THIRTY-THREE VISITS TO OUR LORD ON THE CHRIST:
DEVOTION GIVEN TO ST. MARGARET MARY ALACOQUE BY OUR LORD
For the Conversion of Sinners
This is what the Saint wrote about
the devotion: "One Friday, during holy Mass, I felt a great desire to
honor the sufferings of my crucified Spouse. He told me lovingly that He
desired me, every Friday, to adore Him thirty-three times upon the Cross, the
throne of His mercy. I was to prostrate myself humbly at His feet, and try to
remain there in the dispositions of the Blessed Virgin during His Passion. I
was to offer these acts of adoration to the Eternal Father together with the
sufferings of her Divine Son, to beg Him the conversion of all hardened and
faithless hearts who resist the impulse of His grace. He told me, moreover,
that at the hour of death He will be favorable to those who have been faithful
to this practice.
HOW
TO PRACTICE THE DEVOTION
These 33 acts of adoration of Our
Lord on the Cross may be made anywhere on Fridays, and even while attending to
one's ordinary duties. They require no special attitude, formula or vocal
prayer. A simple look of love and contrition coming from the depths of our
heart and sent up to Our Crucified Lord is sufficient to express our adoration
and gratitude to Him. It is also an appeal to the Virgin Mary to intercede on
behalf of sinners, for their conversion.
PRAYER OF
ST. MARGARET MARY
My God, I offer Thee Thy
well-beloved Son, in thanksgiving for all the benefits I have received from
Thee. I offer Him as my adoration, my petition, my obaltion, and my
resolutions; I offer Him as my love and my all. Receive, O Eternal Father, this
offering for whatever Thou willest of me, since I have nothing to offer which
is not unworthy of Thee, except Jesus, my Savior, Whom Thou hast given me with
so much love. Amen.
"We must never be discouraged
or give way to anxiety . . . but ever have recourse to the adorable Heart of
Jesus."
St. Margaret Mary - Thought for February 5th
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROSARY IN
PRAISE OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN, IN REPARATION FOR BLASPHEMY
(Use Ordinary Rosary Beads)
Mary, my Immaculate Mother, I desire to offer
you reparation for the offenses which your Immaculate Heart receives from the
horrible blasphemies which are uttered against you. I offer you these praises
to console you for so many ungrateful children who do not love you, and to
console the Heart of your Divine Son Who is so deeply offended by the insults
offered to you.
Receive, my Purest Mother, this little act of
homage. Make me love you more each day and look with pity on those blasphemers
that they may not delay to cast themselves into your maternal arms. Amen.
Grant that I may praise you, O Holy Virgin!
Give me strength against your enemies!
1. Blessed be the Great Mother of God, Mary
Most Holy!
2. Blessed be her Holy and Immaculate
Conception!
3. Blessed be her Glorious Assumption!
4. Blessed be the Name of Mary, Virgin and
Mother!
5. Blessed be her Immaculate Heart!
6. Blessed be her Virginal Purity!
7. Blessed be her Divine Maternity!
8. Blessed be her Universal Mediation!
9. Blessed be her Sorrows and her Tears!
10. Blessed be the graces with which the Lord
crowned her Queen of Heaven and Earth!
Glory be to Mary, Daughter of the Father!
Glory be to Mary, Mother of the Son!
Glory be to Mary, Spouse of the Holy Spirit!
Final Prayer:
My Mother, I love you for those who do not
love you; I praise you for those who blaspheme you; I surrender myself to you
for those who will not recognize you as their Mother.
(Repeat the praises
and final prayer five times in all.)
TRIDENTINE MASS NEVER FORBIDDEN
BY JOHN VENNARI
Cardinal Stickler Confirms Traditional Mass Never
Forbidden "The answers given by the nine Cardinals in 1986 was No,
the Mass of Saint Pius V (Tridentine Mass) has never been suppressed'."
Throughout
the unprecedented crisis of Faith caused by post-Vatican II progressive
novelties, countless Catholics worldwide have rightly clung to the Traditional
Latin Liturgy. They have always based the right to adhere to the Old Mass not
only on the liturgy's sacred status of immemorial custom, but also on the Papal
Bull Quo Primum of St. Pius V which solemnly proclaimed that the Latin
Tridentine Mass could never be forbidden, and that all priests and faithful
will always have the right to avail themselves of this liturgy.
