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!
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.
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.
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.
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
May 20, 1995 at the Christi Fidelis conference in Fort Lee, New Jersey, Alfons
Cardinal Stickler gave an address entitled "The Theological Attractiveness
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.
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
"I was one of the Cardinals"
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'."
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.
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.
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?
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
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?
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.
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.
this rejection of the Council of Trent's teaching on the Eucharist actually
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?
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?
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".