Why epikeia and human law arguments don’t apply to VAS

by T. Stanfill Benns | Apr 30, 2024 | New Blog

+St. Catherine of Siena+

Prayer Society Intentions for May, Month of the Blessed Virgin Mary

“Oh great Queen of Heaven, Bride of the Holy Ghost, do thou cover me with the mantle of thy protection.” (The Raccolta)

First Friday and Saturday this week

We keep receiving correspondence from readers trying to answer those STILL inquiring about topics that have been explained in detail now for decades, but which need to be re-addressed because those new to LibTrad groups continue to believe the errors taught by their pseudo-clergy. We wrote last week that no one ordained or consecrated after Oct. 9, 1958,  could ever be considered valid, and therefore nothing they teach can possibly be believed as coming from the Church. It is as one online commentator put it: “The real Church is a visible institution governed by laws; the sedevacantist “church” is an invisible idea governed by circular arguments.” And that is all they can offer.

LibTrads claim that by invoking epikeia they can bypass the necessity for jurisdiction — but wait. They FIRST must prove they even have a right to jurisdiction, i.e., that they were validly ordained or consecrated and validly appointed by proper ecclesiastical authority. This is a prime example of circular argument – presuming that which has yet to be proved. For they can scarcely claim any right to minister to the faithful if they are not even members of the clergy: they must prove they were validly ordained and consecrated and all the evidence presented on this site — mainly in way of Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, (VAS) — proves they are not. And so LibTrads falsely accuse those of drawing attention to these proofs of privately interpreting the laws and teaching s of the Church. Once again, they act as though this has been categorically established by them according to the Church’s time-honored method of Scholasticism, when no such proofs have ever been produced.

Yet what LibTrads REALLY object to is not the fact that papal teachings and canon law have been “privately interpreted” by others, but that they have been outed by those quoting approved authors writing prior to the death of Pope Pius XII who do not agree with THEIR misinterpretation of the canons and papal teaching. They condemn those objecting to their violation of these laws and teachings for demanding they FOLLOW what the Church taught pre-1959. They are the ones interpreting canon law and papal teaching, not those citing these sources and demanding that they proceed according to the approved interpretations.

Therefore, we do not listen to or accept what comes out of the mouth of these LibTrads and their pseudo-clergy.  We obey the teachings of the Roman Pontiffs, the Ecumenical Councils and the approved theologians and canonists loyal to the magisterium. Even though the “illicit only” sects quote selected texts from approved theologians to justify their errors, they fail to inform readers of the full scope of what is documented in these sources and the inevitable conclusions that must be drawn from them. This of course results in readers arriving at false conclusions and creates much confusion. For that reason we will examine the comprehensive teachings of these authors on epikeia and their bearing on VAS, to dispel any false notions about this principle.

Fr. Riley on epikeia

The “illicit only” group quotes the author below but does not make any distinctions in his work nor explain the full meaning of what he is saying. To do this one must examine the definitions, citations and final conclusions of the authors and then learn what led them to these conclusions. We quote The History, Nature, and Use of Epikeia in Moral Theology, by Father Lawrence Joseph Riley, Copyright 1948, (The Catholic University of America Press, INC.  Imprimatur: + Richardus Jacobus Cushing.  D.D.):

— Epikeia may be defined as follows: “A CORRECTION OR EMENDATION of a law which in its expression is deficient by reason of its universality; a correction made by a subject who deviates from the clear words of the law, basing his action upon the presumption, at least probable, that the legislator intended not to include in his law the case at hand.(Presumption is defined by canonists as a “probable conjecture about an uncertain thing.”)

— It may be used only with the greatest discretion; in the internal forum it may be applied to affirmative precepts and to negative precepts (ecclesiastical and civil), but very infrequently with regard to affirmative precepts, because the latter, binding semper but not pro semper, are more susceptible of interpretation than of epikeia.

— Epikeia is not to be identified with interpretation, dispensation, presumed permission, excusing cause, or popular acceptance of human law.

— Epikeia is a lawful institute of Moral Theology, based ultimately on the intention of the legislator to exclude from his law a particular case, and hence the presumed intention of the legislator is of the highest import in regard to epikeia.

— The intention of the legislator not to include a particular case in his law is not a merely interpretative intention, but exists in the mind of the legislator at least virtually though perhaps only implicitly… In a case where the evidence regarding this presumed intention of the legislator is so unsubstantial that the subject cannot even hesitatingly assent that he is free, epikeia may not be used…

— Epikeia may not be applied to precepts of the natural law, nor to precepts of the divine positive law of the New Testament. (“Thou art Peter…whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth.”)

— It seems probable that the use of epikeia was not permissible in reference to precepts of the divine positive law of the Old Testament.

— Human invalidating laws sometimes cease to bind; but epikeia may not be applied to human invalidating laws, and VAS is an invalidating law.  (End of Riley quotes.)

Abp. Amleto Cicognani states that epikeia is not to be applied to the interpretation of the law itself, but rather the mind of the lawgiver, in this case Pope Pius XII. LibTrads, however, entirely overlook this important fact.

Invalidating laws and who can rightly exercise epikeia

The purpose of invalidating and incapacitating laws are better explained by the following: “A prohibitory law of its very nature admits the excuse of ignorance or moral incapacity and on this basis will frequently cease in its cogent force. Not so an invalidating law. Invalidation is not premised on an obligation but is derived from the WILL OF THE LEGISLATOR who seeks to protect the common good of society and wishes to safeguard it more compellingly FROM FRAUD, INJURY AND DANGER. THE INVIOLABLE OBSERVANCE OF INVALIDATING LAWS IS CONSTANTLY URGENT BECAUSE THEIR TRANSGRESSION PRESENTS A FAR GRAVER DANGER TO SOCIETY ITSELF” (Doubt in Canon Law, Rev. Roger Viau, S.T.L, J.C.L., 1954, pg. 69; Catholic University of America dissertation).

Abp. Amleto Cicognani, Revs. Bouscaren-Ellis, Woywod-Smith, Francis Miaskiewicz, Raymond Kearney, McHugh and Callan — all these canonists and theologians warn of the great caution that must be used in applying epikeia, and the many dangers of abuse in attempting this application. So this easily amounts to a common opinion, if not a unanimous one. Revs. Bouscaren-Ellis also note that: “The general and habitual interpretation of a law contrary to its clear terms is not epikeia, but an evident abuse,” (Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, 1946, pgs. 33-34). The above authors agree it is to be used only in specific cases, not generally. And yet this is what LibTrads have consistently done.

Riley comments: “[Pope Benedict XIV] cautions that dispensations from a papal law, granted without urgent and just cause by an inferior authority resorting to the use of epikeia, are illicit and invalid (p. 79). … It should be noted that in each of the above-cited passages the implication is that the mitigation of the rigor of the law is made by some ecclesiastical authority. Insofar as can be ascertained, nowhere does the Pope mention epikeia as exercised by a private subject of the law” (p. 96). As we read in last week’s blog, none of the LibTrads possess ANY authority. Given what Pope Benedict XIV says, even in matters NOT involving invalidating and incapacitating laws, even an unquestionably valid cleric possessing the usual authority would not be able to use epikeia to challenge a papal law. If you are upholding the Catholic Church as She existed prior to the death of Pope Pius XII, wouldn’t it only be logical to consult the best possible expert available during that time period, educated in some of the Church’s finest institutions? So why were they not able to locate, study and follow Rev. Riley’s work and obey Pope Benedict XIV, given the utmost seriousness of the situation?

Epikeia and probable opinions

 Skipping the issue of sacramental validity entirely, LibTrads rushed to use epikeia as a substitute for jurisdiction. Now some are desperately attempting to preserve their claim to validity by resorting to epikeia to dismiss Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, but they are devoid of any proofs. Their ignorance and gross negligence in these matters is just one indicator of their true orientation and motives. Traditionalists did not even follow the basic rules that govern the application of epikeiabefore establishing their very existence on this shaky principle. They went directly to the laws on the very things that epikeia could never be applied to — the Sacraments. Had they truly understood the teachings of the Catholic Church on the nature and administration of the Sacraments, had they received any true education in the places they dubbed as “seminaries,” they would have known.

Again. Rev. Riley’s very definition of epikeia above tells those praying at home all they need to know about LibTrads’ application of this principle to the Sacraments. Epikeia is “A CORRECTION OR EMENDATION of a law which in its expression is deficient by reason of its universality; a correction made by a subject who deviates from the clear words of the law, basing his action upon the presumption, AT LEAST PROBABLE, that the legislator intended not to include in his law the case at hand. (Presumption is defined by canonists as a “probable conjecture about an uncertain thing.”) The use of epikeia itself is nearly always the product of a probable opinion, as the entire bulk of Rev. Riley’s work shows. And the very reason we pray at home is because the Church forbids the use of probable opinions when conferring the Sacraments. The answer should have been clear. But it was not clear because they insisted on denying the very essence of Christ’s constitution of the Church with Peter as its indispensable head. The only possible way the Church could have been rebuilt was by retracing Christ’s own steps and starting at the beginning, by restoring a head to the Church.

Of course this was never their intent. But had they been sincere in truly glorifying God and working to obey His will to save souls, this would have been their first recourse: to restore the papacy, because then the Mass would logically have followed. There was a canon that covered this situation and could have led them to Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. It at least would have posed the question: IS there a law already governing this affair?

Canon Law and the invocation of epikeia

We read from Canon 20:

“If there is no explicit provision concerning some affair either in the general or in the particular law a norm of action is to be taken from:

(a) laws given in similar cases,

(b) from the general principles of Canon Law based on equity,

(c) from the methods and practices of the Roman Court [Curia] or from the

(d) common and constant teaching of approved canonists.” Because equity is included in (b), it seems Traditionalists, while never mentioning Can. 20 specifically, at least referred to it implicitly. (And LibTrads entirely ignore the canon that follows, which states: “Laws made for the purpose of safeguarding the public against a common danger bind even though in a particular case there is no danger.”)

