Mel Gibson And The Force

 

Mel Gibson is both an enigmatic and tragic figure. I had my brush with him when he attended Midnight Mass at the Ave Maria Chapel with Fr. DePauw in 1994. The award winning movie star, director, and producer brought his wife and three oldest children. He asked the head usher if he could speak to Father after Mass. Fr. DePauw, who focused on all things spiritual, knew nothing about him, yet agreed to speak with him in private. They would talk together for about 30 minutes.

The next Sunday, Father said he was impressed with Mr. Gibson who stated that he "wanted to be a good Traditionalist" and had come up with a "great idea for a movie." (That was probably a reference to The Passion of the Christ, which came out ten years later in 2004).  That movie was (in my opinion), the greatest film of all time. Mel Gibson's father, Hutton Gibson, was one of the very first sedevacantist laymen, who unfortunately was also a Home Aloner. (Hutton Gibson died in 2020 just short of turning 102 years old). 

Since that time, Gibson got divorced and had adulterous affairs resulting in illegitimate children. I don't know if he has gotten his act together, but we must pray for him. He is said to have another epic movie coming out on the resurrection of Christ. Recently, Gibson gave sedevacantism notoriety when he appeared on the "Joe Rogan Show." Rogan is all over the place in his beliefs. He does not affirm belief in God but is "open to it," favors the legalization of marijuana, supports socialized medicine, yet affirms the right to bear arms and rejects cancel culture. He supported Trump in 2024, but endorsed Communist Bernie Sanders in 2020. 

One of my readers sent me a video clip that shocked me. While talking with Rogan, Gibson talked about his encounter with a qigong (pronounced chee-gong; and also spelled chi kung) "master." The actor relates how seemingly supernatural things were taking place, and Gibson asked the advice of an unnamed  Traditionalist priest to see if it was "demonic." Unfortunately, it doesn't seem Mel was dissuaded nor do we know the eact exchange between him and the priest. 

All forms of alleged "energy healing" (most notably qigong and Reiki) are occult and, therefore, demonic. This post will expose energy healing as the occult practice it is, so it may be avoided.  

"Energy Medicine"

Qigong and Reiki are two of the best known pagan/occult "healing" methods. These methods share a common belief in the universe as a unified field of energy that produces all form and substance. This vital force, which supports and sustains life, has been given many names. The Chinese call it “chi,” the Hindus call it “prana,” the Hebrews call it “ruach,” and the American Indians name it “the Great Spirit.” (See e.g., The Energy Codes: The 7-Step System to Awaken Your Spirit, Heal Your Body, and Live Your Best Life, [2024]).

This energy is not a visible, measurable, scientifically explainable energy. Rather, it is believed to be a “cosmic” or “universal” energy based on a monistic (all is one) and pantheistic (all is God) worldview. To enhance the flow of “healing energy” in the body, one must allegedly attune to it and realize one’s unity with all things. Becoming “one” with this universal energy (“God”) yields health. (Whoever heard of a sick god?) One must also “smooth out” any energy blockages that may develop within the body. Then one will be healthy.

To understand energy medicine, one must understand two important underlying concepts: auras and chakras. 

Auras:

Auras are sometimes referred to as a human energy field and are found outside the body. They were popularized by Theosophist (occultist) Charles Webster Leadbeater (1854–1934). Leadbeater transitioned from an Anglican priest to a spiritual mystic who believed he had clairvoyant powers. He spent much of his time studying (and adopting) occult beliefs and practices. As a result of his studies, he determined that “It is not around the human body alone that an aura is to be seen; a similar cloud of light surrounds or emanates from animals, trees, and even minerals, though in all these cases it is less extended and less complex than that of man.” (See C. W. Leadbeater, “The Aura,” The Theosophist, December 1895, https://www.cwlworld.info/The_Aura.pdf)

 Leadbeater’s ideas caught fire and were later adopted and spread by famed clairvoyants/occultists like Rudolf Steiner and Edgar Cayce.  Auras allegedly have seven layers connecting with the seven chakras but "each person’s aura has a unique size, shape, and frequency and contains distinct energetic imprints of their mental, physical, spiritual, and emotional conditions." (See Eliza Swann, Auras: The Anatomy of the Aura, pg. 36)They are frequently illustrated as rings of colors and light around a human body, but they can come from anything physical. The various auric layers are:

• Causal Body: outermost layer; connected to the Crown Chakra
• Celestial Body: responsible for spiritual ecstasy
• Etheric Blueprint: the body’s map of energy
• Astral Body: controls dreams and psychic energy
• Mental Body: responsible for spiritual discernment and gifts like clairvoyance
• Emotional Body: connected to Sacral Chakra; where our feelings reside
• Etheric Double: gives vitality and life

(See Ibid, chapter 5). 

Auras haven’t been empirically demonstrated by science, but those who subscribe to this  pseudoscientific belief will point to electromagnetic fields as "evidence" of their existence. Coexisting with auras are "chakras," which reside within the body (and under the protection of the aura) which will be examined next.

Chakras:

Like auras, chakras have roots in Eastern religions, including Hinduism and Buddhism, and they are promoted heavily in the occult, which shares much with Eastern worldviews. According to these belief systems, the world is made up of energy, even down to the air we breathe and the ground we walk on. Our bodies comprise energy points called chakras. Chakra comes from the Sanskrit word that means “wheel.” Author and “intuitive healer” Cyndi Dale describes them this way: “Chakras are energy centers in our body that, when perceived by those of us who are blessed to be able to see them, look like wheels of light spinning in and around the body — stars in miniature.”(See Cyndi Dale, “Introduction” in Llewellyn’s Complete Book of Chakras: Your Definitive Source of Energy Center Knowledge for Health, Happiness, and Spiritual Evolution, [2015], pg. xlv). 

Depending on the source you reference, there are generally between five and seven chakras in the human body, though some will claim there are up to 88,000 chakras.

In the West, the seven-chakra system is the most popular. Beginning in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the system was developed by various sources, including Theosophists Helena Blavatsky and Charles Webster Leadbeater (the same person who popularized auras). Each chakra is found along the human spine, from the head to the tailbone. They are all said to be connected to various organs, and the chakras’s health determines one’s physical, mental, and spiritual well-being. Eliza Swann summarizes the seven chakras and their purposes this way:

• Root (Muladhara): at the base of the spine; responsible for survival
• Sacral (Svadhisthana): below the belly button; responsible for creativity and sexuality
• Solar Plexus (Manipura): near the stomach; responsible for willpower and identity
• Heart (Anahata): in the chest; responsible for connection and humility
• Throat (Vishuddha): near the throat; responsible for communication
• Third Eye (Ajna): between the eyebrows; responsible for wisdom and intuition; helps a person ascend to higher consciousness

(Source: This list was derived from Swann, Auras, chapter 4). 

Qigong and Reiki

Qigong is described as:

Like qigong, Qi~ssage (energy massage) focuses on balancing and enhancing the flow of energy through the body’s energy channels, or meridians, in part through the power of your mind, or your visualization, and, most importantly, the unconditional love from your heart….. There are twelve major energy channels in your body and hundreds of energy points all over your body. Each of these points affects the balance and flow of your body’s energy; however, only a couple dozen of these energy points are vitally important in helping you heal and in helping you experience and maintain your optimal health and wellness. (See bodymindheartandsoulharmony.com.au/massage-croydon/qi-ssage/#:~:text=Qi~ssage%20%E2%80%93%20combining%20the%20energy,physical%20stimulation%20of%20the%20body.). 

According to www.Reiki.org, "Reiki is a Japanese technique for stress reduction and relaxation that also promotes healing. It is administered by "laying on hands" and is based on the idea that an unseen "life force energy" flows through us and is what causes us to be alive. If one's "life force energy" is low, then we are more likely to get sick or feel stress, and if it is high, we are more capable of being happy and healthy."

The Occult Connection:

Wherever it has appeared—in ancient paganism, modern occultism, or parapsychological research—this “life force” has been accompanied by altered states of consciousness, psychic phenomena, and contact with spirits. Additionally, those who are capable of perceiving, and adept at manipulating, this force invariably are shamans (e.g., witch doctors), “sensitives,” or psychics, thoroughly immersed in the pagan/occult world. 

