Mastery or Martyrdom

Here is an article from Crisis Magazine that may be of interest to some: Metaphysical Mischief:The Bergoglio Gloss by James Patrick.

We always keep in mind the following truth that history has confirmed time and time again:

“In dealing with the world, the Church says: ‘All things of the world are yours, in all things pertaining to you, in all that is temporal, we are submissive; we are your subjects, we love to obey. But within the sphere of the Truth of God, within the sphere of the unity and discipline of God’s Kingdom, there is no choice for the Catholic Church but mastery or martyrdom.’”

~The Glories of the Catholic Church (Volume II).

************

Metaphysical Mischief: The Bergoglio Gloss

James Patrick

   

Every theology necessarily incorporates a philosophy, for there will always be a natural way of thinking that under-girds the exposition of revelation. Like everyman, popes have philosophies, and although it is not the business of a pope to advocate any philosophy, the philosophy every pope presupposes will influence his representation of the Catholic faith and his government of the Church. John Paul II is often cited as an exponent of Thomism as interpreted through the lens of the phenomenology of Husserl. Benedict XVI is steeped in the Augustinian tradition, which carries with it certain themes borrowed from Plato, but which in the end was not too different from the Thomism of John Paul II, both teaching that human intellect could grasp transcendent ideas. Like his mentor Saint Augustine, Benedict has spent much effort explaining the relation between faith and reason. Famously, Benedict cited the rejection of reason as the great defect of Islamic thought.

Philosophy is common sense raised to the level of reflection, and nothing in the thought of John Paul II or Benedict challenges reason, rather the opposite, for reason itself is elevated in their teaching of the faith. But then comes Pope Francis who offers what seems to be yet another gloss on the Catholic faith. The pope does not deny the divinity of Christ or the necessity of the sacraments; his reiteration of the Divine Mercy and exhortation to solidarity in matters political and economic have won broad approval. But something that seems alien is at work in his teaching, and that is because he accepts, perhaps deliberately, perhaps unwittingly, the intellectual backwash of the Enlightenment as the philosophical basis of his teaching and particularly of his moral theology. He is at heart a romantic, and sympathy will always trump thought.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was an eighteenth-century French critic and philosopher whose thought has permeated the West. It was a theme of his philosophy that man although naturally innocent had been corrupted by the intrusion of law and tradition, which, rather than informing and elevating, always restricted and deformed. Pope Francis has not been known to advance a doctrine of original innocence, but his persistent theme that the mission of the Church is misrepresented by defenders of the tradition, whom he unfailingly associates with the Christ-denying Pharisees, who are soul-damaging rigorists, is an idea that, while it may have other immediate sources, can certainly be traced, by however circuitous a route, to Rousseau.

It is probably unlikely that Francis has read the turgid philosophy of the famous Prussian G. W. F. Hegel who lived a generation after Rousseau, but he is arguably a disciple. Hegel’s Lectures on the Philosophy of History were among the most popular philosophical sources of the nineteenth century, and if few had read the book there were many who knew the Hegelian slogan: “Whatever is, is right.” For Hegel, history was a process through which reason exhausts itself in events and world-historical persons. The truth of things is not known by the light of intellect or by the application of reason in its transcendent character but by what happens in history. In Evangelii Gaudium, Francis notes that there is always a tension between reality and ideas. But then he writes: “Reality is greater than ideas. This calls for rejecting the various means of masking reality: angelic forms of purity, dictatorships of relativism, empty rhetoric, objectives more ideal than real, brands of ahistorical fundamentalism, ethical systems bereft of kindness, intellectual discourse bereft of wisdom” (231).

 

At first sight this list seems unexceptionable, but at the same time one may see in it the shadow of the Hegelian triumph of whatever is over thought. One of its terms is a nod to Benedict’s condemnation of the tyranny of relativism. The reference to angelic purity is puzzling. Does it refer to a dedicated pursuit of holiness or to a destructive scrupulosity? There are commonplaces: the unexceptionable rejection of empty rhetoric and unwise intellectual discourse. But then what is “ahistorical fundamentalism”? In this context fundamentalism is a highly charged word. Ahistorical fundamentalism must be a system of rigorist moral precept that does not take into account what actually happens. However, it is the work of moral precepts not to take into account what may be done at any one time or place but instead to lift up, guide, and form.