(1) To invoke this law, LibTrads had to entirely ignore the fact that an “explicit provision” in this affair  already existed in a general law. In his work Canon Law, Abp. Amleto Cicognani states: “If there is a law covering the case, this rule [Can. 20] is not to be applied according to the meaning of Can. 18…” (p. 621). This, then, immediately disqualified any appeal to Can. 20. The law we are referring to happens to be an infallible law that has direct bearing on what can and cannot be done during an interregnum. It is Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, (VAS), Pope Pius XII’s 1945 papal election law. This constitution is a rewrite of the codification of all election laws enacted by Pope St. Pius X. Several things would have been clarified by consulting this one law. First of all, in the very first paragraph, the pope teaches that when a pope dies, nothing can be done by the College of Cardinals until a new pope is elected. If the Cardinals (in reality only bishops) attempt to usurp any act of papal jurisdiction, that attempt is null and void. This would include the appointment of bishops and the establishment of dioceses, as well as other acts.

Secondly, in paragraph two, VAS reads: “The laws issued by Roman Pontiffs IN NO WAY CAN BE CORRECTED OR CHANGED by the assembly of Cardinals of the Roman Church while it is without a Pope, nor can anything be subtracted from them or added or dispensed in any way whatsoever with respect to said laws or any part of them.” We refer once again to Rev. Lawrence Riley’s definition of epikeia above. Obviously Pope Pius XII did not wish VAS to be tampered with in any way, clearly showing his mind in the matter for he states: “In truth, if anything adverse to this command should by chance happen to come about or be attempted, We declare it, BY OUR SUPREME AUTHORITY, to be null and void.” This is an undeniable indication of an infallible document. So right off the bat, there is no possible way epikeia could be used to correct VAS, which forbids any changes whatsoever to this constitution. This also rules out the use of equity in (b) above, since in a conflict of law, the higher law prevails. And epikeia is not even a law; it is only a principle which may be applied to law in certain cases.

(2) There is also a question of using epikeia to correct or interpret penalties or even abolish them, in the case of Traditionalists.  Canon 20 rules that it cannot apply to penalties, and VAS teaches there will be no changes to canon laws during an interregnum. “The laws issued by Roman Pontiffs in no way can be corrected or changed by the assembly of Cardinals of the Roman Church while it is without a Pope, nor can anything be subtracted from them or added or dispensed in any way whatsoever with respect to said laws or any part of them. This prohibition is especially applicable in the case of Pontifical Constitutions issued to regulate the business of the election of the Roman Pontiff” (VAS, para. 3).

(3) No attempt has ever been made to follow the remaining guidelines of this canon as required in order to justify the use of epikeia. The reasons why seem clear enough: Traditionalists were afraid that someone would point to the fact they could not invoke it at all, since it amounted to correcting the law and interpreting penalties.

Determining the intention of the lawgiver

But there is more. In Rev. Riley’s conclusions listed above, we see that the presumed intention of the legislator, to exclude from his law a particular case, is of the highest import in regard to epikeia. And there was a process that needed to be followed here in order to determine what exactly the mind of Pope Pius XII was even before validly ordained Traditionalists could proceed to exercise their orders. “Bp.” Robert McKenna and Fr. Noel Barbara, among others —in various letters and publications — admit that they “presume” Pope Pius XII would have wished Lefebvre and Thuc to consecrate bishops for the good of the Church and the faithful. No proof whatsoever is presented to support this bold presumption. Guerard des Lauriers, supposedly a trained theologian, could waste time confabulating his material-formal nonsense, but could not be bothered to justify his own “consecration” by a mental incompetent, even though it is reported in the German publication Einsicht that he hesitated because a papal mandate could not be obtained! And Pope Pius XII would have wanted this?!! Or orders rendered by Lefebvre, a suspected Freemason himself, whose own ordination and consecration was suspect?

No proof was forthcoming because it did not exist, and these men had to know that, if they had any knowledge at all of what was taught in Pius XII’s papal encyclicals. Not to mention the censures levied for violation of canon laws regarding failure to seek orders from competent authority and consecration without the papal mandate.  Notice Riley says above that at LEAST a probable opinion must exist regarding the legislator’s intent and that means five or more examples from approved authors/reliable documents verifying the (at least) implicit permission to proceed. These opinions do not exist because epikeia was never intended to be applied to invalidating and incapacitating laws. The word incapacitated means “deprived of capacity or natural power : made incapable of or unfit for normal functioning.” If that deprivation is infallibly issued by a sitting pope, it is unquestionably binding.

But given the weight, expressed intent, invalidating clauses and infallible nature of VAS, there can be NO DOUBT that such an intent to allow such things to take place during an interregnum is lacking. The Pope is clear; during an interregnum, all stands just as it did upon the Pope’s death and if anyone dares to make innovations, the attempt is null, void and invalid. As Rev. Roger Viau explains above, no legislator could ever wish to revoke a law crafted specifically to protect “the common good of society…  to safeguard it more compellingly FROM FRAUD, INJURY AND DANGER. THE INVIOLABLE OBSERVANCE OF INVALIDATING LAWS IS CONSTANTLY URGENT BECAUSE THEIR TRANSGRESSION PRESENTS A FAR GRAVER DANGER TO SOCIETY ITSELF. ” What everyone is missing here is that in all truth, this law was first enacted by Pope St. Pius X Dec. 25, 1904 (Vacante Sede Apostolica) when surely this saintly pope had already witnessed the inroads of Modernism and realized its grave danger to the Church. Not only did he then set out to issue a new election law, but as Pope Pius XII explained in the preamble to VAS, with “judicious advice” he summarized and updated all previous election laws, to better suit current conditions.  In The Catholic Encyclopedia Dictionary, 1941,we read:  “All previous legislation concerning the conclave was codified and renewed by Pius X’s bull, Vacante Sede Apostolica (Dec. 25, 1904). The bull of Pius X is rather a codification than a reform.”

Conclusion

Pope Pius XII writes in the VAS preamble: “SURE OF THE KNOWLEDGE AND THE PLENITUDE OF OUR APOSTOLIC POWER, We have undertaken to publish and promulgate this Constitution, which is the same as that given by Pius X, of holy memory, but reformed throughout, “which,” to use the words of the same Predecessor of Ours, “The Sacred College of Cardinals shall solely use during the vacancy of the Apostolic See and in electing the Roman Pontiff.” The two notable things added in VAS by Pope Pius XII was the two-thirds PLUS ONE vote, to exclude candidates from voting for themselves and also the addition, at the end of paragraph three, of the following sentence, regarding any usurpation of papal jurisdiction or changes in papal or canon law: “In truth, if anything adverse to this command should by chance happen to come about or be attempted, We declare it, BY OUR SUPREME AUTHORITY, to be null and void.”

As noted elsewhere, interregnums were intended to last for only just under a month. But the popes both knew that the intent of the Modernists was to hijack the Church. It appears that they both decided that should an attempt be made to delay the election then the hierarchy, whose duty it was to elect, could live with the consequences — everything would be suspended until reviewed by the future pope. It was a brilliant move, made by saintly geniuses sworn to do everything necessary to preserve and protect the Divine Deposit — and they did.

Nothing declares more forcefully than VAS that without the pope there can be NO CHURCH, as Pope Pius IX taught. Issued as it was two years AFTER Mystici Corporis Christi proclaimed that the bishops did not receive their powers from Christ directly, but only through the Roman Pontiff, it based the prohibitions made on the teachings of Mystici Corporis and expanded papal power accordingly — and this is why LibTrads hate VAS. Instead of whining about the loss of Mass and Sacraments, Catholics should be on their knees thanking God that these Pope St. Pius  and Pope Pius XII had the faith and the foresight to see that Christ’s promise remained intact — that the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church founded on the rock that was St. Peter. And LibTrads should never forget this solemn warning, reiterated by Henry Cardinal Manning in his works on the papacy:

“Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken, but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder” (Matt. 21:44).

Does the “illicit only” crowd mirror the Old Catholic heresy?

by T. Stanfill Benns | Apr 21, 2024 | New Blog

+Third Sunday after Easter+

(St. Anselm, Abp.)

In way of a reminder, or for those who are new to the idea of praying at home, I am going to repeat and highlight a binding Church teaching here that has practically been the foundation stone for this site since it first appeared on the Internet. Long before Pope Pius XII wrote Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, (VAS), negating acts contrary to Canon Law or usurping papal jurisdiction that were attempted during an interregnum, the Council of Trent condemned the idea that those acting without out jurisdiction, who were “neither rightly ordained nor sent by ecclesiastical and canonical authority “ (DZ 967) could ever be considered true ministers of the Church. This concept is best expressed as follows:

“A Christian society whose bishops go back to the apostles only through the power of order, and not also through the power of jurisdiction, cannot claim to be Apostolic, and consequently cannot be the Church of Christ,” Revs. Devivier and Sasia, Christian Apologetics, Vol. II), 1924. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on the Church also  states in part: “Apostolicity of mission consists in the power of holy orders and the power of jurisdiction derived by legitimate transmission from the Apostles. Any religious organization whose ministers do not possess these two powers is not accredited to preach the Gospel of Christ. For ‘How can they preach,’ asks the Apostle, ‘unless they be sent?’ (Rom. 10:15).”

In 1950, Pope Pius XII issued a binding decree (AAS 42-601) on the true interpretation of Can. 147, stating that those never canonically appointed to such offices but who: “’…assume the same upon their own authority, are all to be regarded NOT AS MINISTERS OF THE CHURCH but as thieves and robbers, who have entered not by the door’” (DZ 960). Pius XII then issued three ipso facto excommunications for violating this law, all of them reserved in a special manner to the Holy See, which included anyone assisting such individuals in their efforts. Without the necessary jurisdiction and appointment to an office by competent ecclesiastical authority according to the sacred canons, THEY ARE NOT APOSTOLIC MINISTERS; THEY CANNOT FUNCTION VALIDLY (Can. 147). Their ability to function validlydepends on the possession of an office, regardless of their alleged reception of orders.

One might be considered validly ordained if it could once be proven that the ordaining or consecrating prelate used the proper matter and form and possessed the proper intention. But this can be determined only by the pope, as we have pointed out repeatedly. The presumption, however, also repeatedly stated, What is important to understand here is what is expressed in the following: “Commentary in Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils: “The council [of Chalcedon, 451 A.D.] declared absolute ordinations, that is, sine titulo, invalid. Though it used the words (null, void), it is very probable that it had in mind “void of effect through permanent suspension,” (pg. 96;   See Mansi, VII, 901, 945.) This is the very principle evidenced in Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS) regarding acts not authorized by the Holy See personally or permitted under Canon Law.

