"Life with God is not immunity from difficulties, but peace in difficulties."

-C.S. Lewis

Were We Saved by Jesus Christ or by the Holy Trinity?

If the question strikes the reader as strange, it should. But it should do so for only one reason, namely, because it implies that nasty modern habit of opposing things that are in no way opposed. It is a false either-or scenario.

The answer to the question is Yes; we were saved by Jesus Christ and by the Holy Trinity.

By “saved” in this question, we do not mean to imply the heresy of “once saved always saved,” whereby the individual Christian claims to have been saved once and for all without any further possibility of damnation. No, what we mean by the word is that objective work of salvation that has been accomplished already and must, in time, be applied to individual souls who need not only the grace of conversion and justification, but the gift also of final perseverance.

Although the concepts of “salvation” and “redemption” are slightly different, for our purposes, the question could speak of redemption as well. The concepts differ in that “redemption” implies being bought back from sin, whereas “salvation” does not necessarily imply this. The good angels, who had not sinned, were saved when they were admitted to the Beatific Vision, and Jesus is their Savior, too. But when we speak of fallen mankind, to be saved we must necessarily be redeemed.

Let us break the question up into two smaller questions: (1) Were we saved by Jesus Christ? And (2) Were we saved by the Holy Trinity?

To the first question, the answer is undoubtedly in the affirmative. We were saved by Jesus Christ. As the unique Mediator of human salvation, Jesus Christ both satisfied for our sins and merited salvation for us on the Cross.

Holy Scripture testifies to this truth. The Holy Name itself reveals Jesus’ saving mission: “Thou shalt call His name Jesus for He shall save His people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). Once He arrived, He was announced to the shepherds by the angels as a Savior: “For this day is born to you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord, in the City of David” (Luke 2:11). Still an infant, He is uniquely hailed by the venerable Simeon: “Because my eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of peoples” (Luke 2:30). In His public ministry, He announced that He came “to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). Perhaps most pointedly of all these, the Savior, speaking to Nicodemus of Himself in the third person, declares that, “God sent not His son into the world to judge the world; but that the world may be saved by Him” (John 3:17).

The Holy Apostles Peter and Paul add their testimony to this. First, the Prince of the Apostles: “Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things as gold or silver, from your vain conversation of the tradition of your fathers: But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb unspotted and undefiled” (1 Pet. 1:18-19). And: “Simon Peter, servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained equal faith with us in the justice of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Pet. 1:1). Among the numerous passages from the Apostle to the Gentiles, we cite what he wrote to Saint Timothy: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief” (1 Tim. 1:15).

The Magisterium teaches that Christ redeemed and saved us:

The Nicene Creed says that Christ, “for us men and for our salvation descended from heaven and was made flesh.”

The Council of Trent, Session 5, Canon 3: “If any one asserts that this sin of Adam. . . is taken away . . . by any other remedy than the merit of the one Mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in His own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification, and redemption, . . . let him be anathema.”

The Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 7: “[Christ,] by His most holy passion on the wood of the Cross merited justification for us and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father.”

Theologically speaking, as the “one Mediator” (Cf. 1 Tim. 2:5-6) between God and Men, it was the “theandric” merits of Christ on the Cross that saved us. Theandric, comes from the Greek words for God (Θεός – Theos) and man (ἀνδρὸς – andros), and means “of or pertaining to the God-Man.” What puts Christ in the unique place to be our Redeemer and Savior is that He can, as Man, undergo His saving Passion, but, He can uniquely do so as a Divine Person, whose acts carry an infinite weight.

The fact that Jesus Christ is the unique Mediator between God and man does not rule out the efficacy of intercessory prayer on the part of the Blessed Virgin or the other saints. In fact, Christ’s mediation makes their intercession possible, as Saint Paul suggests in 1 Tim. 2:1-5. Nor does the unique role of Christ in causing human salvation make individual Christians mere passive recipients of grace who are either incapable of cooperating, or not obliged to cooperate, in their own salvation.

Now to the second question: “Were we saved by the Holy Trinity?” Again, the answer is in the affirmative, and this is not a contradiction.

Isaias the Prophet foresaw the Messianic times when he said, “God himself will come and save you” (Is. 35:3). Inasmuch as human redemption and salvation constitute divine activity, the activity is common to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for there is a principle of Trinitarian theology which clearly states that all the works of the Trinity ad extra (outside the Trinity, i.e., in creation) are works of all three Persons. Multiple times in her history, for instance, the Church has taught us that the Divine Trinity brought about the Incarnation. Though only the Second Person was Incarnate “for us men and for our salvation,” the event of the Incarnation was an act of the whole Trinity.

Jesus was sent by the Father to accomplish His saving mission. This is affirmed numerous times in the Gospel of Saint John (a partial list of references: 5:36, 5:37, 6:39, 6:40, 6:44, 6:58, 8:16, 8:18, 12:49, 20:21). The Father’s sending the Son in time is a temporal embodiment of an eternal reality in the Trinity, namely, the generation of the Son from the Father. That the Father sends us a Savior immediately implies a saving causality on the part of the Father. Also, as one of the Holy Trinity, the Father, with the Holy Ghost (and yes, the Son, too) is the “recipient” of the Man-God’s self offering on the Cross, and grants that for which Christ the Victim and Priest has offered Himself, namely, forgiveness, grace, and salvation.

