Father, together with all the Bishops in communion with him, failed to consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart in a solemn public ceremony, Russia would spread its errors to the perdition of many souls – the “annihilation of various nations.” It is true that Russia propagated its materialist-atheistic doctrine that resulted in bloody upheavals but it was only the face of the Synagogue’s militant anti-Catholic battle. Realizing that it could not advance very well under the watchfulness of the Holy See, it launched its insidious anti-Catholic assault designed not just to paralyze the Holy See itself (cf., our posts “A Perilous ‘Catholic’ Voyage” and “The ‘GreatTribulation’”) but even to instrumentalize the most powerful institution of the See of Peter in materially preaching, though without formally binding the universal Church to, a pseudo-Catholicism – the Modern ‘Catholic’ Orientation of the Second Vatican Council or Neo-Catholicism (cf., our post “The Year ThatWas 1929”).

The Russian-inspired Vatican II Upheaval

“The fact is,” declared Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), “as Hans Urs von Balthasar pointed out as early as 1952, that… she [the Catholic Church] must relinquish many of the things that have hitherto spelled security for her and that she has taken for granted. She must demolish longstanding bastions… “ (Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 391). The first bastion then that must be demolished are the Catholic dogmas [“… the suicide of altering the Faith…” – Pope Pius XII quoted as still Cardinal Pacelli (in the 1940s*)  above ] – for the revealed Truth is the very foundation of the Catholic Church. The dogmas, however, can never be formally contradicted – as the enemies knew very well (cf., the Masonic “Alta Vendita” quoted in our post “A Perilous ‘Catholic’ Voyage), acknowledging  the divine institution of the Catholic Church over which the gates of hell shall not prevail (Mt. 16.18) – but they have been undermined since Vatican II “in these ways:

1) simply ignore them [do not preach about it – Ignis Dei], and they will cease to exist for all practical purposes;

2) replace clear terms with ambiguous terms – as is generally the case with the Vatican II documents;

3) dismiss dogma as “outdated theology” [hence, a New ‘Catholic Theology’], as in the Balamand Declaration [which muzzled Vatican II from pronouncing anathema against Communism in exchange for the presence at the Council of Russian Orthodox 'observers'];

4) pretend there is no such thing as infallible dogmatic definitions which every Catholic must believe [except the declarations made by the non-dogmatic Vatican II on ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, etc.]” (Fr. P. Kramer, ed., The Devil’s Final Battle, p. 78).

---

* It was in the 1930s that Catholic seminaries had been infiltrated with “Anti-Apostles”

---

Russia’s “Errors” underlying the Vatican II Upheaval

1) AA (Anti-Apostle)-1025: “I worked carefully at my real task. I wrote the following: ‘It is very important that Christians become conscious of the scandal that is caused by the division of the Church. For there are three kinds of Christianity: the Catholic, a number of Orthodox, and some three hundred Protestant sects’” (in Marie Carre, AA-1025: The Memoirs of an Anti-Apostle, p. 33).

Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism: “… These separated Churches [as if Our Lord built ‘Churches’! – Ignis Dei]… have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as a means of salvation [such blasphemy!]…” (No. 3).

Avery Dulles, made Cardinal by Pope John Paul II: “The Church of Jesus Christ is not exclusively identical to the Roman Catholic Church” (in D. Tracy, Hans Kung, J. Metz, eds., Vatican II, the Work that Needs to be Done, p. 91).

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI): “When the [Second Vatican] Council Fathers replaced the word ‘is’ [in the traditional dogmatic formula that “The Church of Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church”] with the word  ‘subsistit’ [subsists**]… [they] meant to say that the being of the Church is a broader entity than the Roman Catholic Church…” (L’Osservatore Romano, 8 Oct. 2000, p.4).

---

** “’Subsists’ and ‘is’ can, however, mean the very same thing, contrary to what the then Cardinal Raztinger [suggested]. For the sake of the precision that should characterize any conciliar document, the Council ought to have stated clearly that ‘The Church of Christ subsists only in the Catholic Church.’ But as the Dominican Edward Schillebeeckx, another conciliar peritus [like Fr. Ratzinger], admitted, his liberal confreres had deliberately inserted ambiguities into the conciliar texts (in De Bauzuin, No. 16, 1965), knowing that they would later be able to interpret them in a heterodox manner after the Council” (Fr. P. Kramer, ed., The Devil’s Final Battle, p. 68).

---

On the contrary, that “Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church” is a Masonic proposition anathematized as Proposition 18, under “Indifferentism and False Tolerance”, by Blessed Pope Pius IX in his “Syllabus of Modern Errors” (8 December 1864).  “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her…” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1442). “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215).