In his introduction to his translation of Plato’s Dialogues Benjamin Jowett, the fabled president of Balliol College, Oxford, wrote: “The universal is prior to the particular; the law conditions the event, the ideal regulates the actual. Knowledge consists in the discernment of a general pattern which the particular thing embodies, virtue consists of regulation of impulse according to eternal standards.” Jowett was writing of Plato, but, broadly. Every Christian philosopher, including the modern popes, would subscribe to Jowett’s summary as the presupposition of thought and morality.

When Saint Thomas asks where truth resides, he answers that it resides in the mind and only secondarily in things. A historical or scientific account may derive truth from what happens in the world by explaining events under a generalization, but reality remains unintelligible without ideas, and in that sense ideas are always more important than reality. And also with theological truth and moral precepts. And so also with the exercise of authority. The attempt to rule without reference to tradition or any other transcendent rational ground, or even the regulative claims of the past, however benign the results may or may not accidentally be, will result in a government that rests upon unmoderated will, difficult in principle to distinguish from a vernacular Marxism.

The attempt to derive moral guidance from reality, from how mankind behaves, from the sorry story of our aspirations and failures, will make every teaching of the Church uncertain, as has Amoris Laetitia in the opinion of many. An editorial writer in the Guardian has said that Francis has changed the Church forever from a rule-bound institution to an instinctive Church. Good luck with your instincts. The world is full of divorced and civilly remarried Catholics who think it would be good to receive the body and blood of Christ. If their instincts say they are at peace with God, why not? The vast majority of Catholics don’t follow Humanae Vitae anyhow so, as Francis has written, Humanae Vitae must be revisited. The teaching of the Church should be accommodated to what is actually happening. Rigorists, says Francis, do not go with the flow of life. Ah, Hegel.

Sed contra. Historically, it has been the role of the teaching Church, in the name of Christ, never to accommodate itself to the ways of the world, but to ask of mankind the impossible, proposing the heroic and offering unstinting forgiveness for failure. It has been unsympathetic to claims that human nature must be treated gently. “In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted unto blood” (Heb. 12:4). It has viewed with horror the deliberate defection of one will from obedience to God. Cardinal Newman wrote that it would be better for millions to die in pain and poverty than for one soul knowingly to commit a venial sin, that, he said, was merely a preamble to the Gospel just as “Whereas” might be to an act of Parliament. To this has been appended the fact of the sacrifice of Christ, the aid of the sacraments and the offer of forgiveness. The requirement that we love God most is ideal, and it will be realized in his elect. Without this high calling, mercy is the answer to a question that has not been asked.

The Sacrament of Penance

THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE

MAN, even though regenerated and justified, is still liable to fall into sin, on account of the depravity of his fallen nature, and also on account of the many temptations that surround him: therefore our loving Lord, in His infinite mercy, instituted another sacrament for the forgiveness of sin committed after baptism.

This is the sacrament of penance, in which, by the absolution of the priest, joined with the contrition, confession, and satisfaction of the penitent, the sins of the penitent are forgiven by God, through the application of the merits of Jesus Christ, and a grace is given him to help him to avoid sin in future.

 

Contrition is an interior grief, horror and detestation of sin committed, with the firm resolve never more to relapse into our evil habits.[1] Contrition thus includes in itself two acts: sorrow of the heart for sin committed, and the purpose of the will to avoid sin in future.

Confession is an express, contrite, but secret self-accusation, to a duly authorized priest, of at least all grievous sins committed after baptism, of which he wishes to receive absolution, or of all the mortal sins committed since the last confession when absolution was received, as far as we can recall them to our memory.[2]

Satisfaction means doing the penance enjoined by the priest in confession, repairing the scandal if any was given, and restoring the property and good name to our neighbor in case of his having been injured by us.

