Plenary indulgence today, under the normal conditions, for the consecration of oneself and the the whole human race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. It’s quite beautiful, and reminds one of the Good Friday prayers. Please join me!
Happy Feast of Christ the King! Here is a little explanation of why they had to destroy it.
Posted on by M. Veritas
We know Modernists hate the Feast of Christ the King because of what they did to it. To understand why Modernists hate the Feast of Christ the King, it is necessary to see what the feast really stands for and then we can more fully appreciate and interpret their actions. In doing so, we will see that the Modernist hates the Feast of Christ the King because in their arrogance and pride they believe they are above the authority of Christ and the deposit of faith.
After nearly a century of dogmatic explication and teachings concerning the role Christ’s kingship should play in the modern world, it was Pope Pius XI in 1925 that solidified this body of authoritative teachings and instituted the Feast of Christ the King, which was to be celebrated annually on the last Sunday of the month of October.
Notice Pius XI did not make up this feast day out of whole cloth. It was a culmination of decades of explicitly clear teachings from multiple pontificates, grounded in Holy Scripture, that emphasized the need to make Christ and his teachings an essential part of our political and social life—both our public and private lives. We commonly refer to this as the Social Kingship of Christ.
For example, Pope Gregory XVI, in his 1832 encyclical Mirari Vos, warned Bishops of modern trends attempting to weaken the “sanctity and indissolubility” of marriage. He also recognized that the Church was afflicted by indifferentism, essentially a rejection of Christ’s saving action on the Cross, in which it was erroneously claimed that “it is possible to obtain eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is obtained.”
Blessed Pope Pius IX continued these strains of thought in his 1864 encyclical Quanta Cura in which he addressed the “absurd principle” of a society attempting to govern itself without religion. We can see Pius IX’s thoughts more clearly when we review his Syllabus of Errors, in which he condemns the following proposition:
“Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations.” (Syllabus of Errors, para. 3)
Pope Leo XIII likewise made papal pronouncements on the role of Christ and His Church in public life in numerous encyclicals applying Catholic social teaching to various social ills and public policy problems. Leo recounted the days before the protestant revolt and the so-called Enlightenment
“when States were governed by the philosophy of the Gospel. Then it was that the power and divine virtue of Christian wisdom had diffused itself throughout the laws, institutions, and morals of the people, permeating all ranks and relations of civil society.” (Immortale Dei, Para. 21).
Leo would lament that over the course of the nineteenth century,
“the authority of God is passed over in silence, just as if there were no God; or as if He cared nothing for human society; or as if men, whether in their individual capacity or bound together in social relations, owed nothing to God[.]” (Immortale Dei, para. 25)
Pope St. Pius X, also building upon the foundations laid by prior pontificates, strongly condemned legislation in France in 1905 mandating the separation of church and state:
“that the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error…this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion…Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State” (Vehementor Nos, para. 3).
This is just a sampling of the prior teachings from the Holy See that set the stage for Pope Pius XI to institute the Feast of Christ the King in his encyclical Quas Primas. By 1925, it was clear that Christian morality was being excluded from both private and public affairs. Citing to Holy Scripture where Christ’s kingship is established in numerous passages (see e.g. Luke 1:32-33, Matthew 25: 31-40, John 18:37, Matthew 28:18), Pius declares it must surely be right then “with every token of veneration salute her Author and Founder in her annual liturgy as King and Lord, and as King of Kings.”
And what is the nature of Christ’s kingship? Certainly, this kingship is a spiritual one and concerned with spiritual things. But that does not mean Christ must be excluded from our social and political life either. Pius goes on to state,
“It would be a grave error, on the other hand, to say that Christ has no authority whatever in civil affairs, since, by virtue of the absolute empire over all creatures committed to him by the Father, all things are in his power. Nevertheless, during his life on earth he refrained from the exercise of such authority, and although he himself disdained to possess or to care for earthly goods, he did not, nor does he today, interfere with those who possess them. Non eripit mortalia qui regna dat caelestia (emphasis added).” (Quas Primas, para. 17).