In
October of 1997, Msgr. Perl from the Ecclesia Dei Commission challenged this
truth. In a letter to a Catholic in America, Perl wrote that "the
legal basis for the celebration of the traditional Latin Mass today does not
derive from the Bull Quo Primum, but from the documents Quattuor abhinc annos
(1984) and Ecclesia Dei (1988) which were issued under the initiative of Pope
John Paul II . . ."
In truth, Pope Paul VI never officially and unambiguously revoked Quo
Primum.1
Al so, as will be demonstrated, the Tridentine Mass has never been
suppressed. In light of all this, it seems opportune to reprint the
following article from the August, 1995 issue of Catholic Family News.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the spring of 1989, a report appeared in the June/July issue of The
Fatima Crusader stating that a Papal Commission of nine Cardinals determined
that the Traditional Mass has never been suppressed.
The report declared that in 1986, the Holy Father appointed a commission
of nine Cardinals to examine the legal status of the traditional rite of Mass,
commonly known as the "Tridentine Mass". The commission of Cardinals
included Cardinals Ratzinger, Mayer, Oddi, Stickler, Casaroli, Gantin,
Innocenti, Palazzini, and Tomko was instructed to examine two questions:
1) Did Pope Paul VI authorize the bishops to forbid the celebration of
the traditional Mass?
2) Does the priest have the right to celebrate the traditional Mass in
public and in private without restriction, even against the will of his bishop?
The
Commission, the account stated, unanimously determined that Pope Paul VI never
gave the bishops the authority to forbid priests from celebrating the
traditional rite of Mass.
Regarding
the second question: The Commission stated that priests cannot be obligated to
celebrate the new rite of Mass; the bishops cannot forbid or place restrictions
on the celebration of the traditional rite of Mass whether in public or in
private.
The
Commission also recommended that the Pope issue a Papal decree based on the
Commission's findings and it was the Pope's intention to issue this decree in
November of 1988, but the decree was never issued, due to pressure placed on
the Pope from opposing Cardinals.
Report
Contested
Not
long after this, another reputable Catholic journal published a letter from
Monsignor Perl from the Ecclesia Dei Commission in Rome. The letter was worded
in such a way that it cast doubt on the legitimacy of the report regarding the
Nine Cardinal commission. In response, the Winter 1989, issue of The Fatima
Crusader published a competent rebuttle to Msgr. Perl's letter. Despite this,
for some, a lingering uncertainty remained.
Cardinal
Stickler Clarifies the Controversy
On
May 20, 1995 at the Christi Fidelis conference in Fort Lee, New Jersey, Alfons
Cardinal Stickler gave an address entitled "The Theological Attractiveness
of the
Tridentine Mass." 2
During the question and answer session after his speech, His Eminence was asked
about the Nine Cardinal Commission of 1986 regarding the Tridentine Mass.
It
is worth noting that the questions and answers were written down. The Cardinal
was free to choose the questions he wanted to answer and he chose to reply to
this one.
His
Eminence began his remarks by recounting an incident where Eric de Saventhem
(former head of Una Voce in Europe) asked explicitly if the Tridentine Mass had
ever been forbidden. Cardinal Benelli never answered . . . not yes, not no.
Cardinal Stickler explained that Benelli "... couldn't say yes he (the
Pope) forbade it.' He can't forbid a Mass that has been used not only for
centuries, but has been the Mass of thousands and thousands of Saints and
Faithful." The Cardinal continued, "the difficulty was that he (the
Pope) could not forbid it, but at the same time, he wanted that the new Mass be
said . . . be accepted. And so, he could only say I want that the new Mass be
said'."
"I was one of the Cardinals"
Cardinal
Stickler then addressed the issue of the Commission. He related, "Pope
John Paul II asked a commission of nine Cardinals in 1986 two questions:
First, "Did Pope Paul VI or any other competent authority legally
forbid the widespread celebration of the Tridentine Mass in the present
day?"
The Cardinal explained, "I can answer because I was one of the
Cardinals."