 

Almighty God certainly can, if it so pleases Him, depute a man to forgive sins in His name. That He did depute certain men to forgive sins is plain from what our blessed Lord said to His Apostles, and in the persons of the Apostles to their legitimate successors to the end of the world: “Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When He had said this, He breathed on them; and He said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained” (St. John xx. 21-23).
 

 
 

This divine commission to forgive sins in Christ’s name was always understood to mean what the words just quoted from St. John naturally and plainly signify; namely, that God has commissioned certain men to grant, and also withhold, the forgiveness of sin in His name; and these words have thus been understood from the time of the Apostles until now by the Catholic Church, and have thus been understood also by the separated Greek and other Oriental schismatical churches, in which the sacrament of penance is also believed and practised.
 

 
 

It is of course always God Who forgives when forgiveness is granted through the instrumentality or ministration of a priest who acts as minister of God. As in holy baptism, it is God who forgives, yet it is done through the medium of the minister who dispenses that sacrament of regeneration, for whether it be Paul or Cephas who baptizes, it is always Jesus Christ Who baptizes; so in the sacrament of penance, when the priest forgives, it is God Who forgives through His appointed authorized minister. From the words of St. John, lately quoted, it is evident that the priest has, by the commission of Christ, sometimes to forgive, and sometimes to retain, that is, to withhold forgiveness of sin; therefore it is necessary that the penitent sinner should make known to the priest in confession the state of his conscience, in order that the priest may give or withhold absolution with knowledge and prudence, and not grant or deny it unduly or at hazard, which Jesus Christ never intended.
 

 
 

The priest, in fact, who is called upon to dispense the sacrament of penance, to remit or to retain sin, has to decide whether the person who comes to him as a penitent is really guilty of sin or not; whether, if guilty, the sin is grievous or is venial; whether reparation to a neighbor is required or not ; he must see what instruction, admonition, advice, or penance he has to give him; he must form a well-grounded judgment whether the penitent has or has not the dispositions which render him fit to receive absolution. In short, the priest in the tribunal of penance is a judge, and as such he must, as a rule, have full knowledge of the case upon which he has to pronounce judgment; and this knowledge he can only have from the confession of the penitent person.
 

 
 

That it is a good thing to confess our sins appears from the following passages of Holy Writ: “He that hideth his sins shall not prosper; but he that shall confess, and forsake them, shall obtain mercy” (Proverbs xxviii. 13). St. James writes: “Confess, therefore, your sins one to another” (v. 16). If open confession is good for the soul, how much more advantageous is it to confess to a priest who has deputed power from God to forgive our sins.
 

 
 

We must bear the shame of showing our wounds and bruises, and festering sores, if we wish to be cured. To humble ourselves before the minister of God is some reparation for the evil we have done; that humiliation pleases God and procures for us many great blessings.

 

_________________________
[1] See Council of Trent, Session xiv. Chap. 4.

[2] † See Method of Confession, Part II. No. 6 of this book.

 

TAKEN FROM THE GLORIES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (VOLUME 1).

************

  

*

In the four pictures below, one can see the "virgula pœnitentiaria" that was abolished in April of 1967 under the Pontificate of (who else?) Pope Paul VI.

*

*

*

Above and below, Cardinal Canali in 1950, with the "virgula pœnitentiaria."

*







The Invocation of Saints

A CONCISE EXPOSITION OF THE TENETS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, CONCERNING THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS.

THE doctrine of the Catholic Church with respect to the honor which is due to the Saints, and especially to the blessed Virgin, is founded on the most obvious principles of reason; and expressly sanctioned by numerous and explicit warrants of Scripture.

We are inclined, by the impulse of nature, to be pleased with objects that are beautiful, and the best feelings of the human heart prompt us to do homage to goodness and virtue. Those feelings are in perfect accordance with the principles of right reason, for it cannot be wrong to admire excellence nor unreasonable to esteem what is worthy of veneration. God commands us to "render to all men their dues, tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, and honor to whom honor" (Rom. xiii. 7), and thus expressly sanctions our doing homage to the exalted dignity and transcendent splendor of His servants in heaven, who, "having overcome, are clothed in white, and walk with Him because they are worthy" (Rev. iii. 4). Jesus Christ declares that to those "that shall overcome, He will give to sit with Him on His throne" (Rev. iii. 21), "and they shall be like to the angels of God in heaven" (Matt. xxii. 30), "and shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father" (Matt. xiii. 43); that "they shall see God face to face" (1 Cor. xiii. 12); "and beholding the glory of the Lord with open face, they are transformed into the same image, from glory to glory, by the spirit of the Lord" (2 Cor. iii. 18), "and they shall reign for ever and ever" (Rev. xxi.-xxii. 5).

