Our Mother The Church
By Dominic Caggeso
Gratia non tollit naturam, sed perficit (Summa Theologiae, Part 1, Question 1, Article 8, Response 2). “Grace does not destroy nature, but perfects it.” Another way to interpret this quote from St. Thomas Aquinas is with the phrase, “Grace builds upon nature.” Essentially, God’s grace perfects our natural temperaments and dispositions in our pursuit of holiness. Throughout Catholic history, saints have pursued holiness and perfection, each manifesting these virtues uniquely due to their individual characteristics and the diverse natural environments in which they lived. The natural world served as their starting point, but God’s grace elevated their natural traits towards heavenly goals and aspirations.
In a broader sense, the natural world provides a foundation for understanding the supernatural world. By using comparison and metaphor, we can build upon our understanding of the natural world to grasp supernatural realities. In this way, the expression “grace builds upon nature” applies not only to individuals but also to various aspects of the wider world.
In the Gospels, Our Lord often uses natural realities to illustrate supernatural truths. For example, the parables of the mustard seed, the sower, and the pearl of great price are metaphors from the natural world that help us understand the Kingdom of Heaven.
By employing this method of analogy, frequently used to deepen our understanding of Faith, we can draw some striking comparisons to the natural realities of family and childbirth. These comparisons offer a way to view Our Heavenly Father, Our Mother the Church, and our birth into Eternal Life.
The New Adam and New Eve
Our Lord is known as the “New Adam.” While the old Adam disobeyed God by eating from the tree, the New Adam gave His life in submission and obedience to God by being hung on a tree. The old Adam brought sin and death into the world, whereas the New Adam brought forgiveness of sin and eternal life.
Similarly, Our Lady is known as the “New Eve.” Just as Eve, through her disobedience, brought about the fall from grace, Our Lady, through her obedience, brought about our redemption. By saying “yes” to God’s plan at the Annunciation, She became the Mother of God.
Moreover, Our Lady is also considered a type of the Church, as she exemplifies the Church’s mission and identity. As Our Lady nurtured and brought forth Christ, the Church nurtures and brings forth “other Christs”. To illustrate this, let me quote St. Augustine:
“Come on now, friends, think of how the Church, which is plain enough, is the bride of Christ; what’s more difficult to understand, but is true all the same, is that she is the mother of Christ. The Virgin Mary came first as a representative figure of the Church. How, I ask you, can Mary be the mother of Christ except by giving birth to the limbs and organs of Christ? You people, to whom I’m speaking, you are the limbs and organs, the members, of Christ. Who gave you birth? I hear you answering to yourselves, “Mother Church.” This holy and honorable mother is like Mary in that she both gives birth and is a virgin. That she gives birth I can prove by pointing to you; you were born of her; she gives birth to Christ, because you are the members of Christ.” (Sermons of St. Augustine 72a para. 8)
Thus, if Our Lady is a model for the Church, can we also say that the Church is a New Eve? Allow me to draw some analogies with the old Adam and Eve.
The first Adam was created by God before Eve was created. Adam was put into a deep sleep, and God opened his side to remove a rib, which He made into Eve. Eve was bone of Adam’s bone and flesh of his flesh. Similarly, Our Lord preexisted the Church, His Bride. When Our Lord died on the Cross, His side was opened, and from it flowed blood and water, which is what the Church was formed from. St. Bonaventure illustrates this by saying:
“It was a divine decree that permitted one of the soldiers to open his sacred side with a lance. This was done so that the Church might be formed from the side of Christ as he slept the sleep of death on the cross”
Thus, Adam was put in a deep sleep during which his side was opened. God formed Eve from his rib. Likewise, during the sleep of death, Our Lord’s side was opened from which was formed the Church. Both Adam and Our Lord went on to “wake up” to meet their brides.
With the establishment of the Church as Our Mother, we can now draw comparisons between natural motherhood and the supernatural motherhood of the Church.
In the Womb of Our Mother
A natural mother carries her child in her womb, nourishing the baby through the umbilical cord. This nourishment, provided by the mother, fundamentally comes from her husband, the father of the child. The husband sustains the mother, who in turn, through her body, nourishes the child in utero.
Similarly, Catholics are carried in the bosom of our mother, the Church. We are nourished through the Sacraments, which sustain us spiritually and help us grow in grace and virtue. These Sacraments, provided by the Church, are fundamentally given by God. The graces from God come through the Sacraments, just as a baby’s nourishment comes from the father through the intermediary of the mother’s body.
A natural child in the womb intimately knows its mother. The child hears her voice directly, feels her touch, and is comforted by her heartbeat, which forms the background of life in utero. In contrast, the father’s voice is muffled and obscure. The child is familiar with the loving father’s voice but not as intimately as the mother’s. The child hears the mother’s interactions with the father’s voice, understanding their love, but it is the mother whom the child knows through firsthand experience.
Likewise, Catholics intimately know our mother, the Church. We hear sermons, smell incense, and ponder the heavenly wisdom spoken through the Church’s words and writings. We can touch the Church and, in a manner of speaking, know its heartbeat. However, the voice of our Heavenly Father is more challenging to discern directly. We know the Church and Our Lord love each other, and we witness the Church’s response to our Heavenly Father.
Born into a New World
In the womb, a child is content with its familiar environment, seeing no reason to leave the only life it has ever known. If one could communicate with a child in the womb, it would be impossible to describe the outside world. One might tell the child about the wonders and experiences awaiting outside the womb—walking, tasting food, breathing, speaking, meeting people, and smelling flowers. However, the child would have no way to understand or conceptualize any of this.
Similarly, Catholics are content in the womb of our mother, the Church. The thought of leaving this world can be frightening, as it is all we have ever known. If someone from Heaven tried to communicate the joys of Heaven to us, we would not be able to comprehend them. This is most eloquently expressed in 1 Corinthians 1:9
“Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him.”
As the mother begins the process of giving birth, the child’s life in the womb changes dramatically. The womb contracts, causing distress for the child. The only home it has ever known starts to shrink around it. Signs of trauma are evident as the child’s heartbeat increases and its body is flushed with adrenaline. Pushed by the contractions, fearful and crying, the child is born into the world.
Similarly, on our deathbed, we may fear the unknown. Our bodies begin to shut down, pushing us toward death, much like contractions. We are forcibly removed from our life on earth, the only life we have ever known. Finally, we die and are born into the new world of eternal life.
Just after birth, the father is traditionally invited to cut the umbilical cord, as the baby no longer needs nourishment from it, having entered the world.
Similarly, the Sacraments of the Church are available to us only on Earth, while we are in the womb of Holy Mother Church. Once we are born into Eternal Life, we will no longer need the Sacraments.
Meeting Our Father Face to Face
The voice of the father, often heard obscurely while in the womb, will now be heard clearly and distinctly by the child. The child will finally see his father’s face, be held by him, and live in his house.