2) AA-1025: “To emphasize the last prayer of Jesus of Nazareth, a prayer that was never heard: ‘Be ONE, as my Father and I are ONE [emphases original – Ignis Dei]. To cultivate a growing remorse (cf., the statement of Pope Pius XII as Cardinal Pacelli above) in this regard, particularly among Catholics. To stress that Catholics are responsible for the division among Christians, because, by their refusal to compromise, they caused schisms and heresies [cf., our rebuttal on our post “The ‘GreatTribulation’”]. To come to a point that every Catholic will feel so guilty that he will wish to atone at any price. To suggest to him that he must himself endeavor to find all the means capable of bringing Catholics closer to Protestants (and also to others) without harming the Credo… Moreover, it will be necessary that each Catholic endeavor to find out what would please Protestants…”

Pope John XXIII, who convoked and opened the session of the Second Vatican Council, proclaimed as one of the pastoral goals of the Council: “We do not want to prove who was right or who was wrong. All we want to say is, ‘Let us come together; let us make an end of our divisions…” (in A. Hatch, A Man Named John, p. 192, in our post “The ‘Great Tribulation’”).

Vatican II: “By unremitting study they [every priest, every bishop, every member of the hierarchy] should fit themselves to do their part in establishing dialogue with the world and with men of all shades of opinion” (Gaudium et spes).

Pope Paul VI: “We preach ecumenism” [cf., our post “Our ‘Great Reversal’”]. "The Church, with its demanding and precise attitude to dogma, impedes free conversation and harmony among men; it is a principle of division in the world rather than union. How are division, disagreement and dispute compatible with catholicity and its sanctity?" (L'Osservatore Romano, 24 December 1965).

Pope John Paul II: "We are asking pardon for the divisions among Christians, for the use of violence that some have committed in the service of truth, and for attitudes of mistrust and hostility assumed towards followers of other religions [as if Catholicism is just one among the (false) religions and not rather the one divinely revealed Religion]. We are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood" (Lenten Homily at "The Day of Pardon Mass", March 2000).

On the contrary, “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic Faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held” (Pope Leo XIII, Satis cognitum, 1896). “The Apostolic See can not on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it lawful for a Catholic either to work for such [ecumenical] enterprises … Shall we suffer, what would be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise?” (Bl. Pope Pius IX, Mortalium animos, 1928).

3) The fundamental principle of the Russian-inspired Vatican II upheaval 

AA-1025: “… Since faith and the Credo are not at stake, and never will be. Always drive minds toward a greater charity, a larger fraternity. Never talk about God, but about the greatness of man. Bit by bit, transform the language and the attitude of mind. Man must occupy the first place. Cultivate confidence in man, who will prove his own greatness by founding the Universal Church in which all good wills shal melt together. To bring it out that the good will of man, his sincerity, his dignity, are worth more than an always invisible God.”  

Pope Paul VI, in his Dec. 7, 1965 closing speech of the Fourth Session of Vatican II: “The religion of the God Who made Himself man, has met the religion (for such it is) of man who makes himself God.”

Vatican II: “The search for truth [rather than the possession of the truth! – Ignis Dei], however, must be carried out in a manner that is appropriate to the dignity of the human person…” (Declaration on Religious Liberty, 3).

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI): "If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the [Vatican II] text [Gaudium et spes, the so-called "'Dogmatic' Constitution on the Church"] 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 Modern Errors] of Pius IX, a kind of counter-Syllabus... and, as such, represents on the part of the [Novus Ordo] Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789 [the 'Enlightenment' era of Freemasonry's "Rights of Man"]..." (Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 381-382). 
---
*** Bl. Pope Pius IX's Syllabus is a Papal document issued ex cathedra and therefore irrevocable. Vatican II's Gaudium et spes is only "Dogmatic" in its title [pretension was characteristic of the "spirit" of the Council], not in its declarations - which declarations were not taught with the formal claim of infallibility and therefore did not bind the universal Church.
---

On the contrary, What concord hath Christ with Belial? (2 Cor. 6.15).

[Our Lord] turning, said to Peter: Go behind Me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto Me:

because thou savorest not the things that are of God, 

but the things that are of men 

(Mt. 16.23).

Related posts: "The Great Sign in Heaven"; "What is Truth?"

Mary, Mother Yet Ever Virgin

+

JMJ

Christian Doctrinal Instruction: Mary’s Perpetual Virginity - She was a Virgin before, during, and after the Birth of Jesus Christ

Her Viriginity before the Birth of Jesus

Mary’s virginal conception was already foretold in the Old Testament by the Prophet Isaias in the famous Emmanuel prophecy: Therefore the Lord Himself shall give a sign: Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a Son and His Name shall be called Emmanuel (7.14).  A sign, that is, in Scriptural language, a miracle and the miraculous conception of the Messias would only exist if a virgin (an untouched marriageable maiden, cf., Gen. 24.43: 24.16; Ex. 2.8; Ps. 67.26), as a virgin, conceives and gives birth.