Such is the dignity which the Lord God confers upon His servants. He exalts them to a fellowship with Himself, and makes them partakers of His throne and glory. It is an imperative duty, therefore, to honor the Saints, and in doing so we follow the example of God Himself.

But while the dignity of the Saints claims our respectful homage, their ardent charity demands the warmest affection of our hearts. Seeing God face to face, they cannot cease to love Him, and loving Him, they must also love all the members of His mystical body here on earth, and earnestly desire their eternal happiness; for "there is joy before the angels of God upon one sinner doing penance" (Luke xv. 10). It is therefore a portion of the happiness as well as of the duty of the Saints to pray to God for their brethren on earth. "And the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps and golden vials full of odors which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. v. 8); "and another angel came and stood before the altar, having a golden censer, and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer the prayer of all the Saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God. And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the Saints ascended up before God, from the hand of the angel" (Rev. viii. 3). And the angel Raphael speaks as follows to holy Tobias: "when thou didst pray with tears, and didst bury the dead, and didst leave thy dinner, and hide the dead by day in thy house, and bury them by night, I offered thy prayers to the Lord" (Tob. xii. 12); and in Zach. i. 12 we read that "the angel of the Lord answered and said, O Lord of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem; and on the cities of Juda with which thou hast been angry? This is now the seventh year: and the Lord answered the angel, that spoke in me, good words, comfortable words."

Here, then, is evidence that the angels and Saints offer up their prayers to the throne of grace on behalf of their brethren on earth and that God responds to them "good words, comfortable words." It is absurd, therefore, to deny that it is lawful to ask for the prayers of the blessed in heaven. Such prayers are evidently agreeable to God, and must be profitable to man. For as "the Lord accepted the face of Job" (xlii. 8), who was still in this state of probation, how much more the face of those who "have proved themselves worthy;" "who are made to their God a kingdom and priests" (Rev. v. 10); "who shall judge nations and rule over people" (Wisd. iii. 8), "and shall reign upon the earth" (Rev. v. 10).

In conformity with the evidence of the foregoing, and numerous other express warrants of Holy Writ, the Catholic Church teaches that "The Saints who reign with Christ offer up their prayers to God for men, and that it is useful and good to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, help and assistance, in order to obtain blessings from God, through His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, Who alone is our Redeemer and Saviour" (Conc. Trid., Sess. 25). In the catechism of the Council of Trent, the infinite difference between the worship which is due to God, and the honor which, on His account, may be given to the Saints, is so strongly marked and so fully and clearly explained as to obviate all the cavils raised against Catholics on that subject. A Catholic child, acquainted with the first outlines of the Christian doctrine, will commit no mistake on that point; and the most rude peasant in the most remote part of Ireland, is quite aware that it would be idolatry to give to the Saints the honor which he owes to God, from Whom alone he hopes for mercy, while he looks for nothing from the saints but the assistance of their prayers; and hence it is that he always concludes his supplication to the Saints with the words, "through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

Catholics in every age of the Church had a special devotion to the blessed Virgin. They venerated her more than the other Saints, because her sanctity was far superior to theirs. They believed her to be full of grace and blessed among women, and to hold a relation to God, as the Mother of Jesus Christ, to which no other creature could lay claim. They have recourse to her intercession, therefore, with the utmost confidence; knowing that her divine Son was obedient to her here on earth, and that, in His last agony on the cross, He committed the children of His Church to her care in the person of St. John, His beloved disciple.

