The Eucharist And The Obligation Of Receiving Holy Communion

 

To My Readers: This week's guest poster, John Gregory, writes about important truths pertaining to the Most Holy Eucharist. We can never ponder enough the truths about the Blessed Sacrament. Please feel free to comment as per usual. If anyone has a specific question or comment for me, I will respond as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

The Form, Matter, and Rites of the Holy Eucharist, and The Obligation Of Receiving Holy Communion

By John Gregory

Constituent Parts of the Eucharist 

THE MATTER 

It is particularly incumbent on pastors to know the matter of this Sacrament, in order that they themselves may rightly consecrate it, and also that they may be able to instruct the faithful as to its significance, inflaming them with an earnest desire of that which it signifies. 

THE FIRST ELEMENT OF THE EUCHARIST IS BREAD 

The matter of this Sacrament is twofold.  The first element of wheaten bread, of which we shall now speak.  Of the second we shall treat hereafter.  As the Evangelists, Mathew, Mark and Luke testify, Christ the Lord took bread into His hands, blessed, and brake, saying: This is my body; (Matthew 26: 26; Mark 14: 22; Luke 22: 19) and, according to John, the same Saviour called Himself bread in these words: I am the living bread, that came down from heaven. (John 6: 41). 

THE SACRAMENTAL BREAD MUST BE WHEATEN 

Theare are, however, various sorts of bread, either because they consist of different materials,—such as wheat, barley, pulse and other products of the earth; or because they posses different qualities,—some being leavened, others altogether without leaven.  It is to be observed that, with regard to the former kinds, the words of the Saviour show that the bread should be wheaten; for, according to common usage, when we simply say bread, we are sufficiently understood to mean wheaten bread.  This is also declared by a figure in the Old Testament, because the Lord commanded that the loaves of proposition which signified this Sacrament, should be made of fine flour. (Leviticus 24: 5) 

THE SACRAMENTAL BREAD SHOULD BE UNLEAVENED 

But as wheaten bread alone is to be considered the proper matter for this Sacrament—a doctrine which has been handed down by Apostolic tradition and confirmed by the authority of the Catholic Church—it may be easily inferred from the doings of Christ the Lord that this bread should be unleavened.  It was consecrated and instituted by Him on the first day of unleavened bread, on which it was not lawful for the Jews to have anything leavened in their houses. (Matthew 27: 17; Mark 14: 12; Luke 22: 7) 

Should the authority of John the Evangelist, (John 13: 1) who says that all this was done before the feast of the Passover, be objected to, the argument is one of easy solution.  For by the day before the pasch John understands the same day which the other Evangelists designate as the first day of unleavened bread. He wished particularly to mark the natural day, which commences at sunrise; whereas they wanted to point out that our Lord celebrated the Pach on Thursday evening just when the days of the unleavened bread were beginning.  Hence Saint Chrysostom also understands the first day of unleavened bread to be the day on the evening of which unleavened bread was to be eaten. [For an explanation of the time when our Lord kept His last Pasch and instituted the Holy Eucharist see Callan, The four Gospels, pages 167-171.] 

The peculiar suitableness of the consecration of unleavened bread to express that integrity and purity of mind which the faithful should bring to this Sacrament we learn from these words of the Apostle: Purge out the old leaven that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened.   For Christ our Passover is sacrificed.  Therefore, let us feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (1 Corinthians 5: 7) 

UNLEAVENED BREAD NOT ESSENTIAL 

This quality of the bread, however, is not to be deemed so essential that, if it be wanting, the Sacrament cannot exist; for both kinds are called by the one name and have the true and proper nature of bread.  No one, however, is at liberty on his own private authority, or rather presumption, to transgress the laudable rite of his Church.  And such departure is the less warrantable in priests of the Latin Church, expressly obliged as they are by the supreme Pontiffs, to consecrate the sacred mysteries with unleavened bread only. 

QUANITY OF THE BREAD 

With regard to the first matter of this Sacrament, let this exposition suffice.  It is, however, to be observed, that the quantity of the matter to be consecrated is not defined, since we cannot define the exact number of those who can or ought to receive the sacred mysteries. 

THE SECOND ELEMENT OF THE EUCHARIST IS WINE 

It remains for us to treat of the other matter and element of this Sacrament, which is wine pressed from the fruit of the vine, with which is mingled a little water. 

That in the institution of this Sacrament our Lord and Saviour made use of wine has been at all times the doctrine of the Catholic Church, for He Himself said: I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day. (Matthew 26: 29; Mark 14: 25) On this passage Chrysostom observes: He says, "Of the fruit of the vine," which certainly produced wine not water; as if he had it in view, even at so early a period, to uproot the heresy which asserted that in these mysteries water alone is to be used. 

WATER SHOULD BE MIXED WITH THE WINE 

With the wine, however, the Church of God has always mingled water.  First, because Christ the Lord did so, as is proved by the authority of Councils and the testimony of Saint Cyprian; next, because by this mixture is renewed the recollection of the blood and water that issued from His side, Walters, also, as we read in the Apocalypse, (Apocalypse 17: 15) signify the people; and hence, water mixed with the wine signifies the union of the faithful with Christ their Head.  This rite, derived as it is from Apostolic tradition, the Catholic Church has always observed.

 But although there are reasons so grave for mingling water with the wine that it cannot be omitted without incurring the guilt of mortal sin, yet its omission does not render the Sacrament null. 

Again as in the sacred mysteries priests must be mindful to mingle water with wine, so, also, must they take care to mingle it in small quantity, for, in the opinion and judgment of the ecclesiastical writers, that water is changed into wine.  Hence these words of Pope Honorius on the subject: A pernicious abuse has prevailed in your district of using in the sacrifice a greater quantity of water than of wine; whereas, according to the rational practice of the universal Church, the wine should be used in much greater quantity than the water. 

NO OTHER ELEMENTS PERTAIN TO THIS SACRAMENT 

These, then, are the only two elements of this Sacrament; and with reason has it been enacted by many decrees that, although there have been those who were not afraid to do so, it is unlawful to offer anything but bread and wine. 

PECULIAR FITNESS OF BREAD AND WINE 

We have now to consider the aptitude of these two symbols of bread and wine to represent those things of which we believe and confess they are the sensible signs. 

In the first place, then, they signify to us Christ, as the true life of men; for our Lord Himself says: My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.  (John 6: 55) As, then, the body of Christ the Lord furnishes nourishment unto eternal life to those who receive this Sacrament with purity and holiness, rightly is the matter composed chiefly of those elements by which our present life is sustained, in order that the faithful may easily understand that the mind and soul are satiated by the Communion of the precious body and blood of Christ.  

These very elements serve also somewhat to suggest to men the truth of the Real Presence of the body and blood of the Lord in the Sacrament.  Observing, as we do, that bread and wine are every day changed by the power of nature into human flesh and blood, we are led the more easily by this analogy to believe that the substance of the bread and wine is changed, by the heavenly benediction, into the real flesh and real blood of Christ. 

This admirable change of the elements also helps to shadow forth what takes place in the soul.  Although no change of the bread and wine appears externally, yet their substance is truly changed into the flesh and blood of Christ; so, in like manner, although in us nothing appears changed, yet we are renewed inwardly unto life, when we receive in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the true life. 

Moreover, the body of the Church, which is one, consists of many members, and of this union nothing is more strikingly illustrative than the elements of bread and wine; for bread is made from many grains and wine is pressed from many clusters of grapes.  Thus they signify that we, though many, are most closely bound together by the bond of this divine mystery and made, as it were, one body. 

Form of the Eucharist 

 The form to be used in the consecration of the bread is next to be treated of, not, however, in order that the faithful should be taught these mysteries, unless necessity require it; for this knowledge is not needful for those who have not received Holy Orders.  The purpose (of this section) is to guard against most shameful mistakes on the part of priests, at the time of the consecration, due to ignorance of the form. 