Many energetic health therapies seek to enhance the flow of “healing energy” in the body. Unfortunately, by engaging in such practices, many people have been sucked headlong into occultism. The person will start to use meditation that induces altered states of consciousness opening the door to demonic possession/obsession (N.B. Demonic obsession is disturbance by demons from without the person's body). 

One such example is Dr. Bernie Siegel, a Brooklyn, NY born Jew and former surgeon. He retired in 1989, and will turn 91 this year. He is deeply involved in the occult and has written many books on the subject of occult healing via "energy manipulation" which includes both reiki and qigong. In Siegel's book, Love, Medicine & Miracles he writes of how he met his "spirit guide" (demon) during a "mystical exercise" at a conference led by a couple, the Simontons:

The Simontons taught us how to meditate. At one point, they led us in a directed meditation to find and meet an inner guide. I approached this exercise with all the skepticism one expects from a mechanistic doctor. Still, I sat down, closed my eyes, and followed directions. I didn’t believe it would work, but if it did, I expected to see Jesus or Moses. Who else would dare appear inside a surgeon’s head?

Instead I met George, a bearded, long-haired young man wearing an immaculate flowing white gown and a skullcap. It was an incredible awakening for me, because I hadn’t expected anything to happen. As the Simontons taught us to communicate with whomever we’d called up from our unconscious minds, I found that talking to George was like playing chess with myself, but without knowing what my alter ego’s next move would be.

George was spontaneous, aware of my feelings, and an excellent adviser…. All I know is that he has been my invaluable companion ever since his first appearance. My life is much easier now because he does the hard work. (See  Love, Medicine & Miracles, [1998], pgs. 19-20). 

In addition, Siegel has come to believe in reincarnation and practice necromancy. All along with "energy healing." The biggest problems with reiki and qigong, is an implicit belief in the heretical view called pantheism, where "God" and the universe are one and the same. Alterations of life energy are sometimes said to be the source of events that previously have been called supernatural or miraculous. Some adherents of energy-based medicine offer the life force as an explanation for what people have called miracles. In this scheme there is no longer a need for a personal, all-powerful, transcendent God. Instead, the impersonal life force is the cause of “miracles.” Moreover, being part of this life force, we too can master it and perform “miracles” as well. Jesus, then, was merely a master of this life force.

Remember what Mel Gibson claimed happened to him.

The Vatican Council of 1870 Condemnes Pantheism

 From the First Vatican Council (1870), Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Dei Filius states:

The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one true and living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, Almighty, Eternal, Immense, Incomprehensible, Infinite in intelligence, in will, and in all perfection, who, as being one, sole, absolutely simple and immutable spiritual substance, is to be declared as really and essentially distinct from the world, of supreme beatitude in and from Himself, and ineffably exalted above all things which exist, or are conceivable, except Himself. 

3. If anyone shall say that the substance and essence of God and of all things is one and the same; let him be anathema. 

4. If anyone shall say that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least spiritual, have emanated from the Divine substance; or that the Divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself, becomes all things; or, lastly, that God is a universal or indefinite being, which by determining itself constitutes the universality of things, distinct according to genera, species and individuals; let him be anathema. 

5. If anyone does not confess that the world, and all things that are contained in it, both spiritual and material, have been, in their whole substance, produced by God out of nothing; or shall say that God created, not by His will, free from all necessity, but by a necessity equal to the necessity whereby He loves Himself; or shall deny that the world was made for the glory of God; let him be anathema. 

Life energy is what pagan religions and occultists have called God. This is the cornerstone of occult  spirituality: You shall be as gods. If the energy flowing through us is indeed the life force that permeates reality, it must be what we have called God. If we are energy and energy is “God,” then we must be divine. Energy-based practitioners and patients that embrace this point are likely to be involved in a number of related occult practices that result from such reasoning. Some, like actress Shirley MacLaine, may become so bold as to say “I am God!” Of course, not all practitioners and patients have made this leap, but if the underlying principles of life force energy are followed through to their logical conclusions, this is the end of the line: We are "divine." You have implicitly accepted a heresy condemned infallibly by the Vatican Council of 1870.

Even The Vatican II Sect Agrees

Proving the old aphorism, "Even a broken clock is right twice each day" true, the Vatican II sect "bishops" condemned the practice of Reiki in 2009, four years before Bergoglio was elected "pope." The document entitled Guidelines for Evaluating Reiki as an Alternative Therapy, has this to say in paragraph #9:

The difference between what Christians recognize as healing by divine grace and Reiki therapy is also evident in the basic terms used by Reiki proponents to describe what happens in Reiki therapy, particularly that of "universal life energy." Neither the Scriptures nor the Christian tradition as a whole speak of the natural world as based on "universal life energy" that is subject to manipulation by the natural human power of thought and will. In fact, this worldview has its origins in eastern religions and has a certain monist and pantheistic character, in that distinctions among self, world, and God tend to fall away. (Emphasis mine)

Their conclusion:
Reiki therapy finds no support either in the findings of natural science or in Christian belief. For a Catholic to believe in Reiki therapy presents insoluble problems...In terms of caring for one's spiritual health, there are important dangers. To use Reiki one would have to accept at least in an implicit way central elements of the worldview that undergirds Reiki theory, elements that belong neither to Christian faith nor to natural science.
Without justification either from Christian faith or natural science, however, a Catholic who puts his or her trust in Reiki would be operating in the realm of superstition, the no-man's-land that is neither faith nor science. Superstition corrupts one's worship of God by turning one's religious feeling and practice in a false direction.(See paragraphs 10 and 11; Emphasis mine. The term "Catholic" is meant to denote a member of the Vatican II sect). The same would hold true for qigong and all "energy healing" methods. 

Conclusion

Mel Gibson had an encounter with occult forces. There's no escaping that fact. We need to remember, however, that pain and suffering in this world is very real. Consequently, in many cases individuals (like Mel Gibson) turn to energy-based occult "medicine" because of a desire for health. As such, when interacting with those involved in questionable forms of alternative medicine-such as energy-based medicine-we need to be sympathetic and compassionate, but unafraid to present the truth for spiritual health comes before all else. "And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in Hell." (St. Matthew 10:28). 

Contending For The Faith---Part 37

 

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.

Recovering Into Modernism

Pity Andrew Mioni of "Trad Recovery" (TR), a website of former Traditionalists (tradrecovery.com). Now a full blown Modernist and apologist of the Vatican II sect, he went on a YouTube channel run by "Kevin" who describes himself as "Catholic as an atheist Jewish man is still Jewish." During that video, Mioni decries those horrible Traditionalists. Forgive me if I shed no tears for Andrew. As one of his myriad complaints, I find it interesting that Mioni cites "sexual issues" that the Vatican II sect has "developed" and Traditionalists reject. (See the full video here: youtube.com/watch?v=4ciSP4nnANg). 

So what has the Vatican II sect developed regarding sexuality?  "Blessing" sodomites and allowing (de facto) contraception, to mention only two things. Now, Mioni has written a blog post entitled Did Vatican II really reverse the ends of marriage? (See tradrecovery.com/post/did-vatican-ii-really-reverse-the-ends-of-marriage). Although the Robber Council did not overturn the traditional teaching outright, it provided the groundwork for its subversion which has already taken place. The Vatican II sect teaching is opposed to the true doctrine of the Church. The heretical view on the ends of marriage is now in the sect's Canon Law and Catechism of Wojtyla (1992). 

In this post, Church teaching regarding the ends of marriage will be set forth, followed by the heretical position of Vatican II and Mioni's failed attempt at defending it.

The Teaching of the Church: The Ends of Marriage

The perennial teaching of the Church is enshrined in the 1917 Code of Canon Law: “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children; the secondary [end] is mutual support and a remedy for concupiscence” (Canon 1013, section 1).  It is also explicitly taught in many Magisterial documents:

For, first, there has been vouchsafed to the marriage union a higher and nobler purpose than was ever previously given to it. By the command of Christ, it not only looks to the propagation of the human race, but to the bringing forth of children for the Church, “fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God”; so that “a people might be born and brought up for the worship and religion of the true God and our Savior Jesus Christ.” (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum Divinae, para. #10). 

No human law can abolish the natural and original right of marriage, nor in any way limit the chief and principal purpose of marriage ordained by God’s authority from the beginning: “Increase and multiply.” (Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, para. #12).

