Americanism

I began a huge study on the heresy of Americanism in 2007, when I started this blog. My first book to read of many was a Notre Dame publication, by Thomas J. McAvoy, The Americanist Heresy in Roman Catholicism 1895-1900.

I also read some excellent "conservative", and, therefore, critical biographies of Gibbons, Keane, Ireland and other bishops who began the rot in the Church regarding compromising Catholic identity, education, liturgy, culture and even, the Faith.

Part of my reparation this weekend hearkens back to the evil these men let into the Church, including false ecumenism. Those who blame Vatican II for the ills of the American Church do not know the history of compromise, called "progressivism" which undermined the authority of Rome and caused the political playing footsy with anti-Catholic groups, even those associated with the Masons, which have led this country to the recent decision.

The rotten roots of the Americanist heresy brought us to this state of paganism enshrined by law.

I highly suggest reader consider this heresy, as I did in 2007, as worthy of study. Basically, these bishops pushed Catholics into being Americans first, and Catholics second.

I am on a mini-retreat this weekend because of the evil which these men wrought a long time ago.

More on Sunday...bye for now.

Protestant Errors on Purgatory and the Last Judgment-an aside

The Protestant Error http://www.catholictreasury.info/books/everlasting_life/ev21.php

The doctrine of purgatory was denied by the Albigenses, the Hussites, and the Protestants. [339] Luther began, in 1517, by denying the value of indulgences, saying that they had no value before God for the remission of the punishment due to our sins. [340] Then he went on 
to maintain that purgatory cannot be proved by Holy Scripture; that the souls in purgatory are not sure of their salvation; that we cannot prove the impossibility of merit in purgatory; that the souls in purgatory may sin by attempting to escape the sufferings they are undergoing.

Later on, Luther reached the doctrinal root of all his negations, namely, justification by faith alone. Then he affirmed the uselessness of good works and hence the uselessness of purgatory. Supported by popular favor, he became more and more audacious. In 1524 he published his book on the abrogation of Mass. In this work he says that the denial of purgatory is not an error.

Finally, in 1530, he denied absolutely any necessity of satisfaction for our sins. To uphold this, he said, would be an injury to Christ, who has satisfied superabundantly for all sin. For the same reason he denied that the Mass is a true sacrifice, particularly a propitiatory sacrifice. We have here the radical denial of a life of reparation, as if the sufferings of the saints for the expiation of sin would be an injury to the Redeemer.

Now the first and universal cause does not exclude second causes, but grants them the dignity of causality, somewhat like a sculptor who should make statues which live. Thus the satisfactory merits of Christ do not exclude our own, but rather create them. Christ causes us to work with Him and in Him. St. Paul said: "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so you shall fulfill the law of Christ." [341] Again: "I now rejoice in my sufferings for you and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for His body, which is the Church." Certainly nothing was lacking to the sufferings of Christ in themselves, but they lacked fulfillment in our own flesh.

Calvin [342] and Zwingli [343] followed Luther in denying indulgences, in denying the sacrifice of the Mass, and purgatory.

Protestants of the present day have separated from their masters on this subject. Many of them admit an intermediate state between hell and heaven. They will not call it purgatory, but do say that the souls there can still merit and satisfy. Some hold that the sufferings of hell are not eternal. Now this temporary hell does not at all resemble the purgatory taught by the Catholic Church, according to which all souls in purgatory are in the state of grace and can no longer sin.

This is but one more example of the variations and contradictions to be found among Protestant Churches.

The chief Catholic theologians who wrote against this Protestant error are Cajetan, Sylvester Ferrariensis, St. John Fisher, John Eck, and St. Robert Bellarmine. St. John Fisher speaks thus to the Lutherans: "In suppressing the sacrifice of the Mass you have excluded the sun which illumines and warms each day of our life, and makes its influence felt even in purgatory."

The Church condemned this Protestant error. The Council of Trent declares: "If anyone says that the man who has repented and received the grace of justification is forgiven and released from obligation to eternal punishment, in such fashion that he no longer has any obligation to temporal punishment, whether in this world or in purgatory, before he can be given entrance into heaven: let him be anathema." [344] 

In the fourteenth chapter, which corresponds to this cannon, the Council affirms the necessity of satisfaction for sins committed after baptism: satisfaction in the form of fasting, of almsgiving, of prayer, and of other exercises of the spiritual life. These satisfactions are not meant for the eternal punishment, which was remitted by the sacrament of penance or by the desire of the sacrament, but for the remission of temporal punishment, which is not always remitted entirely, as it is in baptism. [345] The Council quotes these words of Scripture: "Be mindful therefore from whence thou art fallen, and do penance and do the first works." [346] "For the sorrow that is according to God worketh penance." [347] "Do penance." [348] "Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of penance." [349] And if this reparation, this satisfaction, has not been paid in this world, the soul will have to undergo the satisfactorial punishment of purgatory.

And I add this on choosing to take one's purgatory on earth, rather than after the particular judgment.

Blessed are those who take their purgatory on earth, by generous acceptance of daily trials. The multiple sacrifices of daily life purify and perfect their love, and by this love they will be judged.

Love itself has many degrees. St. Peter seemed to make an act of perfect love when he protested to Jesus his readiness to die. But mingled with his act was presumption. To purify him from this presumption, Providence permitted the threefold denial, whence he came forth more humble, less trustful in himself, more trustful in God, until pure love led him to martyrdom and answered his prayer to be crucified head downward.

How do we attain pure love? Saudreau answers: "Love is not an effect of headwork, not a pushing forward of will to give to it greater force. It is the result of accepting generously all sacrifices, in accepting with a loving heart all trials." [130] 
The Lord augments the infused virtue of charity, the accepting soul prepares itself for the particular judgment, where it will find in Jesus rather a friend than a judge.

While the particular judgment, then, settles for each soul its place in eternity, the general judgment still remains necessary. Man is not a mere individual person, but also a member of human society, on which he has had an influence, good or bad, of longer or shorter duration. 