He continued, "the answers given by the nine Cardinals in 1986 was
No, the Mass of Saint Pius V (Tridentine Mass) has never been
suppressed'."
The
Cardinal also confirmed the incident regarding the Papal decree.
He related that of this commission of nine Cardinals, eight Cardinals
were in favor, and one was against, a general permission to be drawn up making
it clear that everyone could choose the old Mass as well as the new.
The
Cardinal explained that the Pope seemed willing to promulgate this sort of
announcement, but a few National Episcopal conferences who found out about the
"danger" of this permission, came to the Pope and said "this
should not be absolutely allowed because it would be the occasion or the cause
of controversy in the people of God in the faithful themselves . . . one
against the other, and so on." Cardinal Stickler explained that in the
face of this argument, the Pope abstained from signing this decree.
In
answer to the second question, "Can any bishop forbid any priest in good
standing from celebrating the Tridentine Mass?", Cardinal Stickler
replied, "the nine Cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid
a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass."
After
stating this, it would seem that His Eminence wished to make a few qualifying
remarks about the authority and jurisdiction of bishops 3
in the diocese, perhaps so as not to be accused of inciting widespread
disregard of diocesan bishops. However, the fact remains that Cardinal Stickler
confirmed that the nine Cardinals concluded that the Latin Tridentine Mass had
never been officially forbidden, and that no priest can be forbidden by his
bishop to celebrate the Traditional Rite of Mass.
Endtnotes:
1. We hope to have more on this in upcoming issues of CFN.
2. For a complete transcript of this lecture, see the July 1995 issue of the
Catholic Family News, or the Catholic Family News Reprint entitled "The
Theological Attractiveness of the Tridentine Mass" by Cardinal Stickler;
order reprint #12, price $1.75US.
3. The entire question and answer session regarding this and other topics from
the Cardinals conference are available on two cassettes from
Catholic Family News for $14.00US postage paid.
This article was reprinted from the February, 1998
issue of Catholic Family News a Roman Catholic monthly
published 12 times a year.
A SHORT CATECHISM ON THE NEW THEOLOGY BY JOHN
VENNARI
This article was reprinted from the August, 1998 issue of
Catholic Family News a Roman Catholic monthly published 12 times a
year.
What
is the New Theology?
The
New Theology is a false "religious" system that became popular among
Catholics in Europe from the 1920s onward. Because it was recognized as
resurgent modernism, it was kept under a lid by the Vatican and was condemned
by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis. Its primary founders were Maurice Blondel,
Father Henri de Lubac and Hans Urs von Balthasar. It enjoys an undeserved
popularity today.
What is the main contention of the partisans of the New Theology?
In 1950, The Thomist published an article by Father David Greenstock that
warned against the New Theology. He explained that "The main contention of
the partisans of this new movement is that theology, to remain alive, must move
with the times" and that "traditional theology is out of touch with
reality." Their hallmark has always been scorn for the Magisterium.
How
do they scorn the Magisterium?
The
Popes have consistently taught that the philosophy and theology of St. Thomas
Aquinas (Scholasticism) is the irreplaceable basis for Catholic teaching. In
his Encyclical Pascendi, Pope St. Pius X said that Scholasticism was the remedy
for modernism. He further warned, "We admonish professors to bear well in
mind that they cannot set aside St. Thomas especially in metaphysical
questions, without grave disadvantage." Yet the founders of the New
Theology were unanimously resolved that the Aristotelian system on which
Thomism is based must be abandoned in favor of new philosophical systems.
Why
is this fatally flawed?
Father
Greenstock shows that modern philosophies cannot be "synthesized"
into Catholic theology because "most people outside the Church suffer from
an almost complete incapacity for logical thought. Their basis for argument is
sentiment rather than reason. ... This incapacity (for logical thought) is a
direct result of these modern philosophies which we are now asked to adopt and
to baptize an impossible task."
Where
is the difficulty?
Father
Greenstock explained, "we are asked to substitute for the clear
metaphysical notions of Aquinas the fluid concepts of modern philosophies, and
it is very difficult indeed for us to see how that can be done without harm to
the unchangeable doctrines of the Faith."
Can any examples be given of how the rejection of Thomist philosophy threatens
Catholic theology?