But, notwithstanding the profound veneration in which Catholics hold the blessed Virgin, and the precedence which they justly give her above all God's creatures, they limit their respect within proper bounds, and stop infinitely short of paying her that honor which is due to God, and which it would be idolatry to give to any other being. To God they offer supreme homage as the great creator and preserver of the universe. They adore, honor and love Him for His own sake, and on account of His own innate perfections. From Him they ask for grace and mercy, and deliverance from spiritual and temporal evils, because He alone is omnipotent—He alone can forgive and relieve them. From the blessed Virgin, however, they expect no more than her intercession, and the homage which they pay her is for the sake of God, is directed through her to God, and ultimately terminates in God.

Whatever, therefore, may be the terms used by Catholic writers, or in Catholic books of devotion, relative to the blessed Virgin, they are all to be understood as limited to the genuine sense of the Catholic doctrine; no language, however strong or metaphorical, must be supposed—for it is not meant—to confer upon her any attribute or privilege which is peculiar to God. If she is invoked to "assist, defend, deliver us," etc., it is always understood by her prayers and intercession; and if she be styled “the hope of sinners, the mediatrix, the refuge of the afflicted, the help of Christians, the merciful, the all-powerful Virgin," all those terms are to be understood in the same limited sense, and to mean no more than that God, in His infinite goodness and mercy, is ever willing to grant her petitions.

The holy fathers and other spiritual writers seem to have exhausted the powers of language in celebrating the virtues of this august Virgin Mother of God; and, full of tender devotion toward her, they have sometimes used expressions so strong and metaphorical that the enemies of Catholicity, either from ignorance of its real principles, or through invidious motives, have imputed doctrines on this subject to Catholics which they abhor and utterly disavow; and as the little book now presented to the public was principally compiled by its venerable author from the writings of the saints and the holy fathers, it has been considered prudent to prefix the foregoing observations, in order that the enemies of the blessed Mother of God may not affect to discover new grounds for calumny and invective.

With regard to the histories or miracles recorded in this or any other book of devotion, it may be useful to remark that no histories or miracles, except those recorded in the Holy Scriptures, are proposed to Catholics as parts of divine revelation or articles of faith. All others rest on their own bare historical authority, and the credit due to their narrators.

In conclusion, it may not be amiss to observe, that the reasonableness of the Catholic doctrine with respect to the invocation of Saints is so obvious and accords so fully with the whole tenor of the Scriptures, and the constant belief of the primitive Church, that very many learned Protestants have acknowledged it. Bishop Montague writes as follows in his Antidote, page 20: "I do not deny but the Saints are mediators, as they are called, of prayer and intercession. They interpose with God by their supplications, and mediate by their prayers." And again, in his Treatise on the Invocation of Saints, page 118, he says: "I see no absurdity in nature, no incongruity unto analogy of faith, no repugnancy at all to sacred Scripture, much less impiety for any man to say, as they of the Roman Church do, 'Holy Mary, pray for me;'" and he adds, "Indeed, I grant Christ is not wronged in His mediation by such invocation of the saints, and this," he continues, "is the common voice with general concurrence, without contradiction, of reverend and learned antiquity, for aught I ever could read or understand, and I see no reason or cause to depart from them, touching intercession in this kind" (Invocation of Saints, page 103).

TAKEN FROM THE GLORIES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (VOL. 3).

A Curious Lesson in Pastoral Theology - A Funeral Sermon

A CURIOUS LESSON IN PASTORAL THEOLOGY



Just as the year 1906 was about to give its parting salutations, it was my good fortune to get a practical lesson in pastoral theology, the memory of which I shall cherish while I live. Mistake me not, however. I do not mean that the incident I am about to relate is without parallel, or that the like happens only in the lives of exemplary priests.

What I would say is that the experience was new to me; it came so suddenly and unexpectedly that for the moment I lost my mental moorings and looked for a tragedy where there was nothing but charity. I was reminded, not of the prudence urged by able theologians, nor of the suggestions and advice of seminary professors, but of what I had read in the lives of the saints, and particularly of the conduct of St. Ambrose with the Emperor Theodosius when the latter was publicly reproached for his misdeeds.