FORM TO BE USED IN THE CONSECRATION OF THE BREAD 

We are then taught by the holy Evangelists, Matthew and Luke, and also by the Apostle, that the form consists of these words: This is my body; for it is written: Whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to his disciples, and said: Take and eat, This is my body. (Matthew 26: 26; Mark 14: 22; Luke 22: 19; 1 Corinthians 11: 24) This form of consecration having been observed by Christ the Lord has been always used by the Catholic Church.  The testimonies of the Fathers, the enumeration of which would be endless, and also the decree of the Council of Florence, which is well known and accessible to all, must here be omitted, especially as the knowledge which they convey may be obtained from these words of the Saviour: Do this for a commemoration of me. (Luke 22: 19) For what the Lord enjoined was not only what He had done, but also what he had said; and especially is this true, since the words were uttered not only to signify, but also to accomplish. 

That these words constitute the form is easily proved from reason also.  The form is that which signifies what is accomplished in this Sacrament; but as the preceding words signify and declare what takes place in the Eucharist, that is, the conversion of the bread into the true body of our Lord, it therefore follows that these very words constitute the form.  In this sense may be understood the words of the Evangelist: He blessed; for they seem equivalent to this: Taking bread, he blessed it, saying: "This is my body." (Matthew 26: 26) 

NOT ALL THE WORDS USED ARE ESSENTIAL 

Although in the Evangelist the words, Take and eat, precede the words (This is my body), they evidently express the use only, not the consecration, of the matter.  Wherefore, while they are not necessary to the consecration of the Sacrament, they are by all means to be pronounced by the priest, as is also the conjunction for in the consecration of the body and blood.  But they are not necessary to the validity of the Sacrament, otherwise it would follow that, if this Sacrament were not to be administered to anyone, it should not, or indeed could not, be consecrated; whereas, no one can lawfully doubt that the priest, by pronouncing the words of our Lord according to the institution and practice of the Church, truly consecrates the proper matter of the bread, even though it should afterwards never be administered. 

FORM TO BE USED IN THE CONSECRATION OF THE WINE 

With regard to the consecration of the wine, which is the other element of this Sacrament, the priest, for the reason we have already assigned, ought of necessity to be well acquainted with, and well understand its form.  We are then firmly to believe that it consists in the following words: This is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins.  Of these words the greater part are taken from Scripture; but some have been preserved in the Church from Apostolic tradition 

Thus the words, this is the chalice, are found in Saint Luke and in the Apostle; (Luke 12: 20; 1 Corinthians 11: 25) but the words that immediately follow, of my blood, or my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for you and for many to the remission of sins, are found partly in Saint Luke and Partly in Saint Matthew. (Luke 22: 20; Matthew 26: 28) But the words, eternal, and the mystery of faith, have been taught us by holy tradition, the interpreter and keeper of Catholic truth. 

Concerning this form no one can doubt, if he here also attend to what has been already said about the form used in the consecration of the bread.  The form to be used (in the consecration) of this element, evidently consists of those words which signify that the substance of the wine is changed into the blood of our Lord.  Since therefore, the words already cited clearly declare this, it is plain that no other words constitute the form. 

They moreover express certain admirable fruits of the blood shed in the Passion of our Lord, fruits which pertain in a most special manner to this Sacrament.  Of these, one is access to the eternal inheritance, which has come to us by right of the new and everlasting testament. Another is access to righteousness by the mystery of faith; for God hath set forth Jesus to be a propitiator through faith in his blood, that he himself may be just, and the justifier of him, who is of the faith of Jesus Christ. (Romans 3: 25) A third effect is the remission of sins. 

EXPLANATION OF THE FORM USED IN THE CONSECRATION OF THE WINE 

Since these very words of consecration are replete with mysteries and most appropriately suitable to the subject, they demand a more minute consideration. 

The words: This is the chalice of my blood, are to be understood to mean: This is my blood, which is contained in this chalice.  The mention of the chalice made at the consecration of the blood is right and appropriate, inasmuch as the blood is the drink of the faithful, and this would not be sufficiently signified if it were not contained in some drinking vessel. 

Next follow the words: Of the new testament.  These have been added that we might understand the blood of Christ the Lord to be given not under a figure, as was done in the Old Law, of which we read in the Epistle to the Hebrews (9: 18) that without blood a testament is not dedicated; but to be given to men in truth and in reality, as becomes the New Testament.  Hence the Apostle says: Christ therefore is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of his death, they who are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance. (Hebrews 9: 15) 

The word eternal refers to the eternal inheritance, the right to which we acquire by the death of Christ the Lord, the eternal testator. 

The words mystery of faith, which are subjoined, do not exclude the reality, but signify that what lies hidden and concealed and far removed from the perception of the eye, is to be believed with firm faith.  In this passage, however, these words bear a meaning different from that which they have when applied also to Baptism.  Here the mystery of faith consists in seeing by faith the blood of Christ veiled under the species of wine; but Baptism is justly called by us the Sacrament of faith, by the Greeks, the mystery of faith, because it embraces the entire profession of the Christian faith. 

Another reason why we call the blood of the Lord the mystery of faith is that human reason is particularly beset with difficulty and embarrassment when faith proposes to our belief that Christ the Lord, the true Son of God, at once God and man, suffered death for us, and this death is designated by the Sacrament of His blood. 

Here, therefore, rather than at the consecration of His body, is appropriately commemorated the Passion of our Lord, by the words, which shall be shed for the remission of sins. For the blood, separately consecrated, serves to place before the eyes of all, in a more forcible manner, the Passion of our Lord, His death, and the nature of His sufferings. 

The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew, some from Luke, (Matthew 26: 28; Luke 22: 20) but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God.  They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion.  For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of the human race.  When therefore (our Lord) said: For you, He meant either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking.  When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles. 

With reason, therefore, were the words for all not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.  And this is the purport of the Apostle (Hebrews 9: 28) when he says: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; and also of the words of our Lord in John: I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine. (John 17: 9) 

Beneath the words of this consecration lie hid many other mysteries, which by frequent meditation and study of sacred things, pastors will find it easy, with the divine assistance, to discover for themselves.  (Catechism of Trent [CoT] pages 219 - 225) 

The Obligation of Receiving the Eucharist 

Jesus took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed to them that were sat down (John 6: 11) 

HOW OFTEN MUST COMMUNION BE RECEIVED? 

Lest any be kept away from Communion by the fear that the requisite preparation is too hard and laborious, the faithful are frequently to b reminded that they are all bound to receive the Holy Eucharist.  Furthermore, the Church has decreed that whoever neglects to approach Holy Communion once a year, at Easter, is liable to sentence of excommunication.  [This was decreed in the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.  In the New Cod it is found in can. 859.] 

THE CHURCH DESIRES THE FAITHFUL TO COMMUNICATE DAILY 

However, let not the faithful imagine that it is enough to receive the body of the Lord once a year only, in obedience to the decree of the Church.  They should approach oftener; but whether monthly, weekly, or daily, cannot be decided by one fixed universal rule.  Saint Augustine, however, lays down a most certain norm: Live in such a manner as to be able to receive every day. 

It will therefore be the duty of the pastor frequently to admonish the faithful that, as they deem it necessary to afford daily nutriment to the body, they should also feel solicitous to feed and nourish the soul every day with this heavenly food.  It is clear that the soul stands not less in need of spiritual, than the body of corporal food.  Here it will be found most useful to recall the inestimable and divine advantages which, as we have already shown, flow from sacramental Communion.  It will be well also to refer to the manna, which was a figure (of this Sacrament), and which refreshed the bodily powers every day.  (Exodus 16: 21, 22, 4) The Fathers who earnestly recommended the frequent reception of this Sacrament may also be cited.  The words of Saint Augustine, Thou sinnest daily, receive daily, express not his opinion only, but that of all the Fathers who have written on the subject, as anyone may easily discover who will carefully read them. [Frequent Communion is recommended by the following: Augustine, Ignatius, Basil, Cyril, and others at the time this Catechism was first published in 1566] 

That there was a time when the faithful approached Holy Communion every day we learn from the Acts of the Apostles.  All who then professed the faith of Christ burned with such true and sincere charity that, devoting themselves to prayer and other works of piety (Acts 2: 42, 46), they were found prepared to communicate daily.  This devout practice, which seems to have been interrupted for a time, was again partially revived by the holy Pope and martyr Anacletus, who commanded that all the ministers who assisted at the Sacrifice of the Mass should communicate—an ordinance, as the Pontiff declares, of Apostolic institution.  It was also for a long time the practice of the Church that, as soon as the Sacrifice was complete, and when the priest himself had communicated, he turned to the congregation and invited the faithful to the Holy Table in these words: Come, brethren, and receive Communion; and thereupon those who were prepared advanced to receive the holy mysteries with the most fervent devotion. 