Thus amongst the blessings of marriage, the child holds the first place. And indeed the Creator of the human race Himself, Who in His goodness wishes to use men as His helpers in the propagation of life, taught this when, instituting marriage in Paradise, He said to our first parents, and through them to all future spouses: “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth.” As St. Augustine admirably deduces from the words of the holy Apostle Saint Paul to Timothy when he says: “The Apostle himself is therefore a witness that marriage is for the sake of generation: ‘I wish,’ he says, ‘young girls to marry.’ And, as if someone said to him, ‘Why?,’ he immediately adds: ‘To bear children, to be mothers of families’.”

(Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, para. # 11). 

The primary purpose for marriage is procreation. Other purposes, such as mutual support and regulation of carnal desires, are not excluded, and indeed sometimes the primary end cannot be attained at all for reasons beyond the spouses’ control, but any other ends are necessarily subordinate to the primary end. Thus the traditional Catholic teaching is clear. 

Vatican II: The Attack on Matrimony

Beginning with the document Gaudium et Spes ("Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World"), Church teaching was undermined regarding Holy Matrimony. For the first time, instead of teaching about the "ends of marriage," the "benefits and purposes" of marriage are discussed. These "benefits and purposes" are written about without any distinction between which are primary and secondary, and no mention of any particular one(s) being subordinate to others. 

The intimate partnership of married life and love has been established by the Creator and qualified by His laws, and is rooted in the conjugal covenant of irrevocable personal consent. Hence by that human act whereby spouses mutually bestow and accept each other a relationship arises which by divine will and in the eyes of society too is a lasting one. For the good of the spouses and their off-springs as well as of society, the existence of the sacred bond no longer depends on human decisions alone. For, God Himself is the author of matrimony, endowed as it is with various benefits and purposes. All of these have a very decisive bearing on the continuation of the human race, on the personal development and eternal destiny of the individual members of a family, and on the dignity, stability, peace and prosperity of the family itself and of human society as a whole. By their very nature, the institution of matrimony itself and conjugal love are ordained for the procreation and education of children, and find in them their ultimate crown. Thus a man and a woman, who by their compact of conjugal love “are no longer two, but one flesh” (Matt. 19:ff), render mutual help and service to each other through an intimate union of their persons and of their actions. Through this union they experience the meaning of their oneness and attain to it with growing perfection day by day. As a mutual gift of two persons, this intimate union and the good of the children impose total fidelity on the spouses and argue for an unbreakable oneness between them. (para. #48; Emphasis mine). 

One may wonder, "Is that really a change in doctrine? Maybe the change is merely accidental and not substantial." From the record of the Council Fathers, we see that the intent of the Modernists was to change Church teaching:

Although a number of fathers took their stand firmly on the positions found in [Pope Pius XI’s] Casti connubii, others wanted a renewal in what the Church had to say about marriage and the family. The first two interventions illustrated the difference between the two approaches.

As soon as the debate began Cardinal Browne brought up for discussion the distinction between “the primary end, that is, the end which essentially determines the nature of the object of the conjugal covenant, namely, the procreation and rearing of children,” and “secondary ends, or essential concomitants,” namely, “mutual help and a remedy for concupiscence.” This statement would be repeated, as in a litany, by Ruffini and Alonso Muñoyerro. Immediately after Browne it was Leger’s turn to speak. While acknowledging that the new draft of the schema was better than the preceding one, he feared that in its present form its teaching would deeply disappoint the legitimate expectations of the faithful. The main defect of the schema was that it continued to describe marriage as “an institution ordered to the procreation and rearing of children,” instead of basing the description on the persons that marriage brings together into a community of life and love. According to the Archbishop of Montreal, to describe marriage as an institution in the service of procreation “is certainly both false and destructive of the dignity of love.” The need was to think within another perspective, that of “an intimate community of love.” (See Alberigo and Komonchak, eds., History of Vatican II, [2006], pgs. 154-155; Emphasis mine). 

The Modernists were seeking the overturning of the traditional concept of marriage. While the Catholic prelates fighting the Modernists were able to prevent it, they were unable to stop the watering down of Church teaching with the elimination of the clear and unambiguous concepts always used prior to the Robber Council. 

The next innovation comes from "Pope" "St." Paul VI when he taught a two-fold "meaning" of marriage with neither "meaning"  subordinate to the other, and lists the traditional ends of marriage in reverse order:

That teaching, often set forth by the Magisterium, is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman. By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man’s most high calling to parenthood. We believe that the men of our day are particularly capable of seeing the deeply reasonable and human character of this fundamental principle. (See Humanae Vitae, para. #12; Emphasis mine)

This led up to the memorialization of a false tenet in Wojtyla's 1983 Code of Canon Law with the ends of marriage inverted:

The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized. (Canon 1055, section 1). 

Quite logically, a new ground for annulment was manufactured by the Vatican II sect: the inability to live in union (whatever that means). It has also been referred to as "mental immaturity" and has generally been described as the "incapacity of fulfilling the burdens and obligations of marriage."

The "evidence" of this inability most generally comes in the form of "expert testimony" about the mental state and maturity of the parties, something entirely subjective and not able to be pinpointed to the time of the wedding. An annulment means the marriage was defective and invalid from its inception for once a Christian marriage is ratified and consummated, only death can break the marriage bond. When Vatican II ended, there were about 300 to 500 annulments granted worldwide. Now, about 60,000 are granted each year with roughly 60% coming from the United States. (See e.g., theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/the-vaticans-new-policy-on-annulments-the-first-hint-of-shake-ups-to-come/404182). 

When "the good of the spouses" is equal or superior to procreation as an end of marriage, use of contraception becomes de facto acceptable. Many Vatican II sect "priests" will tell penitents (the few who go to Confession at all) that it's not a sin. According to a Pew Research poll in 2024, an astounding 83% of Vatican II sect members in the U.S. approve of artificial contraception--- surpassed only by Argentina at 86%--most fittingly, the home of Bergoglio. 

(See pewresearch.org/religion/2024/09/26/many-catholics-in-the-us-and-latin-america-want-the-church-to-allow-birth-control-and-to-let-women-become-priests). 

Finally, we have Newsweek magazine reporting this in 2002:

... Catholics narrowly opposed legally sanctioned gay marriages, 47 percent to 44 percent, but they are more liberal than non-Catholics, 61 percent of whom don't think such marriages are a good idea. The arguments against it run from the conservative reading of Scripture to an abiding sense that the purpose of marriage from the Garden of Eden forward is procreation. This is a heartfelt position for many, but you could argue it another way. Isn't the role of the Church to encourage people to enter into stable relationships? The purpose of marriage, or "unions," or whatever we choose to call them, should be the establishment of a committed, loving family. Heterosexuals who do not reproduce are no less "married." Meanwhile Catholics in the United States are more likely than non-Catholics to accept a homosexual priest in a committed relationship with someone of the same sex, 39 percent to 29 percent. (See May 6, 2002 edition, page 29). 

Recently, from Pew Research:

In the United States, about six-in-ten Catholics (61%) said in a 2019 survey that they favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry... In Western Europe, large majorities of Catholics said in 2017 that they support legal same-sex marriage. That was the case in the Netherlands (92%), the United Kingdom (78%), France (74%) and Germany (70%).(See https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/11/02/how-catholics-around-the-world-see-same-sex-marriage-homosexuality).

Ideas (especially heretical ones) have consequences.

Mioni's Feeble and Flawed Attempt to Salvage Vatican II

Andrew Mioni's blog post takes the position that Vatican II did not reverse the ends of marriage. He begins:

I can recall being told in my SSPX marriage classes that we “should have nothing to do with the Novus Ordo” because “they reversed the ends of marriage.” This is a fairly standard grievance in traditionalist circles against the “Novus Ordo church”- that traditionally, it was understood that having children and educating them was the primary end of marriage, and that mutual spousal support was the secondary end. This is reflected in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (canon 1013.1, to be precise). The implication of these ends being reversed was that children were now somehow "secondary" to your well-being, thereby weakening the importance of sacramental matrimony and providing a clear explanation for low birth rates, high divorce rates, and so on. (Yet another classic example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, but that's for another time.)