We know that Christ does not exercise his rightful direct temporal power over civil governments; rather, he charges our elected politicians and leaders with the duty to honor, defend, and implement His kingdom here on earth. Yes, it is OUR job to influence our society and culture in order to bring it in line with requirements of the natural and divine laws. The Kingship of Christ, in other words, is not an excuse to accommodate our lives to the secular, godless world we find ourselves living in while waiting for Christ to fix all of this at the end of time. No—WE are supposed to be working for the Kingdom in the here and now—for the good of souls!
How would the celebration of a liturgical feast help hasten the return of civil society to Christ’s dominion?
“Nations will be reminded by the annual celebration of this feast that not only private individuals but also rulers and princes are bound to give public honor and obedience to Christ. It will call to their minds the thought of the last judgment, wherein Christ, who has been cast out of public life, despised, neglected and ignored, will most severely avenge these insults; for his kingly dignity demands that the State should take account of the commandments of God and of Christian principles, both in making laws and in administering justice, and also in providing for the young a sound moral education (emphasis added.)” (Quas Primas, para. 32).
Is there any doubt what the purpose of the Feast of Christ the King was supposed to accomplish? Pius XI, consistent with the Church’s Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture, sought to remind the faithful that Christ’s kingship extends not only over the spiritual realm but the earthly one as well, including our political and social lives. This means that Christ demands we follow His commandments in our personal lives as well as upholding the divine and natural laws in civil affairs, no matter how unpopular or counter-cultural those positions may be. We must uphold the sanctity of marriage, defend innocent life, protect children from evil influences, and develop civil laws that support morality and the natural law.
And now you can see why the Modernist infiltrators of the Church needed to rid themselves of this Feast of Christ the King.
As author Michael Davies so aptly stated,
“It was the insistence of the Pope upon the social reign of Christ the King—on the fact that states, as well as individuals, must submit themselves to His rule—which caused such embarrassment to the bishops of the world (and nowhere more so than in the United States), which has resulted, as Hamish Fraser expressed it, in Quas Primas‘ becoming the greatest non-event in the history of the Church.” (Michael Davies, The Reign of Christ the King, Tan Books (1992), e-book 253).
That’s right, the Feast of Christ the King was embarrassing to the hierarchy who desperately sought the approval of secular civil leadership and protestants; certainly, it was inconsistent with the idea of a new world order grounded in principles of the Enlightenment, public vice, and liberalism…
Read the rest: https://catholicesquire.org/modernists-hate-the-feast-of-christ-the-king/
(After Nov 16th, $120)
Blog maintenance underway. Hosting on new server, killing bots, additional protection from all threats foreign and domestic. Site may be down intermittently next 48 hours. Fear not!
Priests, religious, Tradland, listen up. You are bound to reject unjust acts, even should they come from LEGITIMATE authority. How much more does this apply to unjust acts from illegitimate authority. You need to do this, either way. Aquinas explains:
“Obedience is not a theological virtue, for its direct object is not God, but the precept of any superior, whether expressed or inferred, namely, a simple word of the superior, indicating his will, and which the obedient subject obeys promptly, according to Titus 3:1, “Admonish them to be subject to princes, and to obey at a word,” etc. It is, however, a moral virtue, since it is a part of justice, and it observes the mean between excess and deficiency. Excess thereof is measured in respect, not of quantity, but of other circumstances, in so far as a man obeys either whom he ought not, or in matters wherein he ought not to obey, as we have stated above regarding religion (II-II:92:2).”
Objection 1. It seems that subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things. For the Apostle says (Colossians 3:20): “Children, obey your parents in all things,” and farther on (Colossians 3:22): “Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh.” Therefore in like manner other subjects are bound to obey their superiors in all things.
Objection 2. Further, superiors stand between God and their subjects, according to Deuteronomy 5:5, “I was the mediator and stood between the Lord and you at that time, to show you His words.” Now there is no going from extreme to extreme, except through that which stands between. Therefore the commands of a superior must be esteemed the commands of God, wherefore the Apostle says (Galatians 4:14): “You . . . received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus” and (1 Thessalonians 2:13): “When you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it, not as the word of men, but, as it is indeed, the word of God.” Therefore as man is bound to obey God in all things, so is he bound to obey his superiors.
Objection 3. Further, just as religious in making their profession take vows of chastity and poverty, so do they also vow obedience. Now a religious is bound to observe chastity and poverty in all things. Therefore he is also bound to obey in all things.