And although most Protestants believe in the Last Judgment, some have a wrong idea about it because some of their heroes are actually great evil men.

Here is G-L again:

The Fathers, both Latin and Greek, not only teach this dogma explicitly, but most vividly describe the last judgment. Let it suffice to cite St. Augustine: "No one denies, or puts in doubt, that Jesus Christ, as the Scriptures have announced, will pronounce the last judgment." [157] 

...

Reasons for the Last Judgment

St. Thomas [167] explains these reasons. First, dead men live in the memory of men on earth and are often judged contrary to truth. Spirits, strong and false, like Spinoza, Kant, and Hegel, are judged as if they were great philosophers. False prophets and heresiarchs, such as Luther and Calvin, are considered by many to be masters of religious thought, whereas great saints and doctors are profoundly ignored.

Judgment Day will show how much value is to be assigned to certain histories of philosophies, to many studies on the origins of Christianity, written in a spirit absolutely rationalistic. It will show how their perpetual variations and contradictions come from their fundamental error, the negation of the supernatural. It will manifest all lying propaganda. It will unmask hypocrites who enslaved religion instead of serving religion. Universal history will no longer be seen as a mere horizontal line of time, passing from the past to the future, but as a vertical line which attaches each event to the unique moment of an immovable eternity. The secrets of the hearts will be revealed. [168] The Pharisees, Caiphas, Pilate, will be judged definitively. Truth will conquer all these lies. It is clear that, if God exists, truth must be the absolutely last word.

Further, the dead have had imitators, in good or in evil. Evil is easier to imitate. Truth and justice must be vindicated. "Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after justice, for they shall have their fill."

Lastly, the effects of men's actions last long after their death. Arius and other heresiarchs troubled souls for some centuries, whereas, on the contrary, the teaching of the apostles will exercise its influence to the end of the world. Only a final and infallible judgment of God is here sufficient, and this cannot take place until the end of time.

And against Calvin and the other prosperity Gospel preachers...

Blessed those who, like Bernadette of Lourdes, hear this word: "I promise you happiness, not in this life, but in the next." This was a special revelation. She was predestined, but she would have great crosses on earth. All genuine Christian lives are marked with the cross. Crosses well borne are a sign of predestination, says St. Thomas. A rain of afflictions is better than a rain of diamonds. This truth we shall see clearly after death. [173] Providence will then appear absolutely irreproachable in all its way

Infidelity

Playmobile St. Nicholas given to a certain sem 

Two types of heresies have plagued the Church from the beginning. God gives men and women free will to choose good or evil, to be faithful or unfaithful. One thing the great heresies have caused, in spite of chaos and the loss of souls, is the clarification of all the major doctrines of the Church. God brings good out of evil.

For a Catholic to accept heretical ideas constitutes a serious sin against the virtue of faith, given in baptism. The office of teaching belongs to Holy Mother Church, ecclesia docens. To purposefully deviate from Her teachings indicates a rebellious, fractious spirit.

Canon 1325 indicates that a person must know he or she is a heretic. But, guilt depends on many things, and there are levels of culpability. These two types of heresy can be seen in and out of the Church today.

The first category is "material" heresy, under which most Protestants fall. This category assumes good will, good faith, but involves ignorance. If one, for example, has never heard or discovered that Christ is truly Present in the Eucharist, one is a material heretic. However, if one has heard this true teaching, and rejects it after being told this truth, one falls into "formal heresy".  Most likely, no Catholic can be a material heretic, as all Catholics have access to the true teaching of the Catholic Church and it is the adult responsibility of each Catholic to discover this teaching. One can have doubts, but these must be resolved as quickly as possible through study and prayer.

Formal heresy may be found in the Church today, most commonly in the forms of Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, universal salvation, and Modernism (the Modernist heresies). I have many posts on all of these heresies. A formal heretic publicly states his or her erroneous opinions and is culpable, incurring great sin and consequences. Public announcement is the key here. A person may have private views, and struggle to find the truth without being a formal heretic. Once a person has made their views known publicly, that person, lay or cleric, is a formal heretic.

The punishment is excommunication, which is automatic. Sadly, some Church leaders are in this position and allowed to spew heretical ideas, as we all have seen of late.

Ignorance must not be accepted in a Christian who has been shown the truth of the Catholic Church. However, faith is a gift, and one might have to acknowledge that a particular person has refused this gift, which is given in baptism.

Infidelity to the one, true, Church constitutes a serious position, endangering a person's soul. If one holds to an erroneous idea even after being told of the errors, one is responsible for this position.

Another consideration is that of "bad will", or the sin of  "malice". Malice reveals an unrepentant heart, mind, soul. The great, condemned heretics exhibited malice: Arius, Luther, Calvin and so on. Hatred for Holy Mother Church underscores most heretical positions.

Some high profile clerics teach heresy publicly. Why they are not corrected publicly, and why their automatic excommunication is not revealed to the public for clarification for the confused faithful remains a mystery. One can only come to the conclusion that these priests have the support of their bishops in errors, or that the bishops, or even cardinals, enjoy some sort of protection because of their office, which creates a scandal in the Church.

Playmobile Luther, not given to a certain sem

Slavery of the Will; Freedom of the Will Part Six

So, what does a theory on God's "conditioned Predestination" and the almost libertarian interpretation of the will have to do with the Synod in Rome? By the way, the Catholic Encyclopedia was written in great part by Molinists, (as well as modernists), so take care when reading the slanted commentaries in that source.

Molinism, outside of the Jesuits, seems to be more popular with certain Protestants, who want to ameliorate the hard teaching of Calvin regarding "double predestination". So, why bring this up in connection with the Semis in Rome?

Four points:

One, if one looks at works and so-called merits rather than grace, one does not need the authority of the Church to be so "disciplined" regarding those in sin. In other words, the exterior disposition of a person lessens in importance. This is a dangerous ideal of our age when we keep hearing from some clerics, that we cannot judge. But, we can judge actions and always have, otherwise there would be no legal systems in the West.