The fulfillment of the prophecy is narrated by Mt. 1.18ff and Lk. 1.26ff. Mt. 1.18: When Mary His Mother was espoused to Joseph before they came together, She was found with Child by the Holy Ghost. Lk. 1.34: And Mary said to the Angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? And the Angel answering, said to Her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee.

Virginity during the Birth of Jesus

“Mary bore Her Son without any violation of Her virginal integrity.” The dogma merely asserts the fact of the continuance of Mary’s physical virginity without determining more closely how this is to be physiologically explained.

The Church’s faith in Mary’s (active) virginal conception is expressed in all the symbols of the Fatih. The Apostles’ Creed declares: “Qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto…” Pope St. Leo I (“the Great”) expressly taught: “From the Mother of the Lord, nature, not guilt, was assumed; and in the Lord Jesus Christ born from the womb of the Virgin, because His birth was miraculous, nature was not for that reason different from ours” (Dogmatic Epistle Lectis dilectionis tuae, 13^th June 449). The same doctrine was taught by the Council of Chalcedon, by the Fifth General Council of Constantinople which gave Our Blessed Mother the title of honor “perpetual virgin”, by the Lateran Synod, by Pope Paul IV (1555). Pope Pius XII in the Encyclical Mystici Corporis: “It was She who gave miraculous birth to Christ Our Lord.”

Virginity after the Birth of Jesus

That the Virgin shall remain a virgin even after the birth of the Messias was, according to the Fathers (St. Ambrose, Ep. 42,6; St. Jerome, Ep. 49,21), foretold, in a typical sense, by the Prophet Ezechiel: And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut (44.2). The Canticle of Canticles: My sister, My spouse, is a garden enclosed, a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed up (4.12). And the same Canticle tells us that it is God Himself Who, as the only Beloved, is the seal of His garden and fountain (8.6).

Of Old also, Mary’s perpetual virginity was prefigured by the consecrated vessels at the Tent and at the Temple. A leader of the Protestant Episcopal Church of England, [Mr.] Bull, acquiesced: “It cannot with decency be imagined that the most holy vessel [referring to Our Blessed Mother] which was once consecrated to be a receptacle of the Deity [Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ] should be afterwards desecrated and profaned by human use” (in Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers, 139). The same view was held by Grotius, Calvin, and other noted Protestant writers.

The New Testament of the Sacred Writ indirectly attests [for it belongs to the Church, the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3.15), the office of teaching, therefore of making explicit the truth of the divine mystery] the continuance of Mary’s virginity after the Nativity. From the question which Mary puts to the Angel, How shall this be done, because I know not man? It is to be inferred that She had taken the resolve of consecrated virginity to God by a special Divine enlightenment for it was spoken of Her in the Canticle of Canticles addressing the Beloved: Draw me… (1.3). St. Augustine and many Fathers and Theologians therefore believed that Mary made a vow of virginity.

St. Matthew says that Joseph too unto him his Wife, and he knew Her not till She brought forth Her First-Born Son (1.25). The Revolutionaries contend that other children besides Jesus were born to Mary. But, in their ignorance of the Sacred Scriptures, the qualifying word till by no means implies that the chaste union which had subsisted between Mary and Joseph up to the birth of Our Lord was subsequently altered; for, when a thing is said not to have occurred until another event had happened, it does not necessarily follow that it did occur after that event took place. The same Revolutionaries, in consistency with their fallacy, must then confess that the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ would have ceased to sit at the right hand of God after his enemies were subdued for it is written: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit Thou at My right hand until I make Thy enemies Thy footstool (Ps. 109).

The name of first-born was given to the first son of every Jewish mother, whether other children followed or not. We find this epithet applied to Machir, for instance, who was the only son of Manasses (cf., Jos. 17.1).

By the brethren of Jesus (Mt. 12.46; 13.55,56), fortunately the Holy Gospels themselves enable us to trace the maternity of those who were called Our Lord’s “brothers”, not to the Blessed Virgin, but to another Mary. St. Matthew mentions, by name, James and Joseph among the brethren of Jesus; and the same Evangelist and also St. Mark tell us that among those who were present at the Crucifixion were Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of James and Joseph (Mt. 27; Mk. 15). And St. John, who narrates with more detail the circumstances of the Crucifixion, informs us who this second Mary was, for he says that there stood by the Cross of Jesus His Mother and His Mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magddlen (19.25). There is no doubt that Mary of Cleophas is identical with Mary, who is called by Sts. Matthew and Mark the mother of James and Joseph. And as Mary of Cleophas was the kinswoman of the Blessed Virgin, James and Joseph are called the “brothers” of Jesus, in conformity with the Hebrew practice of giving that appellation to cousins or near relations. Abraham, for instance, was the uncle of Lot, yet he calls him brother (cf., Gen. 13.8). We note here that the fact that the dying Redeemer entrusted His Mother to the protection of the disciple John (Woman, behold thy son, Jn. 19.26), presupposes that Our Most Blessed Mother Ever Virgin had no other children but Jesus (cf., Origen, In Ioann, I, 4 (6) 23). Pope St. Siricius: "Surely, we cannot deny that regarding the 'sons' of Mary the statement is justly censured, and your holiness [the Bishop of Thessalonica] has rightly abhorred it, that from the same virginal womb, from which according to the flesh Christ was born, another offspring was brought forth. For neither would the Lord Jesus have chosen to be born of a virgin, if He had judged she would be so incontinent, that with the seed of human copulation she would pollute that generative chamber of the Lord's body, that palace of the eternal King. For he who imputes this, imputes nothing other than the falsehood of the [carnal-minded] Jews*" (Epistle Accepi litteras vestras, to Anysius, Bishop of Thessalonica, 392 A.D.).