On the contrary, It is written (Acts 5:29): “We ought to obey God rather than men.” Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.
I answer that, As stated above (Articles 1 and 4), he who obeys is moved at the bidding of the person who commands him, by a certain necessity of justice, even as a natural thing is moved through the power of its mover by a natural necessity. That a natural thing be not moved by its mover, may happen in two ways. First, on account of a hindrance arising from the stronger power of some other mover; thus wood is not burnt by fire if a stronger force of water intervene. Secondly, through lack of order in the movable with regard to its mover, since, though it is subject to the latter’s action in one respect, yet it is not subject thereto in every respect. Thus, a humor is sometimes subject to the action of heat, as regards being heated, but not as regards being dried up or consumed. On like manner there are two reasons, for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things. First on account of the command of a higher power. For as a gloss says on Romans 13:2, “They that resist [Vulgate: ‘He that resisteth’] the power, resist the ordinance of God” (cf. St. Augustine, De Verb. Dom. viii). “If a commissioner issue an order, are you to comply, if it is contrary to the bidding of the proconsul? Again if the proconsul command one thing, and the emperor another, will you hesitate, to disregard the former and serve the latter? Therefore if the emperor commands one thing and God another, you must disregard the former and obey God.” Secondly, a subject is not bound to obey his superior if the latter command him to do something wherein he is not subject to him. For Seneca says (De Beneficiis iii): “It is wrong to suppose that slavery falls upon the whole man: for the better part of him is excepted.” His body is subjected and assigned to his master but his soul is his own. Consequently in matters touching the internal movement of the will man is not bound to obey his fellow-man, but God alone.
Nevertheless man is bound to obey his fellow-man in things that have to be done externally by means of the body: and yet, since by nature all men are equal, he is not bound to obey another man in matters touching the nature of the body, for instance in those relating to the support of his body or the begetting of his children. Wherefore servants are not bound to obey their masters, nor children their parents, in the question of contracting marriage or of remaining in the state of virginity or the like. But in matters concerning the disposal of actions and human affairs, a subject is bound to obey his superior within the sphere of his authority; for instance a soldier must obey his general in matters relating to war, a servant his master in matters touching the execution of the duties of his service, a son his father in matters relating to the conduct of his life and the care of the household; and so forth.
Reply to Objection 1. When the Apostle says “in all things,” he refers to matters within the sphere of a father’s or master’s authority.
Reply to Objection 2. Man is subject to God simply as regards all things, both internal and external, wherefore he is bound to obey Him in all things. On the other hand, inferiors are not subject to their superiors in all things, but only in certain things and in a particular way, in respect of which the superior stands between God and his subjects, whereas in respect of other matters the subject is immediately under God, by Whom he is taught either by the natural or by the written law.
Reply to Objection 3. Religious profess obedience as to the regular mode of life, in respect of which they are subject to their superiors: wherefore they are bound to obey in those matters only which may belong to the regular mode of life, and this obedience suffices for salvation. If they be willing to obey even in other matters, this will belong to the superabundance of perfection; provided, however, such things be not contrary to God or to the rule they profess, for obedience in this case would be unlawful.
Accordingly we may distinguish a threefold obedience; one, sufficient for salvation, and consisting in obeying when one is bound to obey: secondly, perfect obedience, which obeys in all things lawful: thirdly, indiscreet obedience, which obeys even in matters unlawful.
ST II-II Q104 https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm
Note well, the principles laid out below apply when dealing with LEGITIMATE authority. Even under legitimate authority, we have an obligation to reject unjust acts. Now, if the authority would happen to be illegitimate, say, the henchmen of an antipope, issuing unjust acts… then we get into an area where disobedience clearly becomes a duty under pain of sin. More on that later.
The following is reprinted here with permission.
As many of you know, I have blogged and podcasted on the following chart many times. If you remember, I usually put the Magisterium as part of “Ecclesial Law” at level 2. However, this was wrong. I have recently been corrected and told that both Scripture and the Magisterium are considered to both constitute Divine Law at level 1 as now seen here:
What is included in the Magisterium?