Likewise, once we are born into the eternal life of Heaven, we will see Our Heavenly Father’s face for the first time. We will live in the house He has prepared for us and experience the bliss of His loving care for all eternity. St. Paul indicated this in 1 Corinthians 13:12:
“We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known.”
Conclusion
God has blessed me with a wife and children. Though it has been a long time, I still remember the exhilaration and anticipation of my wife’s first pregnancy. As young parents, we followed the stages of our child’s development in utero, speaking and singing to him, and preparing our home for his arrival. The experience of childbirth is unforgettable—witnessing the actual birth and holding the child for the first time. What a grace God bestows on us to participate in the creation of a new soul that will exist for all eternity.
As great as this experience is, it is but a shadow of our supernatural end in Heaven. A nine-month pregnancy might seem long, especially for the mother, but it is just a brief moment in the child’s entire natural life on earth. Likewise, our time in this world might seem long, but compared to an eternity in Heaven, it is absolutely short. Therefore, let us focus on Eternal Life and not on this world.
What a beautiful reflection on our Mother, the Church ! When I was in the Novus Ordo, I thought I was in the one true Church founded by Christ, but I've come to realize that it's a grotesque imitation of the one true Church. The true Church nourishes its children with true doctrine and rites that incite piety and lift the spirit towards Heaven, but the counterfeit Church gives poisoned food to its members, has evil worship and rites and keeps their minds focused on this world that will one day end.
ReplyDeleteThe month of the Rosary begins tomorrow. In these times of apostasy, it's one of the only ways to keep the faith, along with the Mass and the sacraments (for those who have access to them). May Our Lady of the Rosary intercede for us !
God bless you Introïbo !
Its interesting that the grave sin of abortion was legalized in the aftermath of Vatican II. If Vatican II and the Novus Ordo sect is the "Great Harlot" then the timing of the legalization of abortion is striking. A true mother loves her child but a harlot does not always love the child, and if she does, it is perverted. Harlots are more prone to abortions so they can continue their harlotry. Thus, the "spiritual abortion" of so many Catholics was brought about by the Novus Ordo sect
DeleteLove it Dominic! What parallels can be drawn for those of us who have never been nourished by true sacraments since the 1960s? I may have valid baptism since 1968 but all the rest not. Miracle I escaped the NO! Blessings to all!
ReplyDeleteHello Anonymous :) I just responded back to Simon in the comment above and I inadvertently gave him my thoughts that are my attempt to answer your question. Like you, I also came out of the NO. Thanks be to God we made it!
DeleteHello Dominic, this is unrelated to this post by I wanted to talk about your works on the book of Daniel and the apocalypse
ReplyDeleteit seems that it is enumerating the holy Popes Pius XI and XII among the seven headed beast which will wage war against the saints and is given authority by the dragon (Satan), these were true vicars of Christ who had the authority of Christ not of Satan , it would seem more sensical if the first head was roncali, Bergoglio is the sixth head and the seventh is his successor, this would make sense as they are false popes, leaders of the novus ordo false religion and of the ape of the church. It would also keep the thesis of Cassiciacum (though I know you are not very fond of it) compatible with St Francis of Assisi’s prophecy that there will be an invalidly elected man who would ascend to the pontificate since the successor of Bergoglio may very well be not even be considered materially pope by the privationists. Furthermore how can the supposed two witnesses be the first two heads of the beast which wages war against the saints and receives its authority from Satan? It would make far more sense if the witnesses are literally Enoch and Elijah since they are the only ones who haven’t died. And at least from current events Bergoglio has not 1. Demanded worship 2. Claimed to be the messiah 3. Been universally accepted by all other than the true Catholic Church (rather he is hated by many, I mean look at the Protestants who won’t shut up about his whatever rubbish he does) this whole thing was formulated when ratzinger was still the sitting false-pope but even then it still falls into the errors just given.
Again I just don’t see how these two holy pontiffs can be the first two heads of the beast which persecutes the saints, and didn’t you call them the two witnesses? Also it seems that you are saying the antichrist has ALREADY passed and we are living after the time of the antichrist, but is that not the consumation of the world? And will our Lord or st Michael not kill the antichrist?
Also on another note here is another catholic history parallel i found
The Holy Roman Empire was founded by blessed Charlemagne (Charles)
The Austrian empire (its successor) ended with a karl (Charles), who was unfortunately beatified by a false pope
God willing one day a true pope will beatify him then the parallel will truly be shown
God bless
Hello Anonymous! Thank you for such a detailed and involved question. I recognize these topics are very complex and somewhat speculative, so there is a lot of opportunity for miscommunication of ideas. Before I respond in detail, I want to fist ask if you have read my books "Divine Poetry" and "Vatican II & Antichrist". The main reason for writing them was to have space to lay out the logic behind my analysis and also to secure my interpretation of the Book of Daniel and the Book of the Apocalypse (parts of them at least) on the foundation of the chronological parallels between Church history and the Old Testament.
DeleteThat being said, let me now directly address your questions/comments.
Let me say right from the start that I was always confounded to include Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII in the "7 headed beast" as you rightly point out. However, this was not a arbitrary decision, but one that was dictated by the correspondence between the "Final Week" from Daniel 9 and the period of the Seven Headed Beast in the Apocalypse. It is a very long analysis to include in a comment, so I would have to refer you back to my article about Daniel 9 on this blog (Introibo) or any number of videos I made on this subject that can be found on CFP (Divine Poetry series) or on my YouTube channel, Maccabean Uprising. Also, I would be happy to point you to specific links to these videos and articles, but I don't know how to do so in the this comment format. If you email me personally, I can respond back with the links. My email is maccabeanuprising@gmail.com.
Anyway, the Final Week in Daniel 9 seems to start on Feb. 11th 1929 with the signing of the Lateran Treaty and ends with the resignation of antipope B16 on Feb. 11th, 2013. In the middle of this "week" the Novus Ordo rite (the abomination of desolation) was mandated by P6 in 1971, fulfilling the prophecy in Daniel that the abomination will appear in the mid point of the Final Week, because 1971 in both 42 years from the signing of the Lateran Treaty and the resignation of B16.
As for the 7 Headed Beast, that same structure is laid out in that passage in the Book of the Apocalypse because the Beast persecutes God's people at the mid point of that period as well, as is evidenced by the times mentioned in the text, namely 1,260 days, 42 months and a time, times & half time. (again, this is way to much detail to explain in this comment section).
Thus, it is the signing of that Lateran Treaty which starts the period in question. And indeed, despite Pope Pius XI being a true and valid pope, whom I don't question or try to de-legitimize, it is nonetheless true that the Lateran Treaty contained the stipulation that all Italian bishops must swear an allegiance to the Freemasonic king of Italy before taking up their episcopal sees. Also, the Holy See agreed to stay out of international politics as another stipulation of the Lateran Treaty. Thus it is not the pontificates of Pope Pius XI or Pope Pius XII (their writings, their actions, etc) that seems to include them among these 7 heads, but instead, it is their designation as kings of Vatican City (under the terms outlines in the Lateran Treaty).
