$4.45 DECEMBER 2010 “Instaurare omnia in Christo” A JOURNAL OF ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITION INSIDE Interviews with Bishop Fellay 2010 SSPX Conference Report The Pilgrim’s Guide to Rome Cardinal John Henry Newman SUMMA THEOLOGIAE PART 4 Christian Politics: An interview with Fr. Devillers The Authority of Vatican II CONCLUSION THE PILGRIM’S GUIDE TO ROME’S PRINCIPAL CHURCHES Illustrated Guided Tours of Fifty-One of the Most Important Churches in Rome This monumental work is back in print after more than 15 years. Updated and checked for accuracy by the author. A must have if you plan to visit Rome. Each detailed church tour includes the history of the building, numbered floor plan, color photographs, and details of the church’s spiritual, architectural, and artistic treasures. JOSEPH N. TYLENDA, S.J., has spent a good part of his professional life in Rome. He is a member of the Historical Institute of the Society of Jesus. 448pp. Sewn Softcover with rounded corners. Maps, floor plans and 310 color photographs. STK# 8481✱ $29.95 “You don’t have to visit Rome to experience the Holy City.” • • • FULLY REVISED 51 CHURCHES 310 COLOR PHOTOS www.angeluspress.org ● 1-8 00-9 6 6-73 37 Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music. The “Instaurare omnia in Christo — To restore all things in Christ.” ngelus Volume XXXIII, Number 12 DECEMBER 2010 English-language Editor and Publisher for the International Society of Saint Pius X PUBLISHER Fr. Arnaud Rostand EDITOR Fr. Markus Heggenberger ASSISTANT EDITOR Mr. James Vogel OPERATIONS MANAGER Mr. Michael Sestak EDITORIAL ASSISTANT Miss Anne Stinnett Contents Motto of Pope St. Pius X 2 LETTER FROM THE EDITOR Fr. Markus Heggenberger, FSSPX 3 INTERVIEWS WITH BISHOP FELLAY 8 CARDINAL NEWMAN’S “BIGLIETTO SPEECH Wilfrid Ward DESIGN AND LAYOUT Mr. Simon Townshend COMPTROLLER Mr. Robert Wiemann, CPA Portrait of Cardinal John Henry Newman CUSTOMER SERVICE Mr. John Rydholm Miss Rebecca Heatwole SHIPPING AND HANDLING Mr. Jon Rydholm “To publish Catholic journals and place them in the hands of honest men is not enough. It is necessary to spread them as far as possible that they may be read by all, and especially by those whom Christian charity demands we should tear away from the poisonous sources of evil literature.” –Pope St. Pius X SUBSCRIPTION RATES US Foreign Countries (inc. Canada & Mexico) 1 year 2 years 3 years $35.00 $65.00 $100.00 $55.00 $105.00 $160.00 12 CHRISTIAN POLITICS: AN INTERVIEW WITH FR. DEVILLERS DICI 15 SUMMA THEOLOGIAE PART 4 Fr. Albert, O.P. 19 2010 SSPX CONFERENCE James Vogel 23 BOOK EXCERPT: PILGRIM’S GUIDE TO ROME’S PRINCIPAL CHURCHES 29 THE AUTHORITY OF VATICAN II QUESTIONED CONCLUSION Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre All payments must be in US funds only. 32 THE LORD’S PRAYER PART 8 ONLINE SUBSCRIPTIONS Fr. Thomas Jatzkowski, FSSPX $15.00/year (the online edition is available around the 10th of the preceding month). To subscribe visit: www.angelusonline.org. 37 CHURCH AND WORLD Register for free to access back issues 14 months and older plus many other site features. Fr. Peter Scott, FSSPX The Angelus (ISSN 10735003) is published monthly under the patronage of St. Pius X and Mary, Queen of Angels. Publication office is located at 2915 Forest Ave., Kansas City, MO 64109. PH (816) 7533150; FAX (816) 753-3557. Periodicals Postage Rates paid at Kansas City, MO. ©2010 by Angelus Press. Manuscripts will be used at the discretion of the editors. Postmaster sends address changes to the address above. 41 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 43 THE LAST WORD Fr. Christian Bouchacourt, FSSPX ON OUR COVER: Bishop Fellay’s conference during the 2010 SSPX Conference. Photo by David Sestak. 2 Letter from the Editor After the inaugural Angelus Press conference on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the founding of the Society of St. Pius X here in Kansas City (where, by the way, the headquarters of the SSPX in the United States are located) from October 15-17, we can collect some impressions and summarize some opinions. The common sentiment of those who attended and visited the conference was that the event was well organized and a great success, in spite of some minor glitches. It was attended by 600-700 people, most of them from outside the area, often traveling by plane to Kansas City. Whether this kind of event would be welcomed was not clear from the beginning, but the weekend showed that it was well received. The highlights of the diverse talks are described in the article about the conference (p.19). Without any doubt the presence of the Superior General, Bishop Fellay, gave a special accent to the whole event. This is not only because he is obviously the successor of Archbishop Lefebvre, who was discussed in all the talks. It was also the case because his person is the focus of special attention due to the so-called doctrinal talks between Rome and the SSPX. It was an adventure in itself to listen to his (admittedly lengthy) talk about the SSPX, the importance of the Archbishop, and the relationship with Rome. Given the intense interest in the spiritual welfare of the Catholic Church, who could possibly have the idea that this group (the SSPX) is “outside of the Church”? Nobody who attended the conference! The general scheme of the talks was, however, not so much to defend what has been done in the past. The events of the past were certainly the historical background for many reflections and conclusions. But the idea was not so much a plan of defense, that is, negative, but rather positive: To live as a Catholic in today’s world requires personal and institutional support. A survey of the works of Tradition therefore seemed to be of primary interest. For that reason the talks tried to show different aspects of Catholic life which would answer the questions: How is the fire of faith preserved in Tradition? How can the works of Tradition promote the Catholic Church? Of course, everyone knows about certain problems in the Catholic Church, but these things were of a very random interest. The underlying primary question was rather: “What THE ANGELUS • December 2010 www.angeluspress.org can I do in order to lead a better life, to be a better Catholic?” As is so often the case, it is the positive approach which gives us the solution to the true questions. Planning on going to a conference, one normally goes because there is interest in the subject. We do not usually have too much interest concerning who else will attend. This was a little bit different for our conference. First of all, it was not only an intellectual event, but a social one as well. In fact, for some this might have been the most important aspect, to see the nationwide and universal Church as opposed to some egocentric individuals turning around their own ideas. We met people of the same mindset, which made it interesting to communicate with them even if we did not know them. The highlight of this aspect was the pontifical Mass on Sunday, celebrated by H.E. Bishop Fellay in the nearly full church (800-900 people) of St. Vincent de Paul. In short, a special attraction of the conference during these three days was the well-calculated mix of doctrinal sessions and Catholic social events. And I did not even mention that a part of the social event was the possibility to see and listen to people whom you would otherwise rarely meet and certainly not in such numbers: H.E. Bishop Fellay, Fr. Rostand, Fr. Cyprian, and many of the speakers, who were hand-picked for these three days, organized by the U.S. District. There were quite a number of Brothers, Sisters, and seminarians as well, who first of all assisted (and helped), but who could be easily approached by visitors also. What is the future of Tradition? We do not know the details, but it is in the same category as this conference: Catholic life in abundance. This meeting, once a year, can show us what it could and should be. And it will help us to work on other situations which might not have the same splendor, but are nevertheless important for souls. We understand it as a beginning, and as a part of the Lord’s prophecy, that “the gates of hell shall not prevail” (Mt. 16:18). Instaurare Omnia in Christo, Fr. Markus Heggenberger 3 Interview Bishop Bernard Fellay La Porte Latine, the official website of the French District of the Society of Saint Pius X, interviewed Bishop Fellay on October 7, 2010, about the SSPX’s 40th Anniversary. Forty years ago, on November 1, 1970, Archbishop Lefebvre obtained the Bishop of Fribourg’s recognition of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X. What do you make of the last four decades? These 40 years will go down in the Church’s history as a woeful era of decadence and loss of influence over the contemporary world and nations. It is doubtless difficult to assess one’s own time, but I do not see how the judgment could fail to be negative. In this context, our little work appears as a ray of sunshine in the midst of darkness, an oasis in the desert, a life raft after shipwreck. For us, these are unforgettable and rather amazing times, sprinkled, of course, with tears and trials, but overall joyous. Halfway through these 40 years, two great events took place in the Society’s history: the episcopal consecrations of 1988 and the passing away of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1991. Is there, then, a before and after? Do these two periods present a contrast? I do not see two periods, but rather a continuity. Our concern to remain faithful to the positions our venerated founder gave us is certainly part of it. Likewise, the fact that the external circumstances have remained pretty much the same greatly contributes to this continuity. Nothing compels us or prompts us to act otherwise; quite the contrary: Archbishop Lefebvre’s judgments were so profound that they still hold true. And that is quite remarkable! Has the work of the Society leveled off, or are there new apostolates that continue to open up for it throughout the world? The development hasn’t been astronomical due to a lack of priests, but there has been some progress, especially in mission lands. Currently, Africa has been calling upon us for help in several places, but we can hardly answer because we do not www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • December 2010 4 have enough workers for the harvest. It is also certain that, if we had more priests at our disposal, we could make prodigious inroads in Asia. But, besides that, we should point out the internal development of already existing works, which is fairly constant. All these years have also been a time of fraternal charity with the religious communities that have shared the Society’s ideal of restoration. What do you make of this support? We both give and receive support. The mutual support of traditional works is very comforting. In a situation of quasi persecution like ours, this mutual understanding is vital. At the same time, these 40 years have been studded with difficulties of which we are all aware. Some priests, sometimes very important people, religious or faithful–some torn, others weary–have stopped supporting the Society. What should we make of these separations? One of the best images to illustrate your question would be that of a war or battle in which men under fire are falling to your left and right, and you have no choice but to continue the assault. There is an extremely harsh side to war, and our age is without mercy for the fallen. The suffering is great both for those who leave us and for us who see them leave without any way of bringing them back. At the same time, are there priests and religious communities that, understanding the Society’s role in the Church, have gotten in touch with you? Yes, we have also had this consolation. Not a month goes by without someone knocking at our door: here a seminarian, there a priest or nun. Sometimes it involves a simple contact, other times, a decisive step in our direction. There are even, though it is rarer, bishops and entire congregations that make known to us their sympathy or even more. Since you travel on all continents, you must hear the Society and Archbishop Lefebvre spoken of in different ways. Are the founder and his work still the object of a certain distrust, or have things evolved since 1970? They have not really evolved, with a few exceptions. It seems to me quite surprising to observe that in the whole world the Society is received in about the same way, that is, in disgrace by the vast majority of bishops while being appreciated by a little flock of souls desiring to remain faithful. I think this is a fair illustration of the extent of the crisis as well as the profound consistency of its nature. THE ANGELUS • December 2010 www.angeluspress.org At Rome, do you also notice any changes? Has the Archbishop’s work had any effect upon the highest authorities of the Church? At Rome, a certain change towards us is noticeable, although it still has not had much effect. It seems to me that our work is appreciated by some, while it is hated by others. The reactions to us are very stark. There are very clearly two camps, one favorable and the other hostile, which makes relations rather difficult, because you always wonder which one will have the last word. It is nonetheless the case that those who wish to be faithful to the Pope consider us with respect and expect very much from us for the Church. But from this to seeing concrete results, patience is still in order! Forty years is both very short and yet long enough for a great many of the faithful to have no memory of Vatican II. Is there not a danger, as the Council becomes ever more remote, of living in a certain comfort on the part of priests and faithful who become satisfied with our current situation? The danger exists, no doubt, of ending up isolated in a kind of practical autonomy. A large part of this attitude ought to be attributed to the situation in which we find ourselves, that of the rejection of Tradition. That is why we are trying to broaden the horizon and concerns of the lay faithful by speaking to them of the Church and of Rome. It is very important to preserve a Roman spirit. Our attachment to Rome must not be symbolic, but concrete. This situation is also a trial of our faith in the Church. A year ago doctrinal discussions began between the experts of the Holy See and of the Society. We of course know that these relations are enveloped in a great discretion and that many of the faithful are praying for a happy outcome. Without entering into the subjects in detail, should we expect an unavoidable failure in the near term, or, on the contrary, a clear-cut restoration? Given the way the discussions are shaping up, I do not think they’ll suddenly break off or find a quick solution. It is a meeting of two mentalities, yet the will to enter into discussion at the theological level is indeed real. That is why, even if the development takes a long time, the fruits could yet be promising. Through these discussions, should a firm condemnation of the Council by Rome be expected, or will it finally 5 have to be accepted without flinching? How might one imagine the resolution of a crisis of this order? It seems to me that if a condemnation of the Council is forthcoming one day, it will not be tomorrow. A will to correct the current situation is rather clearly shaping up. About the present state of the Church, especially serious, our assessments coincide on a number of points, both on doctrine and morals and discipline. Nevertheless, the prevailing tendency at Rome is always to exonerate the Council: they do not want to trace the cause to the Council; they look for other causes, but certainly not the Council! Considering this, it seems that it would be easier to get around it by simply recalling the indisputable teaching of the Church, leaving for later a direct condemnation. I believe that, in the current context, a condemnation would simply not be understood. In a recent work, Vatican II: A Much-Needed Discussion, a Roman theologian, Monsignor Gherardini, draws up a rather alarming assessment of the Church. He implies that a reading of the Council in continuity with Tradition is manifestly not self-evident, and he summons the Pope to undertake a serious work of clarification of conciliar teaching. How should his book be received? It should not be taken as something coming from us or addressed to us. No, it is addressed to mainstream Catholics and to the sitting hierarchy. Thus viewed, the work becomes important because it calls in question the way in which the Council has been received. It touches a taboo. When we do it, we set off their defense reflex, blocking all discussion. But when it comes from their side, it opens up a lot of things. My conclusion is that objectively the book is important; it could be a spark capable of igniting a blaze. Do you have a precise message you’d like to address to the priests and faithful of the Society? On the occasion of our 40th anniversary: fidelity! Fidelity, the guarantee of the future; fidelity in little things, the guarantee of fidelity in great things. And especially, don’t give way to discouragement if the struggle must go on for a long time still, which everything seems to indicate; on the contrary, become bolder in advancing the work of the Church’s restoration. Translated exclusively for Angelus Press. “at a piVotal point” Interview with Bishop Bernard Fellay from Nouvelles de Chrétienté, Sept.-Oct. 2010 The Society of St. Pius X is celebrating its 40th anniversary. Is this the end of the wandering in the desert, as it was for the Hebrews in the time of Moses? It seems to me that what we are experiencing resembles instead one of those expeditions of the scouts who catch a glimpse of the Promised Land, although circumstances do not allow the people to enter it. In order to avoid any misinterpretation of the image just used, I hasten to add that we declare www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • December 2010 6 just as firmly as ever that we are Catholics and that, with God’s help, we intend to remain that way. However for the Church as a whole this crisis does resemble a wandering in the desert, with one difference: the manna is quite difficult to find. There are encouraging signs, especially on the part of Rome; unfortunately they are quite mixed up in other very troubling matters. A few blades of grass in the desert… In spite of everything, how is the Society of St. Pius X developing throughout the world? The Society is actually developing a bit everywhere. Some regions are making more rapid progress than others—I’m thinking of the United States, for example—but the big handicap that we run up against is the lack of priests. Requests for help come in from all sides, but because of our severe shortage of priests we cannot respond as we ought. With every appointment [of an SSPX priest to a pastoral assignment] we make a choice that is going to disappoint one or more groups of the faithful. On the one hand that is a rather good sign, since it shows a certain development in our work, but it is also quite painful. Think of the mission countries, particularly in Africa or in Brazil. If we could send 50 priests there, it would be a great relief. The immense continent of Asia is waiting also. Archbishop Lefebvre used to say that for the authorities in Rome the statistics of that growth were more eloquent than theological arguments. Is that still true? I don’t know whether we should say “the statistics” or “the facts.” At any rate the two things are equally telling. As the good old saying puts it, contra factum non fit argumentum, there is no arguing against the facts—that is still totally valid. And Archbishop Lefebvre’s statement is quite true. We should note that it is not so much the number that impresses Rome, since we are still a negligible quantity in the Mystical Body as a whole. But what we represent, in an extremely vivid way, is a living tradition—that overawes them. These magnificent fruits which are very certainly, by the admission of a high-ranking Roman prelate himself, the work of the Holy Ghost—that is what induces the Roman authorities to take a look at us. All the more because we are talking about fresh fruit springing up in the middle of the desert. In September, reports on the implementation of the Motu Proprio concerning the traditional Mass were to be sent to the Holy See. Only a few bishops THE ANGELUS • December 2010 www.angeluspress.org implemented the Roman directives generously. How do you explain this hesitance, or this resistance? Just as the new Mass expresses a certain new spirit, that of Vatican II, so also the traditional Mass expresses the Catholic spirit. Those who cling tenaciously to Vatican II because they see in it a new start for the Church, or those who suppose that with Vatican II a new leaf was turned definitively in Church history, simply cannot accept the coexistence of a Mass that recalls precisely what they thought they had abandoned forever. There are two spirits embodied in the two Masses. That is a fact! And the two do not go together! We find among modern Catholics a similar hatred for the Rosary, for example. And it is all related. We see in the controversy over the Mass a very good illustration of the complexity of the crisis that is rocking the Church. Do you mean to say that in the Church today, behind a façade of unity, there are hidden divisions not only between the local bishops’ conferences and the Holy See, but even in Rome among various opposing trends? Do you have factual evidence? Oh, yes; alas, we certainly are in those times that have been foretold, when there will be cardinal against cardinal, bishop against bishop. This sort of dispute is generally very discreet and escapes the notice of the laity. But recently, on various occasions, it has become open and public, for instance in the gratuitous attack by Cardinal Schönborn against Cardinal Sodano. That looked a lot like a settling of scores. But it is no secret that opposing trends clash in Rome itself. We have the facts about several cases, but I don’t think that it is helpful to the lay faithful to reveal such things. A recent conference given by Msgr. Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Ecclesia Dei Commission at the seminary of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter attempts to prove the doctrinal continuity between Vatican II and Tradition. To that end it deals with the question about the “subsistit in” and the issue of ecumenism. Do these examples seem convincing to you? I would not say “convincing” but surprising. That conference is the very logical application of the principles enunciated by Benedict XVI in December of 2005. And it gives us a presentation of ecumenism that is fairly different from what we have heard for the past 40 years…a presentation mixed with eternal principles concerning the oneness of the Church and her unique perfection, concerning the exclusive character of salvation. We do see in this an attempt to preserve the Church’s perennial teaching 7 and at the same time a Council that is revisited in the light of Tradition. The mixture, although interesting, still leaves open some logical questions concerning the role played by the other Christian denominations…which were called “false religions” up until and including the time of Pius XII. Will anyone from now on dare to use that term again? In his lengthy conclusion, Msgr. Pozzo proposes a Second Vatican Council that has been re-examined— if not corrected; one that denounces relativism, a certain overemphasis on the “pastoral” approach, and an excessive reliance on “dialogue”... Do you think that this presentation is capable of bringing about unanimity in Rome and in the dioceses? What do you think about this revised version of the Council? It is interesting, in the sense that they are presenting a new Second Vatican Council to us, a council which in fact we never knew and which is distinct from the one that was presented during the past 40 years. A sort of new skin! It is interesting especially inasmuch as the ultra-modern trend is condemned rather strongly. A sort of moderate or tempered council is being presented to us. The question remains, what kind of reception will this new formula have? It will certainly be deemed too traditional for the modernists and not traditional enough for us. Let us say that many of our attacks have now proved to be justified, a good deal of what we condemn is condemned. But although the matter is condemned, there is still a major disagreement concerning its causes. Because ultimately, if such intellectual disorientation was possible with respect to the Council, and to such a degree, to such an extent…there certainly must be a proportionate cause! If we discover such a great divergence in interpreting the conciliar documents, we will have to admit someday that the deficiencies in those documents are there for a reason. Some people committed to Tradition think that the crisis in the Church should end instantaneously, that the passage from this crisis to its solution should take place all at once. In your view is this a sign of supernatural confidence or of all-too-human impatience? In a gradual resolution of the crisis, what are the positive steps that have already been taken? What steps do you hope to see in the future? The instantaneous solution of the crisis, as some people imagine it, can result only from a miracle or from large-scale violence. If it does not come about in that way, then there will still be the gradual solution. Although absolutely speaking one cannot exclude the possibility that God could work such a miracle, usually God governs His Church differently, through the more normal cooperation of creatures and of His saints. In general it takes at least as much time to get over a crisis as it did to unleash it, if not more. The path of reconstruction is long, and the work—immense. But above all the choice of personnel will be the determining factor. If the policy for nominating bishops finally changes, then we can hope. By the same token there will have to be a thoroughgoing reform of teaching at the pontifical universities and of priestly formation in the seminaries. These are long-range projects which at the moment are still dreams, but over a period of ten years they could already be taking shape seriously. Everything depends on the pope at first. For the moment the positive thing is above all the acknowledgment that many things have gone awry... People are admitting that there is a sickness, a grave crisis in the Church. Will they go much further? We will see. What specifically can the Society of St. Pius X contribute as a solution to this unprecedented crisis? What role can Catholics devoted to Tradition take in this work of restoration? What do you expect from the young generation which is now 20 years old and will be 60…in 40 years? We can offer a reminder that the Church has a past that still remains quite valuable today. This is not dusty nostalgia but a fresh look at the Tradition of the Church—a decisive contribution toward a solution of the crisis. We should add to this the reminder about the power of the traditional Mass, about the mission and role of the priest as Our Lord intends it, in His image and according to His Spirit. When we ask priests who approach the Society what they expect from us, they tell us initially that they expect doctrine. Even before the Mass! This is surprising, but at the same time it is a good sign. The lay faithful have the important role of witnessing, of showing that the Christian life as it has always been understood, with its demands and respect for God’s law, is quite possible in the modern world. It is Christian life put into practice, a very concrete example needed by the man in the street. And for the generation of twenty-year-olds, I see that it is waiting, ready for the adventure of Tradition, sensing very well that what is being offered to it apart from Tradition is nothing but imitation goods. We are at a pivotal point for the future reconstruction and, although it is not yet clearly apparent, I think that everything is possible. Taken from DICI (No. 223). 1 Conference given by Msgr. Guido Pozzo on July 2, 2010, at the seminary in Wigratzbad (Germany), entitled, “Aspects of Catholic Theology in the Reception of Vatican II.” www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • December 2010 8 W i l f r i d W a r d Cardinal newman’s “Biglietto speeCh” Blessed John Henry Newman is one of England's most famous converts to the Catholic Faith. Extracted from an early-20th century biography, this article includes his famous “Biglietto Speech.” Here, his analysis of and opposition to liberalism is made clear. The great day arrived and Father Neville writes of it thus: On Monday morning, May 12, Dr. Newman went to the Palazzo della Pigna, the residence of Cardinal Howard, who had lent him his apartments to receive there the messenger from the Vatican bearing the biglietto from the CardinalSecretary of State, informing him that in a secret Consistory held that morning his Holiness had deigned to raise him to the rank of Cardinal. By eleven o’clock the room was crowded with English and American Catholics, ecclesiastics and laymen, as well as many members of the Roman nobility and dignitaries of the Church, assembled to witness the ceremony. Soon after midday the consistorial messenger was announced. He handed the biglietto to Cardinal Newman, who, having broken the seal, gave it to Dr. Clifford, Bishop of Clifton, who read the contents. The messenger having then informed the newly created Cardinal that his Holiness would receive him at the Vatican the next morning at ten o’clock to confer the biretta upon him, and having paid the customary compliments, his Eminence replied in what has become known as his “Biglietto Speech” as follows: The “Biglietto Speech” “Vi Vi ringrazio, Monsignore, per la participazione che m’avete fatto dell’ alto onore che il Santo Padre si è degnato conferire sulla mia umile persona– “And if I ask your permission to continue my address to you, not in your musical language, but in my own dear mother tongue, it is because in the latter I can better THE ANGELUS • December 2010 www.angeluspress.org express my feelings on this most gracious announcement which you have brought to me than if I attempted what is above me. “First of all then, I am led to speak of the wonder and profound gratitude which came upon me, and which is upon me still, at the condescension and love towards me of the Holy Father, in singling me out for so immense an honour. It was a great surprise. Such an elevation had never come into my thoughts, and seemed to be out of keeping with all my antecedents. I had passed through many trials, but they were over; and now the end of all things had almost come to me, and I was at peace. And was it possible that after all I had lived through so many years for this? 9 “Nor is it easy to see how I could have borne so great a shock, had not the Holy Father resolved on a second act of condescension towards me, which tempered it, and was to all who heard of it a touching evidence of his kindly and generous nature. He felt for me, and he told me the reasons why he raised me to this high position. Besides other words of encouragement, he said his act was a recognition of my zeal and good service for so many years in the Catholic cause; moreover, he judged it would give pleasure to English Catholics, and even to Protestant England, if I received some mark of his favour. After such gracious words from his Holiness, I should have been insensible and heartless if I had had scruples any longer. “This is what he had the kindness to say to me, and what could I want more? In a long course of years I have made many mistakes. I have nothing of that high perfection which belongs to the writings of saints, viz., that error cannot be found in them; but what I trust that I may claim all through what I have written, is this,—an honest intention, an absence of private ends, a temper of obedience, a willingness to be corrected, a dread of error, a desire to serve Holy Church, and, through Divine mercy, a fair measure of success. And, I rejoice to say, to one great mischief I have from the first opposed myself. For thirty, forty, fifty years I have resisted to the best of my powers the spirit of Liberalism in religion. Never did Holy Church need champions against it more sorely than now, when, alas! it is an error overspreading, as a snare, the whole earth; and on this great occasion, when it is natural for one who is in my place to look out upon the world, and upon Holy Church as in it, and upon her future, it will not, I hope, be considered out of place, if I renew the protest against it which I have made so often. “Liberalism in religion is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion, but that one creed is as good as another, and this is the teaching which is gaining substance and force daily. It is inconsistent with any recognition of any religion, as true. It teaches that all are to be tolerated, for all are matters of opinion. Revealed religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste; not an objective fact, not miraculous; and it is the right of each individual to make it say just what strikes his fancy. Devotion is not necessarily founded on faith. Men may go to Protestant Churches and to Catholic, may get good from both and belong to neither. They may fraternise together in spiritual thoughts and feel­ings, without having any views at all of doctrines in common, or seeing the need of them. Since, then, religion is so per­sonal a peculiarity and so private a possession, we must of necessity ignore it in the intercourse of man with man. If a man puts on a new religion every morning, what is that to you? It is as impertinent to think about a man’s religion as about his sources of income or his management of his family. Religion is in no sense the bond of society. “Hitherto the civil power has been Christian. Even in countries separated from the Church, as in my own, the dictum was in force, when I was young, that: ‘Christianity was the law of the land.’ Now, everywhere that goodly framework of society, which is the creation of Christianity, is throwing off Christianity. The dictum to which I have referred, with a hundred others which followed upon it, is gone, or is going everywhere; and, by the end of the century, unless the Almighty interferes, it will be forgotten. Hitherto, it has been considered that religion alone, with its super­natural sanctions, was strong enough to secure submission of the masses of our population to law and order; now the Philosophers and Politicians are bent on satisfying this problem without the aid of Christianity. Instead of the Church’s authority and teaching, they would substitute first of all a universal and thoroughly secular education, calculated to bring home to every individual that to be orderly, indus­trious, and sober is his personal interest. Then, for great working principles to take the place of religion, for the use of the masses thus carefully educated, it provides—the broad fundamental ethical truths, of justice, benevolence, veracity, and the like; proved experience; and those natural laws which exist and act spontaneously in society, and in social matters, whether physical or psychological; for instance, in government, trade, finance, sanitary experiments, and the intercourse of nations. As to Religion, it is a private luxury, which a man may have if he will; but which of course he must pay for, and which he must not obtrude upon others, or indulge in to their annoyance. “The general [nature] of this great apostasia is one and the same everywhere; but in detail, and in character, it varies in different countries. For myself, I would rather speak of it in my own country, which I know. There, I think it threatens to have a formidable success; though it is not easy to see what will be its ultimate issue. At first sight it might be thought that Englishmen are too religious for a movement which, on the continent, seems to be founded on infidelity; but the misfortune with us is, that, though it ends in infidelity as in other places, it does not necessarily arise out of infidelity. It must be recollected that the religious sects, which sprang up in England three centuries ago, and which are so powerful now, have ever been fiercely opposed to the Union of Church and State, and would advocate the un-Christianising of the monarchy and all that www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • December 2010 10 belongs to it, under the notion that such a catastrophe would make Christianity much more pure and much more powerful. Next the liberal principle is forced on us from the necessity of the case. Consider what follows from the very fact of these many sects. They constitute the religion, it is supposed, of half the population; and recollect, our mode of government is popular. Every dozen men taken at random whom you meet in the streets have a share in political power,—when you inquire into their forms of belief, perhaps they represent one or other of as many as seven religions; how can they possibly act together in municipal or in national matters, if each insists on the recognition of his own religious denomination? All action would be at a deadlock unless the subject of religion was ignored. We cannot help ourselves. And, thirdly, it must be borne in mind, that there is much in the liberalistic theory which is good and true; for example, not to say more, the precepts of justice, truthfulness, sobriety, self-command, benevolence, which, as I have already noted, are among its avowed principles, and the natural laws of society. It is not till we find that this array of principles is intended to supersede, to block out, religion, that we pronounce it to be evil. There never was a device of the Enemy so cleverly framed and with such promise of success. And already it has answered to the expectations which have been formed of it. It is sweeping into its own ranks great Group photographed in Rome in May 1879.The figures from right to left are Fr.Thomas Pope, Fr. William Neville (standing), Fr. Paul Eaglesim, Cardinal Newman, the Cardinal's Gentiluomo, the Caudataria or Trainbearer. numbers of able, earnest, virtuous men, elderly men of approved antecedents, young men with a career before them. “Such is the state of things in England, and it is well that it should be realised by all of us; but it must not be supposed for a moment that I am afraid of it. I lament it deeply, because I foresee that it may be the ruin of many souls; but I have no fear at all that it really can do aught of serious harm to the Word of God, to Holy Church, to our Almighty King, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, Faithful and True, or to His Vicar on earth. Christianity has been too often in what seemed deadly peril, that we should fear for it any new trial now. So far is certain; on the other hand, what is uncertain, and in these great contests commonly is Father Pope described the scene in a brief note written to Father Ignatius Ryder on the day itself: Monday. All has passed off beautifully—an immense crowd—the Father made a very fine speech, which you will see verbatim in the Times, and which is very heartily enjoyed here. How he managed it St. Philip knows best—but he did not cough—and his delivery was very animated, and perfect, as the vehicle of his words. Several Cardinals have come—more will be coming this evening. They are very cordial, and seem very earnestly and sincerely to look on the Father as a glorious addition to their number. One said he read English and knew THE ANGELUS • December 2010 www.angeluspress.org uncertain, and what is commonly a great surprise, when it is witnessed, is the particular mode by which, in the event, Providence rescues and saves His elect inheritance. Sometimes our enemy is turned into a friend; sometimes he is despoiled of that special virulence of evil which was so threatening; sometimes he falls to pieces of himself; sometimes he does just so much as is beneficial, and then is removed. Commonly the Church has nothing more to do than to go on in her own proper duties, in confidence and peace; to stand still and to see the salvation of God. Mansueti hereditabunt terram Et delectabuntur in multitudine pacis.” the “Apologia” &c. well. I am now easy about the Father—I have been at times uneasy. The cough is obstinate and weakness great. He seems to-day quite himself. Old Wagner from Brighton was present. The Italian ladies behind me were unanimous that he was: “che bel vecchio! che figura!” &c. &c. “pallido si, ma bellissimo,” &c. &c. &c. In short the Father was quite up to the occasion, which is saying a great deal. Mr. Wagner himself wrote his impressions of the scene to a friend: 11 I write you a few lines just to say that I was present yesterday at the ceremony of Dr. Newman’s receiving the Letter from the Pope conferring on him the Cardinalate. He was in Cardinal Howard’s rooms, where a considerable number of English were collected to witness the ceremony. After the letter was read, he made a beautiful little address in English to those present, ending with the motto which is in the Lives of the Saints he published at Littlemore. ‘The meek spirited shall possess the earth, and shall be refreshed in the multitude of peace.’ I do not know whether the ancient ceremony of giving the Hat to the Cardinal will take place— the last Pope, I believe, dispensed with it in his latter years; if so, I shall hope to get access to the Vatican to see it. Dr. Newman looked ill and faint, but he read the address in a beautifully dear voice, and it was a very touching one, in some respects, to listen to. I have written a line to Dr. Pusey to tell him of it, as I thought he would like to hear something of one whom he loved so much. Dr. Newman’s face looked quite like that of a Saint. Addresses and presentations from the Englishspeaking Catholics in Rome followed. Father Pope describes in another letter the first of these, which took place at the English College: Wednesday, May 14. The presentation at the English College went off grandly. Abp. McGettigan, Abp. of Benevento, Bp. Clifford, and a host of monsignori—English swarming—the present tasteful and costly—the address feeling and (better still) short—read admirably by Lady Herbert—and the Father’s reply short, and very touching. He looked very noble in Cardinal’s attire —and we sent to the Vatican for his “gentiluomo” in the picturesque mediaeval dress—with sword—and the Father’s biretta on his knees. Two carriages and all in proper form. But the Father is fearfully tired and weak. That grip on the throat and bronchia was a sharp one—and I shall be glad now to see him home again. The Pope wishes him either to pontificate, or assist on the throne, at Chiesa Nuova, on St. Philip’s day. But I think he will not. The following is Father Neville’s semi-official account of the presentation: At eleven o’clock on Wednesday, May 14, his Eminence Cardinal Newman accompanied by Mgr. Cataldi, Master of Ceremonies to his Holiness and the Fathers of the Birmingham Oratory who are with him, went to the English College to receive the address and the gifts of the English, Irish, Scotch, and American residents in Rome. He was received at the College by Dr. O’Callaghan, the rector, Dr. Giles, the vice-rector, and Mgr. Stonor, and conducted into a large upper chamber, already crowded by ladies and gentlemen. At the further end were exposed the complete set of vestments, rich as becoming the intention, but plain in accordance with the Cardinal’s desire, a cloth-of-silver cope and jewelled mitre, a Canon of the Mass book, a pectoral cross and chain, and a silver-gilt altar candlestick, for which the English-speaking Catholics at Rome have subscribed as a present to his Eminence, together with a richly illuminated address. On each vestment was embroidered his Eminence’s coat-of-arms in proper heraldic colours, with the motto “Cor ad cor loquitur.” The Cardinal having taken his seat, with Mgr. Moran, Bishop of Ossory, Mgr. Woodlock, Bishop elect of Ardagh, Mgr. Sicilian di Rende, Archbishop of Benevento and Mgrs. Stonor, Cataldi, and de Stacpoole on either side, Lady Herbert of Lea read the following address: “From the English, Irish, Scotch, and American Residents in Rome. “My Lord Cardinal,—We, your devoted English, Scotch, Irish, and American children at present residing in Rome, earnestly wishing to testify our deep and affectionate veneration for your Eminence’s person and character, together with our hearty joy at your elevation to the Sacred Purple, venture to lay this humble offering at your feet. We feel that in making you a Cardinal the Holy Father has not only given public testimony of his appreciation of your great merits and of the value of your admirable writings in defence of God and His Church, but has also conferred the greatest possible honour on all English-speaking Catholics who have long looked up to you as their spiritual father and their guide in the paths of holiness. We hope your Eminence will excuse the shortness and simplicity of this Address, which is but the expression of the feeling contained in your Eminence’s motto, ‘Heart speaking to Heart,’ for your Eminence has long won the first place in the hearts of all. That God may greatly prolong the years which have been so devoted to His service in the cause of truth is the earnest prayer of your Eminence’s faithful and loving children.” Taken from The Life of John Henry Cardinal Newman, Vol. II, by Wilfrid Ward (London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1912). Parochial and Plain Sermons John Henry Newman All of Newman’s famous sermons from his Anglican period are brought together in this new edition that is beautifully printed and bound on Bible paper with a flexible leatherette cover and red ribbon. His sermons, edited after his conversion to ensure no doctrinal errors, are as powerful, fresh and challenging today as when he first gave them. He covers topics central to Christianity and salvation, once again demonstrating his profound understanding of human psychology, and the temptations and trials we encounter as Christians in the world. This deluxe edition is a magnificent work of timeless inspiration and illumination for every generation of Christian readers. 191 sermons in total. 