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, is a logical fallacy, the name of which means "After this, therefore because of this." It is a fallacy in which an event is presumed to have been caused by a closely preceding event merely on the grounds of temporal succession. Example: "Every time after the rooster crows the sun comes up. Therefore, the rooster's crowing caused the sun to rise." Traditionalist are not arguing that because the teaching on the reversal regarding the ends of marriage came first in time, low birth rates and other evils necessarily followed. 

When the Modernist indoctrinated "priests" of the sect tell you that birth control is no big deal, that those living in open adultery can receive "communion" at the Novus Bogus bread and wine service, that sodomite "couples" can be "blessed," and "annulments" are easy to come by, people will get the idea that marriage is not nearly as sacred as once taught.  Holy Matrimony becomes about coupling and the happiness of the individuals, with children only a secondary consideration. Were there other factors that contributed to the evils of contraception and the rest? Yes. However, the case can be logically made that the change in Catholic doctrine was a primary cause (pun intended). 

Logicians will tell you, "For in many instances, a positive correlation, even a weak one that only has one instance, is a perfectly good and reliable indication that there may be a causal connection between two states of affairs." (See Walton, Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach, [2008], pg. 277). 

Mioni continues:

There is no disputing the fact that when the 1983 Code of Canon Law was promulgated, it did indeed list these two things in a different order (which is also quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in its section on matrimony):

Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

There is a conspicuous difference, however; the terms “primary” and “secondary” have been dropped. In an effort to better express the Church’s teaching on marriage and not imply that one is more important than the other, the Church elected not to use these terms. As the Catechism says in paragraph 2366, "[C]onjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment."

But this article does not intend to get into the details of canon law and specific verbiage. It intends to respond to the claim that the church had always taught one thing and then changed her teaching. Is this actually the case? Does the 1917 Code of Canon Law reflect the norm of the Church at the time? (Emphasis mine).

Two points:

1. Mioni admits that of the two ends of marriage, one is not more important than the other.

2. He further claims this is NOT a change in teaching, but a "better expression" of what the Church has (allegedly) always taught. 

Mioni sets out to prove his case:

The often-cited encyclical Casti Connubii ("On Christian Marriage") from 1930, written by Pope Pius XI, says the following:

23. […] This outward expression of love in the home demands not only mutual help but must go further; [it] must have as its primary purpose that man and wife help each other day by day in forming and perfecting themselves in the interior life, so that through their partnership in life they may advance ever more and more in virtue, and above all that they may grow in true love toward God and their neighbor, on which indeed “dependeth the whole Law and the Prophets.”

24. This mutual molding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof.

Note several things here:

1) Pius XI says that matrimony is to be viewed "as a whole", as a "blending of life," and that to exclusively focus on having children and educating them would be to understand matrimony in a "restricted" sense.

2) He draws his teaching from the Roman Catechism, another name for the Catechism of the Council of Trent. What does it specifically say on this subject?

The Motives And Ends Of Marriage

We have now to explain why man and woman should be joined in marriage. First of all, nature itself by an instinct implanted in both sexes impels them to such companionship, and this is further encouraged by the hope of mutual assistance in bearing more easily the discomforts of life and the infirmities of old age.

A second reason for marriage is the desire of family, not so much, however, with a view to leave after us heirs to inherit our property and fortune, as to bring up children in the true faith and in the service of God.”

This is not only reflected in the Catechism of Trent. It is also in the Baltimore Catechism, which is the definitive Catechism in traditionalist circles. Volume 3, Question 1010 says the following:

Q. 1010. What are the chief ends of the Sacrament of Matrimony?

A. The chief ends of the Sacrament of matrimony are:

To enable the husband and wife to aid each other in securing the salvation of their souls (i.e., mutual support)

To propagate or keep up the existence of the human race by bringing children into the world to serve God (i.e., procreation and education of children)

To prevent sins against the holy virtue of purity by faithfully obeying the laws of the marriage state.

A final example, and one that may be the most surprising, is that it is also listed in this order in the Catechism of Pope St Pius X!

The Sacrament of Matrimony

Nature of the Sacrament of Matrimony

1 Q. What is the sacrament of Matrimony?

A. Matrimony is a sacrament, instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, which creates a holy and indissoluble union between a man and woman, and gives them grace to love one another holily and to bring up their children as Christians.

These examples should suffice to prove that the wording of the 1983 Code of Canon Law and of the current catechism is not without precedent, and in fact is supported by sources that traditionalists champion for their orthodoxy. This is not a "change in teaching" or a "reversal". It is clearly consistent with the Church's previous teachings.

Mioni seems to think that merely listing the ends in reverse order, in and of itself, somehow "proves" that Church always taught the ends of marriage are equal. 

First, the mere listing of the ends, without more, proves nothing. It was demonstrated that the change in the 1983 Code of Canon Law was a culmination of gradual changes in doctrine introduced by the Modernists at Vatican II. 

Second, at no place in any of those Catechisms cited will you see the ends of marriage spoken of as equal, nor is the primary purpose of marriage (procreation and education of children) denied. 

Most importantly, Mioni's citation to Pope Pius XI in Casti Conubii means the exact opposite of what he thinks it means.

According to theologian Sola, in the 20th century there arose certain authors (e.g., theologians Doms and Krempel) who proposed a theory that the essence of marriage consists it the mutual perfection of the spouses. For these (censured) theologians, the primary purpose of marriage is the spiritual coming together of the spouses. Therefore, from the union various "goods or fruits" are the result: personal fulfilment, and in the biological order, procreation and education of children, resulting in the total perfection of marriage. One of the arguments used to advance their untenable theory is the citation to the 24th paragraph of Casti Connubii cited by Andrew Mioni: "This mutual molding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, ..."

Theologian Sola then refutes the argument thus:

Regarding the document of Pius XI, it is true that those are the words of the Supreme Pontiff, but the whole context should be kept in mind. For the Supreme Pontiff says, "...it can be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof." (Emphasis in Original).

And so it is. For what these authors [theologians] are proposing pertains more to marital social living rather than to marriage considered in itself. (Emphasis in Original).

(See Sacrae Theologiae Summa, IVB,[1956], pgs. 153-154). 

Andrew Mioni simply doesn't understand his own sources, and stands refuted. However, theologian Sola cites the following decree of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office as a perfect finishing blow to those like Mioni:

Hence, the Holy Office published this decree:

[In certain writings it is asserted] that the primary purpose of matrimony is not the generation of offspring, or that the secondary purposes are not subordinate to the primary purpose, but are independent of it.

In these works different primary purposes of marriage are designated by other writers, as for example: the complement and personal perfection of the spouses through a complete mutual participation in life and action; mutual love and union of spouses to be nurtured and perfected by the psychic and bodily surrender of one’s own person; and many other such things.

In the same writings a sense is sometimes attributed to words in the current documents of the Church (as for example, primary, secondary purpose), which does not agree with these words according to the common usage by theologians.

This revolutionary way of thinking and speaking aims to foster errors and uncertainties, to avoid which the Most Eminent and Very Reverend Fathers of this supreme Sacred Congregation, charged with the guarding of matters of faith and morals, in a plenary session, on Wednesday, the 28th of March, 1944, when the question was proposed to them “Whether the opinion of certain recent persons can be admitted, who either deny that the primary purpose of matrimony is the generation and raising of offspring, or teach that the secondary purposes are not essentially subordinate to the primary purpose, but are equally first and independent," have decreed that the answer must be: In the negative.

(Ibid, pg. 154). 

Conclusion

Andrew Mioni of "Trad Recovery" has inadvertently proven the very thing he sought to refute: there was a substantial change in the teaching regarding the ends of marriage by Vatican II and the sect it created. The 1917 Code of Canon Law did accurately reflect the perennial teaching of the Church and Vatican II changed that teaching. Moreover, a universal disciplinary law such as the 1917 Code of Canon Law is infallible:

Proof: According to theologian Van Noort, "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living." (See Dogmatic Theology, 2: 114-115; Emphasis mine). 

According to theologian Herrmann:
"The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…. If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible."
(Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258)

Pope Gregory XVI teaches: "[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced." (See Mirari Vos, para. #9).

(I would also argue the traditional understanding of the ends of marriage is infallible as it is taught by the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium).