The Holy Ghost’s mission in salvation history is a temporal realization of His eternal procession from the Father and the Son (the Filioque). To the Holy Ghost, we appropriate acts of divine goodness and love. He is called “the Sanctifier,” and rightly so. His mission to sanctify is a continuation of the saving mission of the Son. The Holy Ghost completes the Trinitarian processions in eternity (as said Saint Basil the Great), and His mission in time has that same “finishing” or “completing” character. Therefore, we can say that the Holy Ghost saves us.

We call the Father the Creator, the Son the Redeemer, and the Holy Ghost the Sanctifier. There are good and solid reasons that these names are appropriated to the three Persons in this way. Yet it is also true that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost all created us, redeemed us, and sanctify us.

A close and careful reading of what the Council of Trent says of the “causes of justification” (especially what is said of the “efficient cause”) will also reveal that justification (without which we cannot be saved) is the work of the whole Trinity, while Christ’s passion is the “meritorious cause” of justification.

Before closing, I would like to address time as it intersects with salvation. Christ achieved salvation for us once and for all in His Passion. Saint Paul uses this fact to show Christ’s priestly superiority over the Old Testament priesthood: “But Christ, being come an high priest of the good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hand, that is, not of this creation: Neither by the blood of goats, or of calves, but by his own blood, entered once into the holies, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:11-12). But the merits of Christ’s Passion are distributed to men a bit at a time, in a flow of graces fulfilling the prophecy of Isaias (12:3): “You shall draw waters with joy out of the saviour’s fountains.”

In both its “once-and-for-all” aspect and its gradual unfolding over time, human salvation is the work of Christ the High Priest (who is still a Mediator in Heaven; cf. Heb. 7:25) and of the Holy Trinity.

Very fittingly, Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité called Sister Lucy’s vision of the Trinity at Tuy the “Icon of the Redemptive Trinity.” In that image, we contemplate the Trinity redeeming us, and the “grace and mercy” which still flow into us from the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. It is fitting that this image is situated over the altar, which is where Sister Lucy saw it in the chapel she was praying in then. For it is especially in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that the Holy Trinity still pours on us the gift of salvation.



“God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor. 5:19).

In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M.

And what made you think that it is obvious for you but not for the parents?

NECESSITY OF BAPTISM
Theologians distinguish a twofold necessity, which they call a necessity of means (medii) and a necessity of precept (præcepti). The first (medii) indicates a thing to be so necessary that, if lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained. The second (præcepti) is had when a thing is indeed so necessary that it may not be omitted voluntarily without sin; yet, ignorance of the precept or inability to fulfill it, excuses one from its observance.

Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti. This doctrine is rounded on the words of Christ. In John 3, He declares: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God.” Christ makes no exception to this law and it is therefore general in its application, embracing both adults and infants. It is consequently not merely a necessity of precept but also a necessity of means.

This is the sense in which it has always been understood by the Church, and the Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches that justification can not be obtained, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof (in voto). In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation. We have rendered votum by “desire” for want of a better word. The council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so. It means by votum an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism.

The absolute necessity of this sacrament is often insisted on by the Fathers of the Church, especially when they speak of infant baptism. Thus St. Irenæus (II, xxii): “Christ came to save all who are reborn through Him to God — infants, children, and youths” (infantes et parvulos et pueros). St. Augustine (III De Anima) says “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin.” A still stronger passage from the same doctor (Ep. xxviii, Ad Hieron.) reads:”Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ,” St. Ambrose (II De Abraham., c. xi) speaking of the necessity of baptism, says:” No one is excepted, not the infant, not the one hindered by any necessity.”

In the Pelagian controversy we find similarly strong pronouncements on the part of the Councils of Carthage and Milevis, and of Pope Innocent I. It is owing to the Church’s belief in this necessity of baptism as a means to salvation that, as was already noted by St. Augustine, she committed the power of baptism in certain contingencies even to laymen and women. When it is said that baptism is also necessary, by the necessity of precept (praecepti), it is of course understood that this applies only to such as are capable of receiving a precept, viz. adults.

The necessity in this case is shown by the command of Christ to His Apostles (Matthew 28): “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them”, etc. Since the Apostles are commanded to baptize, the nations are commanded to receive baptism. The necessity of baptism has been called in question by some of the Reformers or their immediate forerunners. It was denied by Wyclif, Bucer, and Zwingli. According to Calvin it is necessary for adults as a precept but not as a means. Hence he contends that the infants of believing parents are sanctified in the womb and thus freed from original sin without baptism. The Socinians teach that baptism is merely an external profession of the Christian faith and a rite which each one is free to receive or neglect.

An argument against the absolute necessity of baptism has been sought in the text of Scripture: “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you” (John 6). Here, they say, is a parallel to the text: “Unless a man be born again of water”. Yet everyone admits that the Eucharist is not necessary as a means but only as a precept. The reply to this is obvious. In the first instance, Christ addresses His words in the second person to adults; in the second, He speaks in the third person and without any distinction whatever.

Another favorite text is that of St. Paul (1 Corinthians 7): “The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband; otherwise your children should be unclean; but now they are holy.” Unfortunately for the strength of this argument, the context shows that the Apostle in this passage is not treating of regenerating or sanctifying grace at all, but answering certain questions proposed to him by the Corinthians concerning the validity of marriages between heathens and believers. The validity of such marriages is proved from the fact that children born of them are legitimate, not spurious. As far as the term “sanctified” is concerned, it can, at most, mean that the believing husband or wife may convert the unbelieving party and thus become an occasion of their sanctification.