As for the Two Witnesses, I did not say that Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII were the Two Witnesses, but I think I know why you say that I did. I designed my "Book of the Apocalypse" brochure poorly, because under their pictures as two of the seven kings, the words "Two Witnesses" are included. This was not meant to refer to them, but instead, it was meant to refer to the time (from 1929 to 1971) in which the Two Witnesses were prophecying.
I think this comment is long enough...lol. I probably only made my ideas more confusing....haha. But email me if you want, and I'll try to explain further and provide some pertinent links.
Ave Maria!
- Dominic
Thank you for the reply Dominic, this was helpful but i still wonder, would you say the antichrist has not already come but has already ruled? Also what do you think of the parallel I pointed out? No I have not read your books unfortunately but I hopefully will in the future.
DeleteGod bless
I think the parallel you pointed out is very poetic! It reminds me also of a similar parallel for Constantinople. The first emperor and founder of the city was Constantine, and the last emperor of the Byzantine Empire and particularly the last ruler of Constantinople was Constantine XI who died fighting for the city during the Turkish siege and sacking of the city in 1453.
DeleteAlso, it reminds me of the start and the end of the Holy Roman Empire. Charlemagne was called to Rome in 800 by the pope and crowned by surprise, starting the HRE. It was Napoleon who ended the HRE in 1806. In 1804, the Napoleon called the pope to France for his coronation as a new secular emperor, but this time, he surprised the pope by taking the crown out of the papal hands and crowning himself as emperor. It was a tragic yet poetic ending of the HRE and the start of a new secular and un-holy Empire.
As for your question about the Antichrist, I lay it all out in my book. But, in essence, I like to make this broad argument: The Antichrist will impersonate Christ all the while taking the place of Christ and also be against Christ. The question for Catholics is; "Where and what is Christ in Truth in the world?" The answer is that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. The Holy Mass is literally Christ present on our altars. A priest is another Christ. A true pope is a Vicar of Christ. In short, the Church really and truly manifests Christ. Thus, the truest and most complete way for Antichrist to manifest would be an Anti-Church, Anti-Mass, Anti-priests and an Anti-pope(s). Even if a secular or Muslim leader arose and united the nations of the world against the Church, forced everyone to bow to him image (and all the other thing he is expected to do), he still would not be impersonating Christ, taking the place of Christ and opposing Christ more than the NO system.
That is a broad argument. I use other approaches in my book, most prominently the parallels b/w Church history and the Old Testament, intertwined with Old Testament prophecy, to make my case.
Thank you Dominic,
DeleteI’m still wondering - will we see a 3.5 year great tribulation where one of the false popes or one of their Jewish allies pretends to be God and demands that everyone give him divine adoration, or is the end of the world the next big event? Wouldn’t it make more sense if a false pope would be the false prophet not the literal antichrist, this would also make sense considering that the Jewish nation are still expecting a “messiah” and have warred against the church since day one that a Jewish man would be the actual antichrist. If somebody pretended to not only be the vicar of Christ but THE CHRIST then it would seem that they are the antichrist and that their false pope is the vicar of the antichrist/false prophet. Do you think there would be a true pope in hiding in this case?
God bless
Yes, the 3 and 1/2 "times" (which is usually understood to be 3 and 1/2 years) is the length of time that Antichrist will persecute God's people. This time period is most prominently found in certain prophecies from the Book of Daniel, most notably from the prophecy in Daniel 9, the Seventy "Weeks" prophecy. But, this same time period is referenced in the Apocalypse when the Beast has power over God's people for "a time, times and a half time" (or in other words, 3 and 1/2 times). To understand this time period in context, one would have to read and understand that prophecy of Daniel 9 because it gives more details, specifically the placement of the "abomination of desolation" in the holy place in the mid-point of the final week of the Seventy Weeks prophecy. There is an old article I wrote on this blog, Introibo, about this prophecy and it lays out the time periods and where it very much seems to me to be fulfilled in the events related to the Lateran Treaty and the implementation of the Novus Ordo rite of P6. I think I referenced above the period of the "seven kings" and in my book, I point out that this same period of the "seven kings" is the same exact period as the "final week" in Daniel 9. Then I go on to show that the Novus Ordo rite (the modern day "abomination of desolation" was mandated by P6 in 1971, which is the midpoint of the period of the "seven kings" and thus constitutes the 3 and 1/2 times referenced in both Daniel and the Apocalypse, and therefore is the same period of time in which Antichrist has power over God's people. We have already experienced this as Catholics, because the Novus Ordo rite took away the True Sacrifice of the Mass from countless millions of Catholics, thus giving the Novus Ordo "Beast" power over God's people (Catholics specifically). Remember that the Antichrist is prophesied to take away the Holy Mass, which is exactly what we say from 1969 to 1971 (and following). The Mass had to be restored, incrementally, in the years following. By the way, P6 and JP II both are said to have Jewish ancestry... so there is your answer for the Antichrist being Jewish.
DeleteI do not think there is a true pope in hiding. I think it is possible that before the end of the world, the papacy might be restored, but I strongly think this will happen only for a small period of time before Our Lord returns, and will only happen after the Lateran Treaty is repealed and the Novus Ordo hierarchy in Rome will somehow be disbanded or at least Vatican City will be disbanded. This COULD give the green light to Sedes to unite (since the existence of the Novus Ordo Vatican is one of the things that divides Sedes ... think of the CassiciacumThesis).
There is so so much to unpack. If you want to know more about my ideas, I would strongly advise that you read my book. I would be more than happy to send you a free copy,... just email me your address.
So we just happened to miss the antichrist who has already come and yet he hasn’t been killed by our lord through st Michael and it’s been some 50 years and the consumation still hasnt happened yet and the Jews haven’t converted yet. Won’t the antichrist come AFTER the great apostasy not during it.
DeleteI wouldn't say we missed him. I would say that fervent Catholics responded by keeping the Catholic Faith. Has there been a worse persecution of Catholics in all of history besides Vatican II? Could there be a worse one? If Antichrist does not preside over the worst persecution of the Faith, then he is not living up to his reputation :) And as St. Paul says, all "Israel" will be saved, even though they are blinded for a time. We talk of the Novus Ordo being blind (or perhaps those in the Indult or R&R). As it says in the Book of the Apocalypse "Come out of her My people, lest you share in her plagues", which is God speaking to His people who are, for some reason, in the Great Harlot (the Novus Ordo system). Even though they are in the Novus Ordo, they are still His people, and He will call them out, for St. Paul says "All Israel will be saved".