1781pp. Hardcover. Ribbon. STK# 8389 $60.00 www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • December 2010 12 Christian Politics An interview with Fr. Guillaume Devillers to mark the publication of his book: Politique chrétienne, à l’école de saint Thomas d’Aquin– Christian Politics: The Teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas. One hundred years ago the letter “Our Apostolic Mandate” on the Sillon was published by St. Pius X, where one can read this warning: “There is no true civilisation without a moral civilisation, and no true moral civilisation without the true religion.” In what way could we say that your book Christian Politics follows the line recalled by St. Pius X? Yes, that is one of the fundamental ideas of my study. Without the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ everything crumbles, and our poor humanity goes from misfortune to misfortune. An example among many others is the disastrous experience of communism, with its millions of casualties. One forgets all too easily that the Church has long been almost the only opposition to this monstrosity. But above all I have tried to show how the Faith brings light to all human realities by reviewing the great THE ANGELUS • December 2010 www.angeluspress.org philosophical and political questions which shake or disconcert our contemporaries. I’m tempted to add furthermore this other quote of St. Pius X: “No true philosophy without Faith!” Would that not be to confuse philosophy and theology? Not at all! They are two very different sciences, but that’s no reason to separate them. In the same way, body and soul are intimately linked in each man, without making them any less distinct the one from the other. If you separate them, it is death. Five centuries of naturalism have effected the perfect experimental proof: philosophy and politics separated from religion rapidly deteriorate. “No true civilisation without the true Faith!” Of course one can study philosophy in its own light, provided that one does not forget that Faith is our real wisdom, and that she must govern and control the other sciences. I leave it to others, more knowledgeable than I, 13 to determine whether this control is essential or accidental, negative or positive, intrinsic or extrinsic, etc. What is your answer to those whom the alliance of the words “politics” and “Christian” may shock? What do you say to all those who see in today’s politics a rather unchristian activity? That this expression should shock non-Christians is understandable. What is more surprising is that it should also shock Catholics, and even some good traditionalist authors, overly influenced by Jacques Maritain. However, they cannot deny that Christian revelation contains a large number of natural truths, particularly in the field of politics. It allows us to know these truths with far more certainty than if left to reason alone. What’s more, the experience of centuries has shown that the constitution of States in Europe was by no means indifferent to the salvation of souls. The Church has therefore elaborated, little by little, a social and political doctrine which ends with the proclamation of the Social Reign of Jesus Christ in the encyclical Quas Primas by Pius XI. The experience of 1,000 years of Christian civilization has proved it: “Christian politics,” ordained for the salvation of souls as their ultimate goal, are also the most apt to procure the true happiness of people, according to the promise of the Saviour: “Seek first the Kingdom of Heaven and its justice, and all the rest shall be added unto you.” If politics today have become “un-Christian,” it is precisely because they are no longer Catholic. Politics have become agnostic. The same can be said for philosophy. Your first part deals with philosophy and theology. Does it not reach just a little too high in its principles? Political men are infatuated with practical questions. Is there not a risk that they will find such considerations too theoretical? One can understand nothing of the current policy of European governments if one does not see that these policies rest on a false philosophy that is agnostic and materialistic, which contradicts the basic principles of the Faith and Catholic theology. The most serious disease from which the world presently suffers is that of unbelief and scepticism, as you have often well shown in DICI. No one believes in anything anymore. Disillusioned and without ideals, our contemporaries are dying of depression and are letting themselves be led by their passions. Thus there will not be a political restoration without a philosophical restoration which would remedy this evil by restoring to men a confidence in the power of reason, and by returning to them the love of truth and the good. There can be no philosophical restoration without a religious restoration. All the efforts will be in vain if one does not return resolutely to the whole truth—philosophical and theological, Christian and realistic. It is for this reason that St. Thomas Aquinas proves to be the indispensable Master. In your fifth part, you discuss the economic question which, in the present crisis, is of interest to everyone. Can you give a brief overview of the responses that a Christian politician could bring to the problems of today? The modern world oscillates miserably between anarchy and tyranny, fierce liberalism and excessive planning. I have tried to show here how faith can bring original solutions to us, solutions which have proven to be reliable in traditional Christian societies. Free market competition finds a place there, but without becoming an idol, and the State exercises its necessary role there without crushing intermediate bodies. The respect for private property is guaranteed by the seventh commandment. This way everything is integrated harmoniously within the whole that is the State, according to the order of justice, for the glory of God, the good of souls, and the peace and blessedness of families. Some will be surprised by the condemnation of interest-bearing loans, the well-known, incontrovertible foundation of the modern economy. Ah, yes, the Good Lord condemns usury! And we are well punished for having wanted to taste this forbidden fruit, since we have become, henceforth, the slaves of the power of money, that is to say, of Satan and his fiends. Concerning political society, in the sixth part you write about religious liberty, which Archbishop www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • December 2010 14 Lefebvre energetically opposed. In the seventh and last part—devoted to religious society: the Church—it is a question of obedience and the need for resistance. A superficial reader might believe that you advocate a certain disobedience in the name of liberty of conscience which you denounced in the preceding chapter. How do you answer this? There you raise one of the most important issues and, today, the most difficult in civil society as well as in the Church, and even in our spiritual life: that of obedience and its limits. Logically, it has to occupy an important place in this study. Therefore, I endeavoured to determine the general principles which control the virtue of obedience, then to apply them to the present situation, particularly in considering the sedevancantist theses and “Ecclesia Dei.” No, there is no right of freedom of conscience. It is a revolutionary idea which ruins the order of justice. In contrast, there is a right, which is also a duty, to obey God rather than men. As for religious liberty, one only needs briefly to shine the powerful Thomistic spotlight on it to make it collapse with a crash. Indeed, even its defenders recognize that it is nowhere in Holy Scripture! Nor, of course, is it in the traditional teaching of the Church. You recommend in your bibliography, along side of Fr. Emmanuel, Romano Amerio, and Jean Daujat, “The Brief Apology for the Church of All Time” by Fr. Calmel. Can you tell us what it is about this work in particular that you find so compelling? Around 1968, at the age of 14, I happily escaped the Minor Seminary of Versailles which was in full post-conciliar decomposition, without, however, understanding much of what occurred and without being able to find out about those who had organized such an upheaval. A few years later, a text of Fr. Roger-Thomas Calmel, O.P., (published in Itinéraires of March 1971) provided a clear and distinct answer: “They waste their lives and lose their souls to build a post-conciliar church, under the sun of Satan” (Prologue). A little later, I also read, with profound joy, The Mysteries of the Kingdom of Grace, by the same author, which gives a beautiful vision of our Christian faith and the supernatural life. That was at the beginning of my military service, upon leaving a Catholic youth camp in Greece. These are beautiful memories, which leave a mark on one’s life! Is your book reserved for theologians and specialists? What pedagogic advantage do you find in putting forth the teachings of the Church in a manner similar to the method used in the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas, with objections and posed questions, followed by a THE ANGELUS • December 2010 www.angeluspress.org demonstration, then by a response to the objections that were raised? This book does not require any preliminary knowledge. Following the example of St. Thomas, I endeavoured to not use any difficult term without explaining it. Undoubtedly, it will be necessary for the reader to be attentive and put in some small effort, as in any serious study. But I hope that he will be pleased to have done so, and thus be able to form more precise ideas about a great number of important matters. The next edition will include an alphabetical index to make it possible to quickly find a quotation or a reference. As for me, I will consider myself to have been rather well paid if I am able give to someone some knowledge of the Thomistic method and impart the desire to go there to see for themselves. We will never be able to thank Archbishop Lefebvre and the seminary at Ecône enough for having transmitted to us this treasure of divine wisdom that is the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas—and for having given us a liking for it and an understanding of it. Fr. Devillers was ordained in 1982. For many years he was a professor at the Society’s seminary in La Reja, Argentina. Currently he is preaching the Spiritual Exercices of St. Ignatius as a collaborador of Fr. Marziac at Caussade in France. Taken from DICI. DICI is the international press agency of the Society of St. Pius X. The Church has therefore elaborated, little by little, a social and political doctrine which ends with the proclamation of the Social Reign of Jesus Christ in the encyclical Quas Primas by Pius XI. The experience of 1,000 years of Christian civilization has proved it: these “Christian politics,” ordained for the salvation of souls as their ultimate goal, are also the most apt to procure the true happiness of people, according to the promise of the Saviour: “Seek first the Kingdom of Heaven and its justice, and all the rest shall be added unto you.” Quas Primas 23pp. Softcover. STK# 5305 $1.50 15 PART 4 F r . A l b e r t , O . P . Summa Theologiae The Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas is justly one of the famous works of Christendom. Yet this book, meant for beginners in the ages of Faith, can seem overwhelming today. We give here an introduction to the Summa by Fr. Albert, a son of St. Dominic, in the hope of making this important work more accessible to modern readers. THE FIVE WAYS St. Thomas gives five ways to prove the existence of God. 1) The most manifest way: the argument from motion The argument may be summarized as follows. We see in the world things that are in motion (“motion” here is to be taken not just for local motion, but for change in general). Whatever is in motion is moved by another, and if this other is also in motion, it must, then, be moved by still another. This series cannot go on forever but must end at a mover that is not in motion because otherwise there would be no motion at all. This first mover that is not put in motion by any other is what everyone understands to be God. The logic of this argument is evidently sound. To prove its truth we have to justify two principles. The first, and most important, is the statement: “Whatever is in motion is moved by another” (omne quod movetur ab alio movetur). Let us first read the justification of this key principle given by St. Thomas himself, which is based on the impossibility of something being simultaneously in potentiality and in act with respect to the same thing: Whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except in so far as it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For to move is nothing else than to raise something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be raised from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e., that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. What is moved, then, is necessarily in potentiality to the term of its movement, that is, it can become what it is going to become but it isn’t yet. Therefore it cannot be the cause of its own becoming what it isn’t yet, because what does that has to be in act with regard to this term: only what is hot can make something that is not hot become hot. So whatever moves has to be in act and what is moved has to be in potentiality and therefore what moves can’t be what is moved. John of St. Thomas explains the same principle thus: Nothing is raised to actuality by what is in potentiality, but rather by what is in act : for potentiality does not have the power to raise but rather to receive. Therefore what moves must be in act and what is moved must be in potentiality. It is impossible, however, that something be simultaneously in act and in potentiality with respect to the same thing, that it be the mover and the moved, because actuality and potentiality imply contradictory properties. For what is in potentiality to something does not possess it; but what is in act possesses it, or something that is even higher than it, by reason of which it is no longer in potentiality but in act. Therefore the same thing cannot be simultaneously in potentiality and act with regard to the same thing; therefore neither can it simultaneously move itself and be moved; therefore if it is in motion, it is moved by another, for what is in motion must be passive www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • December 2010 16 and depend on what moves it actively; therefore if it is not in motion from itself then it must be so by another. 1 All this might seem like beating a dead horse since it all seems so obvious, and yet it is necessary to beat this horse until it is most certainly dead for all the proofs of the existence of God depend precisely on these obvious principles which many people, nonetheless, implicitly deny when they deny the existence of God. The second principle of St. Thomas’ argument is equally clear, namely: “A series of movers which move must ultimately end at a mover that is unmoved.” St. Thomas proves it, starting from a restatement of the first principle that he has just established, and then concludes directly at God’s existence. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.2 2) The second way, from the nature of the efficient cause The point of the departure of the second proof, which is closely parallel to the first one, delves deeper into the world of sense that surrounds us, going beyond the simple fact of the movement or becoming of things to their being; which is the termination of their becoming and remains after it. Something can be the cause of the becoming of an effect without being the cause of its being, as in the case, for example, of a father who caused the becoming of his son but does not cause his being, which continues along just fine even after the father has died. The causes of the being of a thing exercise an immediate and present influence on it in such a way that the thing could not In Q. 2, Disp. 3, a. 2, n. 3. Similarly Fr. Farrell writes: “The common sense fundamental back of this (principle) is simply that what is not possessed cannot be bestowed; and the very notion of potentiality is the abence of perfection that can be possessed but so far is not, for, unless we maintain that contraries are identical, a potentiality is not its actualzation.” Fr. Walter Farrell, O.P., A Companion to the Summa (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1941), I, 33. Garrigou-Lagrange constantly repeats this point, namely, that in order to deny the existence of God one must deny the principle of non-contradiction, that is, that a thing cannot be and not be at the same time. 2 Garrigou-Lagrange remarks: “This argument refutes the theory of absolute Evolutionism, according to which becoming, or the evolution of phenomena, is the principle of all things. This is impossible, since the sufficient reason or cause of becoming cannot be found in this process itself, but becoming involves the presence of an additional element, which calls for a higher cause, otherwise we should have to say that the greater comes from the less, being from nothingness, without any cause.” Rev. R. GarrigouLagrange, O.P., God, His Existence and His Nature, trans. Dom Rose (St. Louis: Herder), 1948, p. 383. 1 THE ANGELUS • December 2010 www.angeluspress.org continue to be without them. Without the heat of the sun and the atmospheric pressure exercised by the air, for example, all animals would very soon cease to exist, as they would also if the chemical activity of oxygen in their lungs ceased to operate. All these cosmic agents are so many causes of the being of these animals and thus are called by St. Thomas “efficient causes” whose influence is exercised on the deeper level of being as opposed to the more superficial activity of mere causes of motion. Starting from what he calls this “order of efficient causes,” that is, the fact that we see in the world around us that things depend for their being on other things, St. Thomas argues that the existence of these effects necessarily implies the existence of their causes, for, he says: There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.3 Now if these causes are themselves caused, then we must for the same reason postulate the existence of their causes too, and finally come to a cause that is not caused, for just as the series of causes of motion cannot be infinite, for otherwise there would be no motion, similarly the series of causes of being cannot be infinite or there would be no being. GarrigouLagrange draws the final conclusion of this second argument, saying: We are thus led to the source of being, to a supreme efficient cause, which has no need of being caused nor of being preserved in existence.…The Being a se, the Supreme Being, which is the direct cause not of some mode of being (such as heat or light), but of being as such, is the cause of everything which is not its own cause, and it can be the cause of everything that is capable of existing. The Being a se endows everything with reality and is the direct cause of being; just as fire is of heat, and light of illumination; it can endow with reality all things which do not involve a contradiction, just as fire can heat all things which are capable fo being heated.4 3) The third way, from possibility and necessity In the world we see things that can be and not be, since they are found to be generated and to corrupt. If they can be or not be, they must have their being from somewhere other than themselves (because if they had it from themselves then they could not not be). Now this source of their being must not itself be susceptible of not being, because then it would just be part of this same group of beings that is susceptible of not being and so could not be the principle that accounts for Here, again, in order to deny this we would have to deny the principle of non-contradiction, as John of St. Thomas observes: “To say that something is the efficient cause of itself would be like saying that it is and is not at the same time. For in order to be an efficient cause it must have being, because what is nothing does nothing; but in order that it be caused it must not be, for what is does not become; it must become out of nonbeing.” Op. cit., n. 14. 4 God, His Existence, pp. 292-293. 3 17 them.5 However, if this source that is not susceptible of not being doesn’t have this from itself, then it must have it from another, and if this other doesn’t have it from itself, it must have it from yet another, and so on. But this passing of the buck cannot go on indefinitely, it must sooner or later arrive at something that does not receive its non-susceptibility of not being but has it from itself, a being that is absolutely necessary, and this is what all call God. The key to this argument is the statement that everything cannot be just possible (what is suceptible of not being), but the possible absolutely requires as its cause that which is necessary (what cannot not be). Garrigou-Lagrange explains this in a little more technical language and shows how the argument finally rests on the principle of non-contradiction: Why is an uncaused contingent being repugnant to reason? It is because a contingent being is that which can either exist or not exist (this being its definition). Therefore it is not self-existent, and must be dependent upon another for this; otherwise, if it were neither self-existent nor dependent upon another for existence, it would bave no reason for existing, and so would be the same as nothing. “Nothing is what results from nothing.” To say that from nothing, or that from no cause either efficient or material, something comes into being, is a contradiction.6 St. Thomas himself states the principle much more bluntly, and concludes with a tinge of a smile at the absurdity of where denying it leads: It is impossible that everything be like this (that is, possibly not existing) because what is susceptible of not being, at some point is not. So if everything were susceptible of not being, then at some point there would be nothing. But if this were true, then there would be nothing now, because what is not does not begin to be except through what is; if, therefore, at one point there were no being, it would be impossible for being to begin to exist and so there would be nothing now, which is obviously false. 4) The fourth way, from the grades of being This argument takes as its starting point the different grades of the same perfection found in various beings: Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble, and the like. John of St. Thomas explains this saying that these corruptible contingent things cannot be the ultimate source of their being because they come from non-being (since they are generated and corruptibile) and thus they require something that does not come from non-being to give them being. “For that which has received being while it was non-being must have it from some being that is in act; and this being cannot be contingent and corruptible because all contingent things have received being while they were non-being and there cannot be an infinite regression; therefore they presuppose a non-contingent being from which they have being.” (Ibid., n. 23) 6 Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., The One God: A Commentary on the First Part of St. Thomas’ Theological Summa, translated by Dom. Bede Rose, O.S. B. (St. Louis: Herder, 1943), p. 114. 