Hence, the perennial teaching of the Church that procreation and educating children is the primary purpose of marriage ("ordained by God’s authority from the beginning" as Pope Leo XIII teaches). The secondary end is subordinate to it. Yet Vatican II changed it. Now Andrew Mioni must be honest and draw the only logical conclusion: The Church cannot give that which is erroneous or evil to Her members. However, the new teaching on the ends of marriage contradicts the infallible and perennial teaching of the Church. The new teaching is heretical and evil. Therefore, it did not come from the Church but the man-made sect of Vatican II.

Pray for Andrew Mioni and the apostate Traditionalists of "Trad Recovery" that they may see the errors of Vatican II and come back to the Truth, no matter the cost. “For what doth it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”(St. Matthew 16:26). 

Baptism Of Desire And St. Alphonsus

 

To My Readers: This week my guest poster, Dominic Caggeso, shows how the great Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Liguori, convinced him of the heretical view of the Feeneyites in denying Baptism of Desire. He explains further, how the glorious St. Alphonsus can be used as a defeater against the Feeneyite heresy.

Feel free to comment as usual. If you have a specific comment or question 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

**SPECIAL NOTICE TO MY READERS** Unfortunately, this will be Dominic's last post. He will now be dedicating all his time and efforts to his Traditionalist publishing company. I want to publicly thank him for all he has done and wish him nothing but the greatest success. 

I still have John Gregory writing a post every other month, and in the other months, Lee has graciously offered to step up and help out. As long as I get a one week break each month, I can continue writing. ---Introibo

Baptism of Desire and St. Alphonsus

By Dominic Caggeso

By the grace of God, I came out of the Novus Ordo. If you have also left, you likely understand the difficulty of searching for the true Catholic Faith after realizing the Second Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo religion were full of deceits and falsehoods. It's one thing to know you can no longer trust the "authorities" of the Novus Ordo, but quite another to discern which voices within the "Traditional Catholic" world to heed.

The shock of discovering the subtle and skillful deceptions within the Novus Ordo makes one understandably cautious, skeptical, and thorough in seeking the True Faith. Therefore, after leaving, I meticulously examined the various Traditional Catholic groups. I explored each group and its positions, repeatedly reading their writings and watching their videos, comparing them to one another. This was, and to some extent still is, an agonizing and gut-wrenching process. Consensus, popularity, presentation skills, size, or geographical proximity could not be used to determine the validity of any group’s theological positions. Instead, the logic and merits of their arguments were all that mattered. During this time, I developed a prayer I still recite daily: “Dear Lord, please lead me to true Catholic doctrine. If I am deceived, please don’t let it be a cause of my damnation.” In other words, I asked to be led to the Truths of the Catholic Faith, recognizing my own susceptibility to manipulation and deception.

With this mindset, I forced myself to explore the arguments against Baptism of Desire. I had discovered these arguments online, presented forcefully and seemingly knowledgeably by individuals largely critical of the Novus Ordo and the Second Vatican Council, and very familiar with the writings of past popes and councils. Despite their unpopularity among the various Trad groups, I could not dismiss their position without careful examination. Encounters with these individuals often resulted in accusations of heresy. Therefore, I needed to determine the validity of their arguments, lest I put my soul in possible danger.  I needed to approach their arguments with an open mind. However, I also knew I was unqualified to fully grasp the finer points of Sacramental theology on this subject. I begged Our Lady for guidance.

Just Listen to the Priests

If, by God's grace, I reach Heaven, I will be eternally grateful for our Sedevacantist clergy. As I write this article now, I am already extremely grateful for them. They stepped into the breach after Vatican II, traveling the world to provide the Sacraments, acting as caring pastors, and exposing the many errors of the Novus Ordo sect. Without being able to articulate it, I sense that our priests and bishops possess a certain authority over their flocks. However, without delving into the profound theological technicalities of jurisdiction, I hesitate to say this authority is equivalent to that of clergy before the Second Vatican Council. After all, I distinctly remember what it was like coming out of the Novus Ordo, and searching for the voices of Truth. At the end of the day, I was the one, determining for myself, which group of Traditional Catholics was adhering to Catholic doctrine. I chose, based on my evaluation of the evidence, to reject the position of the “recognize and resist” and to adhere to sedevacantism.  

When I left the Novus Ordo, I wasn’t immediately placed under the pastoral care and authority of any sedevacantist bishop, but instead, I had to go to them. Thank God such priests and bishops like Fr. Cekada, Bishop Sanborn and Bishop Dolan made themselves available online in order for a person like me to find them. But there was no pope to approve their teachings, so I had to decide to believe them based on the merits of their arguments. 

I say all this because I want to underscore the point that I can not necessarily listen to my priest as the final and definitive answer on every pressing theological question. Don't get me wrong, I highly value the advice and instruction of our sedevacantists priests and I don’t automatically question what they say. In fact, as far as I know, I am in complete agreement with them. However, regarding Baptism of Desire, the stakes felt too high to rely solely on their knowledge without personally exploring the counterarguments. 

St. Alphonsus’ Writings

In my quest for certitude of Catholicity on the subject of Baptism of Desire, I ventured on my own into the vast Traditional Catholic online world. I quickly encountered numerous writings by saints on Baptism of Desire, most particularly St. Alphonsus. I was greatly relieved that this Saint and Doctor of the Church spoke to plainly and boldly on the subject. Below is his treatment of the subject, taken from the Latin version of his sixth book of Moral Theology, followed by an English translation from the CMRI website. I painstakingly copied the Latin from a scanned photocopy of the 1841 edition. A few minor blemishes on the photocopy may have resulted in one or two misspelled Latin words, for which I apologize.

“Baptismus autem flaminis est perfecta conversio, ad Deum per contritionem, vel amorem Dei super omnia, cum volo explcito, vel implicito veri Baptismi flaminis, cujus vicem supplet (juxta Trid. Sess.14 c.4) quoad culpae remissionem, non autem quoad characterem imprimendum, nec quoad tollendum omne reatum poeuae: dicitur flaminis, quia fit per impulsum Spiritus Sancti, qui flamen nuncupatur. Ita Viva de Bapt. (q.2, art. 1, n.2, Salm c.1, n.2 cum Suar. Vasq. Val. Croix lib.6, p.1, n.244 el alii) De fide autem est per Baptismum flaminis homines eliam salvari, ex c. Apostolicam. De Presb. non bapt. et Trid. sess.6, c.4 Ubi dicitur neminem salvari posse sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto.”

Theologia moralis divi Alphonsi De Ligorio 6

page 132

Published 1841

ex typographia Simoniana 

National Library of Naples 

Translation:

“But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind␅ [flaminis] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind [flamen]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.” 

Armed with this quote, and other similar quotes from venerated Catholic Saints and Doctors of the Church, I returned to engage the opponents of Baptism of Desire. I thought this quote would suffice to quell any opposition to Baptism of Desire, and alleviate the anxiety I felt in not having sufficient certitude about it. In my mind, my salvation could possibly be at stake if I came down on the wrong side of this issue. 

I was not prepared for the counter arguments that I received after confidently presenting this quote from St. Alphonsus. I was shocked to learn that the opponents of Baptism of Desire boldly declared that St. Alphonsus was wrong on this topic. The evidence they gave for this accusation against St. Alphonsus was confusing and complex. I was not properly educated in Catholic Sacrament theology to know how to refute their arguments against St. Alphonsus. It was then, that I came upon a counterargument that proved very effective at both giving me peace of mind and also in silencing the attacks of the Feeneyites. I still use this simple argument today, and I would like to share it with you.

St. Alphonsus is in Heaven

Let me preface my thoughts by stating that I now firmly believe in Baptism of Desire. I have listened to the explanations from our priests and have conducted adequate research to convince myself of its truth. In the above writings of St. Alphonsus, he declares that Baptism of Desire is “De Fide,” and cites the Council of Trent as his source. I do not question this. Nevertheless, in addressing opponents of Baptism of Desire, I have found it useful to hypothetically concede that St. Alphonsus might have made an error on this subject. After all, as the Feeneyites point out, saints are not infallible. After making this hypothetical concession, I proceed as follows:

I begin by asking, or otherwise establishing, that St. Alphonsus is in Heaven. Once my interlocutor concedes this point, I highlight that he, St. Alphonsus, unequivocally taught the existence of Baptism of Desire. On this point, they usually agree. I then ask if, by believing in Baptism of Desire, I would be in danger of eternal damnation for denying the Catholic doctrine on water baptism. The answer is almost always affirmative, as they assert that believing in Baptism of Desire makes one a heretic.