One example among many is that it can destroy the Catholic teaching on
the Real Presence in the Eucharist as defined by the Council of Trent.
How?
Our
definition of transubstantiation reads that the accidents of the consecrated
bread stay the same it still looks, smells, feels and tastes like bread. But
the substance is no longer bread, but the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of
Jesus Christ. Substance and accidents are foundational terms of
Thomistic/Aristotelian metaphysics. Our dogmatic definition of the Eucharist is
based on these terms. If these metaphysical terms are not considered stable,
and are now subject to new definitions and new meanings, then the very
foundation of our doctrine on the Eucharist is shaken, and the definition of the
Eucharist will change. Garrigou-Lagrange pointed out that the rejection of
Thomistic philosophy places many doctrines in jeopardy such as original sin,
sanctifying grace, the finality of the particular judgment and even truth
itself.
Has
this rejection of the Council of Trent's teaching on the Eucharist actually
happened?
In 1946, Father Garrigou-Lagrange quoted one advocate of the New Theology
who said that transubstantiation was conceived of and defined by the
scholastics (Thomists) and that "their doctrine is inadmissable."
Who
was Maurice Blondel?
Maurice
Blondel [1861-1949], a layman, ultimately formulated the philosophy on which
the New Theology is based. In order to "win over modern men" who
reject objectivism (the submission of the mind to objective reality) Blondel
formulated a "subjectivist" philosophy, more in line with other
modern philosophies.
How
did he do this?
By
stating that religion is not something that goes from the head to the heart
(objective reality) , but from heart to head (subjective). He said,
"nothing can enter man which does not come from out of him and
correspondence in some way to a need he has of expansion." Hence anything
supernatural (sanctifying grace) that is in man ultimately comes from the
nature of man himself.
What's
wrong with that?
St.
Paul says "Faith comes by hearing" that is, it comes from God
presenting reality to man and then man accepting it. Also sanctifying grace
(our created participation in the Divine Life of God) is not natural to us. It
is a free gift that is above our nature (more on this later) Neither Faith, nor
the supernatural life of grace is "inside man" already. Yet Blondel
said "Nothing can enter man which does not come from out of him."
Blondel's teaching, in fact, is an extension of the Modernist notion of
"Divine Immanence" condemned by Pope St. Pius X. That's why many
refer to Blondel as a "neo-modernist".
Was
Blondel in good faith?
The
great Dominican, Father Garrigou-Lagrange believed that Blondel was not in good
faith. Blondel manifested the standard trademarks of a modernist: 1) Blondel
quoted texts of St. Thomas to make them mean the opposite of what they say; 2)
he repeatedly met well- argued criticism from his adversaries with a mere
categorical denial; 3) he continually claimed to be misunderstood; 4) he was
always "explaining" how his thinking is really orthodox, so that to
this day it is disputed what he is actually saying; 5) years later, he admitted
to Fr. Henri de Lubac that he purposely disguised his true ideas in order to
escape certain censure from Catholic authorities.
Who
was Father Henri de Lubac?
Father
de Lubac [1896, 1991] was a Jesuit who saw in Blondel's teaching the basis of a
New Theology. Blondel had rejected Thomistic philosophy, and de Lubac would incorporate
this into a new system that would reject Thomistic theology.
Did
the New Theology have any sympathizers in high place?
Even
though Pope Pius XII had warned against these new teachings, the Vatican
Secretary of State, Msgr. Montini, gave encouragement to the New Theology. At
the same time, Montini was also conducting back-door dealings with the
Stalinists, again, contrary to the will of Pius XII.
What
is the heart of de Lubac's New Theology?
Building
on Blondel's philosophy, de Lubac taught that the supernatural is a necessary
perfection of nature, without which nature is frustrated in its essential
aspirations. This means that the supernatural is needed to complete nature
which remains incomplete without it. Hence, the supernatural is not a
gratuitous gift but a part of nature owed to nature; in other words, the
supernatural is not supernatural but natural, and lies within the bounds of
nature.
Why
is this wrong?