A certain statement in the funeral oration of St. Ambrose over the Emperor Valentinian II has been brought forward as a proof that the Church offered sacrifices and prayers for catechumens who died before baptism. There is not a vestige of such a custom to be found anywhere. St. Ambrose may have done so for the soul of the catechumen Valentinian, but this would be a solitary instance, and it was done apparently because he believed that the emperor had had the baptism of desire. The practice of the Church is more correctly shown in the canon (xvii) of the Second Council of Braga: “Neither the commemoration of Sacrifice [oblationis] nor the service of chanting [psallendi] is to be employed for catechumens who have died without the redemption of baptism.” The arguments for a contrary usage sought in the Second Council of Arles (c. xii) and the Fourth Council of Carthage (c. lxxix) are not to the point, for these councils speak, not of catechumens, but of penitents who had died suddenly before their expiation was completed. It is true that some Catholic writers (as Cajetan, Durandus, Biel, Gerson, Toletus, Klee) have held that infants may be saved by an act of desire on the part of their parents, which is applied to them by some external sign, such as prayer or the invocation of the Holy Trinity; but Pius V, by expunging this opinion, as expressed by Cajetan, from that author’s commentary on St. Thomas, manifested his judgment that such a theory was not agreeable to the Church’s belief.

Written by William H.W. Fanning. Transcribed by Charles Sweeney, S.J..

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II. Published 1907. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York

Melania Trump and Brigitte Macron venerate the Crown of Thorns at Notre-Dame


Brigitte Macron et Melania Trump guidées par Mgr Patrick Chauvet à Notre-Dame de Paris.

Melania requested a special tour of the cathedral where she lit two candles

After accompanying Donald Trump and Emmanuel Macron on Thursday to visit Les Invalides and the tombs of Napoleon I and Marshal Foch, their wives turned their steps towards the Ile de la Cité and the Gothic vault of Notre-Dame de Paris. But beyond its strictly protocolary dimension, the meeting of Melania Trump and Brigitte Macron was the opportunity to witness an unexpected scene.

Guided by Bishop Patrick Chauvet, rector of the cathedral, the two women were led before the Holy Crown of Thorns, the precious relic brought back from the Holy Land by Saint Helena, mother of the Emperor Constantine, and preserved in Notre Dame since the 19th century, after having been venerated for a long time at the Sainte Chapelle. With a diameter of 21 centimeters, its thorns having been distributed in many sanctuaries, this crown would have been, according to tradition, the one Christ wore during His Passion.

After contemplating the Crown of Thorns, Melania Trump made an offering to the cathedral, lit a candle and signed the guest book. “At the end of her visit, Mrs. Trump wanted to light two candles. I do not know what she prayed for. But she wanted to entrust all this to Notre-Dame de Paris,” confided Monsignor Chauvet to Famille Chrétienne.

Only when it concerns doctrine which must be definitively held by all Christians. For something which is not yet definitively defined, theologians may dispute and argue their points, but final judgement of doctrinal matters belongs to the teaching authority of the Church.

Scriptural interpretation is sometimes referred to as the Quadriga, a reference to the Roman chariot pulled by four horses abreast. The four horses are symbolic of the four sub-methods of Scriptural interpretation:

Literal interpretation: explanation of the meaning of events for historical purposes from a neutral perspective, trying to understand the text in the culture and time it was written, and location and language it was composed in. This is, since the 19th century, usually ascertained using the higher critical methods like source criticism, form criticism, etc. In many modern seminaries and universities the literal meaning is usually focused on to a near complete abandonment of the spiritual methods. This is very obvious when comparing commentary from a Douay Rheims or Confraternity or Knox Bible with a New Jerusalem, New RSV or NABRE[2]
Anagogic interpretation: dealing with the future events of Christian history (eschatology), heaven, purgatory, hell, the last judgement, the general resurrection and second Advent of Christ, etc. (prophecies).[3]
Typological interpretation: connecting the events of the Old Testament with the New Testament, particularly drawing allegorical connections between the events of Christ’s life with the stories of the Old Testament. Also when a passage speaks directly to you such as when St Francis of Asisi heard the passage to sell all he has and it changed his life. It can also typologically point to the Blessed Virgin Mary - she is the ark which held the Word of God, Judith who slew a tyrant is a Marian type, the burning bush which contains the fire of God yet was not consumed as Mary held the Second Person of the Trinity in her Immaculate Virginal Womb and was not burnt up.[4]
Tropological (or moral) interpretation: "the moral of the story", how one should act in the present. Many of Jesus' parables and the book of Proverbs and other wisdom books are packed with tropological meaning[5]

This post has been edited by yeeck: Jul 16 2017, 12:37 AM

The most extraordinary event in English history



The Mother of God and her Divine Son appear to Saint Simon Stock in Cambridge - 766 years ago today, in 1251: has there been any other moment in English history whose consequences have aided so many souls throughout the world achieve and keep holiness, reaching final perseverance? Men and women, made of flesh, need material reminders of the presence of God in their lives - and what could be more profitable than the blessed physical sign that Our Lady's Mantle covers us at all times, that Her Divine Son keeps watch over us day and night?

Saint Elias, pray for us!
Saint Simon Stock, pray for us!
Queen of Mount Carmel, pray for us!
Et fidelium animae per misericordiam Dei requiescant in pace. Amen.

This post has been edited by yeeck: Jul 17 2017, 01:24 AM

What Protestantism and the New Atheism Have in Common
Karlo Broussard July 21, 2017



If someone asked you, “What does the New Atheism have in common with Protestantism?” you might say, “Nothing!” It would seem that devout Bible believing Christians such as Protestants would be as far away from atheists as possible.

Yet there is more to this comparison than meets the eye. Protestants may not be similar to modern atheists in the content of their belief (e.g., God exists, Jesus is God, we will rise from the dead, etc.), but their approach to arriving at knowledge of their subject matter is similar.

A tale of two “onlys”
Consider how modern atheists restrict their rational inquiry about reality to science. For example, in a 2012 debate with former Archbishop Rowan Williams of Canterbury, popular atheist Richard Dawkins asserted that appealing to God to explain the universe in the place of science is “a phony substitute for an explanation” and “peddles false explanations where real explanations could have been offered.”

For Dawkins, science is the only thing that counts as a real explanation, and thus scientific knowledge is the only real form of knowledge. This view has led many to deny God’s existence based on the reason that there is no “evidence” for God. Take a recent caller to Catholic Answers Live for example. He expressed his doubt in the supernatural due to a lack of evidence.

When Trent Horn replied with the question, “Are you saying there is no evidence of the supernatural because science has not detected the supernatural?” the caller answered, “Correct.” For the caller, science is the only tool available for detecting the supernatural. And since he hasn’t found God with that tool, he chooses not to believe in God.

In a similar way, Protestants have a restrictive approach to arriving at knowledge of God’s revelation. They believe that the Bible alone is the infallible guide for knowing revealed truth, a belief we know as sola scriptura or “Scripture alone.”



Just as science is the only tool Dawkins and company are willing to use to arrive at knowledge of the natural truth, Protestants use only the Bible for determining what is revealed truth. And as many modern atheists reject anything that science cannot detect, so too do Protestants reject any teaching that is not found explicitly in the Bible. Where Dawkins and others like him are science-only atheists, Protestants are Bible-only Christians.

Not a real form of knowledge
A second note of similarity is that both scientism and sola scriptura are self-refuting ideas.

The statement, “Scientific knowledge is the only legitimate form of knowledge,” is not scientific knowledge—that’s to say, we cannot determine the truth-value of this statement using the scientific method. With what sense can we observe the truth of this statement? Or what scientific tests can we perform to prove this statement? The truth-value of scientism is not empirically verifiable nor quantifiably measurable, and consequently is not subject to scientific inquiry—it’s an assumption.

But this is a fatal problem for the believer in scientism—namely, scientism is not real knowledge. If science can’t verify the truth of scientism, then how can scientism itself be a legitimate form of knowledge?

The answer is, It can’t.

Why should anyone believe scientism is true if it’s not real knowledge? If scientism is not real knowledge, as implied in scientism itself, then it’s self-refuting, and thus should not be accepted as a reasonable worldview.

Similar to scientism, the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is self-refuting.

As mentioned, sola scriptura teaches that the Bible is the only infallible source for knowing God’s revelation. Therefore, if a teaching is not found explicitly (or perhaps even implicitly) in the Bible, then it’s not part of God’s revealed truth and thus not binding for salvation.

But notice the doctrine presupposes knowledge of what scriptura is. It presupposes knowledge of exactly which books are inspired by God and which books are not, and thus which books are to be counted as Scripture and which are not.

The problem for the Protestant is that his knowledge of exactly which books belong in the canon cannot be derived from the Bible. In other words, nowhere do we find in the Old Testament or the New Testament a list of historical books among the Jews or Christians that are believed to be inspired by God. There is no inspired table of contents.

So, if the Bible is the only source of infallible knowledge concerning God’s revelation, and the Bible never tells us which books are inspired by God, then how can a Protestant have infallible knowledge of which books are inspired by God? How could he know what scriptura is?

Even if a Protestant develops extra-biblical positive criteria for determining whether a specific writing is inspired (e.g., written by an apostle or prophet that performed miracles and claimed to be inspired), he would still not be able to rule out other writings that don’t fit his criteria—e.g., Mark and Luke’s Gospel, Hebrews, the Didache, the Epistle of Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Furthermore, to appeal to such extra-biblical criteria would be to violate the doctrine of sola scriptura, since such an appeal would be relying on a non-biblical guide for determining God’s revelation.

The bottom line is that a Protestant can’t have infallible knowledge of exactly which writings belong in the canon of Scripture within the framework of sola scriptura. And if he can’t know what scripture is, then Scripture can’t be the only infallible source for knowing God’s revelation. In other words, sola scriptura can’t be true.

The need for an infallible voice
The only way to know exactly which books are inspired by God is if there exists an infallible authority outside the Bible that can speak on God’s behalf. Catholic hold that authority to exist in the pope and the bishops in union with him. But Protestants reject this idea, which gives rise to another conundrum.

If no infallible voice outside the Bible exists, and Protestants believe that our knowledge of which books are inspired is infallible, then we would have an infallible effect produced by a fallible cause, which is absurd.

I highlight the incoherencies of these foundational beliefs of the New Atheism and Protestantism because, as happens so often with erroneous beliefs, they are based on false assumptions. And it is these false assumptions that stand in the way of people coming to know the fullness of truth subsisting in the Catholic Church.

If we can expose these false assumptions, then we put those whom we’re evangelizing one step closer to experiencing the joy God intends for them to experience in the Catholic Church.