Not only does “the Magisterium” include ex-cathedra statements of Popes and anathema statements in dogmatic councils, but it turns out that it also includes any topic upon which the Church Fathers (in the early Church) spoke unanimously on any single topic of Scripture, doctrinal or moral:
Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, –wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.—Trent, 4th Session, 2nd decree
But, since the rules which the holy Synod of Trent salutarily decreed concerning the interpretation of Divine Scripture in order to restrain impetuous minds, are wrongly explained by certain men, We, renewing the same decree, declare this to be its intention: that, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the instruction of Christian Doctrine, that must be considered as the true sense of Sacred Scripture which Holy Mother Church has held and holds, whose office it is to judge concerning the true understanding and interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures; and, for that reason, no one is permitted to interpret Sacred Scripture itself contrary to this sense, or even contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers.—Vat I, Chapter II
Why is Ecclesial Law and Particular Law listed as “Mutable Rules” in the above chart?
Mutable means changeable. The proof that ecclesial law and particular law does not refer to the highest level of Divine Revelation (Eternal Law) is precisely because the new code of Canon Law released under Pope John Paul II in 1983 says at the very beginning of the code that ecclesial law and particular law come into effect at three months and one month, respectively:
– Can. 8 §1. Universal ecclesiastical laws are promulgated by publication in the official commentary, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, unless another manner of promulgation has been prescribed in particular cases. They take force only after three months have elapsed from the date of that issue of the Acta unless they bind immediately from the very nature of the matter, or the law itself has specifically and expressly established a shorter or longer suspensive period (vacatio). §2. Particular laws are promulgated in the manner determined by the legislator and begin to oblige a month after the day of promulgation unless the law itself establishes another time period.—1983 Code of Canon Law
What does three months or one month in canon law have to do with anything?
If you have three months to get on board with an ecclesial law (a mutable law of Rome) and one month to get on board with a particular law (a mutable law of your diocese) then this proves right there that these do not refer to the commandments. Why not? Because you do not have three months or one month to get on board with the 10 commandments! In other words, even the new code of canon law does not pretend to trump the 10 Commandments of God as found in the Scriptures and interpreted infallibly in the Magisterium. Those are immediate. You do not have “three months” to get on board to keeping the 10 commandments. You must keep them as soon as you learn about them (or rather, they are written on the human heart, cf. Jer 31 and Rom 1.) In fact, Divine Revelation goes way beyond what is even written on the human heart. The Magisterium includes many more things than just ex-cathedra statements of Popes. It includes everything the early Church Fathers agree on in their interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures. These things are infallible. Thus, particular law and ecclesial law can never trump the Scriptures or the Magisterium.
So are you saying there’s a rub between Divine Law and Particular Law?
Hopefully not. Hopefully, there is no rub between Divine Law and Particular Law. But if there is, it’s not my fault. It’s the fault of bishops who don’t believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. So, if there is a contradiction between what the Bible and your bishop tells you, you owe obedience first to the Sacred Scriptures and Magisterium on matters of articulated faith and morals of the Catholic Church. At a very, very distant third you owe obedience to particular law.
What would an example of such a contradiction be?
First, an example of a valid decision of a bishop at a local level: “The Lenting fasting is relaxed on St. Patrick’s day in this diocese.” This fits the description of a mutable rule (particular law) that a bishop has legitimate authority to decide in his own diocese. I believe many bishops on the East Coast made different decisions on St. Patrick’s in the 19th century depending on how many Irish were in the diocese. That’s totally fine. However, a bishop saying “You can’t baptize babies because of a coronavirus” is in direct violation of the Bible. Thus, it must be disobeyed. Why? Because Christ admonishes his ministers thus: All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.—Mt 28:18b-20a
But who is to decide what is an unjust order?
This is why I have included the chart at the beginning of this blog post. We obey the Bible and the Magisterium on matters of faith, doctrine, morals and liturgy (Divine Law which is eternal.) We obey Rome on smaller rules of ecclesial law (which we have a few months to get on board with) and we obey our local ordinary (bishop) on the local issues of particular law as seen in the above definition in the new Code of Canon Law from 1983.