THE CHURCH COMMANDS THE FAITHFUL TO COMMUNICATE ONCE A YEAR 

But subsequently, when charity and devotion had grown so cold that the faithful very seldom approached Communion, it was decreed by Pope Fabian [236 – 250], that all should communicate thrice every year, at Christmas, at Easter and at Pentecost.  This decree was afterwards confirmed by many Councils, particularly by the first of Agde. 

Such at length was the decay of piety that not only was this holy and salutary law unobserved, but Communion was deferred for years.  The Council of Lateran, therefore, decreed that all the faithful should receive the sacred body of the Lord, at least once a year, at Easter, and that neglect of this duty should b chastised by exclusion from the society of the faithful. 

WHO ARE OBLIGHED BY THE LAW OF COMMUNION 

But although this law, sanctioned by the authority of God and of His Church, concerns all the faithful, it should be taught that it does not extend to those who on account of their tender age have not attained the use of reason.  For these are not able to distinguish the Holy Eucharist from common and ordinary bread and cannot bring with them to this Sacrament piety and devotion. Furthermore (to extend the precept to them) would appear inconsistent with the ordinance of our Lord, for He said Take and eat (Matthew 26:26)—words which cannot apply to infants, who are evidently incapable of taking and eating. 

In some places, it is true, an ancient practice prevailed of giving the Holy Eucharist even to infants; but, for the reasons already assigned, and for other reasons in keeping with Christian piety, this practice has been long discontinued by the authority of the Church. 

With regard to the age at which children should be given the holy mysteries, this the parents and confessor can best determine.  To them it belongs to inquire and to ascertain from the children themselves whether they have some knowledge of this admirable Sacrament and whether they desire to receive it. [Regarding the Communion of children see Code, can. 854] 

Communion must not be given to persons who are insane and incapable of devotion.  However, according to the decree of the Council of Carthage, it may be administered to them at the close of life, provided they have shown, before losing their minds, a pious and religious disposition, and no danger, arising from the state of the stomach or other inconvenience or disrespect, is likely. (CoT pages 249 – 251) 

Conclusion

The Most Holy Eucharist is the flesh and blood of God.  Pause a moment and let that resonate a bit.  The whole purpose of our existence is to know, love, and serve God in this life so that we may be happy with Him forever in the next.  Salvation is everything.  Christ did so much to make it possible to be saved, but we must do the rest.  He doesn't give us a free ride.  But due to our fallen human nature (Original Sin), salvation is impossible apart from the grace of God and difficult with it.  This should motivate us to do everything we can to ensure our eternal salvation such as always being in the state of grace and receiving the Eucharist devoutly as often as possible as the great Saint Augustine alluded to.  When we receive the Eucharist daily with devotion, we are storing treasures and increasing the grace of God within us, fortifying our souls against future temptations and enabling us to fight the good fight until the end, persevering in the state of sanctifying grace until our dying breaths.  Is there anything more we should demand from the Lord before we start acting as we should?

Contending For The Faith---Part 57

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

***N.B. Special Note To My Readers: I ask you all in charity to please pray for the mother of one of my long-time readers---Poni. Her mom is seriously ill and needs our prayers for a full return to health and resignation to the Will of God. Please say a special prayer for Poni's mother and for Poni herself, that God may give her strength during this most trying and sorrowful time.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

Proofs of the Resurrection: Debunking the Conspiracy Hypothesis

There are numerous attempts by the enemies of Christ to deny His physical resurrection from the dead. There are four (4) basic arguments to explain away Christ's resurrection: (1) it was a hallucination of the Apostles; (2) the Apostles created a myth-- they did not mean what they taught to be literal; (3) the Apostles conspired to deceive the world; and (4) Christ didn't really die, he "swooned" and later fully recovered. 

In this post, I will refute the so-called "Conspiracy Hypothesis." (N.B. The information contained in this post comes from myriad sources, both in print and online. I take no credit other than condensing the material into a terse and readable post---Introibo). 

What is The Conspiracy Hypothesis?

The Conspiracy Hypothesis against the resurrection of Christ is also known as the stolen body hypothesis. It claims that Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, and that His body was instead secretly removed from the tomb by His disciples, who then fabricated the story of a resurrection. According to the Gospel of Saint Matthew (St. Matthew 28:11–15), when the tomb was found empty, the chief priests and elders bribed the Roman guards on duty, telling them to say: "His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep."

This narrative is one of the earliest recorded alternative explanations to the resurrection, used by critics of Christianity (most notably the Jews) in antiquity to account for the missing Body. Why would Christ's followers steal the Body of Our Lord and conspire to lie about Him rising from the dead? Several reasons are advanced:

• Fulfill Christ's Predictions: They would fabricate a scenario that matched Jesus's earlier prophecies that He would rise after three days. They didn't want to be humiliated that the One they followed did not have His predictions come true. 

• Maintain the Movement: Keep their messianic hopes, authority, or movement alive after the demoralizing shock of His public crucifixion.

• Pious Deceit: Perpetuate a "noble lie" out of devotion or a desire to promote Christ's ethical teachings

The Conspiracy Hypothesis is demonstrably false.

What Constitutes Evidence for Historians?

Historians weigh various factors in assessing competing hypotheses. Some of the most important are as follows:

1.  The best explanation will have greater explanatory scope than other explanations. That is, it will explain more of the evidence.

2.  The best explanation will have greater explanatory power than other explanations. That is, it will make the evidence more probable.

3. The best explanation will be more plausible than other explanations. That is, it will fit better with true background beliefs.

4. The best explanation will be less contrived than other explanations. That is, it won’t require adopting as many new beliefs which have no independent evidence.

5. The best explanation will be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs than other explanations. That is, it won’t conflict with as many accepted beliefs.

6. The best explanation will meet conditions (1)-(5) so much better than the others that there’s little chance that one of the other explanations, after further investigation, will do better in meeting these conditions.

(See C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions [1984], pg. 19; Emphasis in original). 

Since a hypothesis may do really well in meeting some conditions but not so well in meeting others, figuring out which hypothesis is the best explanation may often be difficult and requires skill. However, if the explanatory scope and power of a hypothesis are very great, so that it does a much better job in explaining a wide variety of facts, then it’s likely to be the true explanation.

So let’s apply these tests to the typical hypotheses which have been offered down through history to explain the empty tomb, post-mortem appearances, and origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection, and let’s see if they do better or as well in explaining these facts as the dogma of the Resurrection. 

According to this hypothesis, the disciples stole the body of Jesus and lied about his appearances, thus faking the resurrection. This was the very first counter-explanation for the empty tomb, as we’ve seen, and it was revived during the eighteenth century by European  Deists. Today, however, this explanation has been completely given up by modern scholarship.  We can see why when we assess it by the standard criteria for testing historical hypotheses.

1. Explanatory scope.  The Conspiracy Hypothesis does seem to cover the full scope of the evidence, for it offers explanations of the empty tomb (the disciples stole the body), the post-mortem appearances (the disciples lied about seeing Jesus), and the origin of the disciples’ (supposed) belief in Jesus’ resurrection (again, they lied).

2. Explanatory power.  How probable is the evidence, given the Conspiracy Hypothesis?  Here doubts begin to arise about the adequacy of the hypothesis. 

First, consider the story of the empty tomb.  If the disciples stole Jesus’ corpse, then it would be utterly pointless to fabricate a story about women finding the tomb to be empty.  Such a story would not be the sort of tale Jewish men would invent.  Moreover, the simplicity of the story is not what one would expect, given the Conspiracy Hypothesis—where are the Scriptural proof-texts, the evidence of fulfilled prophecy?  Why isn’t Jesus described as emerging from the tomb, as in later forgeries like the so-called "Gospel of Peter"?  Neither is the dispute with non-believing Jews well-explained.  Why isn’t St. Matthew’s guard already there in St. Mark’s story?  Even in St. Matthew’s story the guard is set too late: the body could have already been stolen before the guard arrived on Saturday morning, so that they were guarding, unbeknownst to them, an empty tomb!  For a failsafe alibi against theft of the body, see again the forged Gospel of Peter, where the guard is set immediately upon interment of the corpse. 