The undermining of Church discipline mirrors this subjective, almost libertarian view that the will is equal to grace.

Two, the Molinists almost deny grace entirely, thus aligning themselves with the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians. Like the Lutherans, Pelagius taught only an external grace, the grace of conversion from hearing the Gospels and not internal, efficacious or sufficient graces.  Pelagius finally admitted to an internal grace, but said it was connected only with the intellect , with is not gratuitous, a gift from God, by from the natural strivings or the person himself. This overlaps somewhat with Molina's idea of the free will being equal to grace in efficaciousness.

The Semis denied the first grace of conversion and the last grace of perseverance. In those at the Synod who hold gradualism as a good idea, which it is not, and which was attacked by the Pope Emeritus, one can see this denial of the first grace of conversion. The Molinist would emphasize free will as bringing one to that conversion moment, in equality with grace, thus denying Providence and Predestination.

The reason why this follows is simply a logical conclusion which now is seen in pastoral attempts to deny conversion as a necessity for Church reception of the sacraments. Cheap grace...indeed. That people cannot be excluded from the sacramental life of the Church because of a lifestyle of sin would be a pastoral interpretation of these points.

By the way, Garrigou-Lagrange reminds us that Pelagianism was condemned by 24 councils. It may have to be condemned in the modern context, along with Semi-Pelagianism, again. I hope the boldface parts convince readers of the flaws in pastoral care which would follow.

Three, that Molinism differs from both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism is clear, but the dangers of interpretation still remain. Let me use Garrigou-Lagrange from Grace, Chapter One, on these points. I highlight the dangers and the opposing ideas from Thomas Aquinas.

Molinism differs from Semi-Pelagianism in three respects: 1. In regard to prevenient grace; 2. in regard to the covenant entered into between God and Christ the Redeemer; 3. in regard to the circumstances of the life of the predestinate. Cf. Molina, Concordia.

1. Molina admits prevenient grace inclining to the initial movement to salvation, or consent to good, but he says: the distinction between the will consenting to this grace offered and the will rejecting it depends on man’s liberty alone. Cf. Molina, op. cit., pp. 230, 459.

The Thomists object that before this distinction, there is not yet any initial step toward salvation, because it is not found in those who resist first grace, as in Lessius,De gratia efficaci, chap. 18, no. 7.

2. Molina maintains that, if anyone does whatever he can by means of mere natural powers, God does not refuse grace; but he avoids Semi-Pelagianism by saying: God does not confer grace on account of this good natural disposition, but because of the covenant entered into between Himself and Christ the Redeemer. Cf. infra, q. 109, a. 6; q. 112, a. 3; Molina, op. cit., pp. 1543, 564; Index, “Faciens quod in se est.”

Molina says (pp. 51, 565): help being equal, it is possible for one of those called to be converted and another not converted. With less assistance from grace it is possible for the one assisted to make progress, while another, with greater help, does not improve, and hardly perseveres. They are not aids established as efficacious in themselves which distinguish between the predestinate and the nonpredestinate.

However, according to Molina, the predestinate receives greater help than the reprobate from the standpoint of the situation in which he is placed by the divine good pleasure, for indeed he is placed in circumstances in which God foresees by mediate knowledge that he will consent to grace.

Hence, from the viewpoint of circumstances, the gift of final perseverance depends solely on the divine good pleasure; thus, to a certain extent at least, the gratuity of predestination, denied by the Semi-Pelagians, is preserved; but, as the Thomists declare, this is seen to be gratuity of predestination only in regard to the circumstances which are more or less appropriate or suitable. 

Four, and this last point might be the most important one pushing the agendas in Rome.

There is a certain type of false supernaturalism, or immanentism, in Molinism, as noted by Garrigou-Lagrange.

That the Jesuits, who are Molinists, fall into the heresies of Teilhard de Chardin regarding immanentism, that there is a spiritual transformation which can take place outside of grace. Immanentism holds that one can be spiritual without religion, and that one can become holy without the Church and community.

The Pope actually wrote about this, and I want to quote part of his work here, from Evangelii gaudium, and no offense, but I think the Pope is looking at the wrong circles of influence regarding immanentism. He is, and partly rightly so, hitting the modern culture of subjectivism and relativism, but he seems not to go far enough in seeing or defining these tendencies in the Church disciplines regarding marriage and same-sex relationships. Those people in sin are self-enclosed, and the Synod did not address this as far as I could see. To extrapolate, certain Catholics would think that if they are spiritual inside, they do not need to convert to the radical Gospel and to the Teaching Magisterium of the Church. I think Molinism leads to this. Maybe this Jesuit Pope needs to apply his good ideas here to more pastoral concerns regarding the selfishness of those who rebel against Church teaching, which is the teaching of Christ.

To be self-enclosed is to taste the bitter poison of
immanence, and humanity will be worse for every
selfish choice we make. The Christian ideal will
always be a summons to overcome suspicion,
habitual mistrust, fear of losing our privacy, all
the defensive attitudes which today’s world
imposes on us. Many try to escape from others
and take refuge in the comfort of their privacy or
in a small circle of close friends, renouncing the
realism of the social aspect of the Gospel. For just
as some people want a purely spiritual Christ,
without flesh and without the cross, they also want
their interpersonal relationships provided by
sophisticated equipment, by screens and systems
which can be turned on and off on command . . .
Isolation, which is a version of immanentism, can
find expression in a false autonomy which has no
place for God. But in the realm of religion, it can
also take the form of a spiritual consumerism
tailored to one’s own unhealthy individualism.

I could write more on all of this, but six section is enough for a New Year's Day. Readers can tell I am not a Molinist, but a Thomist, and if one wants more pros and cons on Molinism, read Garrigou-Lagrange's book Grace, which is on line, and Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, which I have in a box in Silvis.