As the Holy Office decreed Nov. 18, 1931: “A lapsed Catholic who receives orders from a schismatic bishop can be received back into the Church only on the understanding that such ordinations, even if valid, will be completely disregarded, (Dr. Leslie Rumble, Homiletic and Pastoral Review: “Are Liberal Catholic Orders Valid,” 1958). Lefebvre  and Thuc were schismatics and those they ordained and consecrated were lapsed Catholics, one-time members of the Novus Ordo and Traditionalist organizations who were never validly absolved, abjured by the Holy Office, did not do penance or publicly condemn the schismatic prelate consecrating or ordaining.  This is what Canon Law requires of them. And as  VAS states, during an interregnum, any violation of Canon Law or presumption of papal jurisdiction (abjuration of heresy) is considered null and void.

As related in his Principles of Sacramental Theology, (1955), Rev. Bernard Leeming wrote that Pope Innocent IV, as a private doctor, opined that ”…the Pope could set up diriment impediments in the case of all the sacraments and could take away a bishop’s power to confirm. He supports this by the text,’ Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven,’ and adds that “obedience must be given to the Pope” in all things not contrary to faith or specially forbidden. Rev. J. Tixeront, in his Holy Orders and Ordination, (1928), cites the same opinion by Innocent IV, but quotes Louis Saltet (a Catholic historian who contributed to the Catholic Encyclopedia) to the effect that, “This theory tells volumes about the development given to the idea of pontifical authority.”  We must remember that Pope St. Pius X, in his previous election, law also had declared null, void and invalid all these same acts. All that Pope Pius XII added to this is to declare that part of VAS binding during an interregnum by virtue of  his Supreme Authority. Without a true Roman Pontiff, NOTHING can be presumed to be valid, most especially the conferral of Orders.

Pope Innocent IV wrote in 1254, but what these authors call his opinion or theory was, as Saltet said, the kernel sown which later blossomed into the fullness of the pope’s supreme jurisdiction. The ”development” of the idea of papal authority came full circle with the Vatican Council. Unfortunately those opposing the definition of infallibility not only left the Church but reorganized, to more effectively dismantle and oppose Her. Henry Cardinal Manning believed that this effort began with an actual conspiracy hatched by Gallicanist sympathizers and the Old Catholics. He describes this conspiracy in his work written after the close of the Council, (The Vatican Decrees and Their Bearing on Civil Allegiance, p. 11, 115-116) as the “Old Catholic” conspiracy, which translates today, even in the writer William Strojie’s opinion, to Traditionalists, especially those of the SSPX variety. He also identifies it as “The Protestant church… [which] has become a political agent, a tool of the state…in the hands of Liberals, to fight Catholicism” (p. 115).

He then goes on to explain how this conspiracy was hatched even before the Council convened, writing: “Before the Vatican Council assembled, there was an opposition systematically organized to resist it [by the Old Catholics]…” Stanley Jaki, in his 1996 introduction for the release of an exact reproduction of Manning’s The True Story of the Vatican Council, relates that Cardinal Manning, although he could not include it in his work, believed that circumstances surrounding the Vatican Council amounted to “a plain conspiracy to make Pius IX the [Pope] Honorius of the 19th century.” Today these same tactics are being used by LibTrads and Protestants  to cast Pope Pius XII in the role of Honorius in the 20th century. What we see in the persistent opposition against VAS by those claiming these me to be only illicit , and by their refusal to accept other other papal teaching is only the continuing flow of that same Gallicanist/Old Catholic/Modernist current. Strojie, Peter Anson and  others have warned us of the Old Catholic invasion in our times, but no one is listening.

One of the first LibTrad pseudo-bishops, Francis Schuckhardt, was “consecrated” by an Old Catholic bishop, Daniel Q. Brown. Several of these so-called bishops have been consecrators of certain LibTrads, especially among independents. And one of the men Schuckhardt “ordained” became involved with a rigorist Jansenist sect and went on to become one of the first proponents of the “illicit only” theory now being promoted by himself and others. We have spoken of the Jansenists and their rigorist beliefs in our last several blogs and now we will discover where it is those beliefs originated, how they have filtered down to various sects today and how they have misinterpreted papal teaching to make it appear that the Church still considers those lacking both an office and jurisdiction to be the teaching body of Christ’s Church.

Jansenist/Old Catholic ideology and LibTrads

Many years ago I ran across a very good piece on Old Catholics, entitled The Jansenist Heresy: Old Catholicism is Born.  Its author, listed by way of initials, states: “I am indebted to one of the seminarians of the Society of St. Pius X at Ridgefield, Connecticut whose research made this article possible — A.C.” After offering a summary of anti-papal and other Old Catholic teaching, A.C. comments: “The Old Catholic movement was a liberal and modernist movement. Indeed most contemporary modernists would have little difficulty accepting most of their tenets.” Under the heading Old Catholic Sects: General Observations, he describes the behavior of Old Catholic clergy, sadly failing to see they correspond almost identically with that of the SSPX and LibTrads in general. These are listed as follows:

“1.The first thing one notices when one begins to study these sects is that there are indeed a large number of sects calling themselves Old Catholic. It seems that there are about as many as there are Old Catholic bishops… (T. Benns: Just as with the LibTrads.)

“2. This phenomenon is joined to the fact that the Old Catholics foment what seems to be a never-ending series of schisms among themselves. This is explained by the fact that they began in schism. It is understandable, therefore, that they should have so many schisms among themselves. (T. Benns: The never-ending schisms is the dead giveaway.)

“3. Old Catholic clergy are inclined to excommunicate each other at the slightest provocation. (At the drop of a miter?) This is borne out by Peter Anson’s book on their forebears, Bishops at Large, and by studying some of their more recent activities. (T. Benns: Their internecine squabbling on these things is almost as never-ending as their schisms and is what foments them.)

“4. A typical fiction which an Old Catholic will try to promote is a denial that his group is schismatic or heretical. Invariably, such a person will point to another group, supposedly distinct from his own, and say that it is schismatic or heretical. For instance, an Old Catholic may tell you “We are not Old Catholics, but Old Roman Catholics. There is a difference. The other group is schismatic and heretical. We are legitimate.” Such talk is nonsense. There are no real differences among all these groups, no matter what name they go by. They all originate, in some tenuous way or another, in the Jansenist heresy and schism. Common sense tells us that if something was hatched from a duck’s egg, if it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, and if it quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. (T. Benns: Projection is a psychological ploy intended to deflect blame. There are no real differences in these groups as the author says, and all tend to exhibit Jansenist tendencies to one degree or another.)

“5. Most of these groups distort history in an attempt to prove their claims. A quick reading of some of the literature they publish demonstrates this. They distort the Jansenist controversy and avoid giving an honest account of the outrageous activities of Mathew and Vilatte. (T. Benns: One is reminded of all the stories defending Thuc from accusations of dementia and returning to the Novus Ordo; or to the defense of LibTrad pseudo-clergy and “seminarians” accused of homosexual tendencies and sexual abuse, when these accusations were well-documented.)

“7. For the most part, these sects are presided over by clergymen who are ignorant in matters of religion. Some are trained for a short period of time by ignorant superiors, others “study on their own for a while, others grant themselves degrees from non-existent universities, while still others are simply ordained without any pretense of an education at all. (T. Benns: This ignorance is what has cost the faithful so much and has resulted in the denial of so many truths.)

“9. In most cases, it is impossible to prove that an ordination or consecration performed by an Old Catholic bishop in this country is unquestionably valid. In Europe, the question is less complicated, since the Jansenist sects enjoy a certain amount of stability. In this country, however, there exists a multitude of different Old Catholic sects. Consequently, no one has a centralized and comprehensive body of certified documentation which keeps track of the lines of the ordinations and consecrations performed in all these splinter groups. This casts some doubt upon the validity of the orders they claim to possess. Since the Catholic Church teaches that one cannot act if there is a positive doubt regarding the validity of a sacrament, one is obliged to treat their clergymen as though they were invalidly ordained.”  

(T. Benns: WHY must Catholics consider them invalid? Because Pope Pius XII teaches that during an interregnum, they cannot be considered valid. This for two reasons: 1) Because consecrations and ordinations without the mandate usurp papal authority and violate the canons and 2) Until declared valid and their cases resolved, there can be no presumption of such validity. I know the LibTrads quote Leeming to the effect that “The minister of a sacrament is presumed to intend what the rite means…” [even in cases where the minister is wicked or a heretic]. “This principle is affirmed as certain theological doctrine, taught by the Church, to deny which would be at least theologically rash.” Principles of Sacramental Theology, 476, 482.) What they will not tell you is that reflex principles cited by moral theologians also declare that presumption must yield to truth. That truth is it must yield to an infallible papal ruling that regardless of the intention or the state of the minister, during an interregnum, all must be considered invalid, void of effect. For only a true pope canonically elected could settle the case. The Old Catholic commentator ends with Pope St. Pius X’s excommunication of the Old Catholic “bishop” Arnold Harris Mathew and those he attempted to consecrate below.

Pope St. Pius X’s condemns the pseudo-bishops

“We have learned that priests of your country, namely Herbert Ignatius Beale and Arthur William Howarth, of the clergy of Nottingham, seeking their own glory rather than that of Jesus Christ, and being carried away by the fire of ambition, having attempted on various occasions to be elevated to the episcopal dignity by non-Catholics, have recently proceeded with such temerity that, having obtained their wish, they have arrogantly announced unto Us that they have procured episcopal consecration. Nor does their announcement lack authentic testimony; for he who was the principal author of this sacrilegious crime, the pseudo-bishop Arnold Harris Mathew, has not feared openly to confirm this deed, having transmitted to Us letters swollen with pride. And, moreover, he has not hesitated to arrogate unto himself the title of “Anglo-Catholic Archbishop of London.”

“Turning Our thoughts and Our solicitude first of all to you, Beloved Sons, of whose constant and devoted good will we have ever received such illustrious testimony, We vigorously exhort you to guard zealously against their frauds and snares.

“Furthermore, lest We should appear to betray Our office, being faithful to the examples of Our Predecessors, We hereby proclaim the aforesaid consecration to have been illegitimate and sacrilegious, and to have been performed in a manner wholly contrary to the mandates of this Holy See and the sanction of the Sacred Canons.

“The above-named priests, therefore, namely Arnold Harris Mathew, Herbert Ignatius Beale, and Arthur William Howarth, and all others who lent aid, counsel or consent to this nefarious crime, by the authority of Almighty God, we hereby excommunicate, anathematize, and solemnly command and declare to be separated from the communion of the Church and to be held for schismatics, and to be avoided by all Catholics and especially by yourselves.