In blue collar terms, we’re obedient to the Bible and Fathers on matters of salvation and obedient to our bishop on smaller rules that makes a diocese chug along. But once we cross wires on the three levels (Divine Law, Ecclesial Law, Particular Law) then we are moving rapidly into the realm of false obedience. Let me add here: The fact that the Magisterium is under “Divine Law” (and not “Ecclesial Law” where I had had it for years in previous blog posts and podcasts) proves my point even more: No living bishop can trump the Church Fathers on matters of doctrine. In fact, St. Robert Bellarmine even applied this to the Papacy: “Just as it is lawful to resist the pontiff who attacks the body, similarly is it lawful to resist the pope who attacks the soul or disturbs the secular order, and, even more so, the pope who tries to destroy the Church.”—St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice. (Notice this refers to what the faithful are to do with a a validly–elected bad Pope, not to mention what St. Bellarmine would suggest what the faithful are to do with a heretical and invalidly–elected antipope.)
Why do people cross wires on Divine Law and Ecclesial Law in calling for obedience?
Because it’s easier! Some lazy Catholics like to claim hard-core obedience to bishops when the dispense of Mass because of a flu. Little do they know that no bishop on earth can dispense with the commandments of God. (Hence, this would be a crossing of wires of level 1 Divine Law with level 3 particular law.) Indeed, once a cleric or layman crosses wires on these three levels (see again the chart at the beginning of this blog) he is moving from true obedience to false obedience, and his soul is in danger.
What is the point of this blog post?
The only point of this blog post is to say that no bishop or pope can change the Catholic faith. Unfortunately, such blogs have to be long-winded because of how many junior canon-lawyers there are out there denying the faith under pretext of obedience to heretical leaders in the hierarchy. Others honestly believe that Divine Revelation can be changed a little bit as time goes on. Such people need to consider Christ’s own words: Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.—Mt 5:19
We must obey God rather than man.—Acts 5:29
“We must obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29) is where Catholics are at, especially at the worst Church crisis since Arianism. Yes, false obedience to a true bishop is easier than true obedience to the Bible in a modernist Church crisis like this. Why? Simply because it hurts our brains to think through these things! It is easier to refrain from Sunday Mass “just because my bishop told me I don’t have to go.” While a bishop can occasionally dispense from Mass (eg in a real pandemic) the fact is that no authority on earth can ever fully dispense with the third commandment entirely.
Here is where we have to think things through, even if it takes more brain-power. Complex brain-power might be necessary for salvation in complex times. St. Thomas More disobeyed his bishops (who presumably went to hell) all the while St. Thomas More went to heaven and even got canonized for disobeying the bishops (among other heroic acts of putting God before man.) Indeed, the saintly layman understood that during complex times of Church history, a man must use his wits (not just a good heart) to be saved. As many of you remember, St. Thomas More said to his daughter Meg in the movie A Man for All Seasons:
Listen, Meg, God made the angels to show Him splendor, as He made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But Man He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of his mind. If He suffers us to come to such a case that there is no escaping, then we may stand to our tackle as best we can, and, yes, Meg, then we can clamor like champions, if we have the spittle for it. But it’s God’s part, not our own, to bring ourselves to such a pass.
God can’t change. The three Persons of the Triune Godhead can’t change. God is perfect, has always been perfect, and you can’t improve upon perfect.
A five year old can grasp this.
So if someone is asking you to embrace a spirit of change, he is asking you to embrace a demon, and by doing so, adds to the MOUNTAIN of evidence that he himself does not enjoy the supernatural protection of the Petrine Promises.
Whatever this spirit is, you definitely don’t want it entering into you.
He’s not the pope. But he is likely the False Profit forerunner of the Antichrist. Explains a lot.
“Remember your prelates who have spoken the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation, Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and the same for ever. Be not led away with various and strange doctrines…” (Hebrews 13:7-9)
“For I am the Lord, and I change not…” (Malachi 3:6)
By Ivana Saric
“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in updated guidelines Tuesday that some immunocompromised people who have received either Pfizer or Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines will be able to get a fourth shot.
“People over 18 who are “moderately to severely immunocompromised” and have received three doses of an mRNA vaccine may get a fourth shot (of either the Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson vaccines) at least six months after getting their third Pfizer or Moderna dose, per the CDC.”
Folks, this will never, ever end. WE need to end it. Demand that it end. -Mark
http://www.lmschairman.org/2021/10/new-book-from-benedicts-peace-to.html
Not to be outdone, here is a moar better true solution:
