The Divine Right of the Monarch

By: CRAA/CatholicMonarchy.com

The painting aside (artist unknown) is a beautiful allegory for the Divine Order and the Divine Right of a Most Christian Queen or King. The Blessed Virgin appears with child before the humbled, praying Monarch. The temporal Queen looks to Mary, Queen of Heaven and earth, for guidance and support. 

 

The Divine Right to rule does not mean, as so many assume it does, that a Monarch is free to “act divine.” The Divine Right to rule means quite the opposite. It means that the “right to rule is divinely ordained,” or, to put it another way, the “right to rule comes from God.” Therefore, the Monarch has an enormous responsibility to rule in fairness and justice, with a love for his or her people that resembles the love of a father or mother for their children. The subjects, in turn, look to their King and Queen as “father and mother” of their kingdom. The Monarch knows that he or she will be judged by God regarding their rule.

“The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away.” The Lord may revoke the right to rule for an unworthy Monarch. The will of Our Lord would be made manifest through the Church, notably the Pope, who could rule that an unworthy Monarch has no more right to rule. The people would no longer be bound in loyalty to their Monarch and could seek a more worthy ruler under the guidance of the Pope.

The Catholic Monarch is not free to act as he or she pleases, no. Even an “absolute” Catholic Monarch (one who is under no constitution – whose rule is absolute throughout his or her kingdom) is not free to act as he or she pleases. The Catholic Monarch is always under the “constitution” of the Church, which is the constitution of God.

The Catholic Monarch is a servant to both the Church and his or her people and is a symbol of cultural and spiritual unity for the people.

It’s not the Will of the People we need; it’s the Will of God

God created mankind in his Trinitarian image:

And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness… and God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.

~ (Gen 1: 26a-27 Douay-Rheims)

When God established mankind on earth, he gave “us” tremendous freedom, indeed a freedom that is truly dignified given that we are substantively creatures with free-will:

And the Lord God took man, and put him into the paradise of pleasure, to dress it, and to keep it. And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat:

~ (Gen 2: 15-16 Douay-Rheims)

However, our Lord was quick to note the limitations of that freedom:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.

~ (Gen 2:17 Douay-Rheims)

These scripture verses are at the core of what we mean when we say that the Catholic Monarchy is the optimal form of government for mankind. For, we are saying that we recognize a Divine Order to creation (as expressed in the rest of the first two chapters of Genesis) and a Divine Hierarchy in that Order that is prerequisite for mankind to find true freedom and happiness. That prerequisite hierarchy is that God, and God alone, determines what is good and what is evil. It is not the “Will of the People” that determines moral right from wrong; it is the Will of God that does so.

Yet, what do we say about our free-will? Are we slaves then? Well, God did say that we could eat “of every tree of paradise” except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Every tree but one! Now, that is truly a significant degree of freedom! There is only one tree that we must not touch and that is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. In other words, so long as we do not try to become “gods” and determine for ourselves what is good and evil, we are left truly free.

This is the purpose of the Catholic Monarchy. Its purpose is to establish the moral boundaries in society so that our culture, and the laws that grow out of that culture, are synchronized with the Divine Order and the Divine Hierarchy of that Order. We are astonishingly free under God’s dominion. However, to truly manifest and experience the “fruits” of that freedom, we must keep the elements of the Divine Order in their proper Hierarchy: God determines what is good and what is evil, not “The People.” Once “The People” have that straight, they are free to eat as they so choose among the rest of the trees in the garden.

This authentic freedom is what we are after. Only, how do we know “God’s will” and his “Divine Order”? We know it through the Church established by his Son, who is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity (in whose image we were created), the Son of the Father, and the only Savior of the human race. It is his Church that is the foundation and pillar of all truth (I Tim 3:15).

The Catholic King and/or Queen is bound in all matters of faith and morals in obedience to the Church. Therefore, culture and all laws stemming from that culture must reflect the faith and morals of the Catholic Church. Beyond that, we are free to exercise our “democratic” “will of the people” as we choose. We are free to democratically govern ourselves (especially locally and regionally where democracy is most effective) within the framework of the Church’s moral law and of the Natural Law which the Church guards also, being the Church of Jesus Christ, the Person through whom all things were made (John 1:3).