5 It must be noted that the perfections spoken of here that are susceptible of different degrees are all what are called “transcendentals.” This term comes from the fact that these perfections “transcend” the fundamental categories of genus and species into which, normally, all beings fit. A dog is a certain particular species and belongs as well to a certain genus, to which genus also belong cats and giraffes, which have, likewise, their own species to themselves. Caninity and felinity are specific perfections that don’t wander outside their fixed borders and neither are they found to be more or less. Something is not more or less a dog: it either is or it isn’t, and the same goes for cats and giraffes. Transcendentals, however, are exceptions to this rule: they are not confined to one fixed species or genus of being but are found in different categories. There are not only good dogs, but good cats (or at least some people think so: others would say that there is no such thing as a good cat, but this is mere prejudice and not good metaphysics). And there are not only good animals but good plants, good machines, good music, good food and all sorts of other good things. Goodness, then is a transcendental. It exists in different things and means something quite different in each case: what makes a good dog does not make a good cat (which is probably why some people think that there are no good cats, because they want them to be just like dogs, which is ridiculous). Nevertheless, even though goodness concretely means entirely different things, it does have a specific meaning so that different things truly do have goodness in their own different ways. Thus the word “good” is an analagous term, that is to say, it does not have one single meaning but applies differently to different things. And the same thing goes for the words “truth” and “beauty” and “unity” and even “being.”7 What interests us presently about these transcendentals is the fact that they are found in different degrees in different things. A self-evident principle, for example, has more truth than the conclusions drawn from it. Similarly the end for which something is done is better than the means which lead to it, or, more concretely, this car is better than that one (Fords are better than Chevies). This painting is more beautiful than that one, this basketball team has more unity than that one, and basketball teams, in general, have less unity than living organisms do. St. Thomas goes on to say that since there are these degrees of more or less goodness, truth, beauty and unity in things, there must exist something which 7 The word “is” does not mean the same thing at all when we say: “Caesar is a man” and “Caesar is white.” The first “is” indicates being that exists on its own two feet (a man), the second being that cannot exist on its own but must exist in something else (whiteness). “Is” is an analogical term like “good.” www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • December 2010 18 possesses them in a maximum degree and is the cause of these perfections in everything else that possesses them in a lower degree. Thereupon he immediately concludes: Therefore, there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God. This principle he uses here, namely, that “the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus” was a commonplace axiom among philosophers, going back all the way to Plato, and so St. Thomas, wanting to brief, justifies it by simply giving a reference to Aristotle. For us novices, however, Garrigou-Lagrange gives an explanation of it which will help us understand. He writes: When a perfection, the concept of which does not imply any imperfection (which is the case with these transcendentals), is found in various degrees in different beings, none of those which possess it imperfectly contains a sufficient explanation for it, and hence its cause must be sought in a being of a higher order, which is this very perfection.8 We can arrive at this conclusion starting from the degrees of perfection in things by two different angles. Firstly, if the same note is found in two beings, neither one of them possess it in their own right, and so it must come to them from another that does so possess it. For example, Phaedo is beautiful, but Phaedrus is too, so beauty doesn’t belong to either of them in and of themselves, they both merely participate in something other than themselves that is beauty itself. The beauty they both have cannot come from themselves because, in themselves, they are different while the beauty they have is common to them both. St. Thomas writes: If one of some kind is found as a common note in several objects, this must be because some one cause has brought it about in them; for it cannot be that the common note of itself belongs to each thing, since each thing is by its very nature distinct, one from the other, and a diversity of causes produces a diversity of effects.9 Phaedo and Phaedrus are different from each other and different from beauty itself, so the explanation for the beauty that is common to them must be something different from themselves. Now if this thing in common that explains their common beauty is not itself beauty itself but something else that merely possesses beauty or participates in it, like Phaedo and Phaedrus, we don’t get any further to finding out where the beauty ultimately comes from. We will just have to say, as we did with Phaedo and Phaedrus, that it has beauty but isn’t the cause of it: God: His Existence, p. 308. Aristotle himself expresses this principle saying: “When there is a greater or less, when there are degrees in anything, then the perfect also exists; if, then, a certain being is better than a certain other, there must be one which is perfect, and this can only be the divine.” (Ibid., p. 310) 9 De Potentia q. 3, a. 5. Elsewhere St. Thomas expresses this saying: “What is multiple does not explain what is one.” (Ibid., p. 312) 8 THE ANGELUS • December 2010 www.angeluspress.org it is just a third member of the group of things that shares in beauty but must receive it from outside itself. Finally we must arrive at something that doesn’t just have beauty but is beauty itself, and so doesn’t need to receive it from outside itself and which is the cause of beauty in everything else that has it. The second angle is to start from the very fact that something possesses a perfection imperfectly, because that necessarily implies that it does not have the perfection of itself but from somewhere else. St. Thomas writes: Whatever belongs to a thing by its very nature, and has not been caused in it, cannot belong to it in an imperfect manner.10 So if it does belong to it in an imperfect manner, it has been caused in it. If goodness is united with non-goodness, that is, if it exists imperfectly, this can only be by an extrinsic cause because, by itself, goodness isn’t united with non-goodness.11 As St. Thomas, again, puts it: Things in themselves different cannot unite, unless something causes them to unite.12 So where goodness is found imperfectly, it must be received from outside and ultimately from goodness itself. Whatever a thing may fittingly have, if it does not originate from its nature, accrues to it from an extrinsic cause; for what has no cause is first and immediate. (Contra Gentes, Bk. II, c. XV, n. 2) What is found in a being without properly belonging to it according to its nature, is something which has been caused in it. In fact, not possessing this characteristic of itself and immediately (per se primo), it can possess the same only in a conditional manner, by reason of another, and, in the final analysis, from another which possesses the same of Contra Gentes, Bk. II, ch. 15. St. Thomas explains this elsewhere saying: “When something is found to be participated in by several things in various ways it is necessary that it be attributed to those things in which it is found imperfectly by reason of that in which it is found perfectly. For things that are said positively to be something more and less have this by the fact that they approach more or less to some one thing; for if this note belonged to each of them by what they are in themselves there is no reason why it would be found to be more perfectly in one of them than in another. Thus we see that fire, which is the maximum of heat, is the principle of heat in all things that are hot.” (De potentia, 3, a. 5) 12 I, q. 3, a. 7. Garrigou-Lagrange explains that to deny this one has to deny the very first principle of human thought, the principle of identity, namely, that a thing is what it is and is not what it is not: “To say imperfection is the same as saying composition or mixture of a perfection with that which limits it.…Evidently none of these perfections (of beauty, goodness, knowledge) in themselves imply a limit, least of all such a limit. In itself, beauty excludes ugliness, knowledge excludes ignorance or error, and goodness excludes egotism. To say that such is not the case would be to maintain that the unconditional union of diverse elements is possible; that the diverse is, of itself, one, at least with a unity of union; that elements, according to what constitutes them as individuals, though they do not necessitate their being united, are of themselves united. This would involve the denial of the principle of identity.…The union of a perfection with its limit, not being unconditional therefore, demands an extrinsic raison d’être.” God, His Existence, p. 316. 10 11 (Continued on p.27) J a m e s 19 V o g e l THE DEFENSE OF TR ADITION AS TR ANSMITTED BY A RCHBISHOP M ARCEL LEFEBVRE Over the weekend of October 15-17, 2010, Angelus Press hosted its first annual conference in Kansas City, Missouri. On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the founding of the Society of St. Pius X, nearly 700 people convened at the Hilton Hotel near the Kansas City airport for three days of talks, socializing, and mutual support. Bishop Bernard Fellay, the Superior General of the Society, was the keynote speaker and offered a pontifical High Mass Sunday morning at the historic St. Vincent de Paul’s Church. Fr. Arnaud Rostand, District Superior of the Society in America, made the decision to hold such a conference nearly a year before the event took place. His intention was to celebrate appropriately this milestone in the Society’s history, organizing the weekend around the theme of fidelity to the vision given it by its founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. On Friday evening, during his introduction, Fr. Rostand recalled to us the meaning of gratitude and placed the weekend’s talks in this light as signs of our gratitude to the Archbishop. Fr. Juan-Carlos Iscara, a professor of history from St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary and former District Superior of Mexico, was the first speaker. Appropriately, he shared his insights into the life of www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • December 2010 20 THE DEFENSE OF TR ADITION Archbishop Lefebvre, especially noting the various Popes whose pontificates shaped his life. He stressed how it was his fidelity to the Magisterium which dictated his decisions and helped him navigate the stormy waters of the post-Vatican II pontificates. After this talk the guests had a chance to introduce themselves to one another, eat some food, and visit the information tables. Among the latter were counted Our Lady of Guadalupe Monastery, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, the Dominican Teaching Sisters, the Franciscan Teaching Sisters, the Sisters of the Society of St. Pius X, the Third Order of the Society of St. Pius X, Notre Dame de La Salette Boys Academy, the Society Retreat Houses, St. Mary’s Academy and College, the Eucharistic Crusade, the Archbishop Lefebvre Documentary, and the Legion of Mary. These various groups and apostolates demonstrated the growth and fruitfulness of the work of Tradition in America. Beyond the 600 plus laymen who arrived, the conference was notable for the amount of clerics and religious in attendance. St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, in addition to sending three of their professors, sent 16 “theologians,” or seminarians in their final years of study, including the deacons. Father Cyprian was accompanied by two Brothers from Our Lady of Guadalupe Monastery. The Sisters of the Society came both from their house in St. Mary’s, Kansas, but also from their novitiate in Browerville, Minnesota. The Franciscan Teaching Sisters, native to Kansas City, were present (and hosted most of the clergy and religious in their immense convent!). And all of this is not to mention the many priests of the Society who came from across America, Canada, the Philippines, and India. Although many of them had to leave Saturday to take care of their missions, and in addition to some diocesan priests who attended, the attendees saw as many as 70 cassocks or habits during the weekend! At the end of Friday night, the boys from Notre Dame de La Salette Boys Academy, under the direction of their music teacher, Mr. Bill Boyer, provided a surprise musical performance for the attendees. Showing their breadth of talent, they performed some polyphonic pieces, some Gregorian chant, and some secular songs, including the school fight song. The edifying and inspiring performance fittingly ended the first day. Saturday was the most intensive day as far as talks went. John Vennari, editor of Catholic Family News,, began the day by recounting Archbishop News Lefebvre’s role at Vatican II. This included, of course, not only the work on the preparatory committee, but his role in organizing the resistance at the Council itself. Fr. Kenneth Novak followed this by a talk on the Mass and its centrality to the vision of the Archbishop and the Society. Large cheers were heard when Father pointed out that anyone saying or attending the traditional Mass today can thank the Archbishop, whose resistance alone maintained this treasure for the Church. The final speaker Saturday morning was Fr. Scott Gardner, who discussed the Archbishop’s doctrinal problems with Vatican II and pointed out how the Society maintains these objections to this day. After a break for lunch, the afternoon was taken up mainly by the talk of His Excellency Bishop Fellay. For over two hours he captivated the audience, telling the crowd both about the reality and depth of the crisis in the Church, but also about the hope given to us by the Archbishop, commenting on his Spiritual Journey.. He concluded with some news about Rome and the doctrinal discussions, explaining how conflicting things coming from Rome show that two trends there are clashing. The Society, however, is seen with greater interest than previously. Fr. Juan-Carlos Iscara Fr. Arnaud Rostand Mr. John Vennari Bishop Bernard Fellay THE ANGELUS • December 2010 www.angeluspress.org y 21 Fr. Kenneth Novak Fr. Scott Gardner Fr. Michael McMahon www.angeluspress.org Fr. Cyprian, O.S.B. THE ANGELUS • December 2010 22 THE DEFENSE OF TR ADITION On Saturday night, a formal dinner was served to over 500 guests. During dessert, a slide-show history of the Society was narrated by Dr. Andrew Childs, Associate Dean of St. Mary’s College. His operatic background proved useful as he brilliantly recounted 40 years of this exciting chapter of the Church’s history. Sunday morning was the occasion for the pontifical High Mass at St. Vincent de Paul’s. This magnificent church, once referred to by the Archbishop as a “cathedral,” is one of the jewels of the U.S. District. For many faithful from smaller chapels or missions, it was a unique joy to be able to attend Mass in such beautiful surroundings. In addition, the seminarians served the beautiful liturgy, and the choir and schola of St. Vincent’s provided their musical expertise. The splendor of the liturgy was made manifest in every way. St. Vincent’s Academy, right next to the church, hosted a brunch after the Mass. Their wonderful preparation and assistance was an opportunity for the attendees to get a further glimpse into the Society’s work in Kansas City itself. Everyone returned to the hotel afterward for the afternoon conferences. Father Cyprian, the Benedictine prior of Our Lady of Guadalupe Monastery, gave the first talk. His theme was a perhaps neglected part of the Archbishop’s life: the fact that he was a religious. Recalling his religious vocation, he upheld the religious life as the ideal of the Christian life itself and pointed out the various religious orders that work with the Society in the combat for Tradition itself. Fr. Michael McMahon, Headmaster of Notre Dame de La Salette Boys Academy, was the final speaker. Through the life of Archbishop Lefebvre, he emphasized the quality of family education. Further, he pointed out that the Archbishop’s formation at the Sacred Heart Seminary in Rome was a providential preparation for the man who would pass the torch of the priestly ideal, a key element of a restoration of Church and society, into the 21st century. Fr. Rostand concluded the conference by presenting a spiritual bouquet to Bishop Fellay. In addition, he announced that, in order to preserve the crusade for the Faith, the Mass, and Christian families, the conference would become a yearly event. After much applause, he announced that the 2011 conference will be held from October 7-9 and that Bishop Tissier de Mallerais will be the keynote speaker. Further information, and recordings of the talks, will be available from Angelus Press in the upcoming months. James Vogel is the assistant editor for Angelus Press. THE ANGELUS • December 2010 www.angeluspress.org 23 THE PILGRIM’S GUIDE TO ROME’S PRINCIPAL CHURCHES NEW m fro s Angelu Press Angelus Press is pleased to provide a sample chapter of our newest title. Every chapter in this book appears as this one, with a map, pictures, and detailed historical and artistic descriptions of the church. Whether or not you actually plan on visiting the Eternal City, this book helps one understand the importance of Rome to the Catholic Faith, the Romanitas of which Archbishop Lefebvre insisted on. Santa Maria 41 WWW sopra Minerva Piazza della Minerva History The first church on this site was built by Pope Zacharias (741752), on or near the ruins of a temple to Minerva that Pompey the Great (106-48 B.C.) had built (ca. 50 B.C.) in thanksgiving for his Asian victories. The church, thus, became known as “St. Mary on Minerva.” In 1256 Alexander IV (1254-1261) gave the monastery next to the church to the Dominican Friars, and in 1275 they received the church. In 1280 the Dominicans, who still serve the church, began the present Gothic structure; the architects were probably Friars Sisto and Ristoro, who had earlier worked on the Dominican church of S. Maria Novella in Florence. The church was completed about 1370 and was dedicated to the Virgin of the Annunciation. It was the first Gothic church built in Rome. In the sixteenth century its Gothic interior was transformed into a Renaissance edifice with later baroque additions, but in the nineteenth century Fra Girolamo Bianchedi restored (18481855) it to its former Gothic state. per portion of the facade has three circular windows placed directly above the doorways. The several plaques on the facade to the right indicate the level the water reached during various floods in Rome from 1422 to 1870. Interior (1) The church is in the form of a Latin cross, with nave and aisles, transept, apse, and lateral altars. The nondescript decorations in Exterior The present facade is from the seventeenth century, the gift of Cardinal Antonio Barberini (15691646). The three doorways are from the earlier facade (1453); the central doorway bears the inscription that it was restored in 1610 by Andrea Capranica Domenici. The side doorways have lunettes, whose frescoes are now almost totally obliterated. Above the main doorway’s triangular pediment is the coat of arms of the Dominican Pope St. Pius V (1566-1572). The upwww.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • December 2010 24 girls. The altar has Antoniazzo Romano’s Romano charming painting (ca. 1500) of the “Annunciation,” in which the Virgin gives purses (dowries) to three girls. Kneeling with the girls is Cardinal Torquemada. The cardinal is buried left of the altar. To the altar’s right is the tomb of Cardinal Benedetto Giustiniani Nave and ceiling (d. 1621), also a confraternity benefactor. the vault date from the nineteenth-cen- The paintings on the altar’s sides, St. tury restoration; the medallions in the Dominic (left) and St. Hyacinth (right), nave’s upper portion portray Domini- are attributed to Niccolò Stabbia. can saints. The inscription over the The lunettes, with scenes from the life main door records that the restora- of the Virgin, are by Cesare Nebbia, tions of 1848-1855 were done during perhaps his last works. the pontificate of Pius IX (1846-1878). Left of the main entrance is the Renais- The niche in the left wall has a statue sance tomb of the Florentine lawyer of Urban VII by Ambrogio Buonvicino. Urban, who was pope for only twelve Diotisalvi Neroni (ca. 1401-1482). days (September 15-27, 1590), left (2) The altar has Baciccia’s “St. Louis his patrimony to the confraternity. His Bertrand in Ecstasy” (1671). St. Louis remains were brought here from the (1526-1581) was a sixteenth-century Vatican in 1606. Dominican missionary in South Amer(6) Clement VIII (1592-1605) had ica, and was canonized in 1671. the chapel decorated for the tombs (3) Lazzaro Baldi’s painting (1671) of his parents. Lazzaro Baldi’s “Instituof St. Rose of Lima (1586-1617) is on tion of the Eucharist” (1594) is on the the altar. He likewise did the paintings altar, with Camillo Mariani’s statues on the side walls with scenes from the of Sts. Peter (left) and Paul (right) on saint’s life, as well as the attractive the sides. Clement VIII’s statue, in the “St. Rose in Glory” in the vault. St. niche on the left, is by Ippolito Buzzi; Rose was also canonized in 1671. the pope, however, is buried in S. (4) “Martyrdom of St. Peter of Ve- Maria Maggiore. St. Sebastian in the rona” by Bonaventura Lamberti is the right niche is attributed to Cordier. altarpiece (1688). St. Peter of Verona The tomb of Clement’s mother, Lesa (d. 1252) is more commonly known as Deti (d. 1557), is on the left, that of St. Peter Martyr. The wall paintings, his father, Silvestro Aldobrandini (d. “Nativity of Christ” (left) and “Res- 1558), is on the right. These were deurrection” (right), with prophets and signed by Giacomo Della Porta and sibyls in the lunettes are by Giovanni Girolamo Rainaldi; the statues (1605) Battista Franco. Girolamo Muziano of the pope’s parents are by Nicolas Cordier. The decorations in the did the vault frescoes. lunettes and vault are by Cherubino (5) The chapel is dedicated to the Alberti. Annunciation, and its patron was the Confraternity of the Annuncia- (7) The altar has Niccolò Magni’s tion, founded (1460) by the Spanish painting of Sts. Paul and Raymond Cardinal Juan de Torquemada (1388- of Penyafort. St. Raymond (ca. 11801468), to provide dowries for poor 1275) was the third Master-General THE ANGELUS • December 2010 www.angeluspress.org of the Dominicans. The chapel has two Renaissance tombs: in the center of the left wall is the tomb of Benedetto Sopranzi (1447-1495), Archbishop of Nicosia, and on the opposite wall that of Diego Diaz de Coca (ca. 1390-1477), Bishop of Calahorra, by Andrea Bregno. Above the bishop’s figure is the fresco “Christ the Judge,” perhaps by Melozzo di Forlì. Outside the chapel, on the left wall, is a fresco of Sts. Lucy and Agatha by Sermoneta. (8) The chapel has a medieval Gothic entrance and within is a fifteenthcentury carved crucifix. On the left wall, the tomb of Cardinal Clemente Micara (1879-1965), who was titular (1946-1965). (9) Chapel of St. Thomas Aquinas. This magnificent chapel, built by Cardinal Oliviero Carafa (1430-1511), is dedicated to the Virgin of the Annunciation and to St. Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1225-1274), a Dominican and one of the Catholic Church’s greatest theologians. The frescoes (1488-1492) are among Filippino Lippi’s best work. The altar has his “Annunciation” in which St. Thomas presents Cardinal Carafa to the Virgin. The wall behind the altar has the “Assumption,” in which the Virgin is encircled by angels, while the apostles (on either side of the altar) gaze upward. The right wall has “St. Thomas’s Teaching Triumphs over Error”; the saint holds a book and points to error that has been defeated. In the lunette above, the saint, praying before a crucifix, hears the Savior say: “Thomas, you have written well of me.” The angels and sibyls in the vault are by Lippi’s pupil, Raffaellino del Garbo. The niche in the left wall has the tomb of Paul IV (1555-1559), designed by Pirro Ligorio; the columns flanking the tomb are verde antico, and the statue of the pontiff, in various marbles, is by Giacomo and Tommaso Cassignola. (10) The medieval Gothic tomb of the Dominican Guillaume Durand, Bishop of Mende (d. 1296), is by Giovanni di Cosma. The mosaic in the upper 25 portion is of the Virgin and Child, between St. Privatus (left) and St. Dominic (right). St. Privatus, an early bishop of Mende, presents the kneeling Bishop Durand to the Virgin. Below the tomb and right of the small door is the well-executed bust of Onofrio Camaiani (d. 1574) of Arezzo. proclaimed principal patrons of Italy. In 1970 she was also proclaimed a Doctor of the Church. The paintings on the altar’s sides are the cardinal virtues, by Francesco Podesti. (11) Clement X (1670-1676) had this chapel decorated in 1672. The altar has Carlo Maratta’s painting (1675) of “Virgin with Saints”; the saints depicted are the five that Clement X had canonized in 1671, among them the two Dominicans, St. Louis Bertrand and St. Rose of Lima. Above the altar is Baciccia’s “Trinity” (1671-1672). The left wall has the bust of Clement X’s brother, Cardinal Giambattista Altieri (d. 1654), and the right his father, Lorenzo (d. 1638). Both busts (1672) are by Cosimo Fancelli. (15) The tombs of two Medici popes are in the choir area behind the altar. On the left is that of Leo X (15131521) and on the right Clement VII (1523-1534). The matching tombs are by Baccio Bandinelli; the statue of Leo (Giovanni de’ Medici) is by Raffaello da Montelupo and that of Clement (Giulio de’ Medici) is by Nanni di Baccio Bigio. The prophets (apostles?) in the side niches and the reliefs above (1536-1541) are by Baccio Bandinelli. In the floor, in front of the choir stalls on the left, is the stone marking the burial place of the great Renaissance humanist Cardinal Pietro Bembo (1470-1547). Outside, on the wall above and between the two chapels, is one of the two organ lofts given the church by Cardinal Scipione Borghese (15761633), Cardinal Protector of the Dominican order. (16) Michelangelo’s statue of “Christ the Risen Redeemer.” It was begun in 1519 and sent unfinished from Florence to Rome in 1521; it was completed by one of his students. The bronze drape is of a later period. (12) In this chapel, dedicated to Our Lady of the Rosary, the body of St. Catherine of Siena (ca. 1347-1380), Dominican mystic, was venerated from 1430 to 1855, when it was transferred to the main altar. The sarcophagus that contained the body is in the left wall. The altar has “Virgin with Sts. Dominic and Catherine of Siena.” Giovanni De Vecchi’s frescoes on the walls depict scenes from St. Catherine’s life; the panels in the vault represent the mysteries of the rosary and are by Marcello Venusti, except “Crowning with Thorns” (right side), which is by Carlo Saraceni. On the right wall is the splendid tomb of Cardinal Domenico Capranica (14001458), sculpted by Bregno. (17) To the left is the tomb of one of the great medieval artists, Fra Angelico; a better view is had from #18. Further down the vestibule are three baroque tombs: in the center of the left wall is the tomb of the Dominican Cardinal Michele Bonelli (d. 1598); above the door is the tomb of Cardinal Carlo Bonelli (d. 1676); in the center of the right wall is that of the Dominican Cardinal Domenico Pimentel (d. 1653). (13) Statue of St. John the Baptist (1858) by Giuseppe Obici. (14) Beneath the main altar are the relics of St. Catherine of Siena. The saint’s figure (1430) is by Isaia da Pisa. In 1939 St. Catherine and St. Francis of Assisi (1182-1226) were (18) On the right is the tomb of Beato Angelico (138714 55), k n ow n in the Dominican order as Fra Giovanni da Fiesole, who died in the adjacent monastery on February 18, 1455. The tombstone is perhaps by Isaia da Pisa. The altar has a fifteenth-century Virgin and Child, once thought to be by Angelico; after restoration (1966) it is said to have been only touched up by him. The paintings on the altar’s sides are of St. Francis of Assisi (left) and St. Frances of Rome (right). Both are attributed to Francesco Parone. The floor has three interesting fourteenth-century tombstones; the two on the left are of the Frangipane family and that on the right of the Capodiferro family, former patrons of this chapel. On the left wall is the tomb of Giovanni Arberini (ca. 1398-1473); the sarcophagus with a vigorous “Hercules Fights the Nemean Lion” is a Roman copy of a fifth-century B.C. Greek work. (19) Chapel of St. Dominic. This chapel, decorated (1725) by the Dominican Pope Benedict XIII (1724-1730), is rich with black and white (colors of the Dominican order) marble and is dedicated to St. Dominic (1170-1221), founder of the Order of Preachers. The painting on the altar, “Our Lady Displays an Image of St. Dominic,” is by Paolo de Matteis; the painting of St. Dominic, however, is a modern copy of Angelico’s painting of the saint. The vault frescoes are by Cristoforo Roncalli. The statues of four Dominican bishops (St. Albert the Great [ca. 1200-1280], St. Antoninus [13891459], Bl. Andrew Franchi [13351401], and Bl. Augustine Kazotic [ca. 1260-1323]) are by unidentified sculp- Chapel of St. Dominic www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • December 2010 26 Relics of St. Catherine of Siena tors. Benedict XIII’s tomb, designed by Carlo Marchionni, is on the right, as one enters. Marchionni also did the relief, “Benedict Presides at a Roman Council,” on the sarcophagus. The statues of the pope and Purity (right) are by Pietro Bracci, that of Humility (left) is by Bartolomeo Pincellotti. Opposite the tomb is the alabaster group, “Virgin and Child with John the Baptist and John the Evangelist” (1670) by Francesco Grassia. The pedestal has an eighteenth-century sculpture of the “Nativity.” The carved marble balustrade at the chapel’s entrance is also worthy of inspection. (20) The altarpiece is Ottavio Lioni’s “Virgin Appears to St. Hyacinth.” To the left is the tomb (1506) of the great Renaissance sculptor Andrea Bregno (1418-1503). (21) The chapel is dedicated to the Dominican Pope St. Pius V (15661572). Andrea Proccacini’s “Pius V Raises the Crucifix over the Conquered Turks” is on the altar; the Christian victory (October 7, 1571) at Lepanto took place during Pius V’s pontificate. Baldi’s “Assumption” (left) and “Pius V at Prayer” (right) decorate the walls; beneath these are mementoes of the saint. The vault frescoes are by Michelangelo Cerruti. (22) The altar has Venusti’s “St. James.” The tomb on the left is of Carlotta and Livia Lante della Rovere (d. 1870), surmounted by a statue of the Savior. A relief of the two sisters with their father Giulio is at the bottom. The tomb on the right is of Maria Colonna (d. 1840) and Margaret of Savoy, with the Angel of the Resurrection above. Tombs and statues (1865) are by Pietro Tenerani. THE ANGELUS • December 2010 www.angeluspress.org (23) Bernardo Castello’s painting (1605) of “St. Vincent Ferrer Preaching at the Council of Constance” is on the altar. St. Vincent Ferrer (13501419) was known for his fiery sermons. The tomb on the left is of Cardinal Vincenzo Giustiniani (d. 1582), Master General of the Dominicans, and on the right the tomb of Giuseppe Giustiniani (d. 1600). (24) The small portrait of the Savior, done in the style of Perugino, was given to the church by Clement VIII. The statue (1603) of St. John the Baptist (left) is by Buonvicino, and that of St. Sebastian (right) is attributed to Michele Marini. The lunette above the altar with “Adoration of Shepherds” is by an anonymous artist of the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century The walls have two beautiful Renaissance tombs: on the left that of the Venetian man of letters Benedetto Mino da Fiesole. Above is the tomb of Cardinal Giacomo Tebaldi (d. 1465), attributed to Bregno and Giovanni Dalmata. (28) Sacristy and St. Catherine of Siena’s room. The hall leading to the sacristy has on the left wall two reclining statues that were once part of the monument to Paul IV. Within the sacristy, the painting (1640) over the altar is “Crucifixion with Saints” by Andrea Sacchi. The vault’s center has Giuseppe Puglia’s “St. Dominic in Glory.” Over the door is a fresco by Giovanni Battista Speranza recalling the celebration of two papal conclaves in this church: the first was in 1431 at which Eugenius IV (14311447) was elected, and the second in 1447 for the election of Nicholas V (1447-1455). Portraits of Dominican saints are on the walls; the walnut wardrobes are from the seventeenth The Pilgrim’s Guide to Rome’s Principle Churches Joseph N. Tylenda, S.J. 425pp. Color Softcover. STK# 8481 $29.95 Maffei (d. 1494) and on the right that of Bishop Agostino Maffei (d. 1490). (25) The altar painting of St. John the Baptist and the lunettes and dome frescoes are by Francesco Nappi. The several monuments on the walls are to members of the Naro family; on the left is the tomb of Cardinal Gregorio Naro (d. 1634). (26) The modern painting (1922) of “Sacred Heart with Sts. Catherine of Siena and Margaret Mary Alacoque” is by Corrado Mezzana. The frescoes of “Resurrection” in the lunette and of “Triumph of the Lamb” in the vault are also modern. (27) Handsome Renaissance tomb of the young Florentine merchant Francesco Tornabuoni (d. 1480), by century. The coat of arms with the bees is that of Cardinal Antonio Barberini (1569-1646), who had been a benefactor to the church. Entrance to St. Catherine’s room is to the altar’s right. In 1630 Cardinal Barberini had the wall frescoes from the room where the saint died (April 29, 1380) on Via S. Chiara No. 14 moved here. The nine frescoes (1482) are by Antoniazzo Romano and pupils; a “Crucifixion with Saints” is the altarpiece. The oval painting of “St. Catherine of Siena” is a copy of a painting attributed to Bronzino. 27 (Continued from p.18) itself and immediately, as something belonging to its nature (“secundum quod ipsum est ”). Wherever there is diversity or composition, it is conditional, until we finally arrive at pure identity. It is only the latter that is capable of self-existence, whose existence originates from its nature, which is to being as A is to A, which is Being itself, or existence itself, ipsum esse subsistens.13 the result of an accidental combination (ens per se ab ente per accidens produceretur), the perfect would be produced by the imperfect, order would result from the absence of order, and the greater would proceed from the less. Such being the case, the unity and perfection of the effect would be without a raison d’être, which is absurd.…Chance, therefore, leaves everything to be explained. To wish to explain all things by it, to say that it is the cause of order in the universe, is tantamount to saying that there are effects without causes, that the greater comes from the less, the higher from the lower; that the accidental is prior to the essential, that the essential is but a name—a denial of the principle of identity— that, in consequence, the real is not intelligible.14 5) The fifth way, from the governance of the world The final proof, and no doubt the most convincing, especially for the popular mind, is exposed by St. Thomas as follows: We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end.…Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end ; and this being we call God. As usual, St. Thomas first gives the minor of the argument: things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Then he gives the major: things without intelligence cannot act for an end unless they are directed towards that end by an intelligent being. The conclusion naturally follows: there must be an intelligent being that directs them. 1) The justification of the minor premise St. Thomas himself justifies his minor premiss, that natural things in the world act for an end, saying: This is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. b) Things do not act merely out of necessity The second objection goes to the opposite extreme and says that things operate by necessity, which explains their activity without any recourse to some positive ordination towards their actions to account for them. There is no need to posit a final cause for natural actions, they have only efficient causes. Thus birds do not have wings in order to fly, rather they fly because they have wings. What is denied by this objection is the validity of the principle of finality, that is, that every agent acts not just because of an efficient cause but for a final cause. There is a reason why things act as they do, it is not just by “necessity” (which amounts to saying that they act the way they do “because they do,” which is no reason at all). This is obvious because we see that, in fact, they act always (or nearly always) in a particular way and in a particular way that produces a result that is their good. There must be some cause for this, the agent must be ordained towards this action as to an end. Again, Garrigou-Lagrange explains this very clearly by explaining what an end is. The end is a determined perfection which it is fitting for the agent to have as a good of its own and for the sake of which the agent acts. Now, every agent, according to the law governing its nature, produces a determined effect, which belongs to it as its perfection, and it cannot produce this effect, unless it tends towards this effect in preference to any other, and unless it is ordained towards the same. Thus without reasoning we discover that the eye is made for seeing, the ear for hearing, the wings for flying, etc.…The self-evident principle of finality can be defended by showing that it refers back to the principle of sufficient reason, so that to deny the former would lead to a denial of the latter. St. Thomas briefly points this out when he says that “Every agent acts for an end: otherwise one thing rather than another There are two major objections raised against this premiss: the first pretends that things do not act for an end but merely by chance, the second says that they act merely out of necessity. a) Things do not act merely by chance Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, developing St. Thomas’ reasoning, refutes the first objection by showing that it implies the denial of the principle of sufficient reason, that is, the principle that states that it is impossible for something to come from nothing: it must have a cause or a “sufficient reason” to account for it. What happens always, or nearly always, cannot possibly be the result of chance. This constancy would be without a sufficient reason, if it were not founded on the very nature of things, which is the ultimate source of their identity. It is impossible for a great number of causes to combine by chance, to produce an effect essentially one and perfect in its kind, as is the case, for instance, with the act of seeing, in which the various parts of the eye concur. If this act were the effect of chance, something essentially one would be 13 God, His Existence, p. 317. 14 God, His Existence, p. 354-356. This in no way denies that chance exists: it simply denies that it can be the explanation of everything, as Fr. Farrell explains: “Certainly chance exists. It is just chance that a bald-headed man is caught in a thunder-shower without his hat; but obviously if there were no reason for his being out, no reason for the shower, the heavy drops would not now be smacking off the smooth surface of his head. In other words, the very existence of chance presupposes the existence of the essential; chance is no more than the clash of two causes attempting to pursue their own purposive ways; it is an accident which happens to the essential, not which explains or does away with the essential.” A Companion to the Summa, p. 42-43. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • December 2010 28 would not follow from the action of the agent.” (I, q. 44, a. 4) If every agent produces, not any sort of effect indifferently, but a determinate and suitable effect, and this without tending towards this effect, without being ordained towards this effect rather than towards another; if the acorn produces the oak and not the ash, without its having a definite tendency for the one rather than for the other; if the eye sees instead of hearing, without being meant for seeing rather than hearing–it follows that the non-accidental determination and appropriateness of the effect are without a raison d’être, that determination comes from indetermination, that order arises from the lack of order, that the perfect originates from the imperfect, the greater from the less–all of which statements are absurd.15 2) The justification of the major premiss It is clear, then, that in the world we see that things without intelligence act for an end. The argument concludes from this that there must be an intelligence then that directs them to this end, since it is only an intelligence that can order means to an end. Once more Garrigou-Lagrange explains: Does this relation of means to end, this orderly arrangement of things, demand an intelligent cause? (…Yes, it does, for) only an intelligent being can perceive this relation, because a being endowed with intelligence, instead of merely associating or juxtaposing images, perceives the reasons why things are, and the means is related to the end as such precisely because it has its raison d’être in the end.…We say that this order is the result of intelligent design, not only because chance, blind necessity, instinct, or blind freedom explain nothing, but also because order presupposes that the means find their raison d’être in the end, and because it is of the very essence of intelligence to perceive the raison d’être, which is its formal object.16 Refutation of two objections to the existence of God In two brief objections St. Thomas marvelously sums up all the objections raised against the existence of God. The first is the classical argument from the existence of evil. If God exists, He is infinitely good Ibid., p. 362-3. The author goes on to explain this ordination further (pp. 363-364): “The determination and the perfection of the effect could not have been realized in it, unless they were in a certain manner contained in the efficient cause. Now, for the effect not to be contained in the cause actually, but only virtually, this could not be, unless the efficient cause tended towards this effect rather than another, unless it were directed towards this effect.…Therefore, if there is action in the world, there is finality; for without it, this action would produce everything or nothing, but not a determined effect.” 16 Ibid., p. 368-369. Kant, who grudgingly gave a certain respect to this proof, maintained, nonetheless, that at most it could only prove the existence of some intelligence behind the order of the world, but not of an infinite intelligence as we understand by the term “God.” Garrigou-Lagrange responds: “If we look more closely into this matter, we perceive that the intelligence claimed by this fifth proof must be pure act. If it were not so, we should have to say that its essence differed from its existence, that its intelligence was not its intellection, and that in it intellection and the intelligible were not identical. Now, essence cannot be directed to existence, nor intelligence to the intelligible object, except by a higher intelligence which is identical with its very being, always in the act of knowing itself.” (Ibid., p. 370) 15 THE ANGELUS • December 2010 www.angeluspress.org and so He must exclude all evil in the world. Now evil exists in the world, therefore God does not exist. St. Thomas neatly sidesteps this attack and turns it around against the adversary by simply citing an equally classic text of St. Augustine: As Augustine says “Since God is supremely good, He would never allow any evil to exist in His works, unless He were so omnipotent and so good that He can bring good even out of evil.” Therefore it belongs to the infinite goodness of God that He should allow evils and bring good out of them. John of St. Thomas, following Cajetan, gives a more developed response to the objection, distinguishing between something excluding its opposite formally and excluding it effectively. One form necessarily completely excludes its opposite from something when it informs it: God, however, does not inform His creatures but just Himself, so His infinite goodness necessarily excludes evil formally from Himself but not from His creatures. As for effective exclusion, a cause necessarily excludes its opposite from its effect if it is what is called an univocal cause, that is, when the cause and its effect are equal, as when a father generates a son. God, however, is not an univocal cause of His creation but an analogical cause, that is, His effect is not equal to Himself but only participates in His perfection to a certain limited degree and is therefore susceptible of suffering defects. Thus God does not absolutely exclude evil from creatures but only in so far as is required by the very order of the whole, in which there must be some things which are indefectible, and others which are deficient, and where all things are not equally good: as is the case in the human body where all members are not equal.17 The second objection maintains that God is not necessary since Nature sufficiently explains natural effects while human reason and will accounts for those which come about by free choice. St. Thomas responds by recalling what was shown in the proofs. Nature itself works for an end and thus requires a cause to direct it to that end. Human reason and will, also, cannot be the ultimate reason for what is done voluntarily because they are changeable and defectible and so require a cause which is immovable and necessary. Fr. Albert Kallio is a traditional Dominican priest ordained by Bishop Fellay and presently working with the Society of St. Pius X in the United States. 17 Op. cit., n. 27. “Therefore,” concludes Cajetan in his commentary on this objection, “the infinite agent, which is participated in only finitely, does not effectively exclude its opposite. And that is why the glorious God, who is an infinite good, even if He were to act by nature (and not freely), does not exclude all evil from the universe. For He is participated in by each creature in only a finite way; and from His goodness comes forth the totality of the different goods that constitute the various grades of being in the universe, from whose natures it is necessary that evil arise, as the death of the lamb arises from the nature of the wolf.” 29 a r c h b i s h o p m a r c e l l e f e b v r e the aUthority oF VatiCan ii QUestioned CONCLUSION Apostasy at Rome In the homily he delivered at Ecône on November 1, 1990, on the Society’s 20th anniversary, Archbishop Lefebvre once again decried the sin of conciliar liberalism.–Fr. Gleize Fr. Gleize is a professor of ecclesiology at the seminary of the SSPX in Ecône and now a member of the commission involved in the doctrinal discussions with the Holy See. In 2006, he compiled and organized Archbishop Lefebvre’s thinking about Vatican II. It was published by the Institute of St. Pius X, the university run by the SSPX in Paris, France. Both you and others will ask, of what use is the Society of St. Pius X, whether it really serves any purpose. At that time surely there were still holy bishops and priests in the world. Unfortunately, we were forced to take note of the revolution that had gotten underway and was progressing daily. It was 1970. It had been five years since the Council closed its doors and the disastrous reforms had been implemented. For, after all is said and done, what became of these poor parish priests, many of whom were priests in name only? They proved it by abandoning their priesthood and going back to the world…. Indeed, this terrible reform was a revolution, which continues, which has still not come to an end. So tell me then, my dear friends, my dear brethren, if the institution of the Society of St. Pius X was useless or inopportune. It is in fact a counter revolution by its affirmation of the unchanging Catholic faith, and it carries on the counter revolution by the offering of the true sacrifice of the Mass, which is the source of holiness and of life…. I believe that after 20 years of existence, all those who are outside the Society and do not follow it or are in disagreement with it are compelled to recognize that it has been blessed by God. In support of this contention are those who have officially visited us from Rome and have expressed in writing in the Seminary’s guest book their admiration for the work being accomplished in this seminary. Yes, the Society was willed by God, and countless graces have been given. I believe that this is our greatest consolation in the midst of the immense trials which are ours, for to feel ourselves misunderstood www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • December 2010 30 and even rejected by the official authorities of the Church, by those currently in charge, is woeful indeed: woe for the vitality of the Church, woe because we see throngs of souls bound for hell because of the apostasy reigning at Rome. It’s a genuine apostasy. Our Lord is no longer honored as He should be given that He is God and that He and He alone must reign; He alone has a right to authentic religion, the true religion. We can see this apostasy of the intellect by the transformation of the virtue of faith which is no longer truly faith, but a sentiment of the subconscious mind that develops within man and which has nothing to do with true faith. We can see this apostasy by the disobedience of the will, which replaces divine law with the human conscience, and hence with man. God is replaced by man in the mind as well as in the will. It is a serious sin, a permanent sin expressed, for example, in the secularism of States that was intended by the Holy See. Secularism [laïcité] is public atheism, a grave sin. The States that henceforth profess this official IOTA UNUM atheism based on the Declaration of the Rights of Man are in a state of continual mortal sin. They legalize sin since they have rejected divine law. Now they make laws contrary to divine law and put millions of souls in a state of permanent mortal sin…. It’s radical sin. It’s the exclusion of God from minds and wills and souls. This sin began in the universities and then spread in the revolution and in constitutions based on the Rights of Man, and now these constitutions of the Rights of Man are the basis of our socialist, Masonic societies…. My dear friends, you see at once the importance of your role. For you are here as in a university, and consequently you ought to become