The occasion was a funeral service. Nothing out of the ordinary occurred until the final absolution had been given. I was preparing to leave when a member of the choir whispered: “Wait. He is going to preach.” “By no means,” I answered positively. The statutes of the diocese forbid sermons at the obsequies of the laity; and, what convinced me the more, this particular pastor is a strict observer of episcopal regulations. My arguments were to the wind, as I heard him request the people to be seated. Perhaps this is an exceptional case, I thought, and he has secured permission to speak. The beginning was in no way different from the ordinary funeral sermon; but when the conclusion was reached, I found it so unique that I regretted not having paid closer attention to it all.



*******

In substance he spoke as follows:

Dear Brethren—Death is a subject that generally appears in the abstract to us. It usually visits our neighbors. Sometimes, indeed, it comes to our own houses and snatches away a brother or a sister, a father or a mother, a husband or a wife, a son or a daughter. Then the thought is brought home to us that our time must come; that the hour and the day are uncertain; that a strict account is to be rendered sooner or later to an omniscient God.

The imperative summons for the woman whose remains are in this coffin came last Saturday. Her accounting is over now. By this time she has seen what is recorded of her in the book of life; the good as well as the evil works her hands had done from the dawn of reason until her last breath were brought vividly before her, and the irrevocable sentence has already been passed. It is not for me to judge her. What transpired between her soul and God before she lost consciousness is unknown to any mortal.

Perhaps the good Lord dealt kindly with her, seeing, as He does, what is hid from men. It may be that what seems contrary to Christian principles in her was rather the effect of ignorance and human frailty than of downright malice. To all outward appearance her life was far from being a source of edification; but the priest was with her before she died; and, for all I know, God may have pardoned all and admitted her to Paradise. On the other hand, her neglect of religious duties may have proceeded from a bad will. Perhaps resistance to grace was so manifestly voluntary in her as to be inexcusable on every count. Should this be the case, she is surely in hell now. For my part I know absolutely nothing of her present condition of soul; nor do you, my friends.

You can not imagine how glad I am to have this opportunity of speaking to you—I mean the relatives of the deceased. Death will some day come to you. I need not tell you this. From the youngest person here present, to him that is tottering in feeble old age, there is not one that denies the existence of this dreaded, mysterious visitor. But you do not think seriously enough of it. Otherwise you would serve God better; you would take pity on your souls; you would not live—as I must confess you are now living—in vain.

Hence I am glad to have this chance of speaking plainly to you, in order to save you from eternal damnation. My words of admonition do not reach you on Sundays, for I never see you here. Last night the devotion of the Forty Hours was brought to a close in a manner that did honor to the parish at large. I doubt much if any of you put in an appearance to grace the ceremony. During all the time the Blessed Sacrament was exposed in this church, I have not seen one of you enter to do homage to your Redeemer.

What is worse still, should I ask you if you were at Mass last Sunday, none of you could in conscience answer yes. At least you did not attend your parish church. Were I to ask you if you assisted at divine service within the past month, or within the year that is nearing its close, or within the last two years, which of you could in justice say yes? Yet you know that it is a mortal sin to act thus. You keep on heaping guilt upon guilt, as if there were no eternity, no hell, no God.



You are aware that to neglect one's Easter duty is deemed a grave offense in the Catholic Church. The penalty in such a case is to be deprived of Christian burial. And you are guilty of this outrage. Can any of you stand up and say truthfully, "I have made my Easter duty this year?" This is not by any means a private matter. Every parishioner has knowledge of it. Of course you have some reason to give for your misconduct. But do you think your excuses will stand before God? I fear not. Then what will become of you? To my knowledge you have been idling on street corners, aye, spending your precious time in saloons, while you should have been here in church assisting at the holy Mass. I could reproach you with more shameful deeds, but I forbear for the sake of your ancestors.