Indulgence of the Portiuncula: From 1 August Noon until 2 August Midnight, one can
gain the Indulgence of the Portiuncula obtained from the Pope by Saint Francis of Assisi
for his chapel and extended later to the whole world. To receive the plenary indulgence,
one must recite the Credo and Pater Noster - under the usual conditions for obtaining a
plenary indulgence - in any parish church, cathedral or minor basilica.


This indulgence began, according to the Franciscans, in the 13th century, likely making it the oldest plenary indulgence in the Church. The Portiuncula chapel had been neglected by the Benedictines, but eventually given to Saint Francis of Assisi with the intention of him creating a new religious order (and restoring the chapel). In 1209, the Order of Friars Minor was founded. The order would sadly split numerous times, with turbulence and rupture still occurring between Franciscans today. But the chapel has been under the care of Franciscans ever since their founding, and has hosted general chapters and a visit from Saint Clare of Assisi. Saint Francis died just feet from the chapel.

The Catholic Encyclopedia gives this history on the indulgence:

The Portiuncula Indulgence could at first be gained only in the Portiuncula chapel between the afternoon of 1 Aug. and sunset on 2 Aug. On 5 Aug., 1480 (or 1481), Sixtus IV extended it to all churches of the first and second orders of St. Francis for Franciscans; on 4 July, 1622, this privilege was further extended by Gregory XV to all the faithful, who, after confession and the reception of Holy Communion, visited such churches on the appointed day. On 12 Oct., 1622, Gregory granted the same privilege to all the churches of the Capuchins; Urban VIII granted it for all churches of the regular Third Order on 13 Jan., 1643, and Clement X for all churches of the Conventuals on 3 Oct., 1670. Later popes extended the privilege to all churches pertaining in any way to the Franciscan Order, even to churches in which the Third Order held its meetings (even parish churches, etc.), provided that there was no Franciscan church in the district, and that such a church was distant over an Italian mile (1000 paces, about 1640 yards). Some districts and countries have been granted special privileges. On 9 July, 1910, Pius X (only, however, for that year) granted the privilege that bishops could appoint any public churches whatsoever for the gaining of the Portiuncula Indulgence, whether on 2 Aug. or the Sunday following (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, II, 1910, 443 sq.; Acta Ord. Frat. Min., XXIX, 1910, 226). This privilege has been renewed for an indefinite time by a decree of the S. Cong. of Indul., 26 March, 1911 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, III, 1911, 233-4). The Indulgence is toties-quoties, that is, it may be gained as often as one wishes (i.e. visits the church); it is also applicable to the souls in purgatory.

Following Vatican II, it survived the reforms of Paul VI:

In addition, a plenary indulgence can be acquired twice a year in parish churches: on the feast of the church's titular saint and on August 2, when the "Portiuncula" occurs, or on some other more opportune day determined by the Ordinary.



This post has been edited by yeeck: Aug 1 2017, 01:25 AM

Evil Silence and Holy Silence
At the recommendation of my friend Gary Potter, I am reading — very slowly — Robert Cardinal Sarah’s The Power of Silence. The book is as Gary describes it in his short piece on our website, and I will say a bit on it a few paragraphs down.

As I was reading Cardinal Sarah’s book, the thought struck me that his encomium to holy silence might be juxtaposed with another recent work with the word “silence” in the title. I refer to the film by Martin Scorsese, Silence. The film was praised by the celebrated LGBTQ-advocate, James Martin, who served as Scorsese’s advisor on things Jesuit.

I have never seen the film, and do not plan on doing so. However, I have read the book upon which it was based, by the Japanese Catholic novelist, Shūsaku Endō. The book is a masterpiece of prose, even in translation. The writing is compelling, credible, and gripping. It is also the single most disturbing book I have ever read in my life. That, for the simple reason that the reader is artfully secreted into the mind of a man — a priest and a missionary — who is brought to the very precipice of apostasy by means of a cruel yet refined psychological torture.

The action of the book, which is based upon real events, takes place after the times of most of the Japanese martyrs (e.g, Saints Paul Miki, James Kisai and John de Goto; Saint Philip of Jesus). As Wikipedia notes, “The story is set in the time of Kakure Kirishitan (“Hidden Christians”), following the suppression of the Shimabara Rebellion (1637–1638) of Japanese Roman Catholics against the Tokugawa shogunate.” By this time, the feudal lords of Japan have realized that mass martyrdoms were only helping the cause of the Church in their country. As a result, they settled upon a policy that was diabolically clever.

Instead of martyring the missionaries and their converts, the stratagem is altered to torturing — to death — only the converts, even if they have apostatized, all in the sight of the missionaries, who are informed that they can save their Japanese children by personally committing apostasy. The way that they would show their apostasy is by stepping on a crudely carved image of Christ (with or without the Blessed Virgin), called a fumi-e.

The torture to which the converts are put is truly horrific. With small slits cut behind their ears, they are suspended upside-down over a pit reeking of its fetid contents of rotting flesh and excrement. They slowly bleed to death in a terribly painful way, due to the gruesome circulatory effects caused by the smallness of the slit.

The eponymous “silence” that Endō writes of so disturbingly is the silence of God amid the trials and spiritual agony of the book’s protagonist, Father Sebastião Rodrigues, S.J. It is not a holy silence; it is the missionary’s feeling of utter abandonment by God.

Did I mention that this is the single most disturbing book I have ever read in my life?