DeleteBy the way, I am not saying all those in the Novus Ordo will come out, only those that are still God's people, ie... Israel.
Thank you Dominic! That is definitely not an answer I expected! Interesting. Especially since V2 aborted the priesthood and the Faith and all else. It is all profound and beyond disturbing. The legalization of abortion in Russia was closer to 1917. Even though abortion beyond evil I think something more nefarious is intermingling with all. Scary. The medical lies are on par with NO. Germ/virus THEORY which has been front and center forbever...is a lie. A theory is not a fact, it is unproven.There are no germs that invade us. We don't catch anything from one another. It was proven before the Spanish flu, which was also a lie! Most died due to a vaxx! Yes, praise and glory to Our Great God for releasing us from the NO prison! God bless all!
ReplyDeleteInteresting, what would you say causes illness, do you think there is some truth in humorism?
DeleteDo you think it is sinful to listen to the magic flute by Mozart?
ReplyDeleteGod bless
Hello Anonymous :) I don't know if it is or not. My first inclination would be to say that it isn't, but I don't know much about this piece of music by Mozart. What about it suggests to you that it might be sinful?
DeleteIt is thoroughly Masonic and is a Masonic story Mozart was himself a mason
DeleteGod bless
Yes, I did read that Mozart was a freemason. However, this was in a time when freemasonry was in its nascent stages, and as far as I know, it was not yet condemned by the Church. I believe that even in its early stages, freemasonry was an enemy to the Church, being that it was born out of the "Age of Enlightenment" and French Revolution and infected the upper class of society. Personally knowing that the "Magic Flute" is expressly about freemasonry, I would avoid it (and I will avoid it from now on). I would imagine that it would be a venial sin if one were aware that the "Magic Flute" extols freemasonry through music. That being said, most all operas have grave immorality incorporated into the story.
DeleteIn a somewhat related topic, I personally will not listen to Tchaikovsky, especially the Nutcracker. He was a homosexual, and it seems to me that the effeminate was incorporated into much of his music . This is very subjective on my part, but I do understand your point that even certain pieces of Classical music can negatively affect us and/or be displeasing to God.
Do you think swan lake would be ok to listen to? Also are we definitely sure that Tchaikovsky was a homosexual?
DeleteAlso did you know Vivaldi was a catholic priest! But after a year he stopped saying mass because of physical problems.
God bless
It is not certain that Tchaikovsky was homosexual, but it is a general consensus of biographers/scholars. It is a private judgement on my part, and I don't consider it a sin for anyone to listen to him, even if he is suspected of practicing sodomy. My wife and I have only boys (no girls) so I am included to protect their masculinity from what I perceive to be effeminate influences. One of the influences that I think I have overlooked in my early days of parenting was Classical music. I was looking at the obvious influences, but the way in which instrumental music affects emotions is much harder to define. Again, its just my private judgement... I could be totally wrong.
DeleteAs for Vivaldi, I do know he was a priest. It doesn't leave the best impression on me that he is often depicted without his clerical garments. However, I do love some of his music, particularly "La Folia".
Dominic, thank you for this truly beautiful post. I think it’s one of your best to date.
DeleteAs for Mozart, as you pointed out, in the 18th century, Freemasonry was in its early stages and bears no true resemblance to today’s corrupt and evil organization. Mozart was a devout Catholic. His Requiem and Masses are absolutely sublime and I encourage you to introduce these pieces to your children.
As for the Magic Flute, in my opinion, there is nothing that contaminates the faith or offers subliminal messaging. It’s an opera of the 1700s in a style popular in Vienna at the time, spoken and sung.
Again, in my opinion, we can go too far in reading modern day evils into works of prior centuries. I agree with all of Introibo’s posts on the topic of occult entertainment, but I do not include the works of Amadeus Mozart in that category.
Introibo, on this feast of St. Therese of Lisieux, I want to thank you again for your fine work here in fighting for and helping us understand our precious faith.
Alanna
Alana,
DeleteThank you as always for your thoughtful and kind comments!
God Bless,
---Introibo
I forgot to mention...contraception of the Truth has been the Modus operandi for some time and fits this script. Oh my. These times are beyond scary.
ReplyDeleteWow! Excellent. I am familiar with this term as well, but failed to make the connection. Instead of talking about "the spiritual abortion" of those in the NO, one could say the "spiritual contraception" in which the Faith was never imparted to them in the first place!
DeleteHello, Introibo, I have a question, my confessor has determined I might be melancholic as my main temperament. I have noticed that I have a strong fixation and fascination with the lives of St. Francis of Assisi, St. Therese of the Holy Face and the Child Jesus, and Saint Catherine of Siena. I looked up that apparently St. Francis and St. Catherine were melancholic in their temperament.
ReplyDeleteIs it possible that my fixation and affections for these saints is a result of my temperament? I can also understand my devotion to St. Catherine as I am Third Order Secular of Saint Dominic (novice).
But I thought I’d ask if our temperaments can influence our devotion toward certain saints?
P.S. one of my third order patrons (Saint Aloysius Gonzaga) I just discovered is also melancholic. I discovered it through the writings of a priest named Fr. Conrad Hock.
Jeremy Van Auker (Br. Albert Aloysius, T.O.S.D)
Br. Albert,
DeleteYes, our temperament can definitely lead us to have special patron saints. So, its not unusual for you to have devotion towards those saints. Catholics pick patrons with whom they can identify. Temperament is a big factor. Likewise, occupation can make people devout towards certain saints and the Church has patron saints for occupations, e.g., St. Thomas More as Patron Saint of lawyers.
Glad you're acquainted with theologian Hock!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thank you for the reply, Introibo. Do you by chance know of any good spiritual reading that would be suitable for a melancholic? I have been reading more into the lives of the three saints I am drawn to, e.g. Dialogues of Saint Catherine of Siena is one of them. But I am wondering if there is anything else you’d recommend?
DeleteI ask because as a melancholic I can’t tell you how often I am discouraged and afraid. Largely because of my rough upbringing and having autism which has led me to have a very saddened and discouraged outlook towards a lot of things in life.
Although a lot of that has improved and been overcome since becoming Third Order Secular of Saint Dominic.
Jeremy Van Auker
Br. Albert,
DeleteTwo great books by a spiritual master have always been recommended to melancholics, and I now recommend them to you:
1. "Introduction to the Devout Life"
2. "Finding God's Will for You"
Both by St. Francis De Sales.
Please keep me in your prayers!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Regarding what causes illness...toxemia, toxin overload from air, food, water. Parasites. We often cause our own illness which sends our bodies into detox mode.
ReplyDelete@anon5:08, ok, external toxins, parasites... and terrain theory, no? I believe Dr. Sam Bailey says we can have a reaction from inhaling histamines and whatnot from symptomatic people. Do you think bacteria can cause any illnesses, especially with the more powerful strains created over the decades due to overuse of antibiotics in animals and humans?