At this juncture, I point out that St. Alphonsus clearly believed in Baptism of Desire, and he is neither a heretic nor eternally damned. I conclude with them that, even if he were mistaken on this subject, it evidently does not lead to the loss of one's soul. Therefore I continue, by extension, I cannot lose my soul by simply affirming my belief in Baptism of Desire.

I have found great success with this counterargument in neutralizing the vitriol from the Feeneyites. It is simple and clear. Despite this, however, at times it has evoked very strange and seemingly desperate responses. I recall one instance where, in response to this argument, I was told that because St. Alphonsus did not have access to the internet, he would not be held to the same standard of culpability as I would be for believing in Baptism of Desire. But most of the time, the discussion with the Feeneyites on this topic would quickly end once I made this simple point.

Conclusion

I wanted to share this simple argument with you because it has given me peace of mind and alleviated for me one of the many anxieties we face as Catholics striving to preserve the pure doctrines of the Church during the Great Apostasy. I recognize the limitations of my knowledge of Catholic theology. That is why this simple and logical argument is so attractive. We can read and embrace the teachings of great Saints and Doctors of the Church because the Church, our Mother, has provided them to us. When St. Alphonsus declares Baptism of Desire to be “De Fide,” we can trust him.

God The Almighty And The Commandments Of God

 

To My Readers: This week's post, by John Gregory, explains what it means to follow an Almighty God, as well as the importance and duty of following the Ten Commandments. 

Feel free to comment as usual. If you have  a specific comment or question 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

God The Almighty and The Commandments of God

By John Gregory

But the men wondered, saying What manner of man is this, for the winds and the sea obey him. 

(St. Matthew 8: 27)  

These men were not the disciples, but the sailors and others who were in the ship of Jesus, and in the other ships which accompanied it.  For, as Origen says, “The disciples are never named but with the mark of distinction, Apostles, or disciples.”  Saint Jerome adds, “If anyone maintains that the disciples are meant here, the reply should be that they are called men, because they have not yet known the Savior’s power.  What manner of man? “Who and what sort of man is this, and whose messenger?  He does not seem to be like other men, but a Being of a different race.  He does not seem to be born of earth, but to have come down from heaven, for not only the denizens of the earth and their sicknesses obey him, but also the heavens and their winds, as though he were their master and lord. (For the Greek text has, “For the winds and the sea heed him, submit to him.”)  Who, therefore, is this new Aeolus [“god”] in Palestine, what sort of wind-god is he, and how great his power command?”  Thus they thought, not yet knowing Christ to be the one true God. 

Topologically, Saint Augustine says, “Imitate the winds and the sea: obey the creator at Christ’s command.  The sea listens, and you are deaf?  The sea heeds, and the wind stops, and you blast? — What?  I speak, I act, I devise. — What is that, if not being puffed up, and at Christ’s word you are unwilling to cease?  Let not the waves overcome you in the commotion of your hearts.” (See Lapide Commentary on Saint Matthew Volume one, pages 419 and 420) 

God created us and maintains us in existence.  Therefore, we should know Him, and this knowledge of Him should lead to a filial fear and love of Him.  We should fear Him, because it is He Who can make us healthy or sick, rich or poor, happy or sad.  But more importantly, it is He who can damn us to Hell or give us eternal happiness.  This love of God should lead to the latria – the worship and adoration reserved for God alone – as the Introit of the Mass (the form of worship God prescribed for us and highest form of worship possible in this life) for the fourth Sunday after Epiphany suggests: 

Adore God, All you His angels: Sion heard, and was glad; and the daughters of Juda rejoiced.  The Lord hath reigned; let the earth rejoice: let many islands be glad (Psalm 96: 7, 8)  

The Mass is the greatest prayer this side of heaven.  This public worship in common is the best way to strengthen the sanctifying grace in our souls.  The Mass is God Himself (Jesus) offering Himself to God (the Father) in the unity of the Holy Ghost.  It is the one sacrifice of the cross made present to us in an unbloody manner which is used to apply the fruits of that sacrifice to the benefit of our souls.  Prescribed prayer in public is strong and effective as there is strength in numbers.  We collectively pierce the heavens to rain down graces upon us, such as detachment from worldly goods, if we pray in unison with sincerity, devotion and confidence.  The prayer in the above mentioned Fourth Sunday after the Epiphany Mass gives such an example: 

O God, Who knowest that we are beset by perils so great as to be unendurable because of our human frailty, grant us health of mind and body, so that by Thine assistance we may conquer the things with which we are afflicted because of our sins. 

This is why praying to Rosary together in large groups and in the family is so very important for individual souls as well as for the world as a whole.  Our Lady of Lourdes and Fatima, who saw the increasing moral depravity that would fall upon the world along with the lack of valid Masses, bishops and priests, which provide the ordinary means of obtaining, fortifying and increasing sanctifying grace in this world, left us with her Rosary and brown scapular to cling to in this barren wasteland of what appears to be the end times. 

Some Protestants our fond of claiming that “they are saved."  As if they need not fear Hell so long as they believe.  They claim to get this belief, (faith alone) from the bible, their sole rule of faith (bible alone).  Yet the bible did not give itself to us.  It did not write itself.  It did not decide which books belong in it and which do not.  The Catholic Church gave it to us, wrote the New Testament, preserved the Old and decided which books belong and which do not.  The bible also does not interpret itself.  Guess who does that.  God through His Catholic Church which was founded upon the rock of Peter does that.  She (the Catholic Church) guards and preserves the deposit of faith and infallibly explicates it for the ears and the hearts of the faithful.  That is why the Chosen People, those within the Catholic Church, do not put their souls in peril through heretical beliefs such as “faith alone”, “the bible alone”, “faith without works”.   

Ah.  That is why in the Mass we are looking at has in the Epistle for the day the following: 

Brethren, owe no man anything, but to love one another; for he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law.  For thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is comprised in this word, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.  The love of our neighbor worketh no evil.  Love, therefore, is the fulfilling of the law.  (Romans 13: 8 – 10) 

The above passage is in the bibles Protestants use.  I do not use the term “Protestant bible” as that is a contradiction of terms.  For the Protestants ripped out seven books and parts of two others from the bible and mistranslate much of what they left in on their own authority.  Their bible, which is their sole rule of faith, and which they claim to understand and interpret correctly, tells them they must keep the Commandments for salvation to be possible.  For as Saint Paul explains above if we truly love our neighbor, we will not cheat on them, or kill them, or lie to them, or covet what they have, or do, or will any evil to them.  If we authentically love our neighbor as God wills and commands, we will keep the Commandments as a result of that love.  Yes, God indeed is almighty and we must obey His Commandments if we wish to have eternal life.  And obeying His Commandments will give us great joy even in this life as the Gradual for this Mass states: 

The Gentiles shall fear Thy name, O Lord, and all the kings of the earth Thy glory.  For the Lord hath built up Sion, and He shall be seen in His majesty.  The Lord hath reigned, let the earth rejoice: let many islands be glad.  (Psalm 101: 16, 17) 

No one on earth is glad or rejoices if they do not keep the Commandments.  The worm that will gnaw at the conscience of those outside the Catholic Church and or lacking sanctifying grace for all eternity gnaws as it does now even with all the distractions of this life, and when they are alone with their thoughts, they wonder why they are not really happy.  For their pleasures are momentary and not fulfilling. 

Atheists and Agnostics often claim not to believe in God because if He existed, He would not allow all the terrible things we see going on around us and to us in the world today.  But what did God the Father allow to happen to God His Son?  To be born in poverty, to be hated and misunderstood during His whole public life, to be spat upon, beaten, scourged, crowned with thorns and nailed to a cross to die a most ignominious death between two thieves.  But we refuse to believe in God because something bad happened to us or to someone we love, or to countless innocent victims?  I believe the real reason they chose not to believe stems from fear.  They know the lifestyle they live would be at odds with God if He exists and that they will be damned to Hell if He exists.  So, they just convince themselves He doesn’t exist.  Much easier huh.  In time perhaps.  But not in eternity, which lasts a bit longer than our life on earth.  They should be afraid not to follow the Lord.  For though doing so can lead to temporary tribulations it ultimately will lead to eternal bliss.  What follows is the Gospel of this Mass: 

At That time, when Jesus entered into the ship, His disciples followed Him.  And behold a great tempest arose in the sea, so that the ship was covered with waves, but He was asleep.  And they came to Him and awaked Him, saying, Lord, save us, we perish.  And Jesus saith to them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith?  Then rising up, He commanded the winds and the sea, and there came a great calm.  But the men wondered, saying, What manner of man is this, for the winds and the see obey Him. 