The above does not preclude individual rights to worship privately as one pleases. It does not imply a “witch hunt” inquisition to determine if any poor soul holds a belief separate from that revealed to be true by God through his Church. It does not prevent the private association of those who desire to practice another religion. It does not imply restricting freedom of speech so long as that speech does not publicly denigrate the Catholic religion. It does imply, though, that the culture and laws of the land will reflect Catholic morality.

Comparing Catholic Monarchy VS. The Republic

CLICK TO ENLARGE

The downfall of the Republic is that it demands quite the opposite. Rather than being democratically free under the law “of the knowledge of good and evil” determined by the Will of God, the Republic insists that it is the “Will of the People” that will determine good from evil. The Republic demands that God be obedient to our will rather than we being obedient to God’s will. The Republic assumes that no one can say what religion is right and therefore assumes that only “The People” can make a moral determination in the public sphere. This leads not to authentic freedom but to the totalitarian trends we see today in a world that has rejected the Church and the God who so established it that we COULD be free! (John 8:32)

The “Will of the People” is corrupt. Whereas a Catholic King and/or Queen is just as subject to corruption as is any human being, they, however, must answer to God through the moral teachings of his Church. The King and Queen answer to The People they serve on one hand, but they answer to God on the other. This “divine right” to rule is the true safeguard of society through the Catholic Monarchy. (By the way, the Republic DEMANDS that its leaders NOT answer to God through its “separation of Church and State”!)

Without the Catholic Monarch, we are led to a society, as historically we have been led from the 16th century to this day, where “The People” determine what is good and what is evil. The dire outcome of that society already was foretold thousands of years ago…

And the serpent said to the woman: No, you shall not die the death… your eyes shall be opened: and you shall  be as Gods, knowing good and evil…
And he (God) cast out Adam; and placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

~ (Gen 3:4, 5b, 24 Douay-Rheims)

 

The Republic perpetuates the lie that leads to disaster through its “Will of the People” that decides what is morally right and what is evil. It is the Catholic Monarchy that we need to begin restoring the proper foundation for a truly, authentically free society.

Catholics, that is, the Divine peoples of God are Counter-revolutionaries, therefore, we are defenders and restorers of the Social Kingship of Christ and the Monarchy

 

10 Reasons for Catholic Monarchy in America

CLICK TO ENLARGE

  http://catholicmonarchy.com/2014/10/18/the-divine-right-of-the-monarch/

 

              

BE RELIGIOUS OR BE DAMNED!...A SAINT ON DANCING

BE RELIGIOUS OR BE DAMNED!...
A SAINT ON DANCING

A Sermon by St. John Vianney

There is always the person who says to me: "What harm can there be in enjoying oneself for awhile? I do no wrong to anyone; I do not want to be religious or to become a religious! If I do not go to dances, I will be living in the world like someone dead!" 

My good friend, you are wrong. Either you will be religious or you will be damned. What is a religious person? This is nothing other than a person who fulfills his duties as a Christian. You say that I shall achieve nothing by talking to you about dances and that you will indulge neither more nor less in them. You are wrong again. In ignoring or despising the instructions of your pastor, you draw down upon yourself fresh chastisements from God, and I, on my side, will achieve quite a lot by fulfilling my duties. At the hour of my death, God will ask me not if you have fulfilled your duties but if I have taught you what you must do in order to fulfill them. You say, too, that I shall never break down your resistance to the point of making you believe that there is harm in amusing yourself for a little while in dancing? You do not wish to believe that there is any harm in it? Well, that is your affair. As far as I am concerned, it is sufficient for me to tell you in such a way as will insure that doing this I am doing all that I should do. That should not irritate you: your pastor is doing his duty. But, you will say, the Commandments of God do not forbid dancing, nor does Holy Scripture, either. Perhaps you have not examined them very closely. Follow me for a moment and you will see that there is not a Commandment of God which dancing does not cause to be transgressed, nor a Sacrament which it does not cause to be profaned. 

St. Ephrem,
one of the oldest
Fathers of the Church,
said this:
“Who invented the dances and balls?
Was it St. Peter?
Was it St. John or some of the Saints?
Certainly not,
but rather the Devil,
the enemy of souls.”

You know as well as I do that these kinds of follies and wild extravagances are not ordinarily indulged in, but on Sundays and feast days. What, then, will a young girl or a boy do who have decided to go to the dance? What love will they have for God? Their minds will be wholly occupied with their preparations to attract the people with whom they hope to be mixing. Let us suppose that they say their prayers–how will they say them? Alas, only God knows that! Besides, what love for God can be felt by anyone who is thinking and breathing nothing but the love of pleasures and creatures? You will admit that it is impossible to please God and the world. That can never be. 