“Given at Rome, at Saint Peter’s, under the Ring of the Fisherman, the eleventh day of February 1911, in the eighth year of Our Pontificate.” (The foregoing was translated by Father William Jenkins (SSPX) from the official Latin edition of Acta Apostolicae Sedis, year III, vol. III, no. 2, February 15, 1911.)

Meaning of the prefix ”pseudo”

Thuc and Lefebvre were not Catholics at the time they ATTEMPTED (note this wording appears in Pope Pius XII’s VAS) to ordain and consecrate men of the various LibTrad sects. Pseudo is defined online as meaning sham; false; spurious; pretended; counterfeit. (Merriam-Webster). It corresponds to Can. 104 which states that “error annuls an action” whenever a certain condition is required for its proper fulfillment. The canonists Bouscaren-Ellis write: “Error of law or a fact, if it is substantial, renders an act null and void. The same is true if the error, though not substantial by nature, is made so by a condition.”  It was always a condition, from the time of the Council of Trent, that bishops could receive an office or approval for an office only from the pope. It is a condition, based on ancient practice and dating to the time of the Gallicanist heresy, that during an interregnum nothing can be decided involving the rights usually exercised by the pope or against canon law or papal law.  We see the word spurious, or false, used by Pope Pius VI in Charitas below:

“Furthermore, We declare specifically that the elections of the said Expilly… [et al], are unlawful, sacrilegious, and utterly void. We rescind, efface, and abrogate them, as well as the recent creation of the so-called dioceses of Moulins, Chateauroux, and others. We similarly declare and decree that their consecrations were sinful, and are illicit, unlawful, sacrilegious, and at variance with the regulations of the sacred canons; since they were rashly and wrongfully elected, they lack all ecclesiastical and spiritual jurisdiction for the guidance of souls and have been suspended from all exercise of the episcopal office.

“We prohibit severely both those who have been or are to be elected as bishops from rashly accepting episcopal consecration from any metropolitan or bishop as well as the SPURIOUS bishops and their sacrilegious consecrators and all other archbishops and bishops from daring to consecrate on any pretext those who have been or are to be wrongfully elected. Furthermore, We command those who have been or are to be elected, to behave in no way as archbishops, bishops, parish priests, or vicars nor to call themselves by the name of any cathedral or parochial church, nor to assume any jurisdiction, authority, or faculty for the care of souls under the penalty of suspension and invalidity.”

Pseudo-bishop is also found in refence to an Old Catholic bishop in Pope Pius IX ‘s Etsi Multa: “[The Old Catholics] have chosen and set up a PSEUDO-BISHOP, a certain notorious apostate from the Catholic faith, Joseph Hubert Reinkens. So that nothing be lacking in their impudence, for his consecration they have had refuge to those very Jansenists of Utrecht, whom they themselves, before they separated from the Church, considered as heretics and schismatics, as do all other Catholics. However, this Joseph Hubert dares to say that he is a bishop, and, what passes belief, he is recognized… [by]  all his subjects as a lawful bishop… The holy martyr Cyprian, writing about schism, denied to the pseudo-bishop Novatian even the title of Christian, on the grounds that he was cut off and separated from the Church of Christ… We declare the election of the said Joseph Hubert Reinkens, performed against the sanctions of the holy canons to be illicit, null, and void.”

And as we noted in a previous blog, Pope Pius XII taught: “Acts requiring the power of Holy Orders which are performed by ecclesiastics of this kind, though they are valid as long as the consecration conferred on them was valid, are yet gravely illicit, that is, criminal and sacrilegious” (Ad Apostolorum Principis).I believe that it was St. Robert Bellarmine who taught that a man who was not even a Catholic could not validly be elected pope. Likewise one cannot consider men consecrated by schismatics, specifically to head schismatic sects, to be valid, either.

And for proof of this we can return to Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, which clearly states that: “Further, if ever at any time it becomes clear that any Bishop, even one conducting himself as an Archbishop, Patriarch, or primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church… or likewise any Roman Pontiff before his promotion or elevation as a Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has strayed from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, then his promotion or elevation shall be NULL, INVALID AND VOID.” Those claiming that these men are “only illicit” who dare to quote this bull need to draw out is FULL implications.

As the Old Catholic commentator notes above, “One is obliged to treat their clergymen as though they were invalidly ordained.” The Church Herself declares that their promotions could never be valid, even when a reigning pontiff existed! The commentator indicates that the validity of the Old Catholics cannot be presumed, just as no one can presume LibTrads were validly ordained by Lefebvre and Thuc. This cannot be the case with US, however, because of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS);  the pope clearly declares their ATTEMPTED acts of no effect, reflecting the private teaching of Pope Innocent IV and later Clement II. Pope Pius XII cites Clement II in VAS as stating that no one may exercise the power belonging solely to the pope during an interregnum. The Council of Chalcedon was held in 451, so the principle “void of effect “was already at work in the early days of the Church. No one can claim it was a novelty that was introduced by Pope Pius XII.

Conclusion

Since the establishment of Traditionalism, these men calling themselves bishops and priests have resorted to Canon Law to try and prove their legitimacy. This is truly absurd when one considers that, as Pope Pius VI taught in Charitas, no trumped up “necessity” could justify their activities. Since canon law (Can. 147) pointedly declares they are not valid unless they are appointed by legitimate authority according to the sacred canons, these laws do not even apply to them in the clerical realm. They apply to them only as (lay) heretics and schismatics simulating the Sacraments. That is the true meaning of “pseudo” and “spurious” here. The term “illicit only” presumes their Orders and sacraments to be valid when this is clearly contrary to the Council of Trent and papal teaching. But most importantly it is a denial of the only law now governing us, VAS, and the Church’s right to determine who are members of the hierarchy. TRUE bishops no longer exist because the Church proclaims that not only were these men considered false bishops when a true pontiff reigned, there can be no valid conveying of Orders at all during an interregnum!

Interregnums were intended to last at the most for only less than a month according to VAS. The longest interregnum in the Church’s history lasted less than three years. So VAS, and prior to its issuance Pope St. Pius X’s election law, was intended as a stopgap measure only, to make certain nothing was done to usurp papal jurisdiction or violate canon law during the vacancy of the Holy See. LibTrads often point to the “colored title” theory, pretending that their “orders” alone are sufficient to claim that they possess rights and privileges in the Church. They quote Rev. Francis Miaskiewicz’s  work on Can. 209 (supplied jurisdiction) and the canonists Wernz-Vidal as follows: “There is no jurisdiction without a title. And where, by mandate of the Church or her rightful representatives, jurisdiction is required for the validity of a certain act, there, if the minister acts without the proper jurisdiction, he acts fruitlessly because invalidly.” They thus ASSUME there is a validly ordained and/or consecrated minister who COULD possess the title, a sophism called “presuming that which is yet to be proven.” This when the Council of Trent and Pope Pius XII commenting on Trent’s anathema both teach infallibly that they are “not to be regarded AS MINISTERS OF THE CHURCH” (see above).

This is so very confusing for readers because at the same time they admit that “None of the faithful believe the illicit bishops have a papal mandate to do what they are doing.” But it has nothing to do with what the faithful believe, only with what the Church teaches — for as just stated in our last blog: THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE BOUND TO BELIEVE. How about the FACT that they cannot possibly possess the mandate because there was no pope to issue one?! And that the Church says during an interregnum, no valid ordinations and consecrations can even take place if they usurp papal rights and violate canon law, which they most certainly do?

I consider myself an Ultramontane as did St. Anthony Mary Claret, Henry Cardinal Manning, Fr. Frederick Faber, Wilfred Ward, Louis Veuillot, William Peter Allies, Donoso Cortes and Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton. The Vatican Council should have resolved all the questions regarding the pope’s supremacy of jurisdiction, but sadly, as can be easily seen from the above, it did not. Ranged on the opposite side, following John Henry Cardinal Newman, Bp. Ullathorne, Dom Cuthburt Butler and a host of others who believed the definition of infallibility would only harm reunion efforts with schismatics.  Newman, especially, was quite cozy with the Anglicans and Old Catholics. He and his followers gave lip service to the definition but continued to travel the road to Modernism and ecumenism. That is where ignoring the integral teachings of the popes leads.

We see all the indicators here of Old Catholic influence:

— The attempt to “foment a schism” among those who pray at home;

— The “excommunication” of those who point out to others that “illicit only” is not Catholic;

— The tendency to Jansenistic rigorism, Liberal charity, quietism, Americanism, anti-Semitism;

— Their denial of the Vatican Council teaching on the pope’s supreme jurisdiction;

— Considering as “valid” men educated in heresy by heretics and schismatics;

— Their distortion of self-evident truths and dogmatic facts to shore up their claims, and

— Since the Catholic Church teaches that one cannot act if there is a positive doubt regarding the validity of a sacrament, [LibTrad ordinations and consecrations], one is obliged to treat their clergymen as though they were invalidly ordained.

And in our case, the absolute necessity of acknowledging the infallible truth that they could not have been ordained and consecrated during an interregnum. Instead they treat these men as valid and insist that others do the same. We cannot and will not let these errors stand. Readers deserve to know when they are being misled and to be able to fully access the truth, and we are obligated to provide it. This according to today’s epistle:  “For such is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men” (1 Peter 2).

The sanctuary of God alone and filling up what is wanting

by T. Stanfill Benns | Mar 28, 2024 | New Blog

+Good Friday+

Many have had questions about the “recusant Catholics” presenting as “homealone” because it seems this group has no intention of accepting papal teaching on a number of topics. I have attempted to answer most of these questions here over the past several weeks but must now move on to more spiritually productive conversations. In summary, however, the following points need to be firmly taken away from this troubling experience.

1. We have never said that the Church teaches invincible ignorance alone will suffice to secure eternal salvation. Several articles on this site have definitely stated this is not the case and those articles were published nearly a decade ago. Maybe people should do their research before falsely accusing someone of heresy.

2. No matter how educated someone pretends to be, they are not equipped nor approved by the Church to engage in debate or public discourse regarding the faith. We have devoted two blogs to explaining the Church’s teaching on this so there should be no further questions. It is forbidden entirely to the laity and clerics can engage in it only with permission from the Holy See.