aware of the grave sin which is mankind’s sin today, the sin of all those who unfortunately think this way, for the most part. So it is up to you to take the road back to God; it is up to you to show that minds are meant for God, for Being, for reality, and not for human thoughts. It is up to you to show that our conscience is made for the law and that it is not made for itself. It is up to you to show that the divine law must replace 43. ConsequenCes of breaking the legal framework. whether there was a ConspiraCy. One must nevertheless ask whether a conspiracy, in the political sense, is here being confused with the common action natural to members of an assembly who find themselves drawn together by their common opinions and interpretations of history, and thus by a common set of intentions. It is undeniable that any body of individuals which comes together for a particular reason to fulfill some social function, is subject to some influences of some sort or another. Without them, it cannot constitute itself as a true working body, and move from being a multitude of atoms to being an organic group. Influences of this sort have been felt at every council, as part of its structure not as something extraneous, and they do not constitute a defect. Whether all relevant influences arose within the councils themselves in this way, or whether some of them came from outside political interference need not be determined here.... It is the very concept of an assembly, of whatever kind, which implies not only the legitimacy but the necessity of influences of this sort. The existence of an assembly, as such, is the result of a collection of individuals establishing themselves as a unity. What brings about this fusion if not the working of such influences? Violent influences have indeed played their part in history, and according to one school of thought, which we do not accept, it is precisely the violent events, the ruptures rather than the influences properly so-called, which alter the course of what happens. Whatever the answer to that question may be, it is certain that a group of men met together in an assembly can only get beyond the atomistic stage and be shaped by a common thought as a result of a conspiring together of minds. A council, which is a group of men of some standing, in virtue of their merits, learning and disinterestedness, does indeed have a different sort of dynamism from that of the crowd, which Manzoni called a vile body, entered successively by contrary spirits which drive it either towards atrocious injustice and bloodshed, or towards justice and right behavior. It seems to be true, both psychologically and historically, that any gathering becomes an organic whole only if there is a conspiration of minds, giving character and organization to the mass. The truth is so obvious that the Second Vatican Council’s rules recommended, in paragraph No. 3 of article No. 57, that Fathers of like minds in their theological and pastoral views should form groups to uphold their opinions in council, or have them upheld by their spokesmen. That there can be unique and privileged moments which determine an entire series of events, and which shape the course of the future, such as 31 constitutions enshrining the rights of man, which are an insult to God, and so on. What a work! What a task you have before you, my dear friends. You are that little remnant, which boldly holds aloft the torch. Do not be afraid to show it. Do not be afraid to show that you are a priest, a traditional priest, a priest such as the Church has always wanted them to be, a priest for Truth, a priest for holiness. So, have confidence, my dear friends. God is with you. He will not abandon you, no more than He abandoned us over the last 20 years. He will not abandon you in the future either, because God wills Himself. God does not want to disappear. He is God; He wants to be God not only in heaven, but here below. That is why He wants soldiers in His army. I would like to read in conclusion the few words the bishop addresses to the ordinands at the end of the monition during ordination, which are quite suitable at the conclusion of these 20 years and at the same time a preparation for the coming years which the good Lord shall wish to give to the Society: Understand what you do; imitate what you administer. Inasmuch as you celebrate of the mystery of the death of the Lord, you should endeavor to mortify in your members all sin and concupiscence. Let your preaching be a spiritual medicine for the people of God and the odor of your lives a delight for the Church of Christ. May you thus build up, by word and example, the House, that is the Family of God, so that your promotion may not be a cause of damnation for me, nor the reception of so great an office for you, but rather of reward. May He by His grace grant it to us. Amen. Fr. Gleize is a professor of ecclesiology at the seminary of the SSPX in Ecône and now a member of the commission involved in the doctrinal discussions with the Holy See. In 2006, he compiled and organized Archbishop Lefebvre’s thinking about Vatican II. It was published by the Institute of St. Pius X, the university run by the SSPX in Paris, France. Although slightly edited, the spoken style has been preserved. y. were Cardinal Liénart’s action on 13 October and the breaking of the rules on 22 November 1962, is historically and providentially true, as can be seen in our article relating this truth to a famous historical event. 44. Papal Action at Vatican II. The Nota Praevia. ...Although Paul VI generally supported the modernizing tendency in the council, which had made its first appearance in the opening speech, he felt obliged to part company with it and to use his own papal authority at some points in the debate. The first of these points concerned the principle of collegiality, until then implicit in Catholic ecclesiology, but which the Pope thought should be drawn out explicitly, and which subsequently became one of the chief criteria for reforming the Church. The council’s proposed text on the subject was defective, whether because of the novelty of the subject, or because of the unforeseen nature of the discussion on a matter of which the preparatory commission had said nothing, or because of the delicacy of the relationship between the primacy of Peter and the collegiality of the whole episcopal body. Paul VI decided that the council’s theological commission should issue a Nota praevia which would clarify and formulate what the constitution Lumen Gentium had said about collegiality. The terms of this clarification were such as to put beyond question the Catholic doctrine about the Pope’s primacy over the whole Church and over each of its members individually, in both government and teaching. As the First Vatican Council had said, papal definitions in matters of faith and morals are irreformable ex sese et non ex consensu Ecclesiae and therefore not by consent of the bishops as a college. The Nota praevia rejects the familiar notion of collegiality, according to which the Pope alone is the subject of supreme authority in the Church, sharing his authority as he wills with the whole body of bishops summoned by him to a council. In this view, supreme authority is collegial only through being communicated at the discretion of the Pope. But the Nota praevia also rejects the novel theory that supreme authority in the Church is lodged in the college together with the Pope, and never without the Pope, who is its head, but in such a way that when the Pope exercises supreme power, even alone, he exercises it precisely as head of the college, and therefore as a representative of the college, which he is obliged to consult in order to express its opinion. This view is influenced by the theory that authority derives from the multitude, and is hard to reconcile with the divine constitution of the Church. Rejecting both of these theories, the Nota praevia holds firmly to the view that supreme authority does indeed reside in the college of bishops united to their head, but that the head can exercise it independently of the college, while the college cannot exercise it independently of the head.–Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, pp. 83-84. [Available from Angelus Press. Price: $23.95] 32 F r . T h o m a s J a t z k o w s k i , F S S P X “the lord’s prayer” “And lead us not into temptation” Part 8 of 9 1) Introduction 2) Our Father who art in heaven, 3) hallowed be Thy name; 4) Thy kingdom come; 5) Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven! 6) Give us this day our daily bread 7) and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us, 8) and lead us not into temptation, 9) but deliver us from evil. Amen. THE ANGELUS • December 2010 www.angeluspress.org Commercials try to arouse temptations of various kinds in consumers; they pretend to be natural and innocent. Think of sayings like “That is the only thing I enjoy” or “he did it as well...” or, “she is doing the same...” The message is hidden and encourages unbridled consumption; it awakens the dormant potential of seduction. In a society of fun and happiness, the struggle against temptation is of no interest. On the contrary: increasing the intensity of the experience of temptation–of whatever kind–seems to be most important. “Renouncement” and “sacrifice” are more and more exotic and unloved notions of our culture of entertainment. Temptation is perceived no longer as “temptation,” but as a mere option of pleasure, beyond guilt and the consciousness of sin. Of course, the forgetfulness of Satan’s existence made it obsolete to avoid temptation. On the other hand, the existence of temptation offers believers significant difficulties. Why does God allow temptations at all? Why is there this request in the Lord’s Prayer? Does God purposely lead people into temptation in order to know their true disposition and loyalty? Do we have to suppose that people are tested by God so that He may know how much they would resist and what the result looks like? This request of the Lord’s Prayer has always raised doubts about the goodness and omniscience of God. 1. What is a temptation? St. Thomas Aquinas describes the nature of temptation in a neutral way, very simply as a “trial” or a “testing” of people regarding their virtue. Thus, virtue may manifest itself in a positive way as a practice. On the other hand, in a negative way, it might be the avoidance of evil actions. Positively we can recognize virtue in actions like almsgiving, comforting those in sorrow, persevering in prayer, fasting, etc. God may allow the suffering and trials of the just so that they are proved and that their love to God may grow: “...the Lord your God trieth you, that it may appear whether you love him 33 with all your heart, and with all your soul, or not” (Deut. 13:3). In the negative sense, God never sends temptations directly, because God is absolute good and therefore tempts nobody. But it is true that man is in a constant battle against his own fallen nature, against the forces of darkness, and against the world with its secular influence. 2. Temptation is a fact of life! First of all, as long as man lives, he is tempted to sin. Man only hurts himself when he tries to deny the existence of temptation. The life of a Christian is always a struggle against sin. Every age, every job, and every life has its characteristic and basic areas of temptations to which man is exposed. The youth today are, for example, in danger of assuming sexual freedom and license as the unquestioned standard of life as propagated in the media. There are occasionally encouraging examples of a firm stance regarding abstinence, and they seem more frequent recently. But what about the temptation of married couples who want to exclude the blessing of children at any cost? What about the infidelity of a spouse who neglects the family in favor of timeconsuming hobbies or who challenges the happiness of the family through adultery? What about greed in business, trying to increase profit through unfair practices? What about priests who are unfaithful to their mission as spiritual shepherds through excessive activism? What about the confession of the Christian faith when you have to put up with economic disadvantages or even political persecution? What about the many sick who are in danger of despairing because of their suffering and cannot find a religious answer or support? The realm of temptation is complex and diverse: from greed, “workaholism,” lust, drunkenness and debauchery, to a meaningless existence of man without God or faith. Temptation is always a part of human life. Every age, every state of life is subject to special trials. There is no “temptation-free” zone or “temptation-free” period of life! As long as man lives, he is tempted to sin. 3. Man’s instability and openness to temptation is a reminder to be vigilant Temptation and weakness are real dangers for the soul, not just a well-intentioned warning to naïve and careless people. A temptation can be so powerful that man does things he would never do in his right mind–and he risks his soul. The innocentseeming fall of Adam and Eve should be a lesson to all of us. How quickly and easily man moves away from God’s commandments and instructions! Pretexts and excuses are easily found. How gladly and quickly man tries to blame the instability and tendency to sin on God. But is man not guilty and weak because of his own free decision? God did not ask for room to be given to evil. Man himself did it. If we succumb to temptation, we have to blame mainly ourselves. Even after baptism, original sin makes us unstable and vulnerable. Temptation may sometimes be a salutary lesson to man in the realization of how weak human nature is. It is incomparably more beneficial and necessary for salvation to count on his own weakness and frailty and to keep in mind the constant threat of our own salvation, than to convince ourselves in our arrogance and pride of an apparent superiority to other sinners. No one should be certain of victory over any kind of temptation. Everyone has a weakness somewhere. Concern for one’s soul and a healthy degree of self-criticism and insecurity are more than justified and necessary in order to preserve one’s own salvation. No one should claim lightly how someone will react in a trial or how much resistance a person will have against a specific temptation. This request of the Lord’s Prayer aims to form the right attitude in him who prays and teach him a healthy confidence in God, calling for divine assistance and protection. From the perspective of this request any arrogance towards the temptations of our fellow human beings is excluded if we take it seriously. Even St. Paul warns against excessive self-confidence and over-estimating our own abilities: “Wherefore he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall” (I Cor. 10:12). Precisely because of this liability of man, the Savior has always reminded us to be vigilant: “Pray, lest you enter into temptation” (Luke 22:46). The praying soul knows his basic weakness and instability in the face of sin. He knows that human skills and human sophistication is not always enough to fight the hostility and pitfalls of the adversary. He asks for God’s guidance and direction in real-life situations, where temptations come upon men, that he might not be trapped and sin. Man is dependent on God’s help if he wants to face the trials of life and maintain loyalty to God. It’s about God’s assistance in temptations, but it’s also about avoiding temptations or the near occasions of sin. The school of temptation is always a school of humility for man because he has to recognize how weak and vulnerable he is without God’s help. 4. Are temptations a punishment for a bad life or bad deeds? Contrary to popular misconception, temptation is not a sign of special depravity or wickedness of man. On the contrary, quite often people who are undertaking genuine efforts to live the Faith and come closer to God are increasingly exposed to temptations. Temptation is a normal element of life www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • December 2010 34 for every Catholic! “Blessed is the man that endureth temptation; for when he hath been proved, he shall receive a crown of life...” ( James 1:12). A life without temptation will never be granted to man here on earth. But we can and should pray not to be forsaken by God and fail in temptation, not to agree to temptation, nor to succumb to it. St. Thomas Aquinas puts it in the concise formula: “For being tempted is human, but agreeing to the temptation is diabolical.” 5. Is God the creator of temptations? Cause, ways and means of temptation. God has not designed us as experiments in order to play “cat and mouse” with us. God is absolute good and never desires sin directly. But weakened by original sin, man has to wrestle with his own fallen nature and its sensual desires, against the adversary, and also against the charms of the world. In other words, God sends us not into temptation; the seed of temptation is in man himself. A strong argument against God as the cause of temptation is found in the Letter of James (1:13-14): Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils, and he tempteth no man. But every man is tempted by his own concupiscence, being drawn away and allured. Man is first tempted by the inclinations of his nature. St. Paul describes very well the inner strife of human nature, torn between sensual desires and the pursuit of spiritual, higher values: For I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man: But I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin, that is in my members. (Rm. 7:22-23) Even our Lord Jesus Christ calls us to persistent prayer in order to overcome temptations: Watch ye, and pray that ye enter not into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh weak. (Mt. 26:41f.) However, man not only has to cope with the weaknesses of fallen nature, but he is sometimes exposed to the violent temptations of the evil enemy. It is too easy to simply doubt of the existence of Satan as many of our contemporaries do. Given the rapid and dramatic decline in the faith of the formerly Christian West, it is easy for the “diabolus” to gain in influence. If there is a doubt of his very existence, this certainly means an enormous increase in influence on human life. There is a good reason that the Church has its priests in the official night prayer (Compline) pray: “Brethren, be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour” (I Pet. 5:8). Satan is hunting men and wants to ruin them: a truth of Christian Faith which is unpopular and barely heard any more. The fight against the “tempter” (cf. Thes. 3:5) is in the words of St. Paul, a great battle: THE ANGELUS • December 2010 www.angeluspress.org For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places. (Eph. 6:12) Like a subtle strategist, the adversary always attacks people in their weak points. He tries to weaken them by not-so-apparent sins, such as vanity, pride, etc.; then he will pull them into more serious sins and vices. The adversary is a clever artist in deceiving. He sometimes uses shrewd tricks. Characteristic of his work is his indirect and staggered method: He attempts to mislead those who are honest from small to big sins; those who are undertaking large projects he tries to divert to smaller secondary targets and, finally, to distract them. St. Ignatius of Loyola gives us in his “Spiritual Exercises” some wonderful descriptions of the military art of the adversary. (I recommend entering the school of St. Ignatius and following a Retreat of his Spiritual Exercises! Hardly anyone is not deeply moved by them.) The world tempts man to sin in a twofold manner. In the first place we have to recall the idolatry of created things by greed or by an unsavory handling of temporal goods of the world, forgetting moderation and idolizing temporal goods for their own sake. “For the desire of money is the root of all evils” (I Tim 6:10). Secondly, serious Christians sometimes have to suffer disadvantages and persecution for their practiced faith: “And all that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution.” (II Tim 3:12). 6. Why is consent to temptation a disaster? Consent to temptation may be fatal for man because he may thus miss his goal in life and lose the grace of God. If a man who falls in temptation does not convert, but dies in sin, this state will often become eternal, i.e., he will lose the prospect of heaven and the vision of God forever. 7. Means against temptation God does not leave us alone in the fight against sin and the devil. In His goodness and mercy He has given us valuable and effective means at hand. First, the virtue of love is an extremely effective protection against sin. Furthermore, God has given man the gift of knowledge. With the help of the Holy Spirit we are able to come to terms intellectually with temptation; we can arm ourselves against temptation by taking steps to avoid the near occasions of sin. God does not let us be tempted beyond our strength. Let us never be discouraged from temptation because with every temptation He also gives us the option of a good end. “God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able: but will make also 35 with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it” (I Cor. 10:13). To be tempted is understood as something tolerated by God, in which the part of the “bearable” is never exceeded. 8. The mystery of temptation If temptation were not mysterious and “attractive” it would not be a temptation. Every temptation is something mysterious, something that defies complete rational penetration. Even our Lord was tempted, although He resisted. The mystery of temptation is in its appealing character, in its dazzling effect: sometimes an event, sometimes a thought, sometimes a man, etc. Temptations are often lovely and quiet, and they move people to actions that man in his right mind rejects. Particularly open to temptation, and therefore in danger, are people with a hardened heart, full of bitterness, or people who quarrel with God’s goodness and providence after having experienced calamities. Paradoxically, however, serenity and joy are able to lead to exuberance and relaxation as well. The experience of misfortune, as well as the feeling of exuberance, may bring people into the situation of losing the ground under their feet and readily opening themselves to temptations. We temptations, man practices virtue, and he is more open to higher spiritual and supernatural values. At the same time resistance and vigilance against future temptations are strengthened. By resisting temptation, loyalty to God becomes even stronger than before. 