The
Catholic Church teaches that the whole supernatural order of grace is exactly
that: gratuitous a sheer gift of God. Nature may be capable or well-suited to
supernature, but it in no way strictly requires grace which is of a different
order, infinitely superior, and given by God, as God wills, in a manner essentially
independent of the received nature. This New Theology leads to pantheism. In
1981, in his book Gethsemane, the lone voice of Cardinal Siri got right to the
heart of de Lubac's confusion. He warned that if de Lubac's theology is taken
to its logical conclusion, "it would mean that either Jesus Christ is not
God, or that man is Divine" again, modernism!
Was
de Lubac in good faith?
Father
Garrigou-Lagrange exposed de Lubac's errors in his 1946 article "Where is
the New Theology Leading Us?," pointing out that this new theology is just
a re-hash of modernism. De Lubac simply responded with insults and mockery,
accusing Garrigou-Lagrange of having "simplistic views on the absoluteness
of truth." When Pope Pius XII condemned de Lubac's theology in Humani
Generis,(#'s 29,30,32,34), de Lubac simply stated that this was "highly
one-sided ... it doesn't concern me."
But wasn't de Lubac a great expert on the Fathers of the Church?
Writing in The Thomist (1950) Father David Greenstock warned that the only
reason that the leaders of the New Theology overwhelm the reader with the Greek
Fathers is in order to get around St. Thomas Aquinas, whom they actually
disdain, no matter how much they pledge their devotion to him.
Anything
else about de Lubac?
Henri
de Lubac was an avid defender of the evolutionist/pantheist Teilhard de
Chardin. Teilhard also propagated great confusion regarding the natural and
supernatural orders, claiming that nature evolves into supernature again,
modernism!
Can
Teilhard be defended as orthodox?
Not
at all. How is it possible to defend a man who makes pantheistic statements
such as, "Catholicism deceived me with its narrow definitions of the World
... The World around me becomes divine ..."
Did
de Lubac have any regrets?
At
the end of his life, he started to wonder if perhaps he hadn't allowed himself
to stray into forbidden doctrine. He wrote, "This period is as full of
error as any ... maybe I should have concentrated more on essentials ... for
the last seven or eight years I have been paralyzed by the fear of confronting
head on, in concrete fashion, the essential problems in their scolding reality?
Out of wisdom or weakness? Was I right or wrong?" By then, however, he had
already done his damage. Today, his cult lives on.
Who
Was Hans Urs von Balthasar?
Father
von Balthasar was a disciple of the New Theology whose books are extremely
popular within "conservative" circles. In the 1930s, he developed a
powerful aversion to the scholastic theology of St. Thomas. He then became
greatly influenced by Karl Barth, the famous Protestant thinker. Von Balthasar
made Christ, rather than the Catholic Church, the center of Christian unity
as if Christ could somehow be divorced from His one true Church hence, paving
the way for "Catholic" ecumenism. He favored and incorporated the
philosophy of Hegel, which is the philosophy of "becoming" (never
ending movement), as opposed to the sound Thomistic philosophy of
"being". Never-ending-movement, constant flux again, modernism.
What
effects did this have?
Many.
One of the most serious is that it established a new principle of "Living
Tradition" which holds that Tradition, and therefore doctrine, can change.
Father Boulliard, a disciple of the New Theology said, "A theology which
is not current [does not keep changing] will be a false theology."
Did
these thinkers have any influence on Vatican II?
These
thinkers were THE influence on Vatican II. In his book, Vatican II Revisited,
Bishop Aloysius Wycislo, a rhapsodic advocate of Vatican II, writes that
"Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis had . . . a devastating effect
on the work of a number of pre-conciliar theologians" Wycislo then
rejoiced that "theologians and biblical scholars, who had been under a cloud'
for years, surfaced as periti (theological experts advising the Bishops) at
Vatican II." This despite the Council rules that no theologian who had
ever been under suspicion should be admitted as a theological expert at the
Council. Wycislo mentioned by name these theologians as Hans Kung, Karl Rahner,
John Courtney Murray, Yves Congar, Edward Schillebeeckx, and Henri de Lubac.
Did
their Theology prevail?
Yes.