Most of the Molinists, and also St. Francis de Sales (+1622), teach a conditioned Predestination (ad gloriam tantum), that is, post and propter praevisa merita. According to them, God by His scientia media [middle knowledge], sees beforehand how men would freely react to various orders of grace. In the light of this knowledge He chooses, according to His free pleasure a fixed and definite order of grace. Now by His scientia visionis, He knows infallibly in advance what use the individual man will make of the grace bestowed on him. He elects for eternal bliss those who by virtue of their foreseen merits perseveringly cooperate with grace, while He determines for eternal punishment of hell, those who, on account of their foreseen demerits, deny their cooperation. The ordo intentionisand the ordo executionis coincide (grace-glory; grace-glory).

( Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1974; originally 1952, 242-245)

I want to personally thank a friend of mine who started this conversation with me but does not have the time to write what he and I discussed on these matters. He knows who he is...

Slavery of the Will; Freedom of the Will Part Five

Hero of the Synod

I want to get back to the Molinists, but here is a short excursion into the Jansenist aspect of the problem in Synod perspectives.

It could be that Jansenism still infects some thinking among some cardinals.

I only want to highlight one aspect which would impact pastoral concerns on irregular marriages. The pastoral view of some who are in error is that people simply do not have the grace to separate or be chaste. I find it amazing that there could still be cardinals and bishops influenced by Jansenism, but it seems so after October. It seems that at least two cardinals think it is too hard to convert, that it is impossible to give up a life of sin. Is not the cry of the false pastor that the Church must accept these sinners without expecting conversion? Does not the false pastor state that it is too hard to live according to the laws of God concerning marriage?

Here is Garrigou-Lagrange in Chapter Five of Grace.

At first, the Jansenists denied sufficient grace. Jansen himself (De gratia Christi, Bk. III, chap. I) admits no grace that is not efficacious. Quesnel (Denz., nos. 1359 ff.) and the Pistoians (Denz., no. 1521) adhere to this fully. Jansen’s first proposition (Denz., no. 1092) should be cited in particular: “Some commands of God are impossible to just men who are willing and striving, according to their present powers; moreover they lack grace which would make their observance possible to them.” In other words, many just men of good will, who make an effort, are deprived of sufficient grace which gives a real power or faculty for good works commanded by God; it would follow that the wicked are punished unjustly, since they could not be good. This proposition is declared heretical.

The second proposition is closely related to the first: “In the state of fallen nature, interior graces are never resisted,” that is to say, interior grace is always efficacious, which is heresy.

Likewise the third proposition of Jansen: “For meriting and demeriting in the state of fallen nature man does not require freedom from necessity; freedom from constraint is sufficient.” This proposition pertains rather to efficacious grace which, according to the Jansenists, removes freedom from necessity and leaves only spontaneity. Their fourth proposition is that the Semi-Pelagian heresy consisted in maintaining that the human will can resist or obey grace. The fifth proposition declares that Christ did not die for all men.

Does Arnauld’s explanation preserve sufficient grace? I reply: not really, but only as a matter of verbiage, for actions to be accomplished are not general but concrete and individual. Hence, if grace does not suffice for each particular precept or each individual temptation, it is simply insufficient. Therefore Arnauld does not escape from Jansen’s first proposition: “Some commands of God are impossible to just men who are willing and striving, according to their present powers; moreover, they lack grace which would make their observance possible to them” here and now.

Since this proposition is condemned as heretical, it is a dogma of faith that at least grace which is truly, yet merely, sufficient is not lacking to the just; truly, since it confers a real power of acting virtuously; merely, since it is resisted and fails of its final effect. This dogma of faith had already been equivalently expressed in several councils. The Council of Orange (Denz., no. 200) declared that “all the baptized, by the help and cooperation of Christ, can and ought to accomplish whatever pertains to salvation, if they are willing to work faithfully.” The Second Council of Valence maintained against Scotus Erigenus (Denz., no. 321): “Therefore the wicked themselves are not lost because they could not be good, but because they would not.” And the Council of Trent (Denz., no. 804) adopts the formula: “God does not command the impossible, but by commanding He teaches thee to do what thou canst and to ask what thou canst not, and He assists thee that thou mayest be able.” Therefore God confers sufficient help to enable us, not only in general, but in individual cases, to observe His commandments.

What, then, is the scriptural basis for this dogma of sufficient grace? Especially worthy of citation are the words of the Lord in Isa. 5:4: “What is there that I ought to do more to My vineyard, that I have not done to it?” For if God ought not to do anything more, then His help is truly sufficient. However, in this text it does not say: “What is there that I could do more,” and we shall see that God can do more, although not bound to do so.

to be continued...

Slavery of the Will; Freedom of the Will Part Two

Heroes of the Synod

A slave can decide to run away from his master. Free will is free. And, supernatural grace informs the will.

That so many liberals deny free will shows that they are Semis. They also believe that naturally one can merit grace or do good works.

These ideas have been solidly condemned by the Church. In the Council of Trent, we see clearly the doctrine that Original Sin did not abolish free will. That we are made in the image and likeness of God is partly the reason why we have free will. We are made in the image and likeness of God also in our intellect, our reason.

In Original Sin, as St. Bernard states, we kept the image but lost the likeness, which is sanctifying grace.

To become depraved, through continual choosing sin, a man can become more animal like, and give his will over to demonic influences, infecting the will and the intellect. If one follows certain evil paths long enough, one could become completely enthralled by Satan, but one maintains free will.

But, the will is dependent on grace. Without grace, the will cannot choose good.

The confusion in the Synod fathers who maintain that there must be some good in gay relationships, going back to the reason for these posts, to show the Semis influence in the Synod, is a denial, again, of both prevenient and sanctifying graces.

When one is living in sin, one can do no supernatural works, none. This is the long teaching of the Church and highly logical. Such an idea provides a slam-dunk for gradualism, in that one must decide, make that metanoia choice to cooperate with prevenient grace in order to become holy.

Remember my posts on conversion.

Moving back to the idea of supernatural acts, one can see that without a life of grace, there is no merit, no good.

One cannot merit heaven through acts of nature, natural virtues do not bring merit which is why the Fathers of the Church insisted that pagans cannot merit heaven through natural goodness.

All merit comes from God through grace.

The will decides to cooperate or not. I hope readers can see who confused some of those who have prepare the documents are concerning good works and salvation.

We are only saved in Christ and not through good works. Thus, those who are living in sin cannot merit heaven.

As St. Augustine states over and over, all good acts come from grace. And, grace does not give us merely the potential for doing good works, but God's grace "does" the good works.

Now, one of the problems with those who have muddied the Synod waters is that they do not understand or believe in efficacious grace. God gives us all sufficient grace for conversion.

He gives us efficacious grace in the sacraments, that which makes one holy. Through grace, the will is moved to more and more holiness, seeking perfection, seeking union with God.  But, first we are justified in Christ through sanctifying grace, which is not actual grace. Here is Garrigou-Lagrange with a reminder of sanctifying grace.

The Council of Trent leaves no room for doubt on this point. Denzinger in hisEnchiridion sums up the definitions and declarations of the Church very correctly in the formula: “Habitual or sanctifying grace is distinct from actual grace (nos. 1064 ff .); it is an infused, inherent quality of the soul, by which man is formally justified (nos. 483, 792, 795, 799 ff., 809, 821, 898, 1042, 1063 ff.), is regenerated (nos. 102, 186), abides in Christ (nos. 197, 698), puts on a new man (no. 792), and becomes an heir to eternal life (nos. 792,799 ff .). Chapter 12.

Garrigou-Lagrange gives us Scriptural references to efficacious grace. Here are some from the same chapter and book as the previous quotation in Part One..

In the New Testament, too, we find: “Without Me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). Therefore grace is not rendered efficacious through our consent; rather, on the contrary, without the grace of Christ we do not consent to the good conducive to salvation. “My sheep hear My voice . . . and I give them life everlasting and they shall not perish forever, and no man shall pluck them out of My hand. That which My Father hath given Me, is greater than all; and no one can snatch them out of the hand of My Father” (ibid., 10:27-29). That is to say, the souls of the just are in the hand of God, nor can the world with all its temptations nor the demon snatch the elect from the hand of God. Cf. St. Thomas’ commentary on this passage.  It reiterates the words of St. Paul: “Who then shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation or distress or famine . . . or the sword?. . . But in all these things we overcome, because of [or through] Him that hath loved us. . . . For I am sure that neither death nor life . . . nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:35-39). St. Thomas comments here that either St. Paul is speaking in the person of the predestinate or, if of himself personally, then it was thanks to a special revelation. Elsewhere St. Paul writes: “Not that we are sufficient to think anything of ourselves, as of ourselves: but our sufficiency is from God” (II Cor. 3:5). If we are not sufficient to think anything conducive to salvation of ourselves, with still greater reason is this true of giving our consent, which is primary in the role of salvation. Again, “For the word of God is living and effectual, and more piercing than any two-edged sword; and reaching unto the division of the soul and the spirit, of the joints also and the marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. . . . All things are naked and open to His eyes” (Heb. 4:12 f.). Cf. St. Thomas’ commentary: “The word of God is said to be effectual on account of the very great power and infinite effective force which it possesses. For by it are all things made: ‘By the word of the Lord the heavens were established’ (Ps. 32:6). . . . It effects in the innermost being of things . . . all our works . . . In the order of causes it is to be observed that a prior cause always acts more intimately than a subsequent cause.”

In Rom. 9:14-16 we read: “What shall we say then? Is there injustice in God? God forbid. For He saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy. So then it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy” (cf. Exod. 33:19)1 To the Philippians, St. Paul writes: “With fear and trembling work out your salvation. For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to His good will” (2:13); hence the soul should fear sin or separation from God, the author of salvation; cf. St. Thomas’ commentary.

But, we see also the problem with some of the Synod fathers not understanding that there is no middle ground between sin and life in God, between the refusal of grace and the acceptance of grace.

In addition, and I blame the seminaries for not teaching Thomas Aquinas or Augustine all these years since the 1950s, there is great confusion concerning graces which are sufficient for salvation and those which are efficacious in making one holy. There is also confusion as to the reliance of the will on efficacious grace. Grace first, will second....is a good measure of the true arguments.

It seems to me that some of the cardinals make no distinctions between living in and living out of grace. They seem to blur the idea of metanoia, of conversion, making it a long process, which the Church has never taught. The long process is that of perfection, of getting rid of sin and the tendencies to sin, not the original acceptance of faith and salvation. This is the part efficacious grace plays in one's life. One begins to see this through prayer, meditation and contemplation.

Why this confusion?

It seems to me that three heresies are informing these cardinals interpretations.

First, Pelagianism, second, Semi-Pelagianism, and third, Jansenism.

These heresies all hold deep contradictions regarding sin and free will, grace and predestination.

Now, because the Pope is Jesuit and because the Jesuits from day one of the ideas of Molina have accepted Molinism, I must address that in a post, but before I examine that, I shall share more bits from Garrigou-Lagrange's book Grace.

to be continued...

Slavery of the Will; Freedom of the Will

Starting tomorrow, a new series on Semi-Pelagianism, one of the most prevalent heresies in the Church today. Since the Synod, (and before), many Catholics have been confused about the nature of grace and free will.

As readers of this blog know, I have written much on grace, so just follow the tags. But, a small series on the heresy, which St. Augustine attacked directly, seems necessary.

See you tomorrow and have a lovely evening wherever you are, dear Readers. Here is what we ate on New Year's before pasta in 1974! Not much has changed.

Thoughts on Pelagianism

Thinking and talking about St. Thomas a Becket yesterday brought up some interesting ideas through a friend of mine. St. Thomas Becket was killed partly because he had rightly insisted on a priest getting an ecclesial trial for a serious crime, and in the meantime, the king's man, a knight, killed the priest, which is still grounds for excommunication.

The priest should have gone on trial by the Church and then by the secular state. Church first, State second.

Thomas Becket was standing up for the rights of the Church regarding clergy over the State interference. That the priest was wrong is clear in history, but there were procedures, which meant that the State honored the Church's judiciary. Canon law first, secular law second--or, better, that the secular law would reflect canon law.

As it should.

When any secular state takes power away from the Church, that state is not honoring the way God wants His Church to be protected. It is the duty of every state to protect the one, true, holy, and apostolic Church. Of course, the secularists deny this and so want "equality" and not merely tolerance.

There is a difference.

That the Church and the State would have found the priest guilty and that he would have been executed is sure.

These thoughts bring me to the problem of Pelagianism and universalism-the belief that all men are saved.

First of all, King Henry did something outside of Church law. By taking law into his own hands and not deferring to the Church, he showed that his view was like that of the Pelagians, that is, that one can achieve heaven, eternal life, sanctity on one's own efforts, with good works, and not with grace. The Church teaches that not only is grace necessary for salvation, that is, the need for the Redemptive action of Christ, which gives us grace through Him, but that grace helps us avoid future sins.

When both Original Sin is denied, and when grace is seen as unnecessary,  this leads to an idea that everyone may be saved without Christ.

In fact, the Church condemns the idea that we can do good works without grace.

Pelagians deny free will as well. This is popular in our day and age of over-psychoanalyzing sin to the point where no one is guilty of choosing evil, which we are.

Those who believe or have some type of fairy-tale idea that all men, women and children go to heaven forget all the above points.

Original Sin is a reality and it darkens our intellect, makes us more vulnerable to sin, and robs us of eternal life.

This is why Christ came, to free us from Original Sin, and the great icon of this is the Harrowing of Hell-to which we refer in the Creed.

Back to Becket...

The saint realized that one cannot contravene Church teaching for the sake of a good end, or in the case of excommunicating those bishops who did not follow proper order in the coronation of Henry's son, not following Church procedure but giving in to the king.

Only the Archbishop of Canterbury could give the right of coronation, which was and still is a religious duty and rite, not merely secular, at least in Catholic countries. Roger de Pont L'Évêque, the archbishop of York, Gilbert Foliot, the bishop of London, and Josceline de Bohon were excommunicated for going over the Archbishop's authority to give the oath of coronation.

Again, we see an interpretation of Church law and practice being flaunted by those who wanted to undermine the power of Becket and therefore place the Church under State control. What King Henry II could not do, Henry VIII succeeded in doing and bringing disgrace, terror and murder into the realm.

If there is no grace needed for good works, one can be saved outside the Church. Not so...

If there is no Original Sin, all people are saved. Not so.

There is a place for those who are not saved in and through Christ and His Church and that is hell. People want a generalized type of mercy without justice. Becket was standing up for real justice, which could include mercy, regarding the criminal priest. 

Without justice, there can be no mercy, and people continue to sin, expecting no consequences. Pelagians today, as in centuries past, undermine the authority of the Church, not only with regard to the sacred teachings from Scripture, which the Church preserves, but regarding temporal punishment due to sin, not only a Scriptural truth, but one clearly defined in the teachings of the Church.

The universalists want everyone to be saved, thus falling into the Pelagianist denial of free will and grace. One cannot gain heaven without grace and freely choosing to follow Christ. That God brings some people into heaven through the merits of the Catholic Church is a truism, explained here under the label of merit.

But, as Pelagius denied the need for Christ's Redemptive work on the Cross, so to do those modern universalists. If all men, women and children go to heaven, why bother to evangelize anyone, which is a command of Christ, God Himself?

Pelagians want salvation without the Church, without the sacraments, without grace. They want the so-called good works done by a person to bring one to heaven.

Just as the knight thought he was doing a good by killing a criminal priest, so the Pelagians confuse means and end. 

to be continued....

No to Mary's Meals-Here's Why

I wrote earlier how the Catholic media in Britain ignores important issues. These papers and mags have been pushing the fact that Mary's Meals' founder has received an award.

A few years ago, when I found out the Mary's Meals took money and was in league with the Rotarians, I tried to tell my friends not to support them unless they were willing to challenge this connection.

The Rotarians have their roots in Freemasonry and are still connected with the Masons, by allowing Masons to come to Rotarian events to bring in new members. Many Masons have been or are still connected to Freemasonry. To deny this is to deny reality.

I am not a supporter of Mary's Meals, and until this Rotarian connection is broken, I suggest you do not support them either.

By accepting the Rotarian money, Mary's Meals supports Rotarian efforts. When you read the list of things this group supports, you may well wonder how MMs can be in bed with such a group.

Catholics are not allowed to join any secret societies.

AND, the Rotarians as a group support embryonic stem cell research and Planned Parenthood, in the States, in Australia, and other such groups in Great Britain,  whose works are condemned by the Church. So, for that fact alone, Mary's Meals should have nothing to do with Rotarian money.

Here is the American Life League on the evil support of the Rotarians for anti-life issues.
http://www.all.org/charities?page=5

Rotary International

Rotary International

1 Rotary Center, 1560 Sherman Avenue

Evanston, 60201-3698

Phone: 847-866-3000

www.rotary.org

Founded in February 1905, Rotary International (RI) is a worldwide organization of business and professional leaders that describes itself as “A Global Network of Community Volunteers.”  It consists of more than 32,000 local Rotary clubs in more than 200 countries.  RI claims to have nearly 1.2 million members. 

Rotary International commands an annual budget that is approaching $300 million.  RI work is supported by the Rotary Foundation, which is funded by contributions from Rotarians and other supporters. For more than a century, RI and its network of clubs have engaged in service projects designed to make the planet a better place on which to live.  Rotary has tackled problems such as poverty, hunger, illiteracy and disease.

But, like many other organizations that were founded for ostensibly altruistic reasons, and may even continue to do some good work, the problem with Rotary International is what it has been turned into by certain pro-abortion and population control zealots.  Specifically, the Rotarian Action Group for Population Growth and Sustainable Development works to address the “population crisis” around the world.

Rotary International:

• funds UNICEF (http://www.all.org/article/index/id/MjQyNg/ and https://www.rotary.org/en/trustee-decisions)
• allows its chapters to fund Planned Parenthood
• works closely with the UNFPA, which backs abortion and works hand-in-hand with the Chinese family planning officials who rely on forced abortions to enforce the nation’s one-child policy  (http://rifpd.org/1/3/About_Rotarian_Action_Group_for_Population_&_Development/)
• works alongside the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in developing countries (https://www.rotary.org/en/pakistan-polio-vaccinators-earn-community-trust-spite-danger)

If you want more information on the Masonic links to the Rotarians, it is hard to find online sources as too many are written by Rotarians.  But, you can listen to Fr. Chad Ripperger on the fact that most of the secret societies are Masonic, including Buffalos, Druids, Foresters, The Orange and Black Lodges, Elks, Moose, Eagles, the Ku Lux Klan, the Grange, the Woodmen of America, and many others and that not only are these at root anti-Catholic, but based on natural religion and open to occultic influences. In papers that I have, Fr. Ripperger does not specifically mention the Rotarians, but the connections are there and the anti-life agenda is obvious.

You can write to him on his website if you want more information on secret societies. See http://sentrad.org/

Why blogs are better than magazines and newspapers at this time is that we bloggers are independent, and free to share the truth.

Losing Out to Gnosticism and Sin

Catholic Readers,

We have been given the greatest gift in the world. We have been given the magnificent teachings of Christ, and the apostolic succession in an unbroken form from the time the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity walked on this earth.

No one, no group, can change the Magisterial Teaching and Tradition, as these are protected by the Holy Spirit, as is Mother Church. The Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Spirit has, continues, and will protect the one, true, holy and apostolic Church until Christ comes in His Second Coming.

This Second Coming will bring the Final Judgment and the End of the World. These are teachings, easily found in the CCC and elsewhere.

In these times, many Catholics have been lax about prayer and the interior life. They have not read the CCC nor have they followed excellent commentators, of which there are hundreds on line alone.

They have not spent time in reading the Scriptures or spending quiet time before God in Adoration.

There is no excuse for deception. If one is inclined to follow false teachers, one must pull back and look at one's own soul.

Deceit is the ploy of the Father of Lies. But, we all have free will. We can either follow Christ in His Church, or become Gnostics.

Gnosticism appeals to some who have the sin of pride and presumption as predominant faults. Gnostics almost destroyed the Church in some areas in ancient times.

But, the Church was not destroyed everywhere.

One must ask for humility. Too many trad Catholics are becoming Gnostics.

I am warning my readers and their friends not to separate themselves from Rome. In doing so, you are endangering your immortal soul.

STM

Good, Better, Best

The seculars in the West simply do not understand religion. Because secular thinking people have omitted God from their lives, they cannot understand a religious perspective.

Political correctness is a symptom of secular, liberal thinking. But, it is only a symptom. PC thinking grows out of a mindset which does not recognize authority, which cannot be obedient to any higher Good.

So many times, I hear people say, "Oh, he is a good man, but...." The but becomes a list, of either large or small of sins, many mortal, such as ambition, adultery, fornication, greed.

The use of terms such as "good, better, best" meant something in a society where the people held objective norms of judgment based on Christian principles.

This Christian basis for judgment has been gone in America and in Europe for a long time, perhaps my entire life.

Language reveals beliefs. As I wrote the other day, ideas have consequences. So does language. Hitler knew this when he used terms to hide hideous hatred and subhuman systems of genocide.

Propaganda, first used by the Machiavellian Queen Elizabeth I, misuses language in order to brainwash, purposefully  to change the minds and hearts of the people. Propaganda may be used in ordinary conversation, as well as by organizations and nation states.

Goodness rests in God alone. Only God is good. We become more like we are intended to be, sons and daughters of God, adopted by baptism, heirs to heaven, only when we cooperate with grace.

We, as practicing Catholics, need to stop using language in vague and distracting ways.

Who is good? Who is better? Who is best? What is good, better, best?

As you all know from my long perfection series, now close to or over 1,000 posts over the years, we are all called to be saints.

Being a saint means appropriating grace, which is hard work. To be a saint is to be the best we can be, not for the sake of earthly comfort, but in order to give glory to God and to spread the Good News of the Gospel.

I had a shock, (well, not really, as I suspected something), yesterday. I found out that the vast majority of Catholic men who go to Mass every Sunday in a community near where I now live belong to one or another of the common secret societies. This has been happening for generations. Some, most, belong to the Grangers, the Elks, the Masons. Yet, they use language of Christianity and call each other "good". Others call these men "good". They have ignored over 200 years of Church teaching on secret societies.

Almost all, if not all, these men belong to a group which undermines the teaching of the Catholic Church and follows the heresies of eirenism, indifferentism and modernism, all explained in the post added below.

I reposted the entire article, but here is the link.

http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.com/2012/01/cradle-of-modernist-heresies.html

Now I understand why this area suffers from several generations who did not receive proper catechesis or hard, solid truths from the pulpit in that area to which I refer. Now I know why there have been few is any vocations in this area.

Yet, these men claim they are "Catholic". Language becomes twisted.

What is a Catholic? What does it mean to be automatically excommunicated?

What does it mean to be obedient to the Church's teaching on secret societies?

What does it mean to be living in heresy and worse, worshipping the dark side?

Only when religious language really means something, only when people talk from their souls, hearts and renewed minds, can one trust language. The seculars have, like Hitler, ruined language. Those Catholics who have compromised are twisting language.

Good, better, best are words, concepts which only make sense when one is walking with God in the Catholic Church, being a member of the Church Militant, acting like an adopted son or daughter of God.