10. Temptation is a test of toughness and trial by fire The Epistle of James gives us a very good description of temptation as a religious fight or as an instructive and wholesome school: “My brethren, count it all joy, when you shall fall into divers temptations; knowing that the trying of your faith worketh patience” ( James 1:2-3). We also learn from the First Epistle of Peter that the faithful especially have to go through many trials and temptations, so that their faith is purified and reformed more and more: Wherein you shall greatly rejoice, if now you must be for a little time made sorrowful in divers temptations:That the trial of your faith (much more precious than gold which is tried by the fire) may be found unto praise and glory and honour at the appearing of Jesus Christ. (I Pt. 1, 6-7) Temptations will always be a part of a seriously and attentively lived faith. The alarm should go “God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able: but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it” (I Cor. 10:13). must understand that almost anything in life may become a temptation and a trap for man, so variable and endless are the possibilities of temptations which will make him seriously struggle while his neighbor would only have a smile for the same kind of temptation. Certainly there are classical temptations, such as sensuality, riches, power, honor, etc., but there are sometimes very particular, small temptations that can be fatal for a man. Not only things that are destructive and evil, but even things that are morally acceptable can lead us into temptation and finally be fatal. We have, however, the comforting certainty that God will not admit anyone to be tempted beyond his strength. God always gives us so much support that we can resist the temptation and overcome it. 9. Are temptations a blessing or a curse? Temptations in general can serve for salvation or for evil; depending on their outcome, they are ambivalent. They lead to evil and are a curse if man consents to the temptation, looks for it, and doesn’t avoid the next occasion. But temptations can also be a source of merit and salvation. For by mastering off if there are no temptations and everything runs smoothly: such a state could be an indication of the laxity and lukewarmness of religious practice. We have the tendency to develop a false sense of security as long as great temptations are not manifest and the little problems of everyday life can be dealt with. But appearances can convey a false sense of security. The true state of our faith and our practice of faith is then made manifest only in the worst case scenario, in an ordeal with great temptations, misfortunes and disappointments. God does not tempt man to sin. But He allows temptation so that the Faith may become more firmly and securely established. God will allow us to be confronted with the adversary and all of his power of seduction. This purification and testing is often closely linked with being chosen by God. Even our Lord and Abraham were tried by temptations! Because of his omniscience, God does not need temptation in order to learn about our true condition. It is true that we learn from temptations a lot about ourselves. How quickly and how easily we overlook our own sins and sinful tendencies, excusing it, while the sins of others appear outrageous to us. Sometimes www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • December 2010 36 the school of temptation is for us a school of humility in order to make us recognize better our blindness as a result of pride. Temptations very quickly show us our own weakness and instability. We learn to hope for God’s help and to build on it rather than on our own skills. Perhaps the most important purpose of temptation is to make us humble and dependent on God. We also learn to be careful in good times. If temptation is already present, it’s too late! If the life of faith is built on a solid foundation, then the person will be prepared and ready for the test of temptation. But even the best and most pious have fallen because they believed they were safe and fell into a false arrogance towards other people, becoming easily vulnerable. The greatest saints have always felt themselves to be the greatest sinners and they had a prudent fear of temptations. Enduring temptations provide man with a reliable idea of the true state of his soul. The “fruits” show whether man is a “good tree with good fruit” or not. Do our actions display the hallmarks of faith, hope, worship, and charity, etc., or are they rather characterized by hatred, envy, lust, anger, sloth, etc.? If our soul is weak and sick, there is no other way out than through a good confession, the practice of prayer, and a life of faith. 11. What is a trial sent by God and what isn’t? We should guard against hasty speculation regarding tragedies that befall our fellow human beings. We allow God to judge and decide whether a particular person in a concrete situation is tested by God, whether he is punished, or the calamity has a different meaning, e.g. the conversion of others. The ultimate meaning and context is known only to God alone. If we are careless, we possibly increase the suffering by manipulation and psychological influence; we become responsible for the suffering of others if people, through our intervention, eventually completely capitulate. If God allows a trial for a man so that this man may find the way to God, he must know himself and open himself to God. If we persuade, through supposedly good intentions, someone of a “test from God” with the goal of leading someone to God, we can easily achieve the opposite. The task of a Catholic is first of all, as we can see in our Lord, to help the needy and especially to bring spiritual consolation, to pray for them and sacrifice. These measures offer safer and better chances of success than premature speculation about the purpose of God behind personal misfortune. Temptation is not always a sign of a punishment or a withdrawal of love from God. God’s chosen often had to pass tests from God because God had His plans for them, as in the cases of Abraham, Job, THE ANGELUS • December 2010 www.angeluspress.org etc. Let us therefore beware of the temptation of premature speculation. 12. Literally: pray for God’s assistance and guidance in temptation If God cannot spare all trials and temptations in our lives, because otherwise our living faith could not be purified and strengthened, and it is necessary for our salvation, nevertheless we can and should ask God for his assistance and leadership in the tests of our lives. It is for good reason that our Lord exhorts us to that effect. If temptations are inevitable on the one hand, then, at the same time, we should not seek them. When temptations come, the Catholic should know that he can never overcome them alone, but only with the help of God. We see in the previous requests of the Lord’s Prayer how we have God’s help in the fight against temptation: by generous forgiveness, by often asking for forgiveness of one’s sins (by frequently going to Holy Confession), through frequent, worthy reception of Holy Communion, etc. We have influence on our resistance against temptations. We increase the possibilities of being attacked by temptations and the danger of failure by a lukewarm prayer life and through the negligent use of the sacraments. In other words, if we do not care about the specific requests of the Lord’s Prayer we should not be surprised if we fail in temptations. 13. Temptation as the price of free will God has given man freedom with the possibility of abusing of it. Man has the choice between light and darkness. He can decide in favor of or against God. Because man is not perfectly in love with God, it is always possible that he may fall out of the grace of God. Through this possibility of a free decision, it is possible that man is tempted. God wants no forced love and no forced faith; man has to decide for or against God in freedom. In the final analysis, one could understand the decision of people to succumb to temptation as a paradigm of the choice: for or against God. With every temptation he overcomes, man can increase in the theological virtues of faith, hope and love. This request of the Lord’s Prayer takes into account the weakness of man and the healthy distrust of his own abilities. (To be continued.) Fr. Thomas Jatzkowski, FSSPX, was ordained in 2004, and is currently prior of St. Teresa of Avila Priory, Hamburg, Germany. Church and World Abp. Piacenza Appointed Prefect of the Roman Congregation for the Clergy The name of Cardinal Claudio Hummes’ successor as prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy has just come out. It is the secretary of the same dicastery, Archbishop Mauro Piacenza, a 66-year-old Italian who considers himself a spiritual son of Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, Archbishop of Genoa for more than 40 years, who ordained him priest. Intellectually brilliant, Msgr. Piacenza is equally ultraconservative. This choice is obviously not neutral. It is question of rewarding one of the key individuals in the recently concluded Year of the Priest. But, beyond this, Msgr. Piacenza incarnates an architraditional vision of the priest. It is a detail, but his unfailing attachment to ecclesiastical garb is telling. Priests will no doubt once again be urged to wear it, especially the cassock, or the Roman collar at the very least. This choice is certainly a cold shower for his predecessor in this charge, the Brazilian Claudio Hummes, formerly Archbishop of Fortaleza, then of Sao Paulo, a once rather progressive Franciscan of 76 years who never renounced the enthusiasms of his youth (liberation theology) despite a clear turn to spirituality, if not conservatism. In comparison with Piacenza, however, he cuts the figure of a man of the Left. It is known that he defended the priestly ordination of married men, which will obviously not be the case of Piacenza. Archbishop Piacenza’s nomination bears the Pope’s personal stamp. Directly vertical promotions (from secretary to prefect of a congregation for instance) are rare and not advised. Except for exceptional confidence in an outstanding man. Especially when the individual has never been in direct pastoral charge of a diocese. An outstanding man as is undoubtedly Mauro Piacenza in the Pope’s eyes. In his plan of restoration. (Source: Quoted from “Golias” on La Porte Latine) United States: For Life, the Bishop of Fargo Keeps His Promises! As he had announced, the Most Reverend Samuel Aquila, Bishop of Fargo, North Dakota, led a procession on Sunday, September 26, 2010, to the town’s abortion clinic. Nearly 800 of the faithful joined the procession from St. Mary’s Cathedral, where the bishop had offered the Holy Sacrifi ce of the Mass for life. The bishop headed the procession carrying the Blessed Sacrament. At the abortion clinic, he remained unruffled by the proabortion demonstrators assembled near the abortuary, the walls of which he generously sprinkled with holy water. After the aspersion, he took up the monstrance and led his flock, reciting the Rosary, back to the Cathedral. (Source: La Porte Latine) Twenty-four New Cardinals at Next Consistory On October 20, Benedict XVI announced he will hold a consistory on November 20, during which he will create 24 new cardinals, bringing to 203 the number of members of the Sacred College, of whom 121 would be electors in the conclave. This will be the third consistory 37 of his pontificate. As of this date, the cardinal electors created by Benedict XVI will be at 50, the current cardinal electors who were created by John Paul II will be at 71. Seven senior officials of the Roman Curia will form part of the Sacred College: Archbishop Angelo Amato, prefect of the Congregation for Saints’ Causes Archbishop Mauro Piacenza, recently named the head of the Congregation for the Clergy Archbishop Fortunato Baldelli, major penitentiary of the Apostolic Penitentiary Archbishop Raymond Burke, prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture Archbishop Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity Archbishop Robert Sarah, president of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum Certain holders of titular cardinal seats around the world were also chosen by Benedict XVI: Patriarch Antonios Naguib, of Alexandria of the Copts, Egypt Archbishop Reinhard Marx, of Munich and Freising, Germany Archbishop Kazimierz Nycz, of Warsaw, Poland Archbishop Paolo Romeo of Palermo, Italy Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Archbishop Raul Eduardo Vela Chiriboga, retired archbishop of Quito, Ecuador Archbishop Raymundo Damasceno Assis of Aparecida, Brazil Archbishop Medardo Joseph Mazombwe, retired archbishop of Lusaka, Zambia Archbishop Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya of Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • December 2010 38 Archbishop Albert Malcom Ranjith Patabendige Don of Colombo, SriLanka and retired secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments Archbishop Velasio De Paolis, President of the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See and delegate of the Pope to the Legionaries of Christ Archbishop Francesco Monterisi, archpriest of the Papal Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls Church an Archbishop Paolo Sardi, pro-patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta. Archbishop Domenico Bartolucci, 93 years old, retired director of the Sistine Chapel Choir In addition, two bishops and two priests will be honorary or nonelector cardinals: Archbishop Walter Brandmüller, 81 years old, retired president of the Pontifi cal Committee for Historical Sciences. Archbishop José Manuel Estepa Llaurens, 84 years old, retired military ordinary of Spain Archbishop Elio Sgreccia, 82 years old, retired president of the Pontifical Academy for Life “You are a monk, you must remain a monk!” T h i s w a s t h e a d v i c e g i ve n by Archbishop Lefebvre to the young Father Cyprian who, having left his Monaster y of Sainte Madeleine du Bar roux because of the Faith questioned the prelate about his future. Two years earlier, at the end of the Ordinations ceremony in Ecône, he had promised his fidelity, his hands in those of the Archbishop. It is this same fidelity that led him to found, on the other side of the world, a Benedictine monastery, on a mountain as it ought to be, in the wooded solitude of New Mexico. “We must attempt the impossible!” was the testament received from the founder of the Society of St. Pius X two months before his death. And the impossible became a reality: the foundation of the Monastery of Our Lady of Guadalupe.1 Herculean Labors It took 20 years of efforts, sacrifices and prayers to make it to this Saturday, October 24, when the foundation was made a conventual pr ior y: a decisive step in the establishment of a Benedictine monastery, “school for the service of the Lord.”2 “This foundation is at the same time a final point and a beginning,” would comment Bishop de Galarreta before some 300 friends of the Monaster y assembled under the large tent set up for the occasion. “It is the fruit of much work, and of many sufferings and and it is THE ANGELUS • December 2010prayers, www.angeluspress.org a commitment to a greater fervor and fidelity.” Indeed, who can measure the sum of work of which the monaster y, with its chapel, its librar y, its cloister, cells and refectory, is today the splendid accomplishment. The immense reservoir of water in the wells is without a doubt one of the most spectacular, and merits a whole page all to itself. From the discovery of a simple ditch presented as a well when the property was bought, to the 2,600 feet drilling, not to mention the two years of going back and forth to and from the city, regularly, rain or While he has logically made cardinals of Archbishop Angelo Amato (Causes of the Saints), Bishop Mauro Piacenza (Clergy), Bishop Fortu- shine, to fill up the water tank. Yet more mysterious and extraordinar y is the tr ansfor mation of the interior edifices, not only of the monks and numerous postulants, but also of the countless visitors and oblates who have passed t h r o u g h ove r t h e p a s t two decades. If sufferings endured are the King’s secret, St. Paul himself authorizes us to list them as so many proofs of God’s greatness. False brother s and critics, temptations and discouragements, deceptions and abandonments, accidents and illnesses have not been wanting! And even death herself, who came to take away the novice master, Rev. Fr. John of the Cross, during the chanting of the Magnificat, the evening of June 29, 2002. If the grain of wheat…dies, it will bear much fruit Eight solemn profess monks are necessar y to be able to make a foundation a Prior y. With the third priestly Ordination last June, as well as four clerics studying at the Society’s seminar y in Winona, this ver y young 3 and fer vent community numbers just under 30 monks. Stability, object of a special vow for the Benedictine, is now acquired for the entire monaster y. It is a work of and World 39 nato Baldelli (Major Penitentiary) and Archbishop Raymond Burke (Apostolic Signature), appointed ex officio, Benedict XVI has also chosen to confer the cardinal purple upon three of eight presidents of pontifical councils who are also bishops (of whom two were recently appointed): Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi (Culture, on the picture), Bishop Kurt Koch (Christian Unity) and Archbishop Robert Sarah (Cor Unum), thus giving more influence to these departments. The unexpected choice of Guinean Archbishop Robert Sarah seems to have been guided by the desire to insert a little more representation of the Africans into the bosom of the College of Cardinals; likewise the choice of retired Archbishop of Lusaka (Zambia), Bishop Joseph Mazombwe Medardo. The appointment of Archbishop Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya of Kinshasa (DRC), was expected. If one adds the appointment of the Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria, Archbishop Antonios Naguib, all together on the African continent there will be 12 Cardinal electors. Africans will then represent 10% of voters, compared with 8% previously. the Church, recognized as such and publicly offered by her to her children as a privileged way of attaining God. “This foundation, having for a long time given testimony of fidelity to the true Faith and the Holy Roman Church, as well as to the spirit of the Benedictine family…, we…decree that this monaster y be established as a Priory of the Order of St. Benedict.”4 It is with these words that Bishop de Galarreta began the ceremony, “by the power that the Holy Church gives in the case of necessity, insofar as we are able, with the intention of thus helping to procure the supreme good of the Church and the salvation of souls.”5 Then the pontiff proceeded with the institution of the conventual priory “for three years, after which an election will take place, according to the Law.”6 “Remember always the souls whom you have received under your charge and for whom you will have to answer!” 7 the bishop admonished the future prior kneeling before him. Then he asked him to promise his submission to the Rule of St. Benedict and that he would faithfully keep the monastic discipline in this Monaster y of Our Lady of Guadalupe of America. The nominated prior, after having confessed the Faith and taken the oath formulated by St. Pius X, was then constituted prior and given “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” to the community, who received him with a fervent “Amen.” Then, confessing his unwor thiness and his weakness, he confided himself to the prayers of his brother monks and to the intercession of Almighty God, and of the Most Holy Virgin and of St. Benedict. Then, as a sign of the authority conferred upon him, the pontiff gave him the keys and the seal of the monastery. A written document was signed on the altar. “Confirm, O my God, what thou hast accomplished by thy hands, from thy holy temple in Jerusalem” 8 sang the community. “O God, who alone hast realized great wonders, pour down upon thy servant Fr. Pr ior and on the community confided to his care the spirit of thy saving grace, and grant to him always the heavenly dew of thy blessing, that he may please thee in all truth.”9 Then the pontiff, with miter and crosier, installed him in his place in the choir, and to the chanting of the Te Deum, the brothers, one after another, came to give homage to the beloved Father. competent authority and since we are acting in an auxiliary way because of the crisis in the Church and the state of necessity….”10 It is this union that the many faithful who are Third Order members and Oblates wish to share, understanding how vital it is to cling to this rope divinely woven by Providence. It is this same union that explained the presence, on this beautiful day, of the superiors of the districts of Mexico and of the United States, Frs. Trejo and Rostand, of the priors of Phoenix and of El Paso, Frs. Burfitt and Diaz, and of the assistant director of the seminary of Winona, Fr. Asher. Finally, as a new fr uit of this Benedictine restoration in Tradition, the next day, a new monk was made a cleric of the Church. Brother Justin received the tonsure from the pontiff. He will next year join his brothers at the seminar y…and by then, God willing, two new priests will have been ordained ad titulum paupertatis for the Monastery of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Deo Gratias! (Source: DICI) The Three-cord Rope Does Not Break The Pontifi cal Mass prolonged the thanksgiving on this feast of Our Lady of Good Hope, “our only hope in this crisis of the Church,” as Bishop de Galarreta declared. He also pointed out to the community the condition for remaining faithful in this torment, interpreting these words of Sacred Scripture “the three-cord rope does not break.” “These three cords whose union alone guarantees the solidity of resistance are for you today,” he said, “your Benedictine rule, the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, and the Catholic bishop that we are .” Indeed, the decree specified, “since it is morally impossible to have recourse to the Fr. Matthew was sent from this foundation in 2000 to join Rev. Fr. Angel and found the monastery of Bellaigue. 2 Rule of St. Benedict, Prologue. 3 The average is 25! 4 Decree of Institution, October 23, 2010. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 Ritus de Canonica Erectione Monasterii. 8 Antiphon “Confirma hoc,” Ritus de Canonica Erectione Monasterii. 9 Ibid. 10 Decree of Institution, October 23, 2010. 1 www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • December 2010 40 Church and World Unsurprisingly, Benedict XVI appointed some incumbent bishops of cardinal seats around the world whose predecessors have already reached 80 years. But in the absence of Latin American candidates, he chose to offer the red biretta to two prelates: retired Archbishop Raul Eduardo Vela Chiriboga of Quito (Ecuador) and Archbishop Raymundo Damasceno Assis of Aparecida (Brazil). Interestingly, Quito and Aparecida are not traditional cardinal seats. Henceforth, North and South America together will have 36 cardinal electors. In revealing the list of future princes of the Church, Benedict XVI has pointed out that his choices reflect “the universality of the Church.” Nevertheless, Europeans will remain as the majority among the cardinal electors (62 out of 121) and the Italians (25), as always, are well represented, as more than one elector in five are natives of the Italian peninsula. In offering a cardinal biretta to Bishop Kurt Koch, the very recently appointed president of the Council of Christian Unity, Benedict XVI intends to show the importance he attaches to ecumenism. This has not failed to put a spotlight on the Swiss prelate in the wake of the announcement of the names of the cardinals who will be created next month: “It is probably not due to my person that the Pope has chosen for me to so quickly become a cardinal, but due to my office, so as to give a clear sign demonstrating the importance he gives to ecumenism and relations with Judaism.” The entry into the College of Cardinals of Bishop Gianfranco Ravasi will open to him the doors to the next conclave where, according to some vaticanistas, he could be consider papabile as the head of the “anti-restorationist” block which is opposed to the course of the THE ANGELUS • December 2010 www.angeluspress.org current Pope. This is a significant story reported by Italian journalist Sandro Magister in 2007, at the time of his appointment as head of the Council for Culture: “For years, Bishop Ravasi has been a candidate for everything” including the Archbishop of Milan, his diocese, but until now he has been passed over. In 2005 he seemed to be in line to acquire the bishopric of Assisi, the city of St. Francis—a small diocese, but a great world forum. However, on June 25th the members of the Congregation charged with the appointments of new bishops met together for the final considerations and on the table was a press clipping. It was an article about Bishop Ravasi published March 31, 2002, in the Sunday supplement of the daily financial newspaper Il Sole delle 24 Ore. The article focused on Easter and the title was: “He was not raised, he arose.” As at each consistory, the Pope chose to offer the cardinal biretta to some prelates or bishops over the age of 80, and thus ineligible to vote, but to recognize “their generosity and dedication in service to the Church.” Among them, Bishop Domenico Bartolucci, choirmaster of the Sistine Chapel from 1956 to 1997, aged 93. Benedict XVI pays homage to this master of classical choir who is attached to the traditional liturgy and whose departure in 1997 hurt Cardinal Ratzinger. Furthermore, by raising to the cardinalate Bishop Elio Sgreccia, the retired President of Pontifical Academy for Life, the Pope acknowledges the many battles this Italian prelate has waged against abortion and euthanasia. (Source: DICI ) A First: The SSPX Lourdes Pilgrimage on the Official Sanctuary Schedule! It was from Africa that we first got the news: “Between two Masses here at Libreville (Gabon), I couldn’t resist searching for the Lourdes Sanctuary on the Internet to find the Society’s Christ the King Pilgrimage. My joy was not inconsiderable when I read on the Sanctuary’s official schedule: ‘Rosary, 11:30– Priestly Society of St. Pius X.’ “Of course, twelve years of flexibility and of unvaryingly tactful dealings [with Sanctuary officials] came back to me: such memories–the best! Thank you, Our Lady of Lourdes.”–Fr. N. Pinaud On the screen shot of the Lourdes Shrine’s official website can be seen posted the Society’s scheduled Rosary. F R . p e t e r R . s c o t t QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Why did Our Lord not allow St. Mary Magdalene to touch him? 41 “Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed. Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.” ( Jn. 20:29) Q The love of St. Mary Magdalene for our Divine Savior flowed immediately from her faith in His divine power to forgive sins, and her awareness of her total dependence upon such forgiveness. It was why she could not bear to leave the Holy Sepulcher once she and the holy women and Saints Peter and John had seen that it was empty. Standing there weeping, all that she could think of was that someone had stolen His body. It was when our Divine Savior, whom she thought to be the gardener, called her by name that she recognized Him. Attempting to adore Him and kiss His feet, as she had done (Lk. 7:45) when He had forgiven her her sins, she was told these curious words: Is it a sin to judge others’ actions? Rash judgment is a mortal sin against the virtue of justice, and one repeatedly condemned, both by our Divine Savior and the Apostles. “Judge not, that you may not be judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged,” Our Lord declares in His sermon on the mountain (Mt. 7:1-2). St. Paul’s teaching is neither different nor any less frightening: A “Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father, but go to my brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God.’ ” ( Jn. 20:17) Quite different, indeed, was our Divine Savior’s reception of the others who saw Him, as recorded in the Gospel. The other holy women, we are told, “embraced his feet and worshipped him” (Mt. 28:9). Likewise the Apostles, to whom Our Lord showed His hands and His side, and especially St. Thomas, whom He invited to put his fi nger into the wounds of His hands and his hand into the wound of His side ( Jn. 20:27). Why the difference? The key to understanding this mystery is in the literal translation of the Greek text of St. John’s Gospel, which means “Touch me no longer.” St. Mary Magdalene had touched and had been very attached to Our Lord’s sacred Humanity, from which she had received so much. However, Our Lord wanted to teach her the mystical lesson, so necessary for her to become the contemplative soul that she later was, namely not to be attached to anything on this earth, and to rise above the appearance of the senses, so as to live by faith alone. It was not the same with the Apostles, who were the official witnesses of the physical Resurrection of Our Lord from the dead, and who consequently were to receive a multitude of outwards signs of the physical resurrection, including the physical touching and eating together with Him. The mystical, loving soul of St. Mary Magdalene did not need these extra signs, but it was sufficient for her to believe what she had seen, which is likewise the faith that we have, through the Apostles’ testimony, as Our Lord said to St. Thomas: Wherefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art, that judgest. For wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself. For thou dost the same things which thou judgest. (Rm. 2:1) In fact, St. Paul is so careful that he dare not even judge himself, declaring that even when he is not aware of doing evil “yet am I not hereby justified, but he that judgeth me is the Lord” (I Cor. 4:4). If such be the case with our own selves, how much more dangerous yet is it to judge others: Therefore judge not before the time; until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsel of the hearts. (I Cor 4:5) However, it might readily be objected that we are forced to make judgments on others on a constant daily basis, for if we were not to make such judgments we would not know whom to imitate, whom to follow, whom to avoid, whose actions to detest; we would not be able to govern ourselves prudently, nor to protect ourselves against evil, nor even to keep the commandments nor to live in a rational and human manner, let alone in a good and supernatural way. Are we not to make judgments on such evil persons as Luther and Henry VIII, who caused incalculable damage to the Church and to souls, or Loisy, the condemned founder of modernism? The objection is an entirely valid one. A judgment is only a sin if it is rash, which means that it is not based upon sufficient clear evidence and proof. If the evidence is overwhelming, the judgment can be and ought to be made, provided we are certain about our objectivity, and that we have excluded the natural tendency of fallen human nature that Our Lord castigates so clearly: “Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” (Mt. 7:5) Moreover, a rash judgment is only a sin if, without sufficient reason, it is a judgment of the moral www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • December 2010 42 character of another’s actions, namely if we accuse him of a vice. It is perfectly possible to make an observation on the objective wrongness of a person’s work, or even of the immorality of an action, without questioning a person’s good intentions, namely that he is in ignorance as to the moral evil that his actions contain. For example, we must condemn artificial birth control as a mortal sin. However, we do not state that all those who use this are necessarily culpable of the sin and condemned to eternal damnation for it. Likewise, the Church is obliged to condemn and excommunicate heretics and all those who maintain communion with them. If we likewise must hold their actions and beliefs as evil, we are not forasmuch enabled to make any judgment as to the state of their individual souls. Modernists take advantage of our Divine Savior’s teaching on this question to perpetrate their errors and deception. Under cloak of charity, of being loving and accepting towards everyone, they fall into subjectivism and indifferentism, as if man cannot know the one true religion, but that believers of all religions are in a certain way right and pleasing to God. Anybody who would dare question their theory that faith is a purely interior sentiment is accused of lack of charity and understanding, and condemned to silence, under pain of judging his neighbor. Such a “reasoning” is no reasoning at all, but actually the destruction of human reason, of the truth, of the true charity that enlightens the mind in error. In answer to this, it is our duty, in the light of the Church’s constant, infallible and certain teachings, to make judgments concerning all the novelties, errors and betrayals of the modernists in the Church’s hierarchy, remembering the words of St. Paul: But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. (Gal. 1:8) However, in so doing, let us remember that we cannot make judgments for which we do not have certain and compelling evidence. Thus we cannot judge that any particular bishop or prelate has formally sinned against the Faith, or that he has lost the Faith. This would (in general) be rash. However, the judgment that their actions endanger the Faith, as does the New Mass, the practice of Ecumenism and the Humanism of the modern Church, is an obvious fact that any reasoning man is bound to conclude from the evidence. Closely related to the sin of rash judgment is that of detraction–namely, the telling of the sins of THE ANGELUS • December 2010 www.angeluspress.org another, or the sharing of one’s judgments on him with others, so as to destroy his good reputation in the minds of others. All men have a right to their good reputation, regardless of their own personal sins, and it is not because our observations are true that we have the right to say them publicly or even privately to others. It is only when there is a proportionate and grave reason that, reluctantly, we are bound to do so. In the case of the crisis in the Church, there is indeed such a reason–the common good, the salvation of souls, the protection of Holy Mother Church against the infi ltration of sacrileges and errors without number. However, in doing so, it is our duty in charity and in justice not to judge the interior intentions, nor the subjective moral character of the actions performed by members of the hierarchy, and this all the more on account of the confusion that modernism creates. It is so easy for them to be in ignorance, on account of the brainwashing to which they have been subjected. The Catholic spirit is consequently to be found in due moderation, even in condemning modern errors. It is for this reason that the bitter, condemnatory spirit of the sedevacantists is not Catholic. In the same spirit, we will condemn the manifest errors in the Pope’s writings and practices, and the dangers to the Faith that they pose, but we will not judge his personal faith or intentions and certainly not presume to pronounce on his pertinacity. Fr. Peter Scott was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. After assignments as seminary professor, U.S. District Superior, and Rector of Holy Cross Seminary in Goulburn, Australia, he is presently Headmaster of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Academy in Wilmot, Ontario, Canada. The book our readers wanted. The best questions and the best answers of 30 years of The Angelus are printed in this hardback edition. This will be a family’s heirloom reference book for everyday Catholic living to match the Catholic Faith we believe and the Latin Mass we attend. Over 300 answers classified under 30 subtitles, authored by Frs. Pulvermacher, Laisney, Doran, Boyle, and Scott. 344pp. Hardcover. STK# 8343✱ $23.95 THELASTWORD 43 Fr. Alain Lorans, FSSPX The Bishop and the Rabbi In response to the demonstration by a group of young people legitimately shocked at the presence of a rabbi in Notre Dame Cathedral of Paris on Passion Sunday, Msgr. Jerome Beau, the auxiliary bishop of Paris, declared: “The line of the Gospel does not change! We shall never go back on the path traced by Vatican II, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI….Catholics and Jews, we owe it to peace and to the future of mankind to pursue openness and dialogue.” To show his determination, he added: “A path has been traced out since Vatican II: we want to advance and we shall advance.” The question that arises is the following: Can the declaration “The line of the Gospel does not change” be reconciled with the affirmation: “A path has been traced out since Vatican II”? In other words: is the path traced out since Vatican II within the unchanging line of the Gospel? St. Peter said to the Jews: “[Our Lord Jesus Christ] is the stone which was rejected by you the builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:10-11). Rabbi Rivon Krygier, invited by Cardinal Vingt-Trois to give the Lenten lecture, gave his point of view in the March 22 edition of La Croix: “The Council was a real revolution: it was the first time in history that a religion consented to reconsider its basic principles in order to Some historical background to the presence of Rabbi Krygier at the pulpit of Notre Dame de Paris on May 21, 2010 Preaching of sermons during Lent in the Cathedral of Notre Dame of Paris was an ancient custom during the Ancien Régime, with speakers like St. Francis de Sales and Bossuet. After the hiatus of the Revolution, the Lenten sermons were Fr. Alain Lorans, FSSPX let go of any triumphalism and to recognize a place for others.” “A real revolution,” the “fi rst time in history”–it’s kind of hard to speak of continuity in “the line of the Gospel that does not change”! (Nouvelles de Chrétienté, No. 122, March-April 2010) reinstated at the beginning of the 19th century. Every Sunday of Lent, Dominicans, Jesuits, or Oratorians would alternate meditating on the mysteries of Christ’s Passion and Death to help souls grow in the love of God, following step by step the Way of the Cross. This tradition was broken after the appointment of Cardinal André Vingt-Trois on March 5, 2005. He no longer exclusively called upon priests or deacons to deliver the Lenten sermons, but also invited laymen like the philosophers Giorgio Agamben and Dominique Folsheid, and the historians Claude Lepelley and Alain Decaux. The expression “Lenten lecture” was clearly altered to mean a simple “lecture” and not a spiritual meditation. But the year 2010 marked a major step in this surprising evolution with the invitation of a minister from a non-Catholic religion; indeed, from a religion that explicitly denies the divinity of Christ: a rabbi. But it was on the strength of the change that had been ongoing for five years that the Cardinal justified his choice in a letter to persons who had registered their astonishment: “In fact, since 2005, the Lenten lectures have taken the form of a dialogue in which the Christian faith and contemporary thought are mutually explained. That is why the floor has been given to non-Catholics, non-Christians, and even unbelievers.” (Courrier de Rome, April 2010) www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • December 2010 Catholic History Seven Lies About Catholic History Diane Moczar Diane Moczar tackles the most infamous and prevalent historical myths about the Church, popular legends that you encounter everywhere, and reveals the real truth about them. She explains how they got started and why they’re still around, and best of all, she gives you the facts and the arguments you need to set the record straight. Includes the Inquisition: how it was not a bloodthirsty institution, but a merciful (and necessary) one; Galileo’s trial: why moderns invented a myth around it to make science appear incompatible with the Catholic faith; the Reformation: why the 16th-century Church was not totally corrupt (as even some Catholics wrongly believe), and how the reformers made things worse for everybody; and other lies that the world uses to attack and discredit the Faith. Written in a brisk style that’s fun and easy to read, this book provides the lessons that every Catholic needs in order to defend and explain, not just apologize for, the Church’s rich and complex history. 189 pp. Softcover. STK# 8486 $12.99 The King with a Pope in His Belly Bella Wyborn d’Abrera Few histories have been truly objectively written, without an eye to propaganda. In the main, great historical works have been reflections of, and justifications for, great civilizations. The author has undertaken to correct this bias applied to the history of Reformation and post-Reformation Britain in a trilogy of works, of which this is the first. The King with a Pope in His Belly covers the infiltration of Martin Luther’s heresies into England via Thomas Cromwell, Thomas Cranmer, and their fellow “reformers” during the reign of King Henry VIII. 164 pp. Softcover. STK# 8482 $17.95 The Lion and the Crescent: The Life of Don John of Austria Margaret Yeo The life of Don John of Austria makes for the most astounding of stories. Growing up as a peasant boy, he was eventually discovered to be the son of the Emperor. At 24 he was appointed by Pius V to command the greatest force ever sent against Islam. He was victor at the Battle of Lepanto. He was destined by Pope Gregory XIII to be the founder of a Christian Empire in North Africa, to rescue Mary Queen of Scots, to marry her and share with her the throne of England. Sent by Phillip II to put down the revolt of William of Orange, he resolved to leave the world and go to a Benedictine monastery... 345 pp. Hardcover. STK# 8485 $22.00 The Templars: Knights of Christ Regine Pernoud “From Walter Scott’s Ivanhoe to Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, the portrayal of the Templars is as false as it is absurd. This distortion exasperated, and even enraged, the noted French historian Régine Pernoud, who has already set right many of our misapprehensions about the Middle Ages. Now in The Templars she rehabilitates the devout Catholic knights, exposing ‘the incredible crop of fanciful allegations attributing to the Templars every kind of esoteric rite and belief, from the most ancient to the most vulgar....’ As she rightly points out, the truth is accessible in archives and libraries: it is not impossible to uncover the facts. The result is an excellent, unadorned history that is a pleasure to read.”—Piers Paul Read (author of The Templars: The Dramatic History) 157pp. Softcover. STK# 8456 $14.95 Black Robes in Paraguay William F. Jaenike The story of the Jesuits’ defense of the Guarani in the mission communities as the Portuguese and Spanish slavers descended on Paraguay. The Jesuits’ resistance efforts to protect stone-age Indians in their missions added to the political problems of the Church with Catholic monarchs back in Europe. Under pressure from the monarchs, a frightened Pope abolished the Jesuit order. In the history of European colonization of the Americas, these Jesuits in Paraguay stood out as a breed apart. Leaders of the anti-Catholics such as Voltaire and Raynal rallied to the side of these extraordinary missionaries. Raynal wrote that never has so much good been done for mankind with so little evil. Ironically, the heretic monarchs of Russia and Prussia invited hundreds of former Jesuits to run their colleges. 320 pp. Softcover. STK# 8467 $25.00 Spiritual Reading A Year with the Church Fathers Mike Aquilina Times change, but human nature does not. Neither do the daily struggles that all Christians experience in their walk with the Lord. Today as two thousand years ago we fight anger, pride, lust, spiritual sloth. Now as then we strive to be more diligent in prayer, more faithful to the commandments, more patient and charitable toward others. In A Year with the Church Fathers, popular Patristics expert Mike Aquilina gathers the wisest, most practical teachings and exhortations from the Fathers of the Church, and presents them in a format perfect for daily meditation and inspiration. The Fathers were the immediate inheritors of the riches of the Apostolic Age, and their intimacy with the revelation of Jesus Christ is beautifully evident throughout their theological and pastoral writings: a profound patrimony that is ours to read and cherish and profit from. Learn to humbly accept correction from St. Clement of Rome. Let Tertullian teach you how to clear your mind before prayer. Read St. Gregory the Great and deepen your love for the Eucharist. Do you suffer from pain or illness? St. John Chrysostom's counsels will refresh you. Do you have trouble curbing your appetite for food and other fleshly things? St. John Cassian will teach you the true way to moderation and self-control. A Year with the Church Fathers is different from a study guide, and more than a collection of pious passages. It is a year-long retreat that in just a few minutes every day will lead you on a cycle of contemplation, prayer, resolution, and spiritual growth that is guaranteed to bring you closer to God and His truth. From the Church Fathers we should expect nothing less. Beautiful gift edition, with two-tone ultra soft cover, ribbon marker, and designed interior pages. 365 pp. Two-tone imitation leather ultra soft cover. STK# 8487 $44.95 Religious Vocation: An Unnecessary Mystery Fr. Richard Butler, O.P. The question of discerning a vocation is agonized over by many generous young Catholics today. A solid Thomist, who wrote this book in 1961, Father Butler shows that this type of question shows a totally wrong approach to a religious vocation–an approach that began with misguided theology in the 20th century, which then trickled down to the popular level, confusing both aspirants and spiritual directors. Though Fr. Butler deals primarily with vocations to the religious life, he also gives the classic guidelines on priestly vocations. The author states, based on the tradition of the Church, that religious vocation is not uncommon, rare or extraordinary and that it does not require an introspective search for some special voice or attraction. This book provides welcome, intelligent guidance both for spiritual directors and for those considering the religious life or that of the priesthood! 167pp. Softcover. STK# 8401 $12.50 The Life of St. Francis of Assisi St. Bonaventure “Francis, go and build up My house, which thou seest is falling into ruin.” To fulfill this command of Our Lord, St. Francis of Assisi (1181-1226) began by restoring physical churches and continued by building up the spiritual Church in souls. Francis’s humility, purity, and true joy inspired many to conversion and a deeper faith. Never ordained a priest, St. Francis nonetheless was a preacher and a miracle-worker of the first order–curing, prophesying, casting out devils, turning water into wine, and raising people from the dead. The Life of St. Francis of Assisi by St. Bonaventure conveys a picture of the Saint that renders an indelible impression of a man totally transformed by God. 165pp. Softcover. STK# 8474✱ $14.95 Imitation of the Sacred Heart of Jesus Back in print for the first time in nearly 100 years Rev. Peter J. Arnoudt, S.J. “This book will lead souls to sanctity.” Full of wisdom for every type of person, and written with such natural simplicity, some say this book is even more inspiring than The Imitation of Christ. Written in a format in which Our Lord speaks to the reader through the holy author, Fr. Arnoudt, S.J., it “points out the path to every virtue and perfection.” 734pp. Black leatherette hardcover. Pocket Size: 4¼ x 6½. STK# 8447 $33.00 Traditional Rite PRIESTLY ORDINATION Our stunning 2011 Liturgical Calendar features professional photographs by Fr. John Young, FSSPX, taken during the 2010 ordination ceremony at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota. Each month presents a different liturgical action from the ceremony. Detailed descriptions of each step are included at the front of the calendar. The 12" x 12" dimension gives you plenty of room for notes and appointment reminders. All the feast days of the year according to the 1962 Roman Missal are listed with class and liturgical color, along with reminders of days of fast and abstinence. 12" x 12" Calendar, STK# CAL2011✱ $11.95 Calendar (with Chapel Directory) STK# CAL2011A✱ $12.95 Pocket-size US and International Chapel Directory. AVAILABLE AT A SPECIAL DISCOUNT WITH YOUR CALENDAR ORDER. It replaces the US and Canada listing that formerly appeared inside the calendar. 64pp. 4" x 6¼". STK# 8411✱ $1.95 OPEN LETTER to CONFUSED CATHOLICS Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Archbishop Lefebvre’s popular study of the crisis in the Church written for all to understand. Covers the Mass, Sacraments, Priesthood, the New Catechisms, Ecumenism, etc., and demonstrates the new spirit in the Church which has caused doubt and confusion among the faithful. Has served as a beacon for thousands; certain to become a classic. Essential listening for Catholics everywhere. The definitive introduction to the 20th century’s Six CD’s (over 6½ hours). crisis in the Catholic Church. STK# 8477 $29.95 Visit angeluspress.org to hear a sample SHIPPING & HANDLING 5-10 days 2-4 days USA For eign Up to $50.00 $50.01 to $100.00 Over $100.00 $4.00 $6.00 FREE 25% of subtotal Up to $50.00 $50.01 to $100.00 Over $100.00 $8.00 $10.00 $8.00 FLAT FEE! ($10.00 minimum) 48 Contiguous States only. UPS cannot ship to PO Boxes. angelus Press 2915 Forest Avenue Kansas City, Missouri 64109 www.angeluspress.org ● 1-8 00-9 6 6-73 37 Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music.