---

* The Revolutionaries combatted the Catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary for their creed was inspired by the carnal spirit of its author, Martin Luther - the ex-Augustinian monk who broke his vow of chastity to God and married a nun. The Jews, under concealment, aided Luther in propagating his revolution to "amend" the Catholic position (cf., Joshua Jehuda in our post "Anti-Christian Conspiracy...").

"Mater Dei"

+

JMJ

Feast of the Motherhood of the Most Blessed and Ever Virgin Mary

Christian Doctrinal Instruction: “The Most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God”

“If anyone does not confess that the Emmanuel [Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ] in truth is God, and that on this account the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Theotokos, Gk.) - for according to the flesh She gave birth to the Word of God made flesh - let him be anathema” (“The Anathemas of the Chapter of St. Cyril [against Nestorius]” of the Council of Ephesus, 431 AD).

“We rightly teach that the glorious Holy ever Virgin Mary is acknowledged by Catholic men [to be] both properly and truly the one who bore God… become incarnate from Her…. Because the Son of God was properly and truly made flesh from Her and born of Her, we confess that she was properly and truly the Mother of God made incarnate and born from Her…” (Pope John II, 533-535, Epistle Olim quidem; the same affirmed by Popes St. Agapetus I, 535-536, and St. Silverius, 536-540).

Error: the Nestorian heresy

The denial of the true humanity of Christ involves the denial of the true motherhood of Mary and the denial of the Divinity of Christ logically leads also to the denial of Mary’s motherhood of God. Thus, the Nestorians refused to recognize Mary’s title “Theotokos” (Mother of God), and designated Her by the titles “Mother of Man” or “Mother of Christ”.

The Catholic Dogma: Mary is truly the Mother of God

In the Apostles’ Creed, the Church professes her belief in the Son of God, “born of the Virgin Mary.” As the Mother of the Son of God, Mary is the Mother of God.

The dogma of Mary’s Motherhood of God contains two truths:

1. Mary is truly a mother, that is, She contributed everything to the formation of the human nature of Christ, that every other mother contributes to the formation of the fruit of her body;

2. Mary is truly the Mother of God, that is, She conceived and bore the Second Person of the Divinity, not indeed according to the Divine Nature, but according to the assumed human nature.

Proof from the Sacred Scriptures, Tradition, and Reason

The Church, through which the Divine Spirit teaches men all truth, explicitly sets forth what the Sacred Writ implicitly affirms. Holy Writ attests to the true Divinity of Christ [That all men may honor the Son, as they honor the Father (Jn. 5.23), for example] and to the true motherhood of Mary. Mary’s true motherhood is clearly foretold by the Prophet Isaias, Behold a Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son and His Name shall be called Emmanuel (7.14). In similar words the Angel transmits to Mary the message, Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a Son and thou shall call His Name Jesus (Lk. 1.31). Mary’s motherhood of God is implied in the words of St. Luke, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which be born of thee shall be called the Son of God (Lk. 1.35), and in the words of St. Paul, God sent His Son made of a Woman (Gal. 4.4). The Woman who bore the Son of God is the Progenitress of God, or the Mother of God. Mary is the Mother of God: not the Most Holy Trinity but the Second Person – the Eternal Word (cf., Jn. 1.1) – Who at the Incarnation assumed the human nature and united to Himself both the divine and human natures.

The Fathers also teach Mary’s true motherhood of God, not explicitly, but implicitly. St. Ignatius of Antioch: “For Our God Jesus Christ was carried in Mary’s womb according to God’s resolve of salvation.” St. Irenaeus: “This Christ, Who as Logos [the Word] of the Father was with the Father… was born of a Virgin.” The title of Theotokos became current after the third century. It is attested to by Origen, St. Alexander of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Athanasius, St. Epiphanius, by the Cappadocians and others, as well as by Arius (a priest of Jewish descent who denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ0 and Apollinaris of Laodicea. St. Gregory of Nazianzen: “If anyone does not recognize the Holy Mary as the Mother of God, he is separated from the Divinity.” The principal defender of Mary’s motherhood of God against the Nestorians is St. Cyril of Alexandria.