As for the appearance stories, similar problems arise.  A fabricator would probably describe Jesus’ resurrection appearances in terms of Old Testament visions of God and descriptions of the end-time resurrection (as in Daniel 12.2).  But then Jesus should appear to the disciples in dazzling glory.  And why not a description of the resurrection itself?  Why no appearances to Caiaphas the high priest or to the villains on the Sanhedrin, as Jesus predicted?  They could be then branded as the real liars for denying that Jesus did appear to them! 

However, the explanatory power of the Conspiracy Hypothesis is undoubtedly weakest when it comes to the origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection.  For the hypothesis is really a denial of that fact; it seeks to explain the mere semblance of belief on the disciples’ part.  But as critics have universally recognized, you can’t plausibly deny that the earliest disciples at least sincerely believed that Jesus was risen from the dead. They staked their very lives on that conviction.  The transformation in the lives of the disciples is not credibly explained by the hypothesis of a conspiracy.  This shortcoming alone has been enough in the minds of most scholars to sink the old Conspiracy Hypothesis forever.

3. Plausibility.  The real Achilles’ Heel of the Conspiracy Hypothesis is, however, its implausibility.  One might mention here objections to the unbelievable complexity of such a conspiracy or the supposed psychological state of the disciples; but the overriding problem that dwarfs all others is that it is wholly anachronistic to suppose that first century Jews intended to hoax Jesus’ resurrection.  The Conspiracy Hypothesis views the disciples’ situation through the rearview mirror of Christian history rather than through the eyes of a first century Jew. 

In the first place, there was no expectation in Judaism of a Messiah who, instead of establishing David’s throne and subduing Israel’s enemies, would be shamefully executed by the Gentiles as a criminal.  Moreover, the Jewish idea of resurrection was just unconnected with the idea of Messiah and even incompatible with it, since Messiah was not supposed to be killed.  As N. T. Wright nicely puts it, if you’re a first century Jew, and your favorite Messiah got himself crucified, then you’ve basically got two choices: either you go home or else you get yourself a new Messiah.

Secondly, the Jewish conception of resurrection of the dead differed in at least two fundamental respects from the resurrection of Jesus.

 It is a fact that in Jewish thinking the resurrection to glory and immortality always occurred after the end of the world.  Jews had no idea of a resurrection within history. That’s why, I think, the disciples had so much trouble understanding Jesus’ predictions of his own resurrection. They thought he was talking about the resurrection at the end of the world. Look at St. Mark 9:9-11, for example:

And as they were coming down from the mountain, He gave them orders not to relate to anyone what they had seen, until the Son of Man should rise from the dead. And they seized upon that statement, discussing with one another what rising from the dead might mean. And they began questioning Him, saying, “Why is it that the scribes say that first Elijah must come?”

Here Jesus predicts His resurrection, and what do the disciples ask? “Why is it that the scribes say that first Elijah must come?” In first century Judaism it was believed the prophet Elijah would come again before the great and terrible Day of the Lord, the judgment day when the dead would be raised. The disciples could not understand the idea of a resurrection occurring within history prior to the end of the world. Hence, Jesus’ predictions only confused them.

Thus, given the Jewish conception of the resurrection, the disciples after Jesus’ crucifixion would not have come up with the strange idea that he had been already raised. They would in all probability have looked forward to the resurrection at the last day and, in keeping with Jewish custom, perhaps preserved his tomb as a shrine where his bones could rest until the resurrection.

Secondly, in Jewish thinking the resurrection was always the resurrection of all the righteous dead.  Jews had no idea of the resurrection of an isolated individual apart from the general resurrection. Moreover, there was simply no connection between the individual believer’s resurrection and the prior resurrection of the Messiah.  That’s why we find no examples of other failed messianic movements claiming that their executed leader was risen from the dead. 

First century Jews had no idea of the resurrection of an isolated individual, especially of the Messiah, in advance of the general resurrection at the end of the world.  So the idea of stealing Jesus’ corpse and saying that God had raised him from the dead is hardly one that would have entered the minds of these Jewish disciples of Jesus nor seemed to them a plausible strategy for evangelizing their fellow Jews!

What about influences from outside Judaism?  A suggestion widespread on the Internet today is that early Christians came up with the idea of Jesus’ resurrection through the influence of pagan mythology.  This suggestion is an old one.  Back around the turn of the 19th to the 20th century, scholars in comparative religion collected parallels to Christian beliefs in other religious movements, and some even thought to explain Christian beliefs, including the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, as the result of the influence of such myths. The movement soon collapsed, however, principally due to two factors:

(a) Scholars came to realize that the parallels are false.  The ancient world was a virtual fruit basket of myths of various gods and heroes.  Comparative studies in religion require sensitivity to their similarities and differences, or distortion and confusion inevitably result.  Unfortunately, those who were eager to find parallels to Jesus’ resurrection failed to exercise such sensitivity. 

Many of the alleged parallels are actually stories of the assumption of the hero into heaven (Hercules, Romulus).  Others are disappearance stories, which claim that the hero has vanished into a higher sphere (Apollonius of Tyana, Empedocles).  Still others are seasonal symbols for the crop cycle, as the vegetation dies in the dry season and comes back to life in the rainy season (Tammuz, Osiris, Adonis). Some are political expressions of Emperor worship (Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus).

None of these ideas is parallel to the Jewish idea of the resurrection of the dead.  Indeed, most scholars have come to doubt whether, properly speaking, there really were any myths of dying and rising gods at all. For example, in the myth of Osiris, which was one of the best known symbolic seasonal myths, Osiris doesn’t really come back to life but simply continues to exist in the realm of the dead. 

Scholars have come to realize that pagan mythology is simply the wrong interpretive context for understanding Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus and his disciples were first century Israelite Jews, and it is against that background that they must be understood.  The collapse of the alleged parallels is just one indication that pagan mythology is the wrong interpretive context for understanding the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection.

(b) There is in any case no causal connection between the pagan myths and the origin of the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection.  Jews were familiar with the seasonal pagan deities (Ezekiel 8.14-15) and found them abhorrent.  That’s why there is no trace of cults of dying and rising gods at all in first century Israel.  It’s pretty unlikely that the original disciples would have come up with the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was risen from the dead because they had heard pagan myths about dying and rising seasonal deities. So scholars have universally abandoned this approach.  Internet sceptics are over 100 years out of date.

Notice that this criticism undermines not only conspiracy theories, which suppose that the disciples insincerely proclaimed Jesus’ resurrection, but also any theory which suggests that, on the basis of pagan or Jewish influences, they sincerely came to believe in and preached his resurrection.

4. Less contrived.  Like all conspiracy theories of history, the Conspiracy Hypothesis is contrived in supposing that what all the evidence seems to point to is, in fact, mere appearance only, to be explained away by hypotheses for which there is no evidence.  Specifically, it postulates motives and ideas in the minds of the earliest disciples and actions on their part for which there is not a shred of evidence.  It can become even more contrived, as hypotheses have to be multiplied to deal with objections to the theory, for example, how to account for the appearance to the 500 brethren or the women’s role in the empty tomb and appearance stories.

5. Disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs.  The Conspiracy Hypothesis tends to be disconfirmed by our general knowledge of conspiracies, their instability and tendency to unravel.  Moreover, it is disconfirmed by accepted beliefs such as the sincerity of the disciples, the nature of first century Jewish messianic expectations, and so on.

6. Exceeds other hypotheses in fulfilling conditions (1)-(5).  This condition is obviously not met, since there are better hypotheses (such as the Hallucination Hypothesis), which don’t dismiss the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection as a blatant lie.

No scholar would defend the Conspiracy Hypothesis today. The only place you read about such things is in the popular, sensationalist press or on the Internet.

Conclusion

The Conspiracy Hypothesis has no plausibility. Consider the Apostles behavior after the resurrection. The change in their lives from fear to faith, despair to confidence, confusion to certitude, runaway cowardice to steadfast boldness under threat and persecution, not only proves their sincerity but testifies to some powerful cause of it. Can a lie cause such a transformation? Obviously not. The physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is a fact of history and not some conspiratorial fraud.