This shows that our best option is not only to believe in Jesus, but to follow Him.  If we follow Him we may have trials and tribulations, but they can be meritorious and exchanged for eternal crowns.  Let us look at the offertory of the Mass:  

The right hand of the Lord hath wrought strength, the right hand of the Lord hath exalted me: I shall not die, but live, and shall declare the works of the Lord. (Psalm 117: 16, 17) 

Do you notice how the Propers of this Mass continually extol God’s mightiness?  

Secret: Grant, we beseech Thee, almighty God, that this sacrifice offered to Thee, may purge us of all evil and fortify our weak nature. 

Here we see how almighty God may cleanse of [venial] sin and fortify with us with additional graces if we worship at Mass with devotion. 

Communion: They all wondered at these things, which proceeded from the mouth of God. (Luke 4: 22) 

Every day at holy Mass, we get catholicized as the foundations of the Faith, such as the reiteration of the power of God which can help us in our temporal and eternal needs. 

Postcommunion: May Thy gifts, O God, free us from the allurements of earthly things, and ever restore us with heavenly nourishment. 

Again, detachment from worldly things get reemphasized in our minds and the reminder that we are in continual need of renewal for we are quite often guilty of venial sins and imperfections.  We never can rest on our laurels or we will drift away, we must continually strive for holiness.  Never getting too down when we fall, nor prideful when we are doing well.  See Pope Saint Gregory the Great: 

"We refresh the body lest it should grow too weak and fail us; we chasten it by abstinence, lest it should wax gross, and become lord over us; we strengthen it with exercise, lest it perish by the not using; and straightway we give it rest, lest it faint through weariness; we succor it with raiment, lest the cold should blight it; and we strip it of the raiment wherewith we have clothed it, lest the heat should afflict it.  In all these so many offices what do we but serve the corruptible?  Upon what is all this care spent but upon that whereover hangeth the doom of weakness and change? "

Therefor saint Paul tells: For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of Hm Who hath subjected the same in hope because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. (Romans 8: 20).  The creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly for when man had of his own free will abdicated his state of unchangeable blessedness, the just sentence of death was passed upon him, and whether he willed or not, he became subject to the state of change and corruption.  But the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption when it shall rise again incorruptible and be made partaker of the glory of the children of God. 

Where, then, the elect are still subject to sorrow, being yet bound by the sentence of corruption; but when we shall have put off this corruptible we shall be loosed from that sentence, and shall sorrow no more.  For though we earnestly desire to appear before God, we are still hindered by the burden of this dying body.  Rightly then are we called prisoners, since we are not free to go whither we will, that is to say, to God; and rightly did the prisoner Paul, yearning after the things which are eternal, and still weighed down with the burden of this corruptible, rightly did he cry out I have a desire to depart and to be with Christ. (Philippians 1: 23) He would not have felt this keenness if he had not felt himself bound down. 

Saint Jerome as well, may have a word of interest to us: 

The fifth sign that He did was when He took ship at Capernaum, and commanded the winds and the sea the sixth, when, in the country of the Gergesenes, He suffered the devils to enter into the swine the seventh, when, as He came into His own city, He cured the man sick of the palsy lying on a bed.  The first man sick of the palsy that He cured was the centurion’s servant. 

But He was asleep; and His disciples came to Him, and awoke Him, saying Lord, save us.  There is a type of this in the history of Jonah, who, when the storm arose, was lying fast asleep, and whom the sailors woke to help them; who also saved the sailors by commanding them to throw him into the sea, the said casting of him into the sea, being, as we know, a figure of Christ’s Passion.  Then He arose and rebuked the winds and the sea.  From these words we understand that all things, which have been made, are sentient to their Maker.  All things which He rebuketh or commandeth, hear His voice.  This is not the error of the heretics who will have it that everything is quick, but part of the majesty of the Creator, Who maketh to feel Him things which we cannot make to feel us. 

But the men marveled, saying what manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?  It was not His disciples that marveled, but the sailors, and the others that were in the ship.  If however, any one willeth to withstand this our interpretation and to maintain that it was the disciples who marveled, we are ready to answer them that they who knew not before the power of the Saviour deserve to be stripped of the title of disciples, and to be called simply the men. 

A disciple is one who follows Christ by keeping His Commandments.  When trying to obey the Commandments the understanding that God is Almighty can be very helpful. 

And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10: 28) 

The Arabic has “into the fire of hell.”  The sense is: Do not, from fear of death with which the persecutors will threaten you, deny My Faith, or cease from the preaching which I have commanded you, or commit any act unworthy of it, for if ye do this, ye will incur both the death of the body and the far worse and longer-lasting death of the soul, even its eternal death in hell, where the damned die an undying death, because they are constantly living in mortal torments and endure as though in living death and moribund life, according to Isaias 66: 24, Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched.  Truly does Saint Chrysostom say, “He who is always afraid of hell will never fall into its flams, for he is continually purified by this fear. (See Lapide Commentary on Saint Matthew Volume one, pages 502 and 503) 

For a better understanding of the term “Almighty” and how that should resonate with those truly devoted to God, let us take a look at the beloved Catechism of Trent (COT): 

“Almighty” 

The Sacred Scriptures, in order to mark the piety and devotion with which the most holy name of God is to be adored, usually express His supreme power and infinite majesty in a variety of ways; but the pastor should, first of all, teach that almighty power is most frequently attributed to Him. Thus He says of Himself: I am the almighty Lord; (Genesis 17: 1) and again, Jacob when sending his sons to Joseph thus prayed for them: May my almighty God make him favourable to you. (Genesis 43: 14) In the Apocalypse also it is written: The Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the almighty; (Apocalypse 1: 8) and in another place the last day is called the great day of the almighty God.  Sometimes the same attribute is expressed in many words; thus: No word shall be impossible with God; (Luke 1: 37) Is the hand of the Lord unable? (Numbers 11: 23) Thy power is at hand when thou wilt, (Wisdom 12: 18) and so on.  

MEANING OF THE TERM “ALMIGHTY” 

From these various modes of expression it is clearly perceived what is comprehended under this single word almighty.  By it we understand that there neither exists nor can be conceived in thought or imagination anything which God cannot do.  For not only can He annihilate all created things, and in a moment summon from nothing into existence many other worlds, an exercise of power which, however great, comes in some degree within our comprehension; but He can do many things still greater, of which the human mind can form no conception. 

But though God can do all things, yet He cannot lie, or deceive, or be deceived; He cannot sin, or cease to exist, or be ignorant of anything.  These defects are compatible with those beings only whose actions are imperfect; but God, whose acts are always most perfect, is said to be incapable of such things, simply because that capability of doing them implies weakness, not the supreme and infinite power over all things which God possesses.  Thus we so believe God to be omnipotent that we exclude from Him entirely all that is not intimately connected and consistent with the perfection of His nature.  (COT – p. 23, 24) 

“MIGHTY” 

But both the carnal and the spiritual should be spurred on, especially by two considerations which are contained in this concluding clause, and are highly calculated to enforce obedience to the divine law. 

The one is that God is called the strong.  That appellation needs to be fully expounded; because the flesh, unappalled by the terrors of the divine menaces, frequently indulges in the foolish expectation of escaping, in one way or another, God’s wrath and threatened punishment.  But when one is deeply impressed with the conviction that God is the strong, he will exclaim with the great David: Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy face? (Psalm 138: 7) 

The flesh, also, distrusting the promises of God, sometimes magnifies the power of the enemy to such an extent, as to believe itself unable to withstand his assaults; while, on the contrary, a firm and unshaken faith, which wavers not, but relies confidently on the strength and power of God, animates and confirms man.  For it says: The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? (Psalm 26: 1) (COT – p. 378) 

Our Lord Himself says “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect”.  This leads us to the following consideration of the commandments: 

The Ten Commandments of God come to us by Revelation through Tradition.  They were given to the Jewish people through Moses, and were confirmed by Christ in the New Dispensation, which is the Law of Reality, whereas the Old Law was the law of the shadow of things to come (Colossians 2: 17).  The ceremonial precepts of the Old Law are displaced once for all; for the Jewish Sabbath, the Christian Church has substituted Sunday as the Lord’s day, in memory of Christ’s Resurrection. 