3. The word forum itself is defined as “open discussion; expression of ideas.” We do not discuss truths of faith or express our ideas concerning them. We accept them with a firm and sincere assent, whether we fully understand them or not, or we cannot call ourselves Catholic. The definition of dialogue, a distinctly Novus Ordo method of dogmatic perversion, is “an exchange of ideas and opinions… aimed at resolution.” This clearly shows the intent of some LibTrads to use discussion forums to compromise the faith — what such ”discussion” is intended to accomplish.

4. As lay Catholics surviving without the hierarchy, there are certain things we can and must do and certain things we are forbidden to do. One of those things is public teaching on Holy Scripture, whether done vocally or by means of videos. The bishops alone, as successors of the Apostles, are commissioned to teach about Holy Scripture or they may delegate priests subject to them to teach. And such priests must be educated in teaching Holy Scripture in “seminaries and colleges of religious” by professors “who are, in all respects, qualified to teach properly on this subject, which is holy and sublime above all others… He should be equipped with the requisite knowledge of biblical matters which is acquired by serious study and must be conserved and augmented” (Biblical Commission Instruction, 1950; AAS 42-495).

Holy Scripture is the word of God and only the Church has the right and the necessary power to determine who is fit to expound on it. No one qualified today exists to conduct such instruction. Only those validly ordained to the priesthood are allowed to teach the faithful the meaning of Holy Scripture, for this teaching is an act of jurisdiction. NO lay person could ever be permitted to substitute for the clergy in this undertaking.

5. The modesty issue has been discussed at length in the blogs and in the comments section. No papal directive exists that forbids the wearing of pants that are not immodest in themselves, although there is no doubt that the Church favors women wearing long skirts and dresses. Pope Pius XII, quoting St. Thomas Aquinas, taught in his address to the Young Women of Catholic Action, May 22, 1941: “Feminine adornment may be a meritorious act of virtue when it is in conformity with custom, with a woman’s place in the world and chosen with good intention and when women wear ornaments in keeping with their station and dignity and are moderate in adapting themselves to current fashion.” This is all we need to know.

6. Concerning the secrecy resorted to by Freemasons to evade detection as enemies of the Faith, Pope Pius IX taught: “A society which thus avoids the light of day must surely be impious and criminal. ‘He who does ill,’ says the apostle, ‘hates the light.’ How different from such an association are the pious societies of the faithful which flourish in the Catholic Church! With them there is no reticence, no obscurity. The law which governs them is clear to all, also, are the works of charity practiced according to the gospel doctrine” (Sept. 25, 1865, condemnation of Freemasonry).

Groups which conduct their discussions in semi-secrecy, bind others to rules which may or may not be Catholic and expel those at will who dare to disagree with them come dangerously close to fitting the description provided by Pope Pius IX above. Catholics should view membership in such associations as a danger to their faith.

7. The accusation of slander has been levied against certain parties but the use of this term is based on a misunderstanding of what those who present as genuinely Catholic owe to those they are presenting to. Those praying at home who believe that what they are hearing and seeing is truly Catholic have the inherent right to know whether those informing them are faithful Catholics themselves and whether they are abiding by the teachings of the Church.

“Calumny (slander) injures reputation by stories that are untrue…  Detraction is the revealing of real faults or defects of another. Revealing what is known privately is necessary if otherwise an individual would be seriously injured, spiritually or physically, or honor is attacked; or if a third party would be so injured were the information not revealed.  So revealing what is public record is not sinful if done to prevent spiritual harm. (Summarized from McHugh and Callan’s work on Moral Theology.)

I wish no one any ill will. But we all have the duty in fraternal charity to correct those in error, lest they mislead others and for their own sake. It is very sad to see people so eager to associate with other pray-at-home Catholics only to find they are not loyal to the papacy, but this is the havoc the Traditionalists have wrought. I pray that all involved in such groups will reconsider and realize that without obedience to the Roman Pontiffs and what they have taught we will drown in this flood of impiety now engulfing us. I know many are lonely and long to be in touch with other like-minded Catholics who pray at home. But God has provided us helps to endure in these times, which amount to martyrdom of the spirit, and the words of Fr. Frederick Faber from his Foot of the Cross, or the Sorrows of Mary, (1857) below will tell us much about grief and loneliness and how we can best use it for our spiritual benefit.

The sanctuary of “God alone”

“There is no darkness like the darkness of a world without Jesus such as Mary’s world was on that fearful night [following Christ’s death on the Cross.] It is darker than the darkness of Calvary, for that is a darkness which cheers, refreshes and inspires. Jesus is there. He is the very heart of that darkness. He is felt more plainly than if he were seen. He is heard more distinctly because all is so dark about him and other sounds are hushed by the gloom. It is like being in the cloud with God as tried souls often are. It is truly a darkness and brings with it the pain of darkness; yet there is hardly a loving soul on earth to whom such darkness would not be more welcome for than light. But the darkness of the absence of Jesus is, as it were, a participation in the most grievous pain of hell.

“If it is by our own fault then it is the greatest of sorrows. If it is a trial from God, then it is the greatest of sufferings. In either case, we must not let the light of the world tempt us out of the darkness. In such a gloom it is indeed dreadful to abide, but the consequences of leaving it by our own self-will are more dreadful still. it is not safe there to think of creatures. We must think of God only. It is the sanctuary of ‘God alone,’ the motto of the Saints and of the saintly. We must deal only with the supernatural and leave Him who brought us there, whether for chastisement or fervour, to take us out when it shall be His will. Meanwhile we should unite ourselves to the disposition in which Mary endured her seventh dolor, and this will bring us into closer union with God. She did her work in the world as it were with all her heart and yet her heart was not there, but in the tomb with Jesus.

“This is the grand work which sorrow does for all of us. It entombs us in the will of God. It buries our love together with our sorrow. Sorrow is, as it were, the missionary of the divine will. It is the Prince of the apostles; the Church is built upon it. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Our Lord is with us always to the end. It is sorrow that digs the grave of itself and blesses it, and burns incense in it, and buries self therein, and fills it up, and makes the flowers grow upon the tomb. The great secret of holiness is never to have our hearts in our own breasts but living and beating in the heart of Jesus and this can rarely be accomplished except through the operation of sanctified sorrow. Happy therefore is he who has a sorrow at all hours to sanctify.

“Mary’s dolors are Mary’s self. Her last 15 years commencing with the descent of the Holy Ghost were the maturity of her dolors. During them her sea of sorrow settled till it became a clear, profound, translucent depth of commingled love, whose last act of taking the tranquil plenitude of possession of its glorious victim was the dislodging of her soul from her body by the most marvelous and beautiful death which creature ever could ever die. Such an edifice of sorrow as the Divine Motherhood was to bring along with it could not rest on foundations less broad and deep than the immeasurable graces of her first 15 years. What then must have been the grandeur of the graces which came upon that edifice when it was completed and were its domes and towers and pinnacles?

“We have often wondered what could be done to Mary in the way of sanctification at the descent of the Holy Ghost. What was left to do and what direction was she to grow? The mere fact of the delaying of the Assumption meant something and what could it have meant — the increase of holiness and multiplication of graces? If she was kept on earth to nurse the Infant Church as she had nursed the Infant Saviour, to be herself a living Bethlehem, with the Blessed Sacrament forever in her and her queenship of the apostles and external ministry of Bethlehem to the childhood of the Church, still, untold and incalculable, augmentation of grace and merit are implied in the very office, as well as in the fact that it was God’s mother who fulfilled the office.

“It was her dolors which opened out in her soul fresh abysses for eager grace to fill. It was the dolors which rendered her capable of that other new creation of grace and the descent of the Holy Ghost. His graces are absolutely inexhaustible; her capacities of grace are practically inexhaustible, to or limited comprehension. The grace which prepared her for the Divine Maternity prepared her also for her singular and lifelong martyrdom. The martyrdom prepared her for those ineffable augmentations of grace and merit which were compressed into her last 15 years. Thus her dolors are, as it were, the center of her holiness. They reveal Mary to us as she was in herself more than any other of her mysteries. Indeed they are hardly to be called mysteries. They are more than that: they are her life, herself, her maternity. They enable us to understand her holiness.

“Sorrow is a sanctuary so long as self is kept outside. Self is the desecrating principle. If a time of sorrow is not the harvest time of grace, it is sure to be the harvest time of self. Hence when we find people indulging in the sentimentality of their sorrow, we are almost certain to find them inconsiderate towards others. They are the centers around which everything is to move… But a Christian mourner smiles through his tears, takes the sorrow carefully out of the tone of his voice and makes others almost gay while his own heart is broken. A saint’s sorrow is never in the way. To others it is softness, a sweetness, a gentleness, a beauty. It is a cross only to himself. We must be careful also not to demand sympathy from others and if possible, not even to crave it for ourselves. What is it worth if it comes when we have demanded it?

“Surely the preciousness of sympathy is in its being spontaneous. There is no balm in it when it is paid as a tax. Not that it is wrong to hunger for sympathy when we are in sorrow. We are not speaking so much of right and wrong… The more consolation from creatures, the less from God. This is the invariable rule. God is shy; He loves to come to lonely hearts which other loves do not fill. This is why bereaved hearts outraged hearts, hearts misunderstood, hearts that have broken with kith and kin and native place, on the grave of father and mother, are the hearts of His predilection. Human sympathy is a dear bargain let it cost us ever so little. God waits outside till our company is gone. Perhaps he cannot wait so long for visits to mourners are apt to be very long and he goes away not angrily but sadly and then how much we have missed.