The Witch Next Door

 

When people hear the word witch the image of Margaret Hamilton as the ugly and evil "Wicked Witch of the West" in the 1939 movie The Wizard of Oz comes to mind for many people. Witchcraft, in all its forms, is part of the occult and stands solemnly condemned by the Church. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD; because of these same detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. (See Deuteronomy 18:10-12; Emphasis mine.) 

According to theologian Jone: Divination and sorcery are in themselves very grave sins since they contain an implicit or explicit invocation of the devil. (See Moral Theology, (1961), pg. 98: Emphasis in original). Witchcraft is a form of sorcery, which is any attempt to control events, nature, or other people (through spells, potions, charms, etc.), regardless of whether the intent is malicious or benevolent. 

Throughout the centuries of Christianity, witches/witchcraft were rightfully looked upon as evil and something to be avoided. Frank Baum sought to change that with The Wizard of Oz. Baum (1856-1919) was a practicing adherent of the occult Theosophy religion of Madame Blavatsky.

(See theosophical.org/publications/quest-magazine/sp-1469793668). 

Baum was the first to introduce the idea of "good witches" in modern culture. One only need to remember that his novel and the movie (The Wizard of Oz) contains Glinda "the good witch" that helps protagonist Dorothy get home to Kansas.

A brief survey shows the metaphorical connection between Theosophy and The Wizard of Oz: Dorothy represents the human soul on the path to enlightenment; the Yellow Brick Road of Oz begins as an outwardly expanding spiral. In occult symbolism, this spiral represents the evolving self, the soul ascending from matter into the spirit world; the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Cowardly Lion, represent the need to adjust your mind, emotions, and will in order to become "enlightened by secret knowledge;" and the Wizard (omnipotent and omniscient) is shown to be a fake--just like the Christian God according to Theosophy. The "good witch" Glinda tells Dorothy that the power to go home "lies within you"--that she is all-powerful; a recurring theme in the occult, that "god lies within you." 

However, witchcraft remained on the outskirts of society and was looked upon badly, or at best, as something done by eccentric weirdos. All that has changed.

Coming Out of the Broom Closet

Some may wonder why there is any need to take a look at witchcraft. After all, there is seemingly no end to which people will go in their eccentric beliefs or practices. The reason a topic such as this merits examination is precisely because witchcraft is becoming less eccentric and more mainstream. For example, in the summer of 2004 the Parliament of the World’s Religions convened in Barcelona, Spain. Representatives from many of the world’s religions were present to “seek peace, justice and sustainability and commit to work for a better world” as well as to “deepen spirituality and experience personal transformation.” (See cpwr.org/ 2004Parliament/welcome/index.htm).

Present at the 2004 conference (as well as the 1993 and 1999 conferences) were representatives of the Covenant of the Goddess, “the world’s largest religious organization for Neo-Pagan Witches,” as described by an elder of the organization. A common theme that comes up in the context of such conferences is the increasing emphasis on “interfaith.” According to one source:

The numbers of Americans who identify with Wicca (witches) or paganism has risen from 134,000 in 2001 to nearly 2 million today, according to Helen Berger, a resident scholar at Brandeis University's Women's Studies Research Center, who has conducted extensive research and authored four books about witches and pagans. The witch community in America has been growing steadily since the 1960s, she said, and "much of the recent growth is coming from young women."  (See https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/10/28/celtic-festival-samhain-2021-celebration-wicca-witches/6182226001/). 

Newsweek had this to say:

The number of witches and Americans practicing Wicca religious rituals increased dramatically since the 1990s, with several recent studies indicating there may be at least 1.5 million witches across the country. A Trinity College study conducted in 1990 estimated only about 8,000 Wiccans in the U.S., but the increase has been led by a rejection of mainstream Christianity among young Americans as well as a rise in occultism. (See newsweek.com/witchcraft-wiccans-mysticism-astrology-witches-millennials-pagans-religion-1221019; Emphasis mine). 

Even a "conservative" Vatican II sect source sees an alarming growth. EWTN reports last year that:

An estimated 1 to 1.5 million people say they practice Wicca or paganism, a rise from an estimated 8,000 Wiccans in 1990, and 340,000 in 2008.

In 2014, a Pew Research Center survey found about 0.4 percent of Americans identify themselves Pagan or Wiccan, a significant increase over prior years... the Pew data would suggest that there are more self-identified “witches” in the United States than members of some mainline Protestant denominations. For example, according to 2017 figures, there are 1.4 million practicing Presbyterians in the United States. (See ewtnnews.com/world/us/number-of-americans-who-say-they-are-witches-is-on-the-rise). 

A very scary development is that now there are at least 35 books for children meant to introduce them into modern witchcraft. Some titles include:

C is for Coven: A Witchcraft Alphabet Book by Andrea Stein

"C is for Coven is a reinterpretation of a classic alphabet book, matching each letter of the ABCs with a rhyming phrase that teaches kids about witchcraft."

Wee Witches by Beth Roth

"This ABC primer is a playful and richly symbolic introduction to the world of Wicca and the magic of Nature. Illustrated poems bring to light the Pagan Path, with each letter featuring a Wee Witch learning about the wheel of the year, tools of the Craft, rites of passage, faerie friends, and meaningful colors. This is a helpful and affirming tool for Pagan families, as well as an appealing collection of subtle, educational light verse for their budding Wee Witches, including A for Acorn, M for Maypole, and S for Spiderweb. Accurate symbols of Witches’ worldview are woven throughout the magical artwork, as well as hidden clues to a secret “Witch Name” revealed at the end of the book."

The Little Witch's Book of Spells by Ariel Kusby

The Little Witch's Book of Spells is an enchanting compendium of spells, potions, and activities for kids 8 to 12 years old. Young witches-in-training will discover spells to resolve problems, foster friendship, and engage with the natural world. This spellbinding book guides readers on how to craft a magic wand, befriend a fairy, and read tea leaves, as well as glossaries of magical terms and symbols."

What Witches Wear by Andrea Stein

"What Witches Wear is an engaging and colorful exploration of what it means to be a modern witch. Matching each color of the rainbow with a unique witch, What Witches Wear reminds us that witches are everywhere—as our teachers, healthcare workers, artists, librarians, and even next-door neighbors."

"Even next-door neighbors." 

(See flyingthehedge.com/2023/07/35-childrens-books-about-witchcraft.html; All titles can be examined on Amazon.com). 

Jesus’ command to have His One True Church preach the Gospel and make disciples of all nations invariably includes witches. In order to do so, it is necessary that we understand who they are and what they believe. Knowing what we are up against is a primary element in being prepared to carry out His Great Commission. Hence, the purpose of this post.

Witch Basics

Witchcraft: (Also known as wicca, the craft, or the craft of the wise.) An antidogmatic, antiauthoritarian, diverse, decentralized, eclectic, experience-based, nature-oriented religious movement whose followers are polytheists and/or pantheists and/or panentheists, and in some sense believe in or experience and/or invoke and/or worship the "Mother Goddess" and generally her consort the "Horned God" as well. It is a generic term covering numerous perspectives on the subject.

Witch: Individuals who practice or concur with the views or experiences of witchcraft. Most view divinity as immanent in nature, seeing all life as sacred, thus, denying any sacred/secular distinction. They are nature-oriented and also see no ultimate distinction between matter and spirit—the material and the spiritual. They may believe in or invoke a pantheon of gods and goddesses, but they primarily experience, and/or invoke, and/or worship the "Mother" or "Triple Goddess" and her male consort, the "Horned God." Witches generally practice multiple forms of divination, participate in trance and other altered states of consciousness, and perform magical spells and incantations. Most observe seasonal holidays and festivals (e.g., the summer and winter solstices). Most believe in some form of reincarnation. The widely believed notion that a female is a witch whereas a male practitioner is a warlock or wizard is a misnomer. The terms witch or wiccan apply to both genders.

Witchcraft is a Worldview.

A worldview is the sum total of one’s view of the nature of reality. Everyone has a worldview even if only a few reflect on their own. One’s worldview encompasses one’s views of how reality is composed, how it works, and how we as humans fit in or relate to our universe. It can entail one’s views about the purpose of life and the origin and destiny of us all.

The chief tenets of witchcraft are:

Naturalism. Starting at the broadest level and working down, it is fair to say that the worldview of witchcraft is naturalism. Naturalism is the view that there is no transcendent reality such as God that can intervene in the natural world. Naturalism maintains that all of reality is interrelated and operates according to “laws.” Other expressions of naturalism would include materialism, which sees all of reality as being made up of matter that operates according to material laws.

Witchcraft, though an expression of naturalism, is not materialism. Witches recognize that reality extends beyond the realm of the material. This is sometimes confusing. A worldview can be naturalistic even if it accepts the reality of an immaterial realm; indeed, even acknowledging the existence of gods and goddesses does not preclude a worldview from being naturalistic. What stands in stark contrast to naturalism is a worldview that says that the natural realm (whether material, immaterial, or both) is the creation of a transcendent God. This is supernaturalism. This is the Truth taught by the Church. 

Occultism. Sharpening the focus, not only can we say that witchcraft is a worldview of naturalism, it is also a worldview of occultism. As I've written many times, the term occult is from the Latin occultus meaning “hidden,” or “secret.” The category covers a wide range of beliefs and practices that are characterized by two main points that are often thought to be “hidden” from the average person. First, the occult maintains that there is force or energy into which one can tap or with which one can negotiate to do one’s own bidding. This comes from a pantheistic/panentheistic grounding of the occult. "All is God" so you cab harness that "energy." 

The familiar term spell is applied to the technique of harnessing and focusing this power. The late witchcraft practitioner Scott Cunningham explains, “The spell is…simply a ritual in which various tools are purposefully used, the goal is fully stated (in words, pictures or within the mind), and energy is moved to bring about the needed result.” (See The Truth about Witchcraft Today pg. 7). 

Exactly what is the nature of this force or energy ("god"), according to the occultist, and what is the best way to work with it is what makes some of the main differences between the major occult groups such as shamanism, witchcraft, Satanism, New Age, and others.

Second, the occult maintains that human beings are divine. Obviously, if God and the world are one, or God is "within" the world, this idea logically follows. The practice of the occult arts is thus an endeavor to actualize one’s own divinity. As witchcraft practitioner Margot Adler claims, “A spiritual path that is not stagnant ultimately leads one to the understanding of one’s own divine nature. Thou art Goddess. Thou are God. Divinity is imminent in all Nature. It is as much within you as without.” (See Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today, pg. ix)

Humanism. Witchcraft sees itself as a celebration of all life. This celebration involves the denial that there is anything wrong with the human race. Original Sin and the need of a Redeemer is thus denied. 

The Dangers of Witchcraft

1. Witchcraft is forbidden by God. The Bible makes it clear that witchcraft, sorcery, and divination are abominations to the Lord (Deuteronomy 18:10-12). In Galatians 5:19-21, witchcraft is listed among the works of the flesh that are contrary to the Spirit. The Church has likewise always condemned it, and the approved theologians condemn any use of witchcraft as mortal sin. 

2. Witchcraft involves communication with evil spirits. Those who practice witchcraft often seek to communicate with evil spirits, which is expressly forbidden in the Bible (Leviticus 19:31, Deuteronomy 18:11) and by the clear and constant teaching of the Church. Even those who do not believe in Satan may think it's "nature's secret's" they are tapping into, but it comes from the Father of Lies. 

3. Witchcraft can lead to demonic possession. The Bible records several instances of demonic possession resulting from witchcraft or sorcery (Acts 16:16-18).

4. Witchcraft can lead to spiritual deception. Satan is the father of lies, and those who practice witchcraft often fall under his deceptive influence. They may believe they are tapping into a higher power, when in reality they are being deceived (2 Corinthians 11:14-15).

5. Witchcraft undermines Catholic morality. The practices associated with witchcraft most often involve immoral or unethical behavior, which can lead to more and more grievous sins. 

Witchcraft in Popular Culture

Movies

Hexed (2026): The movie, releasing in theaters November 25, tells the story of a young teenage girl named Billie, an outcast struggling to fit in. She soon discovers she has magical powers and enters a world called Hexe, where she learns more about witchcraft, spells, and how to channel her supernatural abilities. It shows "good witchcraft." 

The Craft: Legacy (2020): A reboot of the 1996 cult classic which increased curiosity about witchcraft, follows a new generation of four teenage witches. It explores contemporary themes of manifestation, sisterhood, and casting spells.

Social Media

WitchTok on TikTok: A massive subculture under the hashtag #WitchTok (with billions of views) where creators share tarot card readings, crystal healing guides, and small-scale spell tutorials. Prominent creators like Frankie Castanea (@ChaoticWitchAunt) document daily folk witchcraft practices and break down misconceptions.

Digital Sigils and Altars: Practitioners use design software like Canva to create personalized magical symbols (sigils). They embed these symbols into their Instagram or TikTok bios, email signatures, or use them as smartphone lock screens to "cast spells with every scroll."

Manifestation Trends: Content focused on the "law of attraction," positive thinking, and intention-setting frequently trends on platforms like TikTok and Instagram, functioning as a mainstream, accessible form of folk magic that leads to embracing witchcraft outright.

Witches of Instagram: Creators build aesthetic feeds featuring altars decorated with herbs, crystals, and tarot cards. Influencers blend makeup tutorials, cozy "cottagecore" lifestyle content, and modern pagan spirituality. 

How Did Witchcraft Get So Popular?

If you thought I would write "Vatican II," you're correct. More than any other factor the Occult Revival (as I have called it) has one major driving force: Vatican II and the man-made sect of Counterfeit Catholicism it created. Witchcraft is one major component of occult practices. 

Three major evils of Vatican II have caused the spike in witchcraft:

1. The Mass replaced with the Novus Bogus. The countless graces that come from the unbloody Sacrifice of the Cross and Holy Communion have been taken away for a Neo-Protestant bread and wine service. As the number of Masses decreases, the power of Satan increases. The Novus Bogus service is so vapid as to destroy any sense of the sacred. Even pagan sociologists note that by stripping-down or "rationalizing" the liturgy, the Church left a spiritual vacuum. Modern witchcraft and ceremonial magic grew rapidly during this era precisely because they offered a sense of something mysterious and reverent unlike "clown mass." 

2. The Denigrating of Marian devotion. 

The Blessed Mother is the model for all women to follow. Follow her and you get to her Divine Son. Women now seek false ideas of womanhood from feminism as exemplified in witchcraft with "Mother Goddess." 

3. Ecumenism. 

The heretical document Nostra Aetate of Vatican II taught that there are elements of the truth in false religions. It adopted the false ecclesiology of Lumen Gentium, that the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Christ are not one and the same. The Church of Christ "subsists" in the Catholic Church in its fullness, but it subsists in other religions too, more or less, according to how many "elements of truth" it has. To have all the elements is best, but just some elements are good too, and salvific. The new ecclesiology denies the dogma Outside the Church there is no salvation. 

Nostra Aetate stated, "The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions." "These religions" included Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. While witchcraft is never mentioned, the heretical principle applies: if ancient Eastern religions held valid spiritual truth, then perhaps older, pre-Christian European traditions (like paganism and earth-based witchcraft) were also worth exploring, and even joining--salvation is not exclusive to the Catholic Church according to Vatican II. 

Witchcraft's appeal to the young.

Why is witchcraft on the rise and why does it appeal particularly to young people? First, young people are drawn to Wicca/Witchcraft because it has no orthodoxy and has no concept of absolute good or absolute evil. This is greatly appealing to impressionable young people. There are some common practices, rituals, and sayings, but for the most part practitioners can add and subtract to it at will. It is a perfectly postmodern religion. 

Second, witchcraft appeals to young people because it promotes glorification of self. "You are god/goddess." There is also a very strong feminist component so the attraction for girls is even greater.

Third, many young people embrace witchcraft because they, like adult witchcraft devotees, are bound by a passionate love of nature. Witches love the earth and care deeply for the environment; however, they take it too far.

Combating Witchcraft

Reclaim Halloween. 

I wince when I see children dress up as the evil supernatural characters of witches, vampires, and demons. What can be done? Have children dress up as a saint, and have your child learn all he can about this saint. These are the role models children should aspire to be. Does your son like things medieval? Dress up as King St. Louis IX! Want to be a lawyer? St. Thomas More will fit the role. For girls, there is the martyr of purity, St. Maria Goretti, and the equally brave St. Joan of Arc. Parents should take their kids trick-or-treating so they can explain the costume with their children to others who inquire.

Consider "All Saints Day" parties at home instead of trick-or-treating; have a parade of saints and fun in the house!

Talking to a Witch.

To convert a witch, it is important not to misstate their beliefs. You should always have on a St. Benedict medal. They will most likely attack alleged "witch burnings" and "Church persecutions." Don't let it go there. Ask what proof they have of "Mother Goddess" and their pantheistic worldview. Most are not well versed on it. Then, show the proofs of Christ's resurrection and also show the falsity of pantheism. Use my post on pantheism to help you: introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/07/east-meets-and-defeats-west.html. 

It is also important to point out gently where Wicca/Witchcraft is inconsistent. Without a God who is perfectly good, there are no absolutes, no standards by which to measure what is just or unjust. Witches borrow from Christian values of right and wrong. Witches might get upset at how women have been treated, but on what do they base their anger—that treating women poorly goes against their personal taste? Traditionalist Catholics believe mistreating women is wrong because God said so. We also believe that all life has dignity because we are made in God’s image. Witches don’t believe this, but without this belief they have only shaky ground on which to condemn injustice.

Conclusion

Witchcraft was once a rare thing. Now, it is becoming commonplace. As the number of those in witchcraft rises, it is important to understand it and combat it. We need to convert them, and not just in faraway lands. Thanks to Vatican II, you may need to convert your neighbor; the witch next door. 

Cultum Regi Regum: A Vindication Of Pope Pius XII

 

I have written before that Pope Pius XII is one of the most unfairly attacked pontiffs, especially among those purporting to be "Traditionalists." His Holiness has been attacked as "soft on Modernism," and his papacy allegedly "led to Vatican II." The charges are unfounded. He was one of the greatest popes in history, as I have always maintained. Years ago, my spiritual father, Fr. Gommar DePauw, JCD, told me that Pope Pius XII was planning a full-scale attack on Modernism. Father said that Pope Pius went to Judgement before it could be carried out. I took his word for it, as he was a truthful priest, but I only had his ipse dixit. Until recently.

The Pacelli archives (Eugene Pacelli being Pius XII's name) were opened in 2020. The German historian Matthias Daufratshofer found drafts of what would have been the most monumental encyclical of modern times. Researchers Sr. Sabine Schratz and Daniele Premoli published the reconstruction of the unpublished text of the encyclical, to be entitled Cultum Regi Regum---"Worship to the King of Kings."

The encyclical was to be a follow-up to the great Humani Generis, promulgated by Pope Pius XII in 1950, and which condemned "... some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic Doctrine." It was drafted by the great Dominican theologian Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. 

Its salient points include:

• Encyclicals usually speak to matters already expounded upon in doctrine; however, should the Pope pass supreme judgment on a disputed matter, it should be considered closed for discussion.

• Divine revelation was given by God as guidance for the Church to exercise Her living teaching authority, not for private deterministic interpretation.

• Some dispute the divine authorship of Scripture in part or in whole and interpret it on the basis of exegesis, looking for hidden meanings, instead of on the Church’s teachings.

• They claim that a new exegesis of the Old Testament would replace literal difficulties with symbolic/spiritual truth.

• Their claims oppose the norms of interpretation explained in previous encyclicals.

• Doubt regarding revealed truths is a result of this way of thinking. (e.g. Creation out of love, God’s eternal foreknowledge of men’s free choices, etc.)

• Angels, essence, the supernatural order, original sin, sin in general, the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice, and the Real Presence are all debated.

• The necessity and value of the Church and the faith itself is questioned.

• These errors are being pointed out herein because some Catholic theologians are committing them and are hereby censured.

• The Church relies on reason to understand the faith, God’s law, the mysteries, and even the existence of God. Reason comes with training and leads to truth.

• Teaching Authority only covers matters of faith and morals. "New" truth cannot overturn established truth, but it can correct errors.

• Priests must learn philosophy and Aquinas’ method is tried and true.

• Opponents claim that the traditional philosophy used by the Church is adequate for basic instruction but not for practical application, and that all other philosophies, albeit evolving, are ultimately compatible with Catholicism.

• They claim that the Church’s philosophy appeals to intellect and ignores the will and emotions; however, this is clearly and historically false, for the Church teaches that the will can see truth beyond what the intellect can deduce on its own.

• Theodicy and ethics (philosophical sciences) are threatened by these new opinions. Not only are they themselves debased, but so is the protection provided by the Church’s Teaching Authority.

• Discussion of theories not yet proven scientifically but merely hypothesized must follow. Theories can only be considered if they do not oppose Church teaching.

• Human evolution (origin of man from pre-existent and living matter) is up for discussion, but cannot contradict that God is the immediate creator of souls.

• Polygenism (origin from two or more distinct ancestors) is irreconcilable with the doctrine of original sin.

• The first eleven chapters of Genesis may not fit the modern concept of history, but any inclusion of folklore was done under divine inspiration.

• Thus, these are not imaginative myths but expressions of truth. Ancient sacred authors were clearly superior to secular ("profane") authors of the same period.

Hence, while condemning the modern errors, Pope Pius was careful to allow discussion on evolution of the body of humans, and a non-literal interpretation of Genesis in certain instances (which idea was advanced by Pope St. Pius X). 

Most importantly, Cultum Regi Regum, was to be promulgated in 1957, to mark the 50th anniversary of Pope St. Pius X's monumental condemnation of Modernism, Pascendi Dominici Gregis. It was to be called "the Pascendi of modern times." (N.B. This post is based on what I was able to gather from what the researchers [and commenters on that research] have written. Ergo, the information is not complete, and is subject to revision. It is not definitive as of this writing.---Introibo). 

What is Known: The Theologians Who Drafted It

On December 29, 1956, a commission of theologians was set up by Pope Pius XII to draft the encyclical. The commission was under the guidance of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, headed by the erudite and saintly Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani. At least five theologians are known:

1. Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (1877-1964). A professor at the Angelicum, he championed a rigid scholasticism based on the philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas. He correctly held that the Church’s theological definitions were immutable and expressed in timeless, objective, metaphysical categories. 

Garrigou-Lagrange was a fierce opponent of the so-called Nouvelle Theologie (New Theology), which was a roll call of the most radical Modernist theologians, such as Henri de Lubac, Jean Danielou, and M. D. Chenu. These theologians held that truth is dynamic; its expression can evolve historically "without changing its essence."

 In 1946, things came to a fever pitch when Garrigou-Lagrange published a highly controversial article in the journal Angelicum entitled Where is the New Theology Leading Us? His answer was to the point: "It leads straight to Modernism." Garrigou-Lagrange used his significant influence as a consultor to the Holy Office to urge the pope to act. His efforts culminated in August 1950, when Pope Pius XII promulgated the encyclical Humani Generis, the document having Garrigou-Lagrange as its principal author.

As a result, several New Theology professors (including Henri de Lubac and Yves Congar) were censured and removed from their teaching positions. Some of their publications were censured as well. Garrigou-Lagrange was on the verge of total victory when Roncalli usurped the papal throne and rehabilitated all the censured Modernist theologians, welcoming them to the Robber Council. 

2. Abp. Paul Phillippe (1905-1984). A staunch Anti-Modernist, Phillippe was against the Modernists at Vatican II. After the Robber Council, he tried to stop as much damage as he could as Secretary of the Holy Office, now called "The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith." 

3. Fr. Sebastian Tromp (1889-1975). Tromp was a brilliant professor of dogmatic theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome from 1929 to 1964. His sharp mind and absolute loyalty to traditional scholasticism earned him the trust of Pope Pius XII. Tromp was the principal draftsman behind Mystici Corporis Christi in 1943; the landmark encyclical which reaffirmed and made manifest the traditional ecclesiology on the nature of the Church as the "Mystical Body of Christ." In it, Tromp strictly equated the Mystical Body of Christ only with the visible Roman Catholic Church; "IS" not "subsists." Tromp is wrongly criticized for allegedly pushing "subsists" in Lumen Gentium at Vatican II, when he was actually trying to prevent an even more heretical wording. 