In a remarkably sympathetic and incisive commentary on the book (and the film) Lieutenant Geoff Jablonski, writing for the Lepanto Institute, tries his best to hold up whatever elements in both are salvageable. However, he agrees with other Catholic commentators — e.g., John Paul Meehan in Martyrs Know Apostasy Can Not Be Justified — that apostasy can never be justified under any circumstances. Alarmingly, some so-called conservative Catholics were perfectly willing to justify apostasy (or apparent apostasy) in the comments section of Prof. Meehan’s article, where your humble servant found himself in a bit of a dustup last year. In these days of sentimental theology, what should one expect?

The subsequent history of those priests whom we learn have stepped on the fumi-e are no more heroic than their act of external apostasy. For they go on to live respectable lives in Japan (they are forbidden to leave), take Japanese wives, and work against the interests of Christianity in the land they had formerly worked to evangelize. In other words, this is real apostasy, not merely a dissimulation. Scorsese apparently parted from the book in this regard by giving the film a clever surprise ending; but, as Geoff Jablonski points out, this is still not morally satisfactory.

There is Catholic heroism in the book, and one of the missionaries dies in an attempt to save his spiritual children who are being drowned to death. In his admirable attempt at reading lessons of genuine Catholic spirituality into Endō’s work, Lieutenant Jablonski contrasts the heroism and spiritual solidity of this missionary with the prideful self-reliance of Father Rodrigues, whose behavior is considerably less than heroic. How accurate this reading is to Endō’s intention nobody can say, since Endō (who is a great artist) is himself quite silent on the matter.

In the end, whether the evil silence is the fault of Father Sebastião Rodrigues, the character, or Shūsaku Endō, the writer, the silence — and then the shockingly blasphemous breaking of the silence — is not holy; it is evil. It is a silence that drives a man to apostasy. It is a silence that leads him to imagine (or hear, if Endō is to blame) Christ granting permission for apostasy. A triumph of existentialist morality!

A holy silence is one that draws close to God. More to the point, it is one that envelopes us in God. It renders His presence, as it were, tangible. Such a silence is informed by, and, in turn, strengthens, the theological and moral virtues. It is a silence that is not solipsistic, narcissistic, indulgent, or even selfish in the least. It is a silence that is ascetical and attentive to God, without the prideful presumption that God is obliged to “speak” to the soul — not, at least, in an audible or extraordinary way. Such silence is described ably by Robert Cardinal Sarah, on page sixty-one of The Power of Silence:

Silence, man’s effort, runs alongside hope, the theological virtue. In reality, the divine power of the theological virtue lifts and directs the human and ascetical impact of silence. Then a second [virtue, this one a] moral virtue appears: fortitude. Its function is to remove the obstacle that prevents the will from obeying reason. Fortitude is active and takes the offensive. The thing is to apply oneself to cultivating this virtue, which drives back all that could prevent man from living in dependence on God. Silence and hope are two conditions allowing fortitude to find its nourishment.

Through this asceticism of silence, how can we not understand and appreciate better the lights offered by these different Bible verses? “When words are many, transgression is not lacking” (Prov 10:19). “He who guards his mouth preserves his life; he who opens wide his lips comes to ruin” (Prov 13:3). “Whoever uses too many words will be loathed” (Sir [Ecclus] 20:8). “I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter” (Mt 12:36). “Make balances and scales for your words, and make a door and a bolt for your mouth. Beware lest you err with your tongue, lest you fall before him who lies in wait” (Sir 28:25-26 [Ecclus 28:29-30]).

May we all progress in the cultivation of holy silence.

In the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M.

When exorcists need help, they call him
By John Blake, CNN
Updated 0423 GMT (1223 HKT) August 4, 2017

(CNN)A small group of nuns and priests met the woman in the chapel of a house one June evening. Though it was warm outside, a palpable chill settled over the room.

As the priests began to pray, the woman slipped into a trance -- and then snapped to life. She spoke in multiple voices: One was deep, guttural and masculine; another was high-pitched; a third spouted only Latin. When someone secretly sprinkled ordinary water on her, she didn't react. But when holy water was used, she screamed in pain.
"Leave her alone, you f***ing priests," the guttural voice shouted. "Stop, you whores. ... You'll be sorry."
You've probably seen this before: a soul corrupted by Satan, a priest waving a crucifix at a snarling woman. Movies and books have mimicked exorcisms so often, they've become clichés.

...
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/04/health/e...ctor/index.html

Minnesota Veterans' Memorial Removed Due to Satanists

The impotence of modern civic religion was recently on display in Belle Plaine, MN, when pressure forced the removal of a beloved monument.



Religious Indifference Takes an Ugly Turn

In that little middle-American town, a covey of satanists exploited the liberal principle of religious tolerance – which in truth is not tolerance but indifference – to agitate for the removal of Christian symbols from the public square. Rather than act against the false notions of religious indifferentism that urges degraded prostration before the devil be given the same regard as the elevating worship of Almighty God, locals opted to saw the baby in half and shut the inn door to all state-sanctioned displays of the Christian religion.

Rise and Fall of a Monument for Veterans

In August 2016, the Belle Plaine Vets Club honored fallen U.S. veterans with a modest monument of a soldier kneeling in prayer in front of a grave marked with a cross. The inscription on the monument reads “Donated by Joseph Gregory U.S. Army,” after the benefactor and local veteran who died in October, 2016. Locals nicknamed the privately-owned cast-iron memorial “Joe”; its post was in the city’s Veterans Memorial Park.