God forbids swearing. Alas! What quarrels, what swearing, what blasphemies are uttered as a result of the jealousy that arises between these young people when they are at such gatherings! Have you not often had disputes or fights there? Who could count the crimes that are committed at these diabolical gatherings? The Third Commandment commands us to sanctify the holy day of Sunday. Can anyone really believe that a boy who has passed several hours with a girl, whose heart is like a furnace, is really thus satisfying this precept? St. Augustine has good reason to say that men would be better to work their land and girls to carry on with their spinning than to go dancing; the evil would be less. The Fourth Commandment of God commands children to honor their parents. These young people who frequent the dances, do they have the respect and the submission to their parents' wishes which they should have? No, they certainly do not; they cause them utmost worry and distress between the way they disregard their parents' wishes and the way they put their money to bad use, while sometimes even taunting them with their old-fashioned outlook and ways. What sorrow should not such parents feel, that is, if their faith is not yet extinct, at seeing their children given over to such pleasures or, to speak more plainly, to such licentious ways? These children are no longer Heaven-bent, but are fattening for Hell. Let us suppose that the parents have not yet lost the Faith. . . . Alas! I dare not go any further! . . . What blind parents! . . . What lost children! . . . 

Is there any place, any time, any occasion wherein so many sins of impurity are committed at the dancehalls and their sequels? Is it not in these gatherings that people are most violently prompted against the holy virtue of purity? Where else but there are the senses so strongly urged towards pleasurable excitement? If we go a little more closely into this, should we not almost die of horror at the sight of so many crimes which are committed? Is it not at these gatherings that the Devil so furiously kindles the fire of impurity in the hearts of the young people in order to annihilate in them the grace of Baptism? Is it not there that Hell enslaves as many souls as it wishes? If, in spite of the absence of occasions and the aids of prayer, a Christian has so much difficulty in preserving purity of heart, how could he possibly preserve that virtue in the midst of so many sources which are capable of breaking it down? 

St. Basil describes dances
as a “shameful showroom of obscenities.”

"Look," says St. John Chrysostom, "at this worldly and flighty young woman, or rather at this flaming brand of diabolical fire who by her beauty and her flamboyant attire lights in the heart of that young man the fire of concupiscence. Do you not see them, one as much as the other, seeking to charm one another by their airs and graces and all sorts of tricks and wiles? Count up, unfortunate sinner, if you can, the number of your bad thoughts, of your evil desires and your sinful actions. Is it not there that you heard those airs that please the ears, that inflame and burn hearts and make of these assemblies furnaces of shamelessness?" 

Is it not there, my dear brethren, that the boys and the girls drink at the fountain of crime, which very soon, like a torrent or a river bursting its banks, will inundate, ruin, and poison all its surroundings? Go on, shameless fathers and mothers, go on into Hell, where the fury of God awaits you, you and all the good actions you have done in letting your children run such risks. Go on, they will not be long in joining you, for you have outlined the road plainly for them. Go and count the number of years that your boys and girls have lost, go before your Judge to give an account of your lives, and you will see that your pastor had reason to forbid these kinds of diabolical pleasures! . . . 

Ah, you say, you are making more of it than there really is!

I say too much about it? Very well, then. Listen. Did the Holy Fathers of the Church say too much about it? St. Ephraim tells us that dancing is the perdition of girls and women, the blinding of men, the grief of angels, and the joy of the devils. Dear God, can anyone really have their eyes bewitched to such an extent that they will still want to believe that there is no harm in it, while all the time it is the rope by which the Devil pulls the most souls into Hell? . . . Go on, poor parents, blind and lost, go on and scorn what your pastor is telling you! Go on! Continue the way you are going! Listen to everything and profit nothing by it! There is no harm in it? Tell me, then, what did you renounce on the day of your Baptism? Or on what conditions was Baptism given to you? Was it not on the condition of your taking a vow in the face of Heaven and earth, in the presence of Jesus Christ upon the altar, that you would renounce Satan and all his works and pomps, for the whole of your lives–or in other words that you would renounce sin and the pleasures and vanities of the world? 

St. John Chrysostom calls them
the “school of impure passions.”