Tromp became the Holy Office's premier orthodox defender of the Faith under Cardinal Ottaviani. He was deeply involved in vetting publications, investigating suspected Modernist tendencies, and enforcing strict Catholic standards across the global Church. Fr. Tromp was the principal author behind several of the original, orthodox schemas presented to the Council Fathers in late 1962. These drafts were written in a scholastic Latin style designed to condemn modern errors and reaffirm existing dogmas. 

4. Fr. Marie-Rosaire Gagnebet (1904–1983). Gagnebet was a major French Dominican theologian, historical researcher, and Roman curial advisor. He was Anti-Modernist yet was criticized for some methods used by Modernists. Gagnebet used it, however, not to move past Aquinas, but to restore Thomism to its original 13th-century purity and make it more rigorous. 

He helped craft the heretical Lumen Gentium. He thought that by actively helping to write the document, he could ensure that it did not contain actual theological errors or heresy. He was (obviously) wrong and became compromised. 

5. Fr. Augustin Bea (1881–1968). A snake-in-the grass if there ever was one. Bea served as a professor and later Rector of the prestigious Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome from 1930 to 1949. He was a master of biblical archaeology and ancient languages. From 1945 until 1958, Bea served as the personal spiritual director and confessor to Pope Pius XII. since he held an intimate position of trust, Bea was able to convince Pope Pius XII that certain clergymen were orthodox (or had been rehabilitated) and were worthy of promotion to the cardinalate or episcopacy. (The pope is not protected by the Holy Ghost in making ecclesiastical appointments). Bea was, by all outward indications, an Anti-Modernist. 

Even Fr. DePauw thought so. 

As soon as Roncalli came into power as the false "Pope" John XXIII, Bea showed his true colors as an ultra-Modernist. Roncalli wasted no time in making Bea a "Cardinal," and in 1960, Roncalli created the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity with Bea as its head. The purpose of the Secretariat was to promote radical ecumenism as it operated independently of the Holy Office and, therefore, Cardinal Ottavianni could not stop what they did.  

Bea raged against the anti-Modernist preparatory schemas. In 1962, Bea stood up on the Council floor and fiercely attacked them, arguing that the texts "lacked charity," a "pastoral spirit," and any understanding of modern biblical research. Bea's forceful opposition helped convince the Council Fathers to reject the curial drafts entirely and pave the way to the Great Apostasy. 

During Vatican II, he was a major drafter of the Modernist documents, specifically:

• Unitatis Redintegratio which officially committed the Catholic Church to heretical ecumenism

• Nostra Aetate which lauded paganism, Islam, and denied that the Jews are justly called the Deicide Race

• Dignitatis Humanae which declared all humans have a "right" to religious freedom, a complete repudiation of Church teaching on religious tolerance and the axiom that "error has no rights." 

Therefore, of the five theologians we know were on the commission, four were solidly Anti-Modernist at the time (I would argue Garrigou-Lagrange was never compromised as he died in 1964), and only one was a closet Modernist. The encyclical would be a theological masterpiece considering the authors. We must wait for the researchers to publish the exact Latin verbiage. 

What We Know of the Encyclical

The draft was dated on August 15, the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in 1958. It was sent to be considered by the full commission on September 27, and Pope Pius XII died twelve days later, on October 9, never having signed it. It went through many revisions so the intended release in 1957 never came to pass.  Cultum Regi Regum was to consist of six chapters. Here is the breakdown:

Chapter One: The Nature of Religion

Highlights:

• It forcefully rejects Modernism and "vital immanence" ---the idea that religion does not start with intellectual beliefs or external doctrines. Instead, it begins as a blind, subconscious feeling; often described by Modernists as a "religious sense" or a sentiment of the heart. The encyclical says religion is a virtue, not a feeling or identity

• Religion consists in the adoration owed to God alone ("consistit in cultu latriae")

• Strong condemnation of the failure by individuals and society in not keeping Sunday holy  

Chapter Two: Liturgical Worship and Private Devotion

Highlights:

• As if seeing the future, the Novus Bogus type service is firmly rejected. The teaching of Mediator Dei is expanded upon

• Antiquarianism is condemned as is concelebration of Mass except in special or rare circumstances; "One Mass at which one hundred priests assist is not equal in value to one hundred Masses offered separately"

•  The priest is not the leader of an assembly the efficacy of whose actions depend upon collective participation of the people

• Private devotions are to be kept and encouraged, especially the Rosary 

Chapter Three: Moral Theology

Highlights: 

• Natural Law is to be emphasized and subjectivist moral theories rejected

• Condemnation of those who deny or call into doubt that the primary end of marriage is for the procreation and education of children, thereby making the mutual support of the spouses (the secondary end) equal to the primary end

• Consecrated virginity is the highest state and superior to marriage (reaffirming Trent)

• The dangers of materialism are condemned

Chapter Four: The Profession of Faith

Highlights:

• Catholics must boldly profess the One True Faith whole and entire, not partially, and never to compromise even on one point of doctrine 

• In regard to false religions, cooperation for the common good is permitted but doctrinal differences may never be set aside for a false notion of "brotherhood" ---"a healthy doctor may work beside a physician with a contagious disease, but closer work requires more vigilance against infection"

• True ecumenism consists in bringing those in false religions into the One True Church, and not in downplaying or failing to mention Catholic truths that offend them

Chapter Five: Authority and Freedom in the Church

Highlights:

• Our religion is "via auctoritatis et obedientiae," a way of authority and obedience

• Theologians have a vital role, however only when united and approved by the Magisterium

• Renewed and more expanded condemnations of the "New Theology" and Modernism

Chapter Six: The Religious Order and The Secular Order

Highlights:

• Quas Primas is reaffirmed; the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ

• Every State must strive to be a Catholic State because every State owes public recognition to the One True Church. A religiously neutral State is against the Will of God and all must strive to make it Catholic

• The views of John Courtney Murray are condemned

• The Social Kingship of Christ is a conclusion about human nature and not nostalgia for old times. Communities cannot organize themselves as if God is irrelevant

(Reference: Journal of Modern and Contemporary Christianity: “L’Enciclica Pascendi dei tempi moderni. Il progetto per l’ultima enciclica di Pio XII (1956-58).” Vol. 3, No. 1 (April 2024). 

A Greatly Misunderstood Pontiff

It is apparent that Pope Pius XII was no "Modernist." Much of the charges come from a misunderstanding of Catholic principles. Pius was trying to make Catholicism "combat-ready" against the attacks of the 20th century. As countries became more secularized, it was harder to get time off to attend the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Evening Mass was introduced, and with it the mitigated three hour Eucharistic Fast so all could receive Holy Communion.

The Holy Week reforms are often unjustly criticized as "reductions in prayers." If brevity means "less holy," then what are we to think of Pope St. Pius V? In his reform of the Roman Missal, he removed late medieval "farcings" (interpolated, localized tropes or poetic insertions added into standard chants like the Kyrie and Gloria) and doubtful accretions, while the number of liturgical sequences were reduced down to just four. St. Pius V also removed some localized sanctoral feast days and duplicate saints' celebrations to clear up a crowded calendar. In some dioceses, a Mass could take a very long time. Is the Missal of 1570 somehow "less traditional" or "less holy" since certain prayers and feasts were removed?     

Conclusion: A Vindication of a Great Pope

To those who have attacked Pope Pius XII as "soft on Modernism," on being "liberal," on "introducing novelties" in the liturgy, this encyclical that could have been shows a great Pontiff who loved the Catholic Faith and defended the One True Church. 

Far from being an "innovator," Pope Pius XII used Catholic principles to meet modern needs while simultaneously defending the One True Church from Her enemies. I can't help but wonder what would have happened (or not happened) had Cultum Regi Regum been promulgated. Could Vatican II have thus been prevented? Only God knows. One thing is now clear: Pope Pius XII was a true pope and therefore he was no Modernist. He had no sympathy for Modernism and was in complete possession of his faculties until the end. Let his critics be silenced. Should the papacy ever be restored, we may see the canonization of Eugene Pacelli as Pope St. Pius XII.