Pay attention how you speak. Your words reveal your soul and your true beliefs. Pray for those in your families who have no moral framework with which to judge language.

We do.

Wednesday, 1 February 2012

The Cradle of Modernist Heresies

Posted by Supertradmum

In 1983, Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, who was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now Pope Benedict XVI, issued a document under the name of the Declaration on Masonic Associations.  The link is on the name.

In that document, the long history of the condemnation of Freemasonry by the Church, since 1738, was reiterated and clearly defined. The original condemnation of Clement XII, In eminenti apostolatus specula  was upheld.

Since that time, I have had many Catholics, in the United States and in Europe claim that the Church had removed the automatic excommunication on a Catholic who joined the Masons. This is not and has never been so. One has to understand that the Church's condemnation of Masonry is based not merely on the fact that it is a secret organization, but that it upholds several Modernist heresies. Firstly, Cardinal Ratizinger wrote that:

Therefore the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enrol in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.

He went on to state that no bishop had any right to change this. It is interesting that the SSPX press, Angelus Press, has one of the best books on the evils and pitfalls of Masonry. One can find it here. However, I want to concentrate on a few of the Modernist heresies found in Freemasonry.

The first is indifferentism. This heresy proclaims that all religions are the same and that religion has no place in the public life of a nation or people.Mirari Vos  On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism written in 1832 by Gregory XVI is a forgotten document of the Church.

Indifferentism leads to a relativism about religion, stating that all are either the same, or so subjective as to mean only what a person sincerely believes. This pluralism leads to another aspect that because all religions are relative and the same, these beliefs have no role in the public life, cannot affect politics, or governmental decisions. Of course, as the Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, this heresy is condemned as contrary to both Revelation and Tradition. Indifferentism leads to a denial of the supernatural, as if all beliefs are equal or subjective, there is no hierarchy, no Revelation from God. Also denied in this heresy would be dogma, for the same reasons. It is interesting that in the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907, itself peppered with some Modernist heresies, that this statement from Newman is quoted in the section on indifferentism: 

No truth, however sacred, can stand against it (the Catholic Church) in the long run; and hence it is that in the Pagan world, when our Lord came, the last traces of the religious knowledge of former times were all but disappearing from those portions of the world in which the intellect had been active and had a career" (Apologia, chap. v). 

The second heresy of many in Masonry is eirenism.This is what I call the forgotten heresy. 


The condemnation of eirenism is found in Pope Pius XII's encyclical, Humani Generis. This great work condemns existentialism, historicism (Gramsci watch), immanentism and other isms. The point of eirenism is, in the words of the Pope: setting aside the questions which divide men, they aim not only at joining forces to repel the attacks of atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of dogma. And as in former times some questioned whether the traditional apologetics That branch of the science of theology which explains the reasons for the Church's existence and doctrine of the Church did not constitute an obstacle rather than a help to the winning of souls for Christ, so today some are presumptuous enough to question seriously whether theology and theological methods, such as with the approval of ecclesiastical authority are found in our schools, should not only be perfected, but also completely reformed, in order to promote the more efficacious propagation throughout the world among men of every culture and religious opinion.


This heresy clearly seeks after a type of syncretism, a religion of unity, wherein divisions vanish and people come together to worship some sort of agreed upon god. I would venture to say that eirenism leads directly to Worship of the State.


This is the atmosphere of religion and philosophy in the United States at this very moment. The State declares that there is no religious right to conscience, thereby setting up its own standards for so-called moral or ethical behavior. To use an example, abortion is ok because a Supreme Court decision determined it was so, and because further legislation supports it. The State has substituted itself for the Church in matters of conscience. 


Wake up, American Catholics. So, the heresies sleeping in Masonry have awakened and taken over the mind-set of the nation's leaders. Simple and neat.


What is happening and has happened in Catholic education, wherein schools are rebelling against the Teaching Magisterium (look here in California today, this minute) is a direct result of the concepts of eirenism. Schools and other facilities play down differences for the sake of community unity to the detriment of Catholic Teaching. 


It is too late to change this huge momentum, hidden in Masonry by choice, and held in some minds by lethargy and laziness. To take the easiest way out, to placate, to be politically correct is eirenism. 


The greatest heresy in Masonry is immanentism, which destroys the Revelation of God as Trinity, replacing Him with a vague, abstract presence found in the world. Pope Pius X condemned this in  Pascendi Dominici Gregis.


As Catholics, we do not have much time to read all of these documents, but what is happening today in America, with the attack on the Church from the present administration concerning freedom of religion and freedom on conscience is an attack prophesied by all the documents above. If Church leaders knew their own teaching, they would have seen this coming, or even better, stopped these idealistic heresies from fomenting in the people in the pews. And, as laymen, we only have ourselves to blame if we find ourselves marginalize, persecuted, imprisoned, martyred. See my post below on the stages of persecution and the ideologies which push these heresies. The one I have left for this posting is Freemasonry, which seems to hold many of the Modernist heresies and is able to produce these in the market place as goods.

As one can tell, I taught a history of ideas, history of encyclicals, history of heresies. Nothing has changed in 2012 which was not there in 1732 or earlier. Sadly, the revisionist historians within the Catholic Church look like they have won the day. I honestly feel that we are in the times of Arianism, the greatest heresy which rocked and split the Church. However, the Church prevailed, and will, as Christ promised until the end of time. But, the Lord did not assure us it would be a large, powerful, or influential Church. Perhaps the words of one of the Desert Fathers are applicable. I think, but I am not sure, it was Abba Pambo.


"When asked by a young monk if they were of the greatest generation because they saw and cast out devils, and prayed, fasted, and converted  and healed people, the Abba answered. 'No, we are not the greatest generation. We have obvious power. The next generation will see Christ establish His Kingdom among the Nations, and there will be unity for awhile. But, the greatest generation is the one, which under great persecution, will survive. They are the greatest and the last.'"