To the objection made by Nestorius that Mary is not the Mother of God because from Her was taken the human nature only, but not the Divine Nature, it is replied that not the nature as such, but the person was conceived and born. By comparison, the mother who bore us did not have any part in the production of our soul – the nobler part of our being which was the work of God alone – and yet no one would dream of saying ‘the mother of my body’ but ‘my mother,’ that is, the mother of one who lives and breathes, thinks and acts, one in his personality, though uniting in it a soul directly created by God, and a material body directly derived from the maternal womb. As Mary conceived and bore the Person of the Eternal Word subsisting in human nature, She is truly the Mother of God. Thus, the title Theotokos includes a confession of the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Consequences

1. Mary’s Objective Dignity

As the Mother of God, Mary, of all rational creatures [She is still a creature; not a divine ‘Creatress’ as the heretics would impute], transcends in dignity all created persons , angels and men [therefore, Her transcendence is only of created dignity still, never of glory due the Divine], because the dignity of a creature is the greater the nearer it is to God. And of all created things after the human nature of Christ, which is hypostatically united with the Person of the Eternal Word, Mary is nearest to the Triune God. As a true mother, She is related by blood to the Son of God according to His human nature. Through the Son, She is associated intimately also with the Father and the Holy Ghost. The Church honors Her on account of Her position as Mother of God, and on account of Her high endowment with grace deriving from Her position as the daughter of the Heavenly Father and the Spouse of the Holy Ghost. In a certain sense, Mary’s dignity is infinite, since She is the Mother of an Infinite Divine Person.

In order to express the sublime dignity of the Mother of God, the Church, following the Fathers, applies, especially in her Sacred Liturgy, many Old Testament literary passages in an accommodated sense for Mary: a) from the Psalms, which depict the glory of the magnificence of the Tent of the Covenant , of the Temple, and of City of Sion (86.3; 45.5; 131.13 – chapters and verses according to DRV); b) from the Sapiential or Wisdom Books which refer to the Divine Wisdom – transferred to Mary Sedes Sapientiae (Seat of Wisdom): Prov. 8.22ff; Ecclus. [Ecclesiasticus; Sirach in Neo-Catholic versions] 11.23ff; c) from the Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs in non-Catholic versions], in which the Bride is glorified (for example, 4.7) and transferred to Mary as “the Bride of the Holy Ghost.”

2. Mary’s Plenitude of Grace

Mary’s plenitude of grace is declared in the Angelic salutation: Ave, gratia plena, Dominus tecum (“Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee,” Lk. 1.28).  According to the context, Mary’s special endowment of grace is an accompaniment of Her vocation to be the Mother of God. Her vocation demands a specially rich measure of Sanctifying Grace.

The Fathers stress the connection between Mary’s fullness of grace and Her dignity as Mother of God. St. Augustine, having based Her sinlessness on Her  dignity as Mother of God: “Whence, then, do we know with what excess of grace She was endowed, in order to conquer sin in every regard, who merited to conceive and to bear Him of Whom it is certain that He had no sin?” (De natura et gratia, 36, 42).

St. Thomas Aquinas sees in Mary’s fullness of grace a verification of the axiom: The nearer a thing is to a principle, the more it receives from the operation of that principle. But of all creatures Mary His Mother stands nearest to Christ, Who is the Source of Grace – as God, being the Origin of all graces; and, as Man being the Instrument. Consequently, She duly received from Him a supreme measure of grace – which still falls as much sort of Christ’s fullness of grace. Mary’s vocation to be the Mother of God demands for Her the richest endowment with Grace (cf., Summa, III, 27,5).

A blessed Feast to all!

"Salus Populi"

+

JMJ

Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost

and Feast of Our Lady of the Holy Rosary

Salus populi Ego Sum, dicit Dominus... "I Am the salvation of the people, saith the Lord:" in whatever tribulation they shall cry to Me, I will hear them; and I will be their Lord for ever (Ps. 77.1, Introit for today’s Mass).

How do we save the institutional Catholic Church from its present disastrous state,  since the convocation in 1962 of the Second Vatican Council by the ‘Liberal’ Pope John XXIII, of what Pope Paul VI diagnosed to be the madness of  ‘Catholic self-demolition’ (cf., our post “Our Lady and the Diabolical Campaign”)?  

The Pope’s butler stole official documents to expose the post-Conciliar bureaucratic power-struggle and the corruption it has spawned. But as the late Father Malachi Martin, S.J. (exorcist, Vatican ‘insider’ and author) put it: “Except for what is called the Vandal Solution*… it would be impossible to clean up the [post-Conciliar ‘democratized’] bureaucracy…. Until God changes it, we have to put up with it. That’s our cross. We have to pray. There’s no change on the horizon” (in an  interview with B. Janzen, Canadian journalist and publisher, during the last decade of Fr. Martin’s life).

---

* “In ancient times, when the Vandals came into a city, they wiped everybody out. They left nothing. It’s the Vandal Solution. Wipe everything out and start all over again because you can’t weed out a bureaucracy” (Fr. Martin, S.J., ibid.).

---

“No change on the horizon.” For as it is written, thrice would Peter betray Our Lord. The third time over, Peter still refuses to stand by the Crucified at His traditional high altar – wandering off towards a modern-day  “ecclesial reality broader than the Catholic Church” (cf., our post “Our Lady and the New Orientation in Rome in the 1960s”); worst, he even toyed with the idea, by his Summorum Pontificum (on the Traditional Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass), that the true God may share - yet in an “extraordinary” manner only! – with the false god of the Neo-Catholic ‘theology’ (cf., our post “The Ultimate Delusionof Vatican II ‘Catholicism’”) on the same ‘table’ dedicated to the Neo-Catholic idol  by the “new ecclesial reality”  (that is, the Novus Ordo inaugurated by Vatican II)!

Our Immaculate Mother communicated heaven’s solution (cf., our post “The Great Secret ofFatima”) and the most opportune application of the remedies (cf., our posts “TheYear that was 1929” and “Our Lady and the New Orientation in Rome in the 1960s”). The Church in Portugal demonstrated God’s salvation through consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Our Blessed Mother (cf., our post “When Mary Comes – III”). But the Holy See proved so convinced of its own light, prudence, ability, and power; or rather, of the promise of the ‘Liberal’ agenda of humanity’s ‘emancipation’ (which, in all reality, meant subtle  ‘emancipation’ from the iron-handed dominion of Christ the King through the ancient monarchically hierarchical structure and the immutable dogmas and moral canons of the Roman Church). Worst, to save its face, the Vatican, when finally pressed to make a full disclosure of the Third Secret of Fatima, issued in 2000 a most disgraceful version with all its grossly appalling inconsistencies and a fraudulent production of ‘Sr. Lucia’s’ written confirmation of its grandest Mariological lie ever presented the world!

Just as God’s severe arm of His justice would vindicate His other arm of mercy which met the worst human ingratitude (today’s Gospel, Mt. 22.1-14), so we can expect only the chastisement of worldwide conflagration (cf., Lk. 17.29-30) which the Apocalyptic Woman forewarned Christ’s Church and the world in the face of the present mockery of Our Blessed Mother in Her effort to extend to us still Her Son’s arm of mercy. It is now God’s direct intervention that will convince His ministers of the folly of their sinful ecumenical path and of their sacrilegious inventions in the sanctuary.

Attend, O My people, to My law; incline your ears to the words of My mouth, continues the Introit. This is the other equation of God’s salvation. “Attend… to My law”: He did not say “My laws” but “My law” for He desires of us only one thing, to love Him in all things and above all things even at the cost of our life – to return the love He lavishly bestowed upon us on the Cross. The continued hierarchical suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass is both a chastisement and a fire-tested proof of our love for the Crucified – a chastisement, on the one hand, for the faithful who could only care, before God then still easily found on His traditional high altar, for their earthly needs or enrichment while oblivious of the most precious Gift of God Himself Who daily descends on the high altar for our spiritual food and nourishment (cf., Mt. 22.5); a fire-tested proof, on the other, of the devout faithful’s generous love for the Crucified to find Him and be with Him even to the mountains (Mk. 13.14), that is, even if they need to travel miles away from their parishes now home to the abomination of desolation (ibid.: Mt. 24.15), cf., our post “The Catholic Sanctuary… (II)." “Incline your ears to the words of My mouth”: Salvation comes by obedience to the words of Faith, and of the good doctrine (1 Tim. 4.6) which the mouth of God’s ministers – the Levitical priests of the New Covenant sealed by the Blood of the divine Lamb: our Traditional Catholic priests – keep (cf., Mal. 2.7).  

And let us beseech the aid of Our Lady of the Holy Rosary that as we repeat over and over again the “Angelic Salutation” on the beads of Her Holy Rosary, God’s grace may find its way to more souls who, deafened by the devil with his continuous outpouring of his perverted maxims and filthy suggestions, are attuned to the mind, fashion of a materialistic liberal world, to the sinful pleasures of the flesh – natural and unnatural, and to the “diabolical disorientation” of Vatican II ‘ecumenism’ and subversion of the supreme Petrine authority by ‘collegiality’. May they incline [their] ears to the words of [God’s] mouth sooner through the safe path of our sacred Catholic Tradition under the beacon of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Stella Maris (the Star of the Sea), and delight in attending to God’s law. 