DeleteWhat are we to do? It seems the answer is good living, prayer, and fasting. Good living includes eating well (which can be a lengthy topic, but more natural foods help), exercise/being active, getting out in nature, getting some sunlight, etc. God is so generous, our bodies get great benefits from fasting. If our bodies are healthy, then a good immune system tends to follow.
If there is something else to be gained from these theories, please share. Is another point to be wary of unnecessary medical treatments? E.g. unnecessarily treating a minor fever or illness with medications, instead of letting the body go through its natural healing processes?
We live in a world of major information overload. We can't know it all. We have to be careful about how we spend our time and energy. We need to be aware of things, yes, especially the evils, but we also must have hope, and dwell on them any more than necessary. I think Introibo would agree, one could spend a lifetime learning about our Faith and the Church alone!
Thank you for sharing these things.
God Bless,
-S.T.
Dear S.T.
DeleteYes it can be difficult to unlearn all the lies and protocols (like doctor visits to subject oneself to tests). Reading the Poisoned Needle and other topics on this website are helpful.
https://thebigvirushoax.com/the-poisoned-needle
I personally stay away from doctors because they are mostly brainwashed, like Novus Ordo clergy. Eat as clean as possible. If it has a label, it is not real food. I just went on a week water fast. I was not hungry one bit. If you have a fever, your body is repairing something so never suppress it. All medications are poisons, in my opinion. You can never study this topic enough, just like Church history. Happy reading and discovering...
@anon4:46: Thank you for the reply. I agree with you on most things. Nice job on the week-long fast. For some, the medications have a good risk/reward ratio, but of course the goal should be to not be on any of them when reasonably possible.
DeleteI took a look at that website. It appears to cover a good range of topics. From what I have seen, I would recommend the website as well. However, I again caution people to monitor the amount of time and energy they spend on these matters. If the information is new to you, it will seem overwhelming, and you may despair. Approach the topics from a pragmatic point of view. Certainly, it is valuable to know something about these things.
God Bless,
-S.T.
Another great take, Dominic, thank you! I often think of how mixed up the world is regarding the Church – as in, the Church is a no-fun nag to be ignored, telling you what you can and can’t do. A warden stuck in the stone-age. These are the thoughts of a child. With maturity (or perhaps just the Faith), one sees the Church is given by God FOR us, not the other way around, and that the Church is our great guide and manual for taking care of our souls, as well as a mother who wants only the best for us.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless,
-S.T.
Thank you S.T :) I love to think of the Church as Our Mother. It flips the idea of a ruled based religion into that one a love-based religion. This love is exemplified in the patience and care that our bishops take in the care of their flock! It reminds me of a very patient and docile mother :)
DeleteDo you know of any catechisms that teach the thomistic understanding of grace. I have read through all the ones I can find and if they do talk about grace in depth (bishop hay for example) it is always very molinist. It is always teaching that grace is extrinsically efficacious and always uses the ‘free will argument’ to explain away sin and just not even considering physical premotion.
ReplyDeleteThese aren’t short q&a catechisms either. Bishop hay in his catechism devoted long paragraphs to the topic of actual grace. Someone could have at least in at least one catechism out of the 10 or more different ones written the thought of the different schools rather than devoting multiple paragraphs to justifying Molinism. Or even just devoted multiple paragraphs to justifying thomism.
I’m not trying to slander bishop hay at all or calumniate him and if I am I repent but this is an extremely common trend. The ONLY catechism I have found to teach thomistic ideas is the catechism on the summa which cannot be used to teach because it lacks a section on de ecclesia, the precepts of the church, a rule of life etc.
And moving on from catechisms you can’t teach with manuals such as Ludwig Otts fundamentals because it is purely dogmatic and lacks practical catechesis, same with pohle plus the fact that it is in nine volumes. Same for the sacrae theologica summa, plus the fact that most kids or converts would not understand a single thing and it is also multiple volumes.
Maybe would it be good to supplement the Roman catechism with the catechism on the summa
Anyway if you know of any catechisms that are not unequivocally molinist or are not silent on the issue of grace and predestination please let me know
God bless
@anon5:36
DeleteNo, I don't know of any catechisms that teach a strict predestination. It is not necessary in our times, nor has it been decided. Best to stick with the fundamentals we need and are decided upon.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo:
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think that many traditional Catholics admire Mel Gibson?
What do you think of his lifestyle?
@anon10:14
DeleteI met Mr. Gibson at the Ave Maria Chapel at Midnight Mass in 1994. He spoke in private with Fr. DePauw after the Mass. He was filming part of his movie "Braveheart" up in Connecticut and came with his wife and four of his kids. He spoke of making a film about "the Passion of Christ." He successfully released that greatest movie of all time in 2004.
Mr. Gibson has serious character flaws, but has the Faith. I can only hope he gets right again with Christ and His One True Church. He is said to be making a second film on Christ regarding the Resurrection! I hope it is as good as The Passion. He is admired for his ability to make extraordinary movies. Besides The Passion, I highly recommend both Braveheart and Signs.
I pray for him and hope all other Traditionalists will do the same.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo:
ReplyDeleteHow sick do you think a person should be to ask for Extreme Unction?
Do you think that getting Extreme Unction would be good for a head injury, for example like the one suffered by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais of the SSPX?
What about a head injury where the person remains conscious?
Does it put the person in danger of death?
DeleteIt might. A head injury can be serious.
Delete@anon5:24
DeleteAccording to theologian Halligan, "The recipient must be in danger of death from sickness or old age. The danger need not be imminent but it must be at least probable. The prudent estimation of the danger or its gravity will be made principally by the minister (even though he may be objectively wrong), who will anoint conditionally in case of doubt." (See "The Administration of the Sacraments," [1962], pg. 348).
Therefore, do not delay in calling a priest if you have a serious condition. "Sickness" includes injuries. If the priest does not think death is probable, he will anoint conditionally.
As to the unconscious, theologian Kilker teaches, "Similarly, those who are delirious, or unconscious, or in convulsions, or otherwise deprived of their senses may be validly and licitly anointed." (See "Extreme Unction," [1927], pg. 144).
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo —
ReplyDeleteHow could the restoration of true religious orders come about, obviously we need a true pope but would there still be Benedictines and Dominicans and Jesuits and Redemptorists and Franciscans etc. I’m guessing a future pope could just restore them like the jesuits were restored by Pope Pius VII? Would that be correct?
@anon1:16
DeleteYou ask a great question. I agree with you; they could be restored by a true pope.