"Joe," late of the Belle Plaine Veterans Memorial Park

In January of 2017, threats of a lawsuit rooted in arguments about the separation of church and state drove city leaders to remove the cross. The action upset locals, many of whom responded by setting up crosses in the park and placing silhouettes of “Joe” in their lawns throughout the city. Officials responded to the protests by creating a free speech zone in the park for the display of any religious memorials provided they honored veterans. The cross was returned to the Vets Club monument in April.

At the invitation of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the satanic temple based in Salem, MA commissioned a veterans’ memorial for the park. The dark artifact was a black cube carved with occult symbols, allegedly to honor nonreligious service members; to extend the mockery, atop the cube was placed an upside-down combat helmet that would act as a basin where visitors could place mementos and letters honoring fallen soldiers.

The city approved the group’s petition to have the memorial installed in the park. Had these plans gone through, it would have been the first satanic monument on public property in the U.S.

The community again reacted in protest. A Rosary Rally was also organized for July by the Catholic group America Needs Fatima, which was attended by over a hundred faithful. By the time of the rally, however, the “Joe” memorial had been removed from the park, and the city had nixed the free speech zone. The monument of the Massachusetts satanists would stay in Salem, but the cross was also gone from Belle Plaine’s Veterans Memorial Park.

An Assessment

Belle Plaine residents observed that the satanists had preyed on a small town that lacks the resources to resist – a point the satanists acknowledged when their spokesman said more such compromises would eliminate lawsuits.

It can be observed that the satanists said they do not worship the devil. Instead, they are angry atheists, progressivists, and pluralists who claim to have millions of dollars in funding as well as a team of aggressive lawyers and they want to fight for the separation of Church and State. Their diabolical trappings are essentially props, puerile tools used to shock, cow, disgust, and offend easy-going ordinary citizens accustomed to conventional social norms.

More significant than questions of litigation, however, are the principles under which a society is to be organized. Almighty God is owed public veneration, but the devil is not. Liberal concepts of freedom of conscience, speech, and religion proved to be feeble and mute in the presence of the sophomoric squawking of the liberal and atheist hoaxers, shams, and opportunists from Salem; it was by the threat of legal action, and not from the merit of their arguments, that they had their way. To the extent that the state makes of this liberal indifferentism a form of civic religion, as occurred in Belle Plaine, it inevitably renders to Caesar not what is Caesar’s, but what is God’s.

“All true felicity flows abundantly upon man from our august religion and its doctrine and practice; and that happy is the people whose God is their Lord. Teach that ‘kingdoms rest on the foundation of the Catholic Faith…’” Quanta Cura of Bl. Pope Pius IX

The reason for the “Five Saturdays Devotion”
Tuy (May 29, 1930)

“There are five types of offences and blasphemies committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary:

1) Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception.

2) Blasphemies against her Virginity.

3) Blasphemies against her Divine Maternity, in refusing at the same time to recognize her as the Mother of all mankind.

4) The blasphemies of those who publicly seek to sow in the hearts of children indifference or scorn, or even hatred of this Immaculate Mother.

5) The offences of those who outrage her directly in her holy images.”

Meditation

Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception
Three movements in history have denied the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady.

Protestantism categorically refuses to attribute any special privileges to Mary, since Protestants have chosen to regard her as a sinner like the rest of mankind.

The schismatic Orthodox, on the other hand, generally believe in the privilege of the Immaculate Conception, but they do not recognize it as a dogma — a revealed truth of our faith — but simply as a pious opinion of theologians or at most as the common belief of the Church.

Lastly, there are Catholics who, infected with the errors of modernism, doubt the privileges of Our Lady and consider the cult of devotion towards her as exaggerated, outdated, or even in contradiction with the “new” Church, in which the Immaculate Conception is an obstacle to the “unity” of all Christians.

Nitwits in California vandalized a statue of Bl. Junipero Serra. HERE

Nitwits in New Orleans vandalized a statue of – get this – St. Joan of Arc! It was spray painted with “Tear it down!” HERE The idiots thought it was a Confederate statue.

The problem.

First, Confederate memorials, next… who knows? Churches and their statues.





This post has been edited by yeeck: Aug 20 2017, 02:17 PM

Does The Catholic Church Believe in Ghosts?



Everyone wonders from time to time if a ghost may be in their presence. Some of us hope to catch a glimpse of one of our loved ones that have passed on. We want to know that they are okay. But as Catholics, should we believe in ghosts on earth? We hear of real life ghost interactions all the time on television and in books, but are they real? And if they are real, are they good? These occurrences that people speak of could possibly be true, but contrary to popular belief, the ghosts that are seen are not human souls that are trapped on earth with a special mission in order to get to heaven. Sorry, it does not work like the movies. If you see a ghost, it is more likely to be a demon that has transformed into a ghost or spirit of a human being to lead us away from the truth.

The Catholic Church very much believes in the spiritual realm. Ephesians 6:11-12 says, “Put you on the armor of God so that you may be able to stand firm against the tactics of the devil. For our struggle is not with the flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens.” This scripture tells us we should be prepared for evil spirits in the darkness who seek to ruin our souls. The church discourages us from trying to contact the dead because it can be hard to tell if the messages being received are from a deceased relative, an angel, a saint, or a demon. Demons know how to manipulate us, so we would not know if the spirit is evil or good. If you feel like you are being contacted by a spirit, you should discuss it with a priest before ever trying to interact with them. Although you may not have contacted them, they can appear to us on their own. If this happens, seek spiritual counseling with a priest. He should be able to tell you if the spirit is evil or sent from God. If he can’t, he can put you in touch with an exorcist priest.