Now I have touched on a bright spot in the history of your family. Tradition has it that forty or fifty years ago nobody gave greater edification, nobody was more exact in what concerns the service of God, at least in this part of the country, than those who bore your name. Since you are their descendants, why do you not imitate them? Where is your self-respect? Where is your family pride? Surely you do not wish to bring disgrace upon the fair reputation of your ancestors. Not long ago a Canadian priest visited me. Among other things he asked, "Are there any Y's in this city?" "Why, yes," I answered, "a goodly number of them." "The Y's form the backbone of my parish," he continued. "You could not find better Catholics in a day's journey. Years ago, I am told, some of them emigrated to places hereabouts. They must be fine people. Pray, tell me of them. Are they models in this vicinity as they are in Canada?" I could not answer affirmatively, and so I tried to evade the question. But he insisted so pointedly that I was at length obliged to confess, "Truly they are not as pious as they might be; but I cherish the hope that they will square their actions with the law of God before they die."

Really that was the best report I could give of you. Now, in order that my hope be realized, an important step is to be taken before you leave this church. Death is so uncertain that you cannot promise yourselves another day. Time may not be given you to send for a priest. Besides, death-bed repentances are unsafe assurances to depend upon. Suppose the priest arrives in time, does it stand to reason that after outraging the mercies of Heaven all your life, you can in a moment, by his assistance, jump, as it were, into eternal delight, which is the reward of the just, and not of the wicked?

The woman who lies dead before you rented a pew some weeks ago, when it became manifest that her illness was fatal; and at her request a priest was called to administer the last sacraments. In this she acted wisely. Now I want you to follow her example and that of your pious forefathers before it is too late. Let us begin at once. I request you to advance, place your hand on the coffin and promise to start anew to serve God by attending Mass next Sunday.

For the sake of good example, the husband of the deceased ought to come first.

*******



He came, carried out the instructions to the letter, and shook hands with the pastor. The latter dismissed him with "May God bless you!" spoken so loud and with such feeling that there was many a tearful eye in church. One after another came forward, timidly, meekly, some with moist eyes, and all evidently not without a struggle.

At the end five Our Fathers were said, but I was so full of emotion that I could not speak. As the silent cortege passed from the church, I went to the sacristy and thanked that courageous priest for the lesson he had unconsciously given me. He was surprised when I asked the privilege of shaking his hand. "Do you too wish to mend your ways?" he remarked pleasantly.

TAKEN FROM THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW (Volume 36; 1907).

Prayer for all Things Necessary to Salvation

Prayer for all things necessary to Salvation

BY POPE CLEMENT XI

 

O my God, I believe in Thee; do Thou strengthen my faith.  All my hopes are in Thee; do Thou secure them.  I love Thee with my whole heart; teach me to love Thee daily more and more.  I am sorry that I have offended Thee; do Thou increase my sorrow.

I adore Thee as my first beginning; I aspire after Thee as my last end.  I give Thee thanks as my constant benefactor; I call upon Thee as my sovereign protector.

Vouchsafe, O my God, to conduct me by Thy Wisdom, to restrain me by Thy Justice, to comfort me by Thy Mercy, to defend me by Thy Power.

To Thee I desire to consecrate all my thoughts, all my words, all my actions, and all my sufferings; that henceforward I may think only of Thee, speak only of Thee, refer all my actions to Thy greater glory, and suffer willingly whatever Thou shalt appoint.

Lord, I desire that in all things Thy Will may be done, because it is Thy Will, and in the manner that Thou willest.

I beg of Thee to enlighten my understanding, to inflame my heart, to purify my body, and to sanctify my soul.

Give me strength, O my God, to expiate my offenses, to overcome my temptations, to subdue my passions, and to acquire the virtues proper to my state.

Fill my heart with tender affection for Thy Goodness, hatred of my faults, love of my neighbor, and contempt of the world.

Let me always remember to be submissive to my superiors, condescending to my inferiors, faithful to my friends, and charitable to my enemies.

Assist me to overcome sensuality by mortification, avarice by alms-deeds, anger by meekness, and tepidity by devotion.

O my God, make me prudent in my undertakings, courageous in dangers, patient in affliction, and humble in prosperity.

Grant that I may be ever attentive at my prayers, temperate at my meals, diligent at my employments, and constant in my resolutions.

Let my conscience be ever upright and pure, my exterior modest, my conversation edifying, and my comportment regular.