Father Henrici, S.J., an advocate of the New Theology said that de Lubac's
theology "which insists on the non-opposition between nature and
supernature ... became the official theology at Vatican II." Further,
Father Henri Boulliard, another disciple of the New Theology, wrote in triumph
that the word "supernatural" does not appear in any of the major
documents of Vatican II.
Who
were some other admirers of the New Theology?
At
Vatican II, two prominent admirers were Father Joseph Ratzinger from Germany
and Archbishop Karol Wojtyla from Poland. As these two men advanced in today's
Church, so did the influence and acceptance of the "New Theology,"
despite its condemnation by Pius XII. In the 1980s, de Lubac and von Balthasar
were both named Cardinals, without ever having to retract their dangerous
doctrines. Disciples of the New Theology fill many theological chairs at
Catholic universities worldwide.
Doesn't
the fact that some of these men were named Cardinals guarantee their orthodoxy?
No.
Church history is replete with examples of various types of unsound men being
promoted to high position Judas being the first.
But why do some of the advocates of the New Theology sometimes sound somewhat
conservative?
Because they don't always take the principles of their flawed system to
their logical conclusion. The New Theology is subjectivist by nature. Hence there
are "conservatives" and "progressives" within the New
Theology, just as, St. Pius X warned, there are "conservatives" and
"progressives" within Modernism. (Pascendi #27). Further, Blondel,
Teilhard de Chardin and others have admitted that they disguised their new
doctrine under traditional sounding terminology.
Where
has the New Theology led us?
As
the clear-sighted Father Garrigou-Lagrange warned in 1946, it has led straight
back to modernism. Further, as Suzanne Rini rightly observes, the New Theology
should not even be called a "theology" since it is simply
resuscitated gnosticism.
What
have been the results?
The
Vatican II church of ecumenism and neo-modernism, showcase of the "New
Theology", is in shambles. Boulliard's principle that "a theology
that is not current (always changing) is a false theology" is in full
force with Vatican II's "continuous aggiornamento". Theological
confusion now reigns, especially since von Balthasar, de Lubac, et al, are now
considered "conservatives" as opposed to the "extreme
liberals" like Hans Kung, Charles Curran and Richard McBrien. Those who
hold to the uncompromising Catholic Faith of Garrigou- Lagrange, Pope St. Pius
X, Pope Pius XII and their predecessors are sneered at as "extremists-on-the-right"
and "integrists."
What
do we do?
Hold
fast to the traditional Catholic Faith. Don't bother reading de Lubac, Von
Balthasar, or any disciples of the New Theology. Ignatius Press is the main
publishing house for main- streaming the leaders of the New Theology into the
English-speaking world. Why waste time reading these suspect men when there are
so many thoroughly orthodox saints and authors to read?
Is
there any hope?
Scripture
teaches "Unless the Lord build the house, they labor in vain who build
it." Since the New Theology is built on lies, sooner or later, it will all
come crashing down upon itself. In the meantime, our duty is to pray for those
infected with these erroneous ideas, live the Fatima Message and keep the
Catholic Faith, as the Athanasian Creed admonishes, "integral and
inviolate".
References:
* "Where is the New Theology Leading Us?" Father Reginald
Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., Angelicum, 1946. (English translation, Catholic Family
News, Aug. 1998).
* "They Think They've Won" sμ sμ no no's 10 part series on the New
Theology, (Originally published in 1993 in Italy, English translation by the
Angelus Press, 1994).
"Thomism and the New Theology", David Greenstock, T.OP. The Thomist,
1950.
"Gnosticism Resuscitated Under the Cover of "New Theology",
Suzanne M. Rini, (Catholic Famiiy News, Aug, 1998)
Pascendi Dominici Gregis (Encyclical Against Modernism), Pope St. Pius X, 1907.
Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII, Aug. 12, 1950.
Denzinger The Source of Catholic Dogma, Herder, 1955.
Reality, A Synthesis of Thomistic Thought, Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange,
O.P. Herder, 1950.
Gethsemane: Reflections on the Contemporary Theological Movement. Cardinal
Siri, Franciscan Herald Press, 1981.
Vatican II Revisited: Reflections by One Who Was There, Bishop Aloysius
Wycislo, Alba House, 1987.
* Available from Catholic Famiy News * MPO 743 * Niagara Falls, NY 14302