God Bless,
---Introibo
This is unrelated but I am proposing three different solutions to the crisis of indifferentism
ReplyDelete1. That of the modernists - Roncalli, Montini, successors and all the 19th amd 20th Century hidden modernists:
Ignore the holy office under Pope Clement IX in 1703 which calls-
the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation “ mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means” and that “A missionary should not baptize one who does not believe explicitly in the Lord Jesus Christ”
Rather claiming that infidels, apostates, Protestants (who have no supernatural faith in christ), eastern schismatics (whose denial of the Filioque contorts the doctrine of the trinity in so many ways that it is unrecognisable, as proven by scheeben) and even pagans can be saved without converting due to the mere fact of invincible ignorance despite the fact that without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God.
These people constitute the novus ordo ape-church but had previously infiltrated their ideas into even the lower ranks of Catholic Church before the sedevacante begun and example of this is the “my catholic faith” catechism by bishop morrow. This mindset had even been impressed unfortunately on greats such as spirago, and schouppe however never managed to make its way anywhere near magisterium because of course the church is indefectible (which is the whole reason we are sedevacantists)
2. Feeneyism
This one has been treated so many times and is a very stubborn error. I don’t see how anyone could defend this when given literal codes of canon law, the council of Trent with its infallible catechism, st Thomas st Augustine and st bellarmine teaching It. St Alphonsus calls it de fide. Feeney died in union with the antipopes and the main feeneyite organisation is in the Novus ordo anti religion. This is clearly a false reaction.
3. Faithful Catholicism such as that advocated by father Michael muller and bishop George hay
These regard the holy office under clement XI with respect and submission, so do they hold the teachings of st Thomas and st Alphonsus. And they obey their censures even if unlawful. This is shown by the immediate obedience of father muller when told to stop writing about EENS, even though the paulists were wrongly given the last say in preaching their errors (this happened over 100 years after the holy office under clement XI wrote on the necessity on faith in Christ and the trinity)
Continued
ReplyDeleteThe only objection that may possibly be brought up is that the 3rd Baltimore catechism (the actual original one not the new st Joseph modernist one made under roncalli) seems to teach the first approach.
But it could at most be considered ambiguously worded and nobody should presume to immediately jump to such conclusions about an authorised catholic catechism. The 4th one is even harder to defend but again when it says -
“If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism, and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion, that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church, and being free from mortal sin he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church.”
Instead of decrying it like the feeneyites or becoming modernists we must interpret it as saying “they will be brought to the catholic faith” because you cannot be in a state of grace and be a Protestant because Protestants have NO FAITH. It is impossible as from the age of reason the Protestant ignoramus would be committing superstition and blasphemy by twisting the words of Christ and engaging in false worship. Furthermore God would not give sanctifying grace without faith. Whether or not the person is invincibly ignorant doesn’t matter to their salvation but only to their position in hell since those whom God grants faith too are no longer ignorant. This can be the only way we interpret the passage given by Baltimore catechism 4 unless we want to become feeneyites or indifferentists.
a validly baptised Protestant who has reached the age of reason and is not in mortal sin is a pure hypothetical and is like a square circle - it is not a thing. Because to be in the state of grace you must have faith. And a Protestant who believes any what of the Protestant doctrines calls Christ a liar
@anon2:00
DeleteHere's how it goes my comments in brackets:
“If, then, we found a Protestant who never committed a mortal sin after Baptism [leads an upright life], and who never had the slightest doubt about the truth of his religion[invincible ignorance], that person would be saved; because, being baptized, he is a member of the Church[the character of Baptism makes him a potential member if heresy is removed], and being free from mortal sin [perfect contrition] he is a friend of God and could not in justice be condemned to Hell [because he would die with the Catholic Church AT THE MOMENT OF DEATH ENIGHTENED BY FAITH]. Such a person would attend Mass and receive the Sacraments if he knew the Catholic Church to be the only true Church [because they are good willed]."
Is it worded well? No, but neither is it heretical if understood. It was these kinds of writings, never making the implicit explicit, that led to a false notion of BOD, which Leonard Feeney would rebel against.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Continued fr muller
ReplyDelete32. Have heretics faith in Jesus Christ?
Saint Thomas Aquinas says: "It is absurd for a heretic to say that he believes in Jesus Christ. To believe in a person is to give our full consent to his word and to all he teaches. True Faith, therefore, is absolute belief in Jesus Christ and in all he taught. Hence, he who does not adhere to all that Jesus Christ has prescribed for our salvation, has no more the doctrine of Jesus Christ and of His Church, than the pagans, Jews, and Turks have." "He is," says Jesus Christ, "but a heathen and a publican"; and therefore he will be condemned to hell.
33. Show how Protestants have no absolute faith in Christ.
Jesus Christ says: "Hear the Church." "No," say Luther and all Protestants, "do not hear the Church; protest against her with all your might."
Jesus Christ says: "If anyone will not hear the Church, look upon him as a heathen and a publican." "No," says Protestantism, "if anyone does not hear the Church, look upon him as an apostle, an ambassador of God."
Jesus Christ says: "The gates of hell shall not prevail against My Church." "No," says Protestantism. " 'Tis false, the gates of hell have prevailed against the Church for a thousand years and more."
Jesus Christ has declared Saint Peter and every successor to Saint Peter—the Pope—to be His Vicar on earth. "No," says Protestantism, "the Pope is Anti-Christ."
Jesus Christ says: "My yoke is sweet, and my burden light." (Matt. 11:30.) "No," said Luther and Calvin, "it is impossible to keep the Commandments."
Jesus Christ says: "if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (Matt. 19:17.) "No," said Luther and Calvin, "faith alone, without good works, is sufficient to enter into life everlasting."
Jesus Christ says: "Unless you do penance, you shall all likewise perish." (Luke 3:3.) "No," said Luther and Calvin, "fasting and other works of penance are not necessary in satisfaction for sin."
Jesus Christ says: "This is my body." "No," said Calvin, "this is only the figure of Christ's Body; it will become His Body as soon as you receive It."
Jesus Christ says: "I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery." (Matt. 19:9.) "No," say Luther and all Protestants, to a married man, "you may put away your wife, get a divorce, and marry another."
Jesus Christ says to every man: "Thou shalt not steal." "No," said Luther to secular princes, "I give you the right to appropriate to yourselves the property of the Roman Catholic Church."
34. Do heretics speak in this manner also of the Holy Ghost and the Apostles?
They do. The Holy Ghost says in Holy Scripture: "Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love or hatred." (Eccles. 9:1.) "Who can say: My heart is clean, I am pure from sin?" (Prov. 20:9.) And, "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Philip. 2:12). "No," said Luther and Calvin, "but whosoever believes in Jesus Christ, is in the state of grace."
Saint Paul says: "If I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." (I Cor. 13:2.) "No," said Luther and Calvin, "faith alone is sufficient to save us."
Saint Peter says that in the Epistles of Saint Paul there are many things "hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as also the other Scriptures, to their own perdition." (II Pet. 3:16.) "No," said Luther and Calvin, "the Scriptures are very plain, and easy to be understood."