As per the Catechism of the Catholic Church, we are forbidden as Catholics to seek out the dead, or demons. CCC 2116 tells us that all forms of divination are to be rejected, and anything else that is meant to unveil the future such as consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums should also be rejected. Over time, these practices will give us the desire for power which would contradict the honor, respect and loving fear that we owe to God alone. In CCC 2117 we are told we should not use magic to have a supernatural power over others or ourselves. Even if the magic seems like it is for something good, such as one’s own sickness, we would not be respecting the virtue of religion. As Catholics, we should pray for what ails us, seeking God’s powers and not our own.

The only time souls can contact us is if they are sent from God himself. God only sends them for our salvation. So, forget the Ouija boards, or tarot cards and just pray. If you want magic, prayer is where the real magic lies.

Have New Relics of St. Peter Been Discovered in Rome?
September 05, 2017



Following Pope Paul VI authenticating relics of St. Peter in 1968, interest for the relics of St. Peter has been rekindled by a discovery that was just made public.

The discovery was made during the restoration of the church of Santa Maria in Cappella, in Trastevere. In the hollow of a medieval altar, two small pots were found; they could contain the relics of the first martyred popes, including the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. If the discovery is authenticated, these bone fragments will be added to those kept under the altar of the Vatican Basilica.

The story was told by Barbara Carfagna on the TV program Codice, broadcasted on Rai Uno on September 1, 2017.

The church where the relics were found
The church of Santa Maria in Cappella, owned by the Doria Pamphilj family, was consecrated on March 25, 1090, by two bishops, Ubaldo from the diocese of Sabina-Poggia Mirteto, and John, bishop of Tusculo. An inscription in the stone that was studied by archeologist Cristiano Mengarelli confirms that important relics were contained there: the list includes a fragment of the Blessed Virgin’s dress (which was not found inside the altar) and bone fragments belonging to St. Peter, St. Cornelius, St. Callixtus, and St. Felix, all popes, whose bodies were all buried in different places. Other martyrs such as Hippolytus and Anastasius are also mentioned.

“This complex of relics appears, with different combinations, in other consecrations documented for this period for other churches,” observes the archeologist, which seems to support the authenticity of the discovery.

Although the cavity just under the marble altar where the relics were has not always been sealed – two certificates from the 17th and 19th centuries testify to their presence – the knowledge of its existence had been long lost.

The edifice has been closed to the public since 1982 and has been subject of renovation works in recent years. An eyewitness of the discovery, Massimiliano Floridi, husband of Princess Gesine Pogson Doria Pamphilj, tells that the relics were discovered “by chance”, thanks to a worker who moved the altar slab.

In doing so, he uncovered two small ceramic pots covered in lead , with matching lead caps topped by the engraved names of the saints, which are then repeated, with a different handwriting, in lead-alloy plaques placed inside the two urns.

According to Cristiano Mengarelli, these objects do indeed date back to the time when the church was consecrated. The relics were placed in new urns and handed over to the Vicariate of Rome, where they were sealed until the investigation is continued.

How did the relics end up here?
The church of Santa Maria in Cappella is linked to the story of the pontificate of Urban II, a French pope who reigned from 1088 to 1099, and who spent part of his life on Tiberina Island. At the time an antipope, Clement III (1080-1100) was living in Rome, after usurping the Palace of the Lateran with the support of Emperor Henry IV.

The hypothesis is that the church of the Trastevere may have been used as a papal chapel by the legitimate pope when he stayed in the City. In this case, it is not unthinkable that Urban II may have wished to celebrate Mass on the relics of the Prince of the Apostles and his successors as head of the Church, at a time when his authority was being openly flouted by the German emperor’s candidate.

While the relics of the first pope found in the Vatican basilica under the Confession altar have already been identified for certain, the scientific investigation must continue in order to confirm where the new relics came from and to declare them authentic. Comparison with other bone fragments belonging to St. Peter the Apostle should shed light on the mystery.

Kidnapped Indian priest Fr Tom Uzhunnalil freed after 18 months
posted Tuesday, 12 Sep 2017


Fr Tom lands in Oman (Oman Ministry of Information)

The Salesian priest was kidnapped in Yemen in March 2016

Kidnapped Indian priest Fr Tom Uzhunnalil has been freed from captivity and flown to Oman, the country’s government has said.

Fr Tom was kidnapped when his care home in the Yemeni city of Aden was attacked in March 2016. Four gunmen posing as relatives of one of the residents killed four Indian nuns, two Yemeni staff members, eight elderly residents and a security guard.

In May this year, a video was posted online showing the priest in poor health, calling for help.



“My health condition is deteriorating quickly and I require hospitalisation as early as possible,” he said.

Now the Omani government reports that it has found and freed Fr Tom.

The sultanate said in a statement: “In response to the Royal Orders of His Majesty Sultan Qaboos bin Said and as per a request from the Vatican to assist in the rescuing of a Vatican employee, the concerned authorities in the Sultanate, in coordination with the Yemeni authorities, have managed to find a Vatican government employee.

“He was transferred this morning to Muscat in preparation for his return home.”

Deo gratias!