Assist me that I may continually labor to overcome nature, to correspond with Thy Grace, to keep Thy commandments, and to work out my Salvation.

Discover to me, O my God, the nothingness of this world, the greatness of Heaven, the shortness of time, and the length of eternity.

Grant, O Lord,  that I may prepare for death, that I may fear Thy Judgments, that I may escape Hell, and in the end obtain Heaven; through Jesus Christ, my Lord.  Amen.

 

 

*

 *

 *

 *

 *

Feast of St. Anne

Spanish Cardinal - Pedro Crisólogo Segura y Sáenz

Below are pictures and some information about the great Spanish Cardinal: His Most Rev. Eminence Pedro Crisólogo Segura y Sáenz. Born on 4 December 1880; he died on 8 April 1957. He served as Archbishop of Toledo from 1927 to 1931, and Archbishop of Seville from 1937 until his death.

 

“A man of integral character, of a traditionalist (ultraconservative) position, and of a medieval intolerance.”
 

(He thought that Franco's government was too soft on non-Catholic sects and criticized the government for trying to declare all religions as equal).

*

“A man of great rectitude, strong character, an intransigent Catholic, opposed to fascism and without diplomatic tact, it is said that ‘he only bowed down before the Pope.’”
 

“Hombre de gran rectitud, fuerte carácter, católico intransigente, opuesto al fascismo y sin tacto diplomático, se ha dicho de él que ‘solo inclinó su frente ante el Papa.’"

*

 *

*

He embarrassed Franco a couple of times. On one occasion, at a special dinner at which Franco, his wife, and Cardinal Segura were invited, Franco, as the head of State, occupied the first place. The second place, however, was given to Franco's wife, and not to Cardinal Segura. The Cardinal demanded that the second place be given to him, as is proper, because he is a Cardinal of the Roman Church, and he would only give up that second place to Franco's wife if she were a queen or the heir to the throne, which she was not. 

*

*

“Undoubtedly, he was a man of virtue, very pious –organizer of missions—but very fanatic, hard-headed, and with positions that gave the Republic—and Rome—headaches.”
 

He gave Franco headaches by maintaining the rigid (iron-like) intolerance of a medieval Bishop in the ruling of his diocese (he did not allow Franco to enter churches --or go in procession-- under a canopy because he was not the king) by proscribing unnecessary pass-times, forbidding services in towns where inappropriate dances (too close to each other) were permitted, and by demanding a strict asceticism.

*

 *

 *

 *

 *

 *

*

Because Cardinal Segura wanted and believed in a theocracy (the Catholic Faith being the one the State accepts and confesses), he was usually referred to as “un Bonifacio VIII a la Española” (the Spanish Boniface VIII).  

*

 *
(Above and below) Procession of the Most Blessed Sacrament.
*

*

*

Picture of Cardinal Segura being expelled from Spain by the government for his public and very outspoken criticisms of Franco's regime.

*

*

Chicago Tribue reported on May 8, 1931 – “The Spanish republic tonight asked for the scalp of the primate of Spain, Pedro Cardinal Segura, archbishop of Toledo.” “… and he must be recalled ‘urgently,’ the minister of justice said.” All that simply because Cardinal Segura called for the election of deputies who will “defend and guarantee the rights of the Church.”

*

Cardinal Segura in 1954.

*

He was exiled a couple of times; He did not see eye to eye with the Republican government since he wanted a theocracy; he did not see eye to eye with Franco and his dictatorship - he opposed the privilege of the Canopy for Franco; he did not see eye to eye with all the Bishops/Cardinals in Spain because they did not always actively opposed errors and injustices; he did not see eye to eye with everyone in the Roman Curia. He did not like Protestantism either, and he was friends with Alfonso XIII.

*

*

Notice the WHITE Vestments (even though black is the color for Requiem Masses and services) used for the funeral! It is (or was) an ancient custom to use white vestments for the funeral offices for the Archbishops of Sevilla. (One cannot argue with tradition!).

*

 *
Funeral procession

*

He was very devoted to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.    

*
*

What a Prelate!