The "Little Way of Spiritual Childhood" of St. Therese: Humility (II)

+

JMJ

Feast of our dearest "Little Therese"

Discalced religious of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mt. Carmel

... You shall be carried at the breasts, and at the knees they shall caress you. As one whom his mother caresseth, so will I comfort you... (from the Epistle of today's Feast, Isaias 66.12,13)

The "Little Flower" of Mt. Carmel took delight in being hidden, unknown, and counted as nothing. "I want to hide in this world; I want to be the last in all things, for You, my Jesus" (poem I Thirst for Love).

She desired to be "but a small grain of sand, most obscure," well hidden from all eyes; a grain of sand which is always in its right place (cf., St. Therese on humility and truth in our post "The 'Little Way of Spiritual Childhood'" - I), that is, under the feet of everybody, reduced to nothing, to which no one gives a thought and whose existence is as it were unknown; a grain of sand which desires nothing but to be forgotten, and does not even wish to be despised or insulted - this would be too glorious for a grain of sand, for it has to be seen in order to be despised. No, it desires only to be forgotten! "Nevertheless, it desires to be seen by Jesus," for if Jesus were to neglect it, it would not receive anything any more, and it is so very much in need of Him. On the other hand, it is not to be feared that being looked on by Jesus will cause it to be lifted up in its own eyes. Nevertheless, "one glance of Jesus, just one, suffices. That is enough for a little grain of sand."

Having made that exception, the "greatest Saint of the modern times" continues vigorously: "Yes, I desire to be forgotten and not only by creatures but by myself; I would like to be so reduced to nothing that I would no longer have any desires... [Save] the glory of my Jesus, that is all. For my honor I abandon it to Him, and if He seems to forget me, well! He is free to do so, for I no longer belong to myself but to Him." And she adds with holy mischievousness: "He will tire more quickly of making me wait than I shall tire of waiting for Him."

In the passage we have just quoted, certain expression may, at first sight, seem excessive, but if we try to understand them in the sense in which our "Little Therese" herself understood them, we shall find them quite normal. When, for example, she says that she would desire to be so totally reduced to nothing that she no longer has any desire, it is clear that she does not exclude all desires, for such a thing would be inhuman. She wants especially to exclude desires which would cause her to attract the notice of others, to put herself forward in any way, to seek any special attention that would flatter human pride. "I desire to love You and make You loved!"

The last sentence of St. Therese in the passage just previously quoted merits special attention. It emphasizes the note of confidence and abandonment - characteristic of Theresian spirituality. She knows that for those who forget themselves and seek Him alone, the love of Jesus is so great that, although He may sometimes seem to have forgotten them, He cannot do so for very long. He will return to them before they tire of waiting for Him. Hence, far from grieving at the knowledge of her own persistent imperfection, St. Therese took a genuine delight in it (cf., Story of a Soul, VII).

She even expected to find new imperfections in herself every day (cf., Story of a Soul, IX). She declared that those lights that revealed to her her littleness and nothingness, did her more good than the lights of Faith (cf., her Last Conversations, 13th August). Hence, she considered that the greatest thing the Almighty had done in her was to reveal to her her nothingness and her incapacity for doing any good.

Such reflections might seem strange. For it is Faith that puts us in contact with God and is the principle of the supernatural life as well as the source of charity. And yet we have to recognize that our dearest Teresian Carmelite Saint is right, for what would be the advantage of having the lights of Faith if, through lack of humility, we did not place ourselves before God with the dispositions necessary before He can communicate Himself to our soul. God gives grace to the humble (cf., 1 Peter 5.5), and to them alone.

Our dearest Saint accepted her imperfection and wretchedness with a good heart. When she felt the stirrings of her nature or yielded involuntarily to imperfections, far from being astonished, she took delight in it and drew benefit from it: "I know the means for being always happy and drawing profit from my miseries. Jesus seems to encourage me on this road.... He teaches me to profit from everything, both from the good and the evil that I find in myself."

In fact, as long as we have good will, our faults can serve to instruct us and help us to make progress. For they make us distrust ourselves and look for means to correct our imperfections. If, after committing a fault, we accept the humiliation that follows from it, this merits for us an increase of charity. This is the way Saints react. They are no more exempt from weakness than we are. Far from grieving on their account, they accept themselves as they are and make use of their imperfections to raise themselves nearer to God. Those falls must appear the more natural to us because, in the way of perfection, we remain children. It is inevitable, therefore, that we should make false steps. The little one who learns to walk unavoidably falls from time to time (cf., her Last Conversations, 7th August).