“The whole theology of sorrow may be compressed into a kind of syllogism: Everything is given for sanctification and sorrow above all other things; but selfish sorrow is sorrow unsanctified, therefore unselfishness is grace’s product out of sorrow. There must be in our grief a total absence of realizing the unkindness or neglect of human agents. Nobody is in fault but God and God cannot be in fault therefore there is no fault at all there is only the divine will. Faith must see nothing else. It must ignore secondary causes. It takes its crosses only from Jesus and straight from him. It sees, hears, feels, recognizes no one but God. All these are hard lessons and sorrow, if it is not peculiarly teachable, is the most unteachable of all things. Yet we could hardly expect Mary’s lessons to be easy ones, least of all when she gives them from the top of Calvary. Let us gaze at her once more as she swathes the Body in the winding sheet how like a priest she seems! How like a mother! And are not all mothers priests? For lightly considered all maternities are priesthoods. Ah, Mary! thy maternity was such a priesthood as the world had never seen before!” (End of Fr. Faber quotes)

Conclusion

Christ lays in his tomb, and like His Blessed Mother, we are lonely and sorrowful. If we would read Chapter 12 of the Apocalypase, we would know that, as Rev. H.B. Kramer writes in his The Book of Destiny: “The meaning of the word wilderness is probably contained in the prophets…The prophets by these poetic figures named the gentiles the wilderness for they are devoid of God’s benefits and are a spiritual desert. Osee calls the captivity among the heathen Babylonians a dwelling in the wilderness: “Behold I will allure her and will lead her into the wilderness and will speak to her heart” (Ch.2, v. 4). Ezekiel speaks of the captivity in the same figurative language: “And I will bring you into the wilderness of people and there will I plead with you face to face” (Ch.20 v. 35).  Rev. Haydock tells us of Apoc. 12:6: “The Christians we’re accustomed to fly during the times of persecution into the deserts to avoid the fury of the pagans. This was done by the greatest saints. Saint Jerome remarks that it was this which gave rise to the hermetical state of life.

Commenting on verse 14, Rev. Haydock notes that by the two wings of the great eagle taking the woman to the desert some understand “…the love of God and the fear of offending Him; others piety, prudence etcetera. The Church, on account of the severe pressure of the persecution obtained from the almighty a special protection and assistance.” Still others see in the wings of the eagle the assistance of the Holy Ghost. Well the Church has gone into the desert but she enters that desert  in the arms of the Blessed Mother; She isn’t there alone. Who better to comfort us in our sorrows than the Mother of Sorrows herself. Who better to help us learn of Her Son and listen to His voice.

I’ve noted before that many who leave the Traditionalist movement and other sects go through a period of grieving, and psychologists teach there are five to seven stages of grief. These stages of grief are described above by Fr. Faber in a way that makes us understand that we’re grieving because we’ve lost our Church; we’re grieving intensely because we are sorry for our sins. And we are also grieving because we are alone. But all of this is the will of God, and we can’t benefit from it if we don’t accept it as His will and if we don’t stop pretending that we can still re-create the Church in some way in our lives without Him and without His Vicar. The only thing that we can do is to accept what He has sent us and keep Him company by turning FROM creatures, not TO creatures; by asking our Blessed Mother to intercede for us and to join with her in filling up what is wanting to the Passion of Christ — to carry our Cross with Him and for Him.

You can’t do that by constantly running around visiting with fellow Catholics, spending hours on the Internet watching videos or arguing with others on forbidden “discussion forums” (see above). The best way you can comfort our Lord and commune with Him is to simply do what Fr. Faber is describing. In our grief we have to continue performing our daily duties, make the best of this great trial and try not to worry or seek sympathy from others; we must bury our sorrow in Christ. Of course we’re going to have friends and associate with like-minded Catholics, but all in moderation. We are here for a reason — to expiate our sins and to fill up the cup of His Passion, and if we are preoccupied with creatures, that can’t happen.

So this little excerpt from Fr. Faber is my Lenten offering to you.  May God grant you all a holy Good Friday and a joyous Easter.

The Catechism alone will definitely NOT save your soul

by T. Stanfill Benns | Feb 26, 2024 | New Blog

+St. Gabriel Possenti+

The topic of the “catechism only” as a source of instruction for Catholic adults is one that has prevailed for several months now and certain points need to be resolved in order to understand this issue properly. It has been stated that without learning the catechism you cannot save your soul, and while this is true, it needs to be pointed out that the truths found in the catechism come from a common source, and that without obedience to that entity, above and beyond anything found in the catechism, authored under the direction of the bishops, salvation cannot be had. For as Pope Pius IX taught in Tuas Libentur: “Even when it is only a question of the submission owed to divine faith, this cannot be limited merely to points defined by the express decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See; this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith.” And among these truths are the following.

Pope Boniface VIII: “We declare, say, define and proclaim to every human creature that they, by necessity for salvation, are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

The Vatican Council: “Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.”

Humani generis: “History teaches that many matters that formerly were open to discussion, no longer now admit of discussion… Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me,” and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians” (Pope Pius XII, 1950).

Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton: Those documents “…sent to the episcopate of one country or region, [and] promptly entered into the Acta of the Holy Father, are thus indirectly sent, as normative documents, to the faithful of the entire world… We must not lose sight of the fact that, in the encyclical Humani generis, the Holy Father made it clear that any doctrinal decision printed in the pontifical Acta [Apostolica Sedis] must be accepted as normative by all theologians. This would apply to all decisions made in the course of the Sovereign Pontiff’s ordinary magisterium… the Holy Father is empowered, not only to obligate the disciples of Jesus Christ to accept, on faith or as certain, statements within the sphere of the Church’s doctrinal competence, but also to impose the duty of accepting other propositions within the same sphere as opinions…Humani Generis reasserts the right of the Roman Pontiff to demand an opinionative assent. When, in his encyclicals or in any other documents or utterances of his doctrinal office, he imposes a teaching upon the members of the universal Church militant with anything less than his suprema magisterii potestas, he is calling for such an opinionative judgment…The theologians of the Catholic Church have always recognized the fact that an intention on the part of the Holy Father is requisite if the faithful are to be bound by the teaching contained in his official Acta. Hitherto, however, there has been too much of a tendency to consider that such an intention would have to be manifested by some sort of formula, as for instance, the use of such terms as ‘define’ or ‘declare.’ The Humani Generishas put an end to this dangerous minimism.” (American Ecclesiastical Review, “Infallibility in the Encyclicals”).

And now we will see how the above is applied to the catechism issue.

The Catechism Controversy

The actual teaching method used and structure of the catechism itself was a much-disputed topic beginning in the late 19^th century. This can be gleaned from reading the Catholic Encyclopedia article on catechesis. This heated discussion continued up to the death of Pope Pius XII. It even continued after his death, when the old catechisms were gutted and Vatican 2 versions substituted. One of the last approved directives written on catechetical teaching was authored by the esteemed theologian, Canadian Bp. Emile Yelle, who Msgr. Fenton praised as “…one of the outstanding theologians of our time.”  Bp. Yelle’s little work, The Teaching of Catechism, was written in September 1958. In this gem of a work he emphasizes the fact that rote catechetics had long been a failure because the authors of the catechisms themselves and those teaching from them were not properly disposed, either in their writing of the catechism or their teaching.

He advises those writing catechisms to better illustrate and explain the text, to use “language understood by the child… [for] without preliminary explanation the child understands little or nothing of the text of the catechism. Nevertheless, he is obliged to memorize these formulas and to remember them so as to be able to recite them as a prayer: a tiresome task, the purpose of which he cannot understand, in which he is not interested; an effort which disgusts him with religious instruction and which perhaps without his being aware of it, and the teacher too, all unconscious of it, is fostering in the soul of the child religious indifference for the years to come… We taught mere words without explaining anything. We simply touched the surface without every reaching the life-giving spirit. We merely grazed the child’s faculties, never touching the intelligence and the heart. We taught a verbally correct doctrine, but its vivifying force has remained merely on the surface of the soul. Word for word method without explanation is certainly not the correct method of teaching catechism. It is simply the tyranny of the memory over the intelligence…

“The child can easily repeat wise sayings and yet for all that be not more learned, nor better educated. A great and needless fatigue has been imposed on him if indeed we have not contributed to create in him a secret desire to rid himself as soon as possible of this unassimilated burden. This first tedious contact with truth is a very poor introduction for any explanation. One might fancy that his work is done when the child has answered correctly that he has attained his goal and that the child ‘knows his catechism.’ No. It is no proof whatsoever that the child knows his catechism because he easily repeats stereotyped formulas… Instead of enlightening the mind of the child by some rays of light adapted to its capacity we have plunged it into darkness — vague ideas scarcely intelligible because insufficiently suitable — and the little that has been understood has left the impression of a world that is unreal and that has no connection with that in which the child lives and moves and sees. No attraction to religious acts, no invitation to the practice of Christian life: ideas suspended in mid-air like soap bubbles that break when they come in contact with the least speck of dust or explode under the slightest breeze. Terrible danger! And it may well be the explanation for that disheartening gap between the theoretical faith of our people and their actual way of life.”

And as for teachers, Bp. Yelle quotes from Pope Pius XI’s encyclical on education: “’That they be thoroughly prepared and well-grounded in the matter they have to teach [and] possess the intelligence and moral qualifications required by their important office; who cherish a pure and holy love for the truths confided to them, because they love Jesus Christ and His Church, of which these are the children of predilection; and who have therefore sincerely at heart the true good of family and country… It is necessary that the teacher understand the meaning of the text and the knowledge of the profound ‘truth’ that the words express to be able to distinguish the central point of the doctrines in order to revert to them in his explanations and in order to captivate the minds of the children by these beacons: Our Lord, the state of grace, prayer, faith Divine Providence, the Holy Eucharist and the spirit of sacrifice. It is evident that to do this requires more than a mere knowledge of words.”

“The teacher must know what the doctrine is and be able at the same time to express it in other words than those of the text. He must know the doctrine before teaching it; he must learn the Gospel by meditating upon it thus entering into all the details of the life of Our Lord in such a way [as to] be able to teach catechism in a truly Catholic way.” Please tell me who is it who will train us as catechists? Who has offered the means for such training from approved works? Where would we find these things? And even if we possessed them, how could we adapt it successfully to what Bp. Yelle so wisely suggests, when the rote method is all that anyone knows today? The little children’s catechism by Fr. Heeg, (my first catechism), posted on this site thanks to the tireless work of a kind benefactor, was chosen precisely to comply with Bp. Yelle’s suggestions. For it tells a story as well as offers questions to be answered and provides memory aids to help children better remember the lessons.

If those adults teaching and quoting the catechisms do not know or accept the doctrines on which they are based, and those doctrines that flow from what the popes later teach, how can they possibly impart the full scope of truths to their children or adult converts? How can they possibly claim to be obedient to the Roman Pontiffs or to love Our Lord when they are not accepting or teaching the whole truth, integral and entire?? For only from Christ’s Vicars themselves, not the bishops or the theologians, many of whom had long abandoned the true faith even before Vatican 2, can we be assured of infallible truth. Below we will rely on those yet faithful to the truth to explain the importance of what is known as doctrinal development.