Saint James says: "Is anyone sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil, in the name of the Lord" (Chapter 5, verse 14). "No," said Luther and Calvin, "that is a vain and useless ceremony."
Continued fr muller
ReplyDelete35. Now, do you think God the Father will admit into heaven those who thus contradict His Son Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, and the Apostles?
No, He will let them have their portion with Lucifer in hell, who first rebelled against Christ, and who is the father of liars.
36. Can a Christian be saved, who has left the true Church of Christ, the Holy Catholic Church?
No, because the Church of Christ is the kingdom of God on earth, and he who leaves that kingdom, shuts himself out from the kingdom of Christ in heaven.
37. Have Protestants left the true Church of Christ?
Protestants left the true Church of Christ in their founders, who left the Catholic Church either through pride or through the passion of lust and covetousness.
38. What will be the punishment of those who willfully rebel against the Holy Catholic Church?
Those who willfully rebel against the Holy Catholic Church, will, like Lucifer and the other rebellious angels, be cast into the everlasting flames of hell. "He who will not hear the Church," says Christ, "let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." (Matt. 18:17.)
39. But if a Protestant should say: "I have nothing to do with Luther or Calvin or Henry VIII or John Knox, I go by the Bible," what would you answer him?
In that case, you adopt, and go by, the principles and spirit of the authors of heresies, and you change the written Word of God into the word of man, because you interpret Holy Scripture in your own private manner, giving it that meaning which you choose to give it, and thus, instead of believing the Word of God, you believe rather your own private interpretation of it, which is but the word of man. Hence, Saint Augustine says: "You who believe what you please, and reject what you please, believe yourselves or your own fancy rather than the Gospel."
Continued fr muller
ReplyDelete40. Which Protestants are not guilty of the sin of heresy, but commit other great sins?
Those who are Protestants without their fault and who never had an opportunity of knowing better, are not guilty of the sin of heresy; but if they do not live up to the dictates of their conscience, they will be lost, not on account of their heresy, which for them was no sin, but on account of other grievous sins which they committed.
41. Will those heretics be saved, who are not guilty of the sin of heresy, and are faithful in living up to the dictates of their conscience?
Inculpable ignorance of the true religion excuses a heathen from the sin of infidelity, and a Protestant from the sin of heresy. But such ignorance has never been the means of salvation. From the fact that a person who lives up to the dictates of his conscience, and who cannot sin against the true religion on account of being ignorant of it, many have drawn the false conclusion that such a person is saved, or, in other words, is in the state of sanctifying grace, thus making ignorance a means of salvation or justification.
If we sincerely wish not to make great mistakes in explaining the great revealed truth, "Out of the Church there is no salvation," we must remember:
1. That there are four great truths of salvation, which everyone must know and believe in order to be saved;
2. That no one can go to heaven unless he is in the state of sanctifying grace;
3. That, in order to receive sanctifying grace, the soul must be prepared for it by divine Faith, Hope, Charity, true sorrow for sin with the firm purpose of doing all that God requires the soul to believe and to do, in order to be saved;
4. That this preparation of the soul cannot be brought by inculpable ignorance. And if such ignorance cannot even dispose the soul for receiving the grace of justification, it can much less give this grace to the soul. Inculpable ignorance has never been a means of grace or salvation, not even for the inculpably ignorant people that live up to their conscience. But of this class of ignorant persons we say, with Saint Thomas Aquinas, that God in His mercy will lead these souls to the knowledge of the necessary truths of salvation, even send them an angel, if necessary, to instruct them, rather than let them perish without their fault. If they accept this grace, they will be saved as Catholics.
Introibo —-
ReplyDeleteIs Baltimore catechism 4 infallible? Can we reject it in good conscience? It states that a validly baptised protestant who does not doubt his Protestant errors but holds tight to them will be saved if he commits no mortal sin. But is this not impossible. How can one be in a state of grace without faith. Is the Baltimore catechism 4 not stating that apples are bananas? Or that circles are square?
And why is it necessary according to Baltimore 4 that this Protestant ignoramus follow his satanic false religion with no doubts this seems to not only preach that men can be saved as Protestants which is bad enough but also through Protestantism.
Maybe we could brush this off as an error in fact since it maintains a logical contradiction rather than one in faith?
This is sorely afflicting my conscience
I’m not even American but how can an authorised catechism teach this?
Especially when father Müllers catechism is also authorised and teaches the very opposite.
The same for the one of bishop hay.
I don’t know what to do. How can I think these things about an authorised catechism of the church for an entire nation but on the other hand how can I contradict two other authorised catechisms and the quotes of many great doctors of the church including st Alphonsus and especially St Thomas who says it is absurd for a heretic to say he believes in Jesus Christ making no qualification. How can I hold to both Baltimore catechism #4 and the holy office under clement xi. How can I hold that faith is necessary for salvation if a Protestant can stay out of mortal sin without it? Would the Protestant not be guilty of superstition anyway even if he is excused of heresy? Wouldn’t the Protestant be guilty of schism? To Protestant clearly has no faith in Christ so how can he be in a state of grace?
@anon3:43
DeleteThe Baltimore Catechism is correct, just stated differently.
Invincible ignorance does not save. However, as Fr Muller wrote:
"But of this class of ignorant persons we say, with Saint Thomas Aquinas, that God in His mercy will lead these souls to the knowledge of the necessary truths of salvation, even send them an angel, if necessary, to instruct them, rather than let them perish without their fault. If they accept this grace, they will be saved as Catholics."
Hence, a Protestant who is invincibly ignorant, leads an upright life, and desires to do all God requires to save his soul with perfect contrition for his sins, can be infused with the Catholic faith and sanctifying grace just prior to the moment of death, and die within the Church thereby being saved.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Oh ok so like my interpretation below
DeleteIf we have a true pope hopefully he make a new edition and rewords it so it is more clear
God bless
Would you say that it would seem impossible for someone to hold the “rewarder God theory” (that explicit faith in Christ and the trinity need not exist for salvation if someone DIES WITHOUT IT In invincible ignorance) is untenable to hold since we have access to the clement xi holy office response which said it is necessary, many of the manualists say it is a viable opinion but that others (such a father muller) don’t and then there is Ludwig Ott who for some reason decided not to even include the necessity of explicit faith as an option in his fundamentals! He does this because he applies st Thomas words in de veritate 14 II about those before the incarnation to those after it
DeleteDo you think they had access to the holy office response under clement the ninth?
Obviously it’s not condemned and certainly is a permitted opinion (I am not going to argue with the manualists I’m just a layman) but it’s it really tenable?