"I have many weaknesses," said our great Saint, "but I am never astonished because of them. I am not always as prompt as I should like to be in rising above the insignificant things of this world. For example I might be inclined to worry about some silly thing I have said or done. I then recollect myself for a moment and say: 'Alas, I am still at the point from which I started.' But I say this with great peace and without sadness. It is truly sweet to feel weak and little." Elsewhere, she wrote: "If I am humble, I am entitled, without offending the good Lord, to do small foolish things until I die. Loot at little children. They constantly break things, tear them up, fall, and all the while, in spite of that, they love their parents very much. Well, when I fall in this way, like a child, it makes me realize my nothingness and my weakness all the better and I say to myself: 'What would become of me? What would I be able to accomplish if I were to rely on my own powers alone?'" Again, St. Therese wrote: "We would like never to fall. What an illusion! What does it matter, my Jesus, if I fall at every moment? I come to recognize by it how weak I am and that is gain for me. You see by that how little I am able to do and You will be more likely to carry me in Your arms. If you do not do so, it is because You like to see me prostrate on the ground. Well, then, I am not going to worry, but I will always stretch out my suppliant arms towards You with great love. I cannot believe that You would abandon me." How much these reflection of St. Therese differ from what are possibly our own habitual sentiments and ways of acting!

A blessed Feast to all!

Related posts: "St. Therese and Her 'Little Way' of Spiritual Childhood"; "The 'Little Way of Spiritual Childhood' of St. Therese: Humility (I)"; "True Humility"

'Angels'

+

JMJ

Feast of the Holy Angels

In the Sacred Scriptures, the term angel is applied also to the priests. ... The lips of the priests shall keep knowledge, and they [the people] shall seek the law at his mouth: because he is the angel of the Lord of hosts" (Malachi 2.6). The Bishops, [whom] the Holy Ghost hath placed... to rule the church of God (Acts 20.28), are angels (Apocalypse 2.1,8,12,18, etc.). For like to the spirits who behold the face of God (the Beatific Vision), they are the visible ministers of the Most High: the angels ascend and descend from the throne of God (Genesis 28.12: John 1.51), so did the Levitical priests of Old  (1 Kings [1 Samuel in non-Catholic versions] 2.28) and our Traditional Catholic priests (the Levitical priests of the New Covenant) do ascend and descend the high altar; more so, for they ought to exalt Him above all... (Daniel 3.58) and do His will (Psalms 102.21) - to execute His word, hearkening to the voice of His orders (Psalms 102.20).

Strange 'angels': [They] have made void the covenant of Levi.... 
And have made you priests like all the nations of the world.

Now, God decreed that His earthly sanctuary be made according to the [heavenly] pattern (Exodus 25.40). Thus the Tabernacle and the Temple of Old and the traditional Catholic sanctuary were made. But alas! The Second Vatican Council, overran by the minions of the Synagogue of Satan (Apocalypse 2.9; 3.9) - the Freemasons (cf., our post "A Perilous 'Catholic' Voyage") and Communists (cf., our post "The Year that was 1929")* - under the trappings of a Catholic pastor, made its first business the opening of the Holy of Holies to strangers - first to strange priests** (donned, if at all, in Protestant 'liturgical' vestments), trained under the school of the New 'Catholic Theology' (cf., our post "The Ultimate Delusion of Vatican II 'Catholicism'") to "preach [the Protestant "movement" (Pope John Paul II in "Ut Unum Sint") of] ecumenism" (Pope Paul VI, cf., our post "Our 'Great Reversal'"); second, to the leaders of false religions (the sacrilegious Assisi Meetings, cf., our post "The 'Great Tribulation'") - and its being refashioned according to the assembly hall of Masonic Lodges (cf., our post "The Catholic Sanctuary Prefigured in the Old Testament II") with the result of  the Eucharistic King dethroned (He used to occupy the traditional high altar) rather than exalted, relegated to the side of His sanctuary or even exiled from His temple, and profaned (Ezechiel 22.26)! It was therefore written of the angels who allowed such abomination of desolation (Daniel 9.27; 12.11; Matthew 24.15) to take place: Her priests have despised My law, and have defiled My sanctuaries... and I was profaned in the midst of them (Ezechiel 22.26). And yet, at a conference held last September 26 in the Catholic University of America on the post-Conciliar period, Cardinal William Levada, the retired successor of Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) to the 'presidency' of the Neo-Catholic Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the defunct "Holy Office"), and of kindred 'spirit' insisted that "Vatican II is neither optional nor second-class." A great number of the angels were turned into dumb dogs... blind... seeing vain things, sleeping and loving dreams. And most impudent dogs, they never had enough... [!] (Isaias 56.10,11).
---
* It was prophesied of Old: And a people... shall come, shall destroy the city and the sanctuary: and the end thereof shall be waste... (Daniel 9.26: Lamentations 2).

** [They]  have made void the covenant of Levi.... have cast out the priests of the Lord... the Levites...*** and you have made you priests like the all the nations of the earth (Malachi 2.8; 2 Paralipomenon [2 Chronicles in non-Catholic versions] 13.9).

*** The traditional Catholic priests bear the Levitical character of priestly ministry such as ascending the high altar of the true God, as above - a character not just lost among but actually disowned by the Ecumenical Neo-Catholic 'priests' of Vatican II [Dis-]Order.