How doctrine develops

As Pietro Parente, Antonio Piolante and Salvatore Garofalo write in their Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology (1951): “According to Catholic doctrine, a dogma cannot undergo intrinsic and substantial changes. There is an evolution, however, on the part of the faithful as to understanding and expressing a dogma (extrinsic and subjective evolution). This legitimate progress appears in the history of the dogmatic formulas defined by the Church as gradually the meaning of the truths contained in the sources of divine revelation came to be more profoundly and clearly understood.”

And this is also stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia under dogma: “The full meaning of certain revealed truths has been only gradually brought out; the truths will always remain. Language may change or may receive a new meaning; but we can always learn what meaning was attached to particular words in the past.” The full meaning here under discussion is the binding nature of the pope’s encyclical letters and other documents entered into the Acta Apostolica Sedis.

Dom Prosper Gueranger, the intrepid Abbot of Solesmes in his book, Pontifical Monarchy, explained authentic doctrinal development in these words: “It is a fundamental principle of theology, that all revealed truths were confided to the Church at the beginning; that some were explicitly proposed for our belief from the start, whereas others, although contained implicitly in the first set of truths, only emerged from them with the passage of time, by means of formal definitions rendered by the Church with the assistance of the Holy Ghost, through Whom she is infallible.”

“May understanding, knowledge and wisdom progress as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.” — St. Vincent of Lerin. Msgr. Joseph. C. Fenton, commenting on this statement by St. Vincent points out:

“The Vatican Council has used the words of Saint Vincent of Lerin to declare as a matter of faith that the understanding of one man as well as that of the Church as a whole can progress and grow in its grasp of the revealed truth and that this growth always takes place in one and the same sense and meaning (DZ 1800). There can be no question, of course, of new doctrines or propositions which the ancient Church did not recognize as revealed but which the same Church in later years accepted as having been communicated by God. Neither can there be a question of some statement which God added to the deposit of faith after the death of the last apostle. As a matter of fact, there has been no addition whatever to the content of public revelation since the death of Saint John the Evangelist.

“The Church is, and has been since Her inception, perfectly infallible in Her teaching of the revealed truth. Since She first came into being, She has taught the entire doctrine which God gave to the world through Jesus Christ our Lord without error. Then the definite progress in dogma and in sacred theology has come in the process of resolving problems and questions in such a way that the true and objective meaning which was contained in the divine teaching is set forth continually in answer to attacks against Catholic doctrine and for the enlightenment of the piety of the faithful throughout the ages” (The Concept of Sacred Theology, 1941).

And in another essay, “The Church and Catholic Dogma,” written for the American Ecclesiastical Review in February 1949, Msgr. Fenton comments further:

“When he began his preparation for the definition of the Immaculate Conception, Pope Pius IX made it completely clear that he relied upon the assistance of divine grace to enlighten his mind on the project he was about to undertake. In an encyclical letter, dated Feb. 2, 1849, the great pontiff begged the bishops of the Catholic world to have the faithful entrusted to their care pray publicly for him. Yet Pope Pius IX certainly did not consider that this divine help in any way exempted him from examining the properly theological evidence about this doctrine. In this same encyclical he announced the appointment of a pontifical commission to study this evidence and to report to him.

“The commission appointed at that time by Pope Pius IX applied itself first of all to a consideration of the characteristics in function of which a truth or a proposition is said to be definable as Catholic dogma. It indicated no less than nine principles which must be employed in evaluating a proposition as definable. The first four among these principles dealt with the type of evidence not absolutely necessary in order that a proposition should properly be judged as definable.

“(1) The fact that, in the past, there have been conflicting teachings on this subject within the Catholic Church, or the fact that all have not hitherto agreed on this teaching, does not render a doctrine incapable of definition.

(2) The fact that even authoritative writers can be quoted in opposition to a teaching does not render that teaching incapable of being defined.

(3) In order that a doctrine be definable, it is not necessary that there should be explicit, or even implicit, testimony to this doctrine in Sacred Scripture, since it is certain and manifest that the scope of revelation is wider than that of Scripture.

(4) In order to show that the doctrine to be defined belongs to Tradition, it is not necessary to adduce a series of Fathers and of other witnesses reaching back to apostolic times.

“All of these negative principles imply the commission’s conviction that, in order that a doctrine should be considered as definable, there must be real evidence that this teaching is actually to be found in the apostolic deposit of divine public revelation. The commission manifested not the slightest trace of willingness to content itself with a conviction about the definability of a doctrine based upon some corporate religious sense within the Church or upon any other so-called “non-intellectual” factor. This concern of the commission shows itself even more clearly in the positive principles it delineates.

“(1) In order that a statement may be considered as definable, there must be a certain number of solemn testimonies directly pertinent to it.

(2) A proposition is capable of being defined if there can be found one or more revealed principles containing it.)

(3) A proposition is capable of being defined if it shows a necessary connection with dogmas. In other words, a proposition ought to be accepted as revealed when, from the denial of this proposition, there follows by logical and immediate necessity the denial of one or more revealed principles.

(4) A proposition may be defined as Catholic dogma if it is preached as a part of divine public revelation in the concordant teaching of the actual episcopate. (T. Benns comment: Found in all Catholic Catechisms, duly authorized by diocesan bishops, beginning with the Catechism of the Council of Trent.)

(5) A proposition is capable of definition when it is shown to be a part of divine public revelation by the practice of the Church.

“In calling for a theological examination of the question he considered defining and for a study of the conditions that rendered a truth capable of definition, Pope Pius IX stated clearly that he was following the precedent established by his predecessors on the pontifical throne.” Msgr. Fenton references another article he terms as excellent, Opinions Concerning Doctrinal Development, by Rev. Charles Sheedy, C.S.C., published in the January 1949 edition of The American Ecclesiastical Review,  that places what is said above in perfect perspective. Rev. Sheedy wrote: “Thus it is clear that there has been progress, development in the dogmatic teaching of the Church, not merely in precision of terms but in actual content and subject matter. Doctrines are taught today as divinely revealed which were not explicitly taught 100 years ago and after the Council of Trent, a whole galaxy of truths entered into the dogmatic teaching of the Church, proposed to the faith of Catholics, not as new dogmas, BUT AS CONTAINED IN THE ANCIENT DEPOSIT.

“In a genuine development, a doctrine is presented by the Church as pertaining to faith which did not enter into the explicit faith of Christians of earlier times, perhaps a truth which did not even occur to them. Or again, a truth which was not universally accepted but which was thought to lie in the area of free theological disputation is later taken out of that area and formally recognized as part of the original deposit.” This is true regarding the “implicit desire” of the Suprema haec sacra, for example, which inspires so much venom from Feeneyites, and was first contradicted by Leonard Feeney. That contradiction was definitively condemned by Pope Pius XII.

Errors in the catechisms

Can the ignorance of later developments of dogma, decisions of the Roman Pontiffs entered into the Acta, contribute to actual errors or inaccuracies in the catechisms many are using today? They can and they have. Two examples are listed below:

Bishop Louis Morrow, My Catholic Faith, 1958, 1961: In his section on The Sphere of Infallibility, Morrow writes: “The Pope… must speak as the Vicar of Christ in his office as Pope and to the whole Church; to all the faithful throughout the world. In his capacity as private teacher, for example in his encyclical letters, he is as any other teacher of the Church. We accept what he teaches not on faith but in obedience to his authority, out of respect for his experience and wisdom.” Morrow states that Rev. Francis J. Connell “painstakingly reviewed” his work, and yet Connell’s own statement in a previous article and later in his catechism on this subject does not read the same.

Fr. Francis J. Connell’s 1949 Baltimore Catechism: “

In an article for The American Ecclesiastical Review, (November 1947) Rev. Francis J. Connell, C.S.S.R. wrote: “Besides the infallible teachings of the Church on matters contained in Revelation or connected with it, there also are pronouncements of Her official teachers which are authoritative though not infallible. . Such are decisions of the Roman Congregations or Commissions, and also doctrines taught by the pope officially, but without the intention of using the fullness of his authority and of giving a definitive decision. The statements of the Sovereign Pontiff are usually in this category. The faithful are obliged in conscience to accept such decisions internally, for even though their correctness is not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, those who formulate and promulgate them are undoubtedly aided by the Holy Ghost. Furthermore, every natural precaution is taken before such declarations are published, particularly the meticulous supervision of men who are specialists in the matters involved, [see also DZ 2008]. The acceptance of these decisions is not an act of Divine faith, but is rather an act of obedience, known as religious assent…The general rule is that all Catholics, learned and unlearned, clergy and laity, must acquiesce wholeheartedly to these authoritative (though not infallible) decisions of the Church…”

Bishop Morrow cannot be excused for his statement since it was written 10 years after Humani generis was released in 1950. He went on to accept Vatican 2, while Connell did not. Rev. Connell’s remarks, however, were written prior to 1950 and doubtlessly were adjusted once Humani generis was released, (although one wonders why he would have passed over Bp. Morrow’s statements, given what he says above.) So those using the 1949 Connell and Morrow catechisms are misinformed on this topic because they trust what a priest and a bishop say over what the pope has taught. So how could these catechisms be considered infallible? Msgr. Fenton shows how some tried to pretend that Pius XII never intended to admit that encyclicals could be infallible in the first place by mistranslating one word in Humani generis(Msgr. Fenton’s article on this is available on request). And clearly this belief dichotomy continued into Vatican 2 as Fenton further notes and I have explained from an historical perspective HERE.

Conclusion

It is true that catechisms contain infallible truths; they simply do not generally contain ALL the truths we as Catholics today must know and understand to make sense out of the nightmare we have endured for the past 65 years. Fr. Connell’s 1949 catechism was written for ninth graders. If anyone thinks we were intended to remain at the level of a ninth-grade education to accomplish anything else in life, far less save our souls in these troubled times, they must be mad. As Bp. Yelle pointed out, it is a lack of understanding the catechism and putting it into practice that destroyed the faith of young Catholics and led to Vatican 2. Those believing the catechism is enough to know about their faith obviously have not read the many papal allocutions on Catholic Action or catechesis, and they certainly should heed the words of Peter Michaels, who wrote: “If all Catholics have a moral duty to understand their faith at their level of secular education few of us are going to be saved. A college graduate for instance ought to have a pretty good understanding of Saint Thomas and of the natural law. He ought to see the major issues involved in restoring society to God. Do you by any chance think he does? Pope Pius XI said in another connection: ‘In our day and age, an unenlightened heroism is not enough’” (This Perverse Generation, 1949).