God bless
By the way here is the clement the eleventh not ninth eleventh (my mistake) holy office teaching that explicit faith in the trinity and incarnation are necessary by a necessity of means (refutes the idea that it is only of precept) even for those who are invincibly ignorant (refutes the opinion of Suarez and the carmelites of salamanca who said it is necessary by means per se but that per accidens it can happen that some are saved without it)
DeleteConcerning Truths which Necessarily Must be Explicitly Believed*
[Response of the Sacred Office to the Bishop of
Quebec, Jan. 25, 1703]
1349a Whether a minister is bound, before baptism is conferred on an adult, to explain to him all the mysteries of our faith, especially if he is at the point of death, because this might disturb his mind. Or, whether it is sufficient, if the one at the point of death will promise that when he recovers from the illness, he will take care to be instructed, so that he may put into practice what has been commanded him.
Resp.A promise is not sufficient, but a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not entirely incapacitated, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.
[Response of the Sacred Office, May 10, 1703]
1349b Whether it is possible for a crude and uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there were given to him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes, especially His justice in rewarding and in punishing, according to this remark of the Apostle "He that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder'; [Heb . 11:23], from which it is inferred that a barbarian adult, in a certain case of urgent necessity, can be baptized although he does not believe explicitly in Jesus Christ.
Resp. Amissionary should not baptize one who does not believe explicitly in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with the capacity of the one to be baptized.
An Obsequious Silence in Regard to Dogmatic Facts *
http://denzinger.patristica.net/#n1300
@anon6:03
DeleteIn your hypothetical, dying without knowledge (either naturally obtained or supernaturally infused) of the Trinity and Incarnation would, in my layman's opinion, be insufficient for salvation. The person died without baptism or BOD and was lost.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I don’t mean if a person died holding that God exists and he rewards but if a theologian held the theory that that person could go to heaven, what is the state of the theologian in light of the holy office letter? It seems that a lot of these manuals were written after it.
DeleteGod bless
@anon12:25
DeleteTheologians McHugh and Callan teach about this matter. It is generally agreed by the theologians of the 20th century that four truths of Faith must be believed, to wit: 1. God exists and is a Rewarder; 2. God exists as Trinity; 3. God will help us in this life to be rewarded and do good (grace); 4. God Incarnated as Jesus Christ and died for us to save us from sin and give us the chance to get to Heaven--our reward.
They then teach, "Since baptism is fruitless without due faith in the recipient, it is not lawful as a rule to baptize those who lack substantial knowledge of the four mysteries just mentioned. (a) Outside of danger of death, it is never lawful to baptize a person, adult in mind, who is in substantial ignorance of any of these four mysteries. (b) In danger of death, when instruction cannot be given, AN ADULT IN SUBSTANTIAL IGNORANCE ABOUT THE TRINITY AND THE INCARNATION MAY BE BAPTIZED CONDITIONALLY; FOR IT IS PROBABLE THAT EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE OF THESE TWO MYSTERIES IS NOT A NECESSITY OF MEANS."
(See "Moral Theology," [1929], 1:pgs. 291-292).
This is in perfect keeping with the cited decision. Theology developed much since the 18th century, but it was still treated as binding--which it is---by a CONDITIONAL baptism.
I looked up Ott. On page 359, he is also in conformity with this teaching:
"The worthy reception of the sacrament demands an inner disposition, which must comprehend at least faith and sorrow for sins committed." Notice "faith"--he doesn't go into detail about the Trinity and Incarnation, but that is what Ott means, he was writing a one volume manual. The recipient must also have "sorrow for sins"--i.e., attrition. I referenced theologian Jone and he says the same. I think you misunderstand because it is not explicitly stated.
Hope this helped!
God Bless,
---Introibo
@anon12:25
DeleteI will add that while the theologians were speculating THEORETICALLY (which the popes allowed) PRACTICALLY the decree of the Holy Office had to be followed. The Holy Office was clear (in the full response) that it was making a practical decision as to what must be observed in Baptism, not that it was settling the issue definitively as to what needs to be believed and whether such belief is required as a necessity of means or as a necessity of precept.
The idea of grace was added by theologians as something to be believed for baptism. The majority of theologians, acting under the guidance of the Magisterium, were of the opinion the Holy Office decision needed revision. However, they knew they were bound by it until the pope modifies or overruled it.
---Introibo
would it be right to say however that until we have another pope to talk about it - the case is closed?
Deleteit really sounds like it was making a doctrinal statement not just a practical one , it says- "the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.'
it would seem that the only matter in which it is practical only is the actions of the baptiser, so one could still argue that the position of salamanca stands but how could the necessity of precept position stand in light of this?
God bless
@anon5:40
DeleteNecessity of means is subdivided into necessity of means by nature (which admits of no substitute) and necessity of means by positive ordinance of God (which can have a substitute).
Example: Grace is necessary by a necessity of means by nature to obtain the Beatific Vision. Baptism by water (sacrament) is necessary by a necessity of means by precept of God, and can be substituted by Baptism of Desire or Blood. Feeneyites don't understand this when they say the sacrament of Baptism is a necessity of means and therefore (they wrongly conclude) BOD and BOB cannot save a person.
Likewise, the knowledge of the Trinity and Incarnation may be necessary by a necessity of means BY PRECEPT OF GOD, hence McHugh and Callan "IT IS PROBABLE THAT EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE OF THESE TWO MYSTERIES IS NOT A NECESSITY OF MEANS." (by nature).
Also consider, why would a conditional baptism be permitted in danger of death if such knowledge is indispensable absolutely? It would be analogous to "confirming conditionally" an unbaptized person. It will be invalid no exxceptions.
I hoped this helped!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo I responded to you but it hasn’t appeared can you see it?
DeleteIt was basically a concession about nature vs divine ordinance but then a distinction between a necessity of means by divine ordinance with or without exceptions since the coming of Christ, the salamancticenses and Garrigou Lagrange seemingly would say that there are exceptions, whereas the more strict thomists would say that there are no exceptions garrigou Lagrange also likes this idea and even defends it as more elevated than the one of the Salamancans.
I concede: that faith in the trinity and incarnation may not be a neccesity of means by nature, for the uneducated of the Old Testament did not have explicit faith in the trinity (correct me if I am wrong)
I distinguish: between necessity of means (since the coming of Christ) by divine ordinance per se and always and necessity of means by divine ordinance per se but with per accidens exceptions
If you want to read more read garrigou
God bless
@anon11:41
DeleteI didn't see anything; maybe it didn't get through. Yes, I think theologian Garrigou-Lagrange makes sense and that the decree of the Holy Office needs revision/clarification if/when we get a true pope again.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Maybe Baltimore catechism 4# means a Protestant-turned catholic converted by an angel living among Protestants but just wished to pander a little on a impossible hypothetical
ReplyDeleteThat is the only interpretation I could imagine
Introibo:
ReplyDeleteBishop Tissier de Mallerais is still unconscious, according to SSPX. So it is probably serious, and I assume he has been anointed.
@anon4:36
DeleteI'm sure he has received Extreme Unction. Most probably by Bp. Fellay.
God Bless,
---Introibo