The Commandments summarize in explicit terms man’s duties according to Natural law.  The first three precepts refer to the external worship of God, the last seven refer to authority in the family, the sacredness of life and good report, the sanctity of marriage and the rights of property respectively.  

Since these precepts are imposed by God, their observance is prima facie a matter of serious obligation.  If they are violated in trivial matters—where from the nature of the case that is possible, as in the precept against theft—such violation is not a grave sin.  It is the task of Moral Theology to try to distinguish between what is objectively serious and what is not, for there is an objective order to be maintained; subjectivism in morality leads to nothing but agnosticism or moral anarchy. [This is nowhere so clearly patent as in the reaction from all objective morality that followed upon Luther’s teaching.  He himself deplored it and despaired of success in countering it (cf. Grisar, Life, vol. V): “It is clear enough how much more greedy, cruel, immodest, shameless, wicked, the people now is than it was under Popery.”  cf. Maritain, Three Reformers, p. 186.)  (Moral and Pastoral Theology by H. Davis S.J., 1958) 

The following is from the (COT) on the observance of the commandments: 

But since by this we know that we have known him, if we keep his commandments (1 John 2: 2 – 3), the next consideration, and one intimately connected with the preceding, is to press also upon the attention of the faithful that their lives are not to be wasted in ease and indolence, but that we are to walk even as he walked (1 John 2: 6), and pursue with all earnestness, justice, godliness, faith, charity, patience, mildness (1 Timothy 6: 2); for He gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and might cleanse to himself a people acceptable, a pursuer of good works (Titus 2: 14) These things the Apostle commands pastors to speak and exhort.  

But as our Lord and Saviour has not only declared, but has also proved by His own example, that the Law and the Prophets depend on love, (Matthew 22: 40; 1 Timothy 1: 5; Romans 13: 10) and as, according to the Apostle, charity is the end of the commandant, and the fulfilment of the law, (1 Timothy 1: 5; Romans 13: 10) it is unquestionably a chief duty of the pastor to use the utmost diligence to excite the faithful to a love of the infinite goodness of God towards us, that, burning with a sort of divine ardor, they may be powerfully attracted to the supreme and all-perfect good, to adhere to which is true and solid happiness, as is fully experienced by him who can say with the Prophet: What have I in heaven? and besides thee what do I desire upon earth? (Psalm 72: 25) 

This, assuredly, is that more excellent way (1 Corinthians 12: 31) pointed out by the Apostle when he sums up all his doctrines and instructions in charity, which never falleth away. (1 Corinthians 13: 8) For whatever is proposed by the pastor, whether it be the exercise of faith, of hope, or of some moral virtue, the love of our Lord should at the same time be so strongly insisted upon as to show clearly that all the works of perfect Christian virtue can have no other origin, no other end than divine love. (1 Corinthians 16: 14) (COT – p. 6 – 7) 

THE DECALOGUE 

IMPORTANCE OF INSTRUCTION ON THE COMMANDMENTS 

Saint Augustine in his writings remarks that the Decalogue is the summary and epitome of all laws: Although the Lord had spoken many things, He gave to Moses only two stone tablets, called “tables of testimony,” to be placed in the Ark.  For if carefully examined and well understood, whatever else is commanded by God will be found to depend on the Ten Commandments which were engraved on those two tables, just as these Ten Commandments, in turn, are reducible to two, the love of God and of our neighbour, on which “depend the whole law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22: 40) 

Since, then, the Decalogue is a summary of the whole Law, the pastor should give his days and nights to its consideration, that he may be able not only to regulate his own life by its precepts, but also to instruct in the law of God the people committed to his care.  The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, of the Lord of hosts. (Malachias 2: 7) To the priests of the New Law this injunction applies in a special manner; they are nearer to God and should be transformed from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord. (2 Corinthians 3: 18) Since Christ our Lord has called them light, (Matthew 5: 14) it is their special duty to be a light to them that are in darkness, the instructors of the foolish, the teachers of infants; (Romans 2: 19, 20) and if a man be overtaken in any fault, they who are spiritual should instruct such a one. (Galatians 6: 1) 

In the tribunal of penance the priest holds the place of a judge, and pronounces sentence according to the nature and gravity of the offence.  Unless, therefore, he is desirous that his ignorance should prove an injury to himself and to others he must bring with him to the discharge of this duty the greatest vigilance and the most practiced acquaintance with the interpretation of the law, in order to be able to pronounce, according to this divine rule, on every act and omission; and, as the Apostle says, to teach sound doctrine, (2 Timothy 4: 3) free from error, and heal the diseases of the soul, which are sins, in order that the people may be acceptable to God, pursuers of good works. (Galatians 3: 19) (COT – p. 357, 8) 

GOD IS CALLED FATHER BCAUSE HE CREATED US 

Thus having created man to His own image—a favor He accorded to no other living creature—it is with good reason that, in view of this unique privilege with which He has honored man, Sacred Scripture calls God the Father of all men; not only of the faithful, but also of the unbelieving. (COT – p. 502) 

MAN’S PRONENESS TO ACT AGAINST GOD’S WILL 

From the beginning God implanted in all creatures an inborn desire of pursuing their own happiness that, by a sort of natural impulse, they may seek and desire their own end, from which they never deviate, unless impeded by some external obstacle.  This impulse of seeking God, the author and father of his happiness, was in the beginning all the more noble and exalted in man because of the fact that he was endowed with reason and judgment.  But, while irrational creatures, which, at their creation were by nature good, continued, and still continue in that original state and condition, unhappy man went astray, and lost not only original justice, with which he had been supernaturally gifted and adorned by God, but also obscured that singular inclination toward virtue which had been implanted in his soul.  All, He says, have gone aside, they are become unprofitable together; there is none that doth good, no, not one. (Psalm 52: 4) For the imagination and thought of man’s heart are prone to evil from his youth. (Genesis 8: 21) Hence it is not difficult to perceive that of himself no man is wise unto salvation; that all are prone to evil; and that man has innumerable corrupt propensities, since he tends downwards and is carried with ardent precipitancy to anger, hatred, pride, ambition, and to almost every species of evil. (COT – p. 529 - 30) 

“And lead us not into temptation” 

IMPORTANCE OF INSTRUCTION ON THIS PETITION 

When the children of God, having obtained the pardon of their sins, are inflamed with the desire of giving to God worship and veneration; when they long for the kingdom of heaven; when they engage in the performance of all the duties of piety towards the Deity, relying entirely on His paternal will and providence, — then it is that the enemy of mankind employs the more actively all his artifices, and prepares all his resources to attack them so violently as to justify the fear that, wavering and altered in their sentiments, they may relapse into sin, and thus become far worse than they had been before.  To such as these may justly be applied the saying of the Prince of the Apostles: It had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than, after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them. (2 Peter 2: 21)  

Hence Christ the Lord has commanded us to offer this petition so that we may commend ourselves daily to God, and implore His paternal care and assistance, being assured that, if we be deserted by the divine protection, we shall soon fall into the snares of our most crafty enemy. 

Nor is it in the Lord’s Prayer alone that He has commanded us to beg of God not to suffer us to be led into temptation.  In His address to the holy Apostles also, on the very eve of His death, after He had declared them clean, He admonished them of this duty in these words: Pray that ye enter not into temptation. (John 13: 10; Matthew 26: 41) 

This admonition, reiterated by Christ the Lord, imposes on the pastor the weighty obligation of exciting the faithful to a frequent use of this prayer, so that, beset as men constantly are by the great dangers which the devil prepares, they may ever address to God, who alone can repel those dangers, the prayer, Lead us not into temptation. (COT – p. 565-6) 

Conclusion

Our Lord is recorded twice in Holy Writ to have said “He that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved.”  [Mt. 10: 22 & 24: 13] Let us pray to our dear sweet Mother Mary to implore the Almighty God to please help us keep the commandments and thus to persevere in the state of sanctifying grace unto the end as His faithful and loving disciples!