Those advocating “the catechism only” theory have not been honest in pointing out the dangers of their thesis. It is our responsibility to see that those they are misinforming know the truth.

The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary

by T. Stanfill Benns | Dec 8, 2023 | New Blog

O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee!

(What follows below is taken from The Illustrated Life of the Blessed Virgin by Rev. B. Rohner, O.S.B., 1897)

The Immaculate Conception

Now, Christian reader, gather up all the powers of your understanding and will, in order to contemplate the origin and the completion of this mystery. This miracle-mystery, so peculiar in itself, so unparalleled in the decrees of Providence, wrought in Mary’s person by the Almighty God, consists in this great truth: That she, in the first moment of her conception, by special grace and permission of Almighty God, by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of mankind, was preserved from every stain of original sin. This is not a mere pious opinion of over-zealous votaries of the Blessed Virgin; but it is, as you know and believe, the pronounced and expressed doctrine of faith held by the infallible Catholic Church, which Church we cannot refuse our unreserved submission.

Let us, now, in the first place, Christian reader, endeavor to learn something about the nature of original sin, as defined and set forth in the Council of Trent. Adam, the chief father of the whole human race, by his transgression of the divine command, injured not only himself, but also his whole posterity. He also lost, by his sin of disobedience, the sanctity and justice bestowed upon him by God, and lost them for us all. Tainted by his sin of disobedience, he fastened upon all future sons of his family, not only death and bodily sufferings, but also sin, which is the death of the soul.

Thus, all of Adam’s children carry on their brow the brand of sin and shame. Great and disastrous is the evil that this sin produces within us. It robs us of our higher and supernatural life, it enfeebles and wounds our very nature. Frequently the very symptoms of the original grandeur and beauty of this nature become barely perceptible, while the likeness of God, which once shone forth so brilliantly from it before the eyes of angels, has been completely hidden from view. Now, from this original sin, and from all its deadly consequences, was the Blessed Virgin shielded and preserved from the moment of her Immaculate Conception. As our late Holy Father, Pope Pius IX declared in his definition of this mystery:

“It was becoming that the ever- blessed Virgin should be clothed in a garment of perfect sanctity, that she should be exempt from every stain of original sin, that she should win the most complete victory over the old serpent. For she was to be a Mother in every respect worthy of her divine Son. She was to be chosen by God to be the Mother of His only begotten Son, whom He loved as He loved Himself, and who according to His nature was to be, at one and the same time, the Son of God the Father and the Son of the Blessed Virgin. She was to be the Mother chosen by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. She it was from whom the Holy Ghost, by divine acts of His will and operation, was to cause Him to be born, from whom He Himself proceeds. It was becoming that He who has in heaven a Father, whom the seraphim praise as the thrice-holy God, should have on earth a mother who was not for a moment deprived of grace, innocence, or glory.”

Moreover, the teaching of the Church regarding this mystery of the Immaculate Conception is not to be understood in the sense that Mary did not need the graces of the Atonement through Jesus Christ. It is clearly and expressly affirmed that she was exempted from sin and sanctified through the merits of Christ and by virtue of grace, of grace preventing original sin, as we through the same are cleansed after our birth in holy Baptism. But it would also be a heresy to maintain or believe that the sanctification accruing to the Blessed Virgin by virtue of her Immaculate Conception is the same as is operated in us by the waters of Baptism. True, by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the guilt of original sin is remitted, and everything pertaining strictly to the true and exact nature of sin is blotted out. Yet the reliquiae of sin, the germ of sin, the concupiscence of our lower nature, remain.

This lingering concupiscence is the reason why we are so early surprised by its emotions, why we cannot through the long course of our lives save ourselves from any sin without the aid of a special grace. But Mary was preserved even from this concupiscence arising from original sin, so that she was sanctified not only in her soul, but also in her body. During her whole life upon earth she, by special aid of grace, kept herself, body and soul, intact from even the smallest sin against God. Therefore the grace of sanctification with which Mary was favored in her Immaculate Conception reached an immeasurably higher degree than our sanctification in Baptism.

Chosen to be the Mother of the Son of God, she was, even in the moment of her conception, so filled with the treasures of divine grace, that the Archangel Gabriel could with truth address her a title belonging only to herself, namely, that of “full of grace.” For the same reason, too, did she excel by far all created beings, even the seraphim and cherubim. This grace was planted in her inmost being, where it struck deep roots, and in her life put forth beauteous foliage and flowers and brought forth abundant fruit. This grace was like a fire which warmed into ardent piety her whole soul, her every thought, her will, her intellect. It was a light which cast its bright rays of heroism, beauty, and gentleness over her whole being. This fire and this light were now to burst forth upon the world, to enlighten and warm it.

Such is the mystery of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Christian reader, if you meditate earnestly on this mystery, study it assiduously, you will comprehend and realize that the moment of such a conception must have been a moment of intense joy and unspeakable satisfaction both for heaven and for earth, as well as a moment of indescribable terror to the powers of hell.

Joy in Heaven

By the first sin the tender relations existing between God and man were snapped asunder. Father and child were separated from each other in anger and sorrow. ‘The glorious likeness of God imprinted on the soul of man was turned into a caricature, and became an object of horror and disgust in the eyes of the Creator. Mankind then strayed away from the paths of righteousness and violated God’s laws. At a very early period, even before the deluge, there came, so to speak, a complete break between God and man.

“And God seeing that the wickedness of men was great on the earth, and that all the thought of their heart was bent upon evil at all times, it repented Him that He had made man on the earth. And being touched inwardly with sorrow of heart, He said: I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth, from man even to beast; . . . for it repenteth me that I have made them.” (Gen. vi. 5). Century after century sin succeeded sin, shame was heaped upon shame. With the honorable exception of a few chosen people, all men worshipped false gods.

Heaven’s gates were closed against all — that heaven which had been destined to receive into all its glory and happiness every child of earth. Of millions and millions of men who were born, who lived, and who died, not one attained to the possession of the one true God. Things were in this deplorable condition, when, as reckoned by learned and holy writers, in the memorable year of 732 after the foundation of pagan Rome, on the eighth of December, was a child conceived in the Land of Promise, in whose being reposed the fullness of the complacency and grace of God.

Here was a source of joy for the ever-adorable Trinity. But it was more. This sinless creature is destined to be the daughter of God the Father, the Mother of God the Son, and the spouse of the Holy Ghost. With the same complacent happiness that a father looks upon his daughter, a son upon his mother, a bridegroom upon his bride, did the Blessed Trinity look down on Mary, sinless and immaculate. She was the dawn of a bright, fresh, happy day, after a long and dreary night. She was the inauguration of that reign of peace, of grace, and of justice, during which men would adore the one true God in spirit and truth; during which God, in His goodness, mercy, and wisdom, would be known, served, and loved, and during which it would be His delight to dwell among the children of men. (Prov. viii. 31.)

The Immaculate Conception of Mary was a subject of extraordinary joy among the angels of heaven. It is a well-founded opinion, and one not without Scripture proof, that the most-high God placed before the angels the image of His future Mother, in order to try their humility. Here was shown to them the image of a sinless human being, of her who was to be their future queen. At this sight, the faithful angels were filled with holy joy, and seized with the utmost admiration. They were astonished at the boundless goodness of their almighty Creator, they glowed with sacred love for the virgin Mother of their God, and cheerfully recognized her as their lady and mistress.

One of the most exalted spirits, however, a cherub who shone like the morning star, was offended at this wonderful elevation of human nature above the very angels themselves, and even communicated his proud, rebellious thoughts to other spirits, to whom he said In tones of anger: ” I will ascend into [the highest ] heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit in the mountain of the covenant, in the sides of the north. I will ascend above the height of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.” (Is. xiv. 13, 14.)

On account of their humble submission, the faithful angels became more beautiful, more spiritual, more like unto God. Lucifer and his unhappy followers, on the contrary, were transformed into demons, and hurled down from the heights of heaven to the depths of everlasting degradation and suffering. The inspired Seer of Patmos, the beloved disciple St. John the Evangelist, describes this event in the following words of the Apocalypse: ” A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. And there was seen another sign in heaven; and behold a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns; and on his head seven diadems.

And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered, that when she should be delivered, he might devour her Son. And there was a great battle in heaven; Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels. And they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven. And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan. And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying: Now is come salvation and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ. ‘Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you that dwell therein. And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed” (Apoc. Chap.12).

Thus was the woman with twelve stars about her head and the moon under her feet, as she has from the earliest days of Christianity been represented in the Immaculate Conception, a source of joy for the good and of terror for the evil, even in her remote predestination. How much more heartfelt then was the shout of joy throughout the vaults of heaven and in the very souls of its happy inhabitants when this queen appeared in reality of existence! We can imaginethe angels calling to each other: ” Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army set in array?” (Cant. vi. g.) For the rejected and condemned spirits, this same in- nocent child was terrible as an army set in array.

Their widespread dominion, which, with falsehood and deceit, they had set up among men, was now about to crumble to ruins; for she had at last appeared who was to crush the serpent’s head.

Joy on earth

But men on earth had still greater cause to rejoice at the conception of the Redeemer’s Mother. For God so loved the world, that He sent His only begotten, His well beloved Son into the world (John iii. 16), and for Him prepared a worthy mother in the person of Mary, and for men a powerful intercessor and a sublime image and model. But alas! the world lay buried in darkness and ignorance. Men busied themselves about things of earth, and gave themselves up to pleasures, without taking time to think and remember that their almighty Father in heaven was watching over them, studying their welfare, and in His solicitude for the salvation of their immortal souls was perfecting the most astounding miracles. But two lowly hearts there were that were overflowing with holy joy — the hearts of Joachim and Anne, privileged parents of this grace-crowned child. Who can express the joy that thrilled through the maternal heart of St Anne on ascertaining this wonderful conception? Who can tell her thoughts, or describe her humble sentiments of gratitude to God? But, although this heavenly Jewel was concealed from the eyes of men and remained is yet unsuspected and unknown by the world, it was soon to appear in all its brilliancy to shed the light of joy and comfort over that world. This joy shall endure for all time. As often as the revolving year brings to us each succeeding eighth day of December, every Christian heart is lifted up in exaltation of joy and love at the remembrance of the Immaculate Conception of our Queen and Mother.