Was it not because you promised that you would be willing to follow in the steps of a crucified God? Well then, is this not truly to violate those promises made at your Baptism and to profane this Sacrament of mercy? Do you not also profane the Sacrament of Confirmation, in exchanging the Cross of Jesus Christ, which you have received, for vain and showy dress, in being ashamed of that Cross, which should be your glory and your happiness? 

St. Augustine tells us that those who go to dances truly renounce Jesus Christ in order to give themselves to the Devil. What a horrible thing that is! To drive out Jesus Christ after having received Him in your hearts! "Today," says St. Ephraim, "they unite themselves to Jesus Christ and tomorrow to the Devil." Alas! What a Judas is that person who, after receiving our Lord, goes then to sell Him to Satan in these gatherings, where he will be reuniting himself with everything that is most vicious! And when it comes to the Sacrament of Penance, what a contradiction in such a life! A Christian, who after one single sin should spend the rest of his life in repentance, thinks only of giving himself up to all these worldly pleasures! A great many profane the Sacrament of Extreme Unction by making indecent movements with the feet, the hands and the whole body, which one day must be sanctified by the holy oils. Is not the Sacrament of Holy Order insulted by the contempt with which the instructions of the pastor are considered? But when we come to the Sacrament of Matrimony, alas! What infidelities are not contemplated in these assemblies? It seems then that everything is admissible. How blind must anyone be who thinks there is no harm in it . . . 

The Council of Aix-la-Chapelle forbids dancing, even at weddings. And St. Charles Borromeo, the Archbishop of Milan, says that three years of penance were given to someone who had danced and that if he went back to it, he was threatened with excommunication. If there were no harm in it, then were the Holy Fathers and the Church mistaken? But who tells you that there is no harm in it? It can only be a libertine, or a flighty and worldly girl, who are trying to smother their remorse of conscience as best they can. Well, there are priests, you say, who do not speak about it in confession or who, without permitting it, do not refuse absolution for it. Ah! I do not know whether there are priests who are so blind, but I am sure that those who go looking for easygoing priests are going looking for a passport which will lead them to Hell. For my own part, if I went dancing, I should not want to receive absolution not having a real determination not to go back to dancing. 

St. Ambrose declares them
“choirs of iniquity,
destroyers of innocence
and sepulchers of purity.”
And he exclaims,
“The daughters of infamous mothers
may go to dances and balls to become like them,
but those who are chaste must avoid dances
if they do not want to perish.” (Lib. III de Vir.).

Listen to St. Augustine and you will see if dancing is a good action. He tells us that "dancing is the ruin of souls, a reversal of all decency, a shameful spectacle, a public profession of crime." St. Ephraim calls it "the ruin of good morals and the nourishment of vice." St. John Chrysostom: "A school of public unchastity." Tertullian: "The temple of Venus, the consistory of shamelessness, and the citadel of all the depravities." "Here is a girl who dances," says St. Ambrose, "but she is the daughter of an adulteress because a Christian woman would teach her daughter modesty, a proper sense of shame, and not dancing!" 

Alas! How many young people are there who since they have been going to dances do not frequent the Sacraments, or do so only to profane them! How many poor souls there are who have lost therein their religion and their faith! How many will never open their eyes to their unhappy state except when they are falling into Hell! . . . 

Related:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/n064rp_Balls-01.htm

http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/n065rp_Balls-02.htm

Pope Francis' "Tango Mass" condemned by Pope St. Pius X

On behalf of Pope St. Pius X, the Vicar General of Rome Card. Basilio Pompili issued a Pastoral Letter in 1914 denouncing the tango as highly damaging to the soul. The Cardinal stated:
"The tango, which has already been condemned by illustrious Bishops and is prohibited even in Protestant countries, must be absolutely prohibited in the see of the Roman Pontiff, the centre of the Catholic religion." He urged the clergy to courageously raise their voices "to defend the sanctity of Christian customs against the threatening danger and overwhelming immorality of the new paganism." He also warned parents that if they do not protect their children from such corruption, they will be guilty before God of failing in their most sacred duties. (The New York Times, January 16, 1914)

Card. Aristide Cavallari, the Patriarch of Venice, also strongly condemned the tango, referring to it as moral turpitude, adding: "It is the worst that can be imagined. It is revolting and disgusting. Only persons who have lost all moral sense can bear it. It is the shame of our days. Whoever persists in it commits a sin." The Cardinal ordered all ecclesiastics to deny absolution to those who dance the tango and do not promise to discontinue the practice. (The New York Times, January 22, 1914
http://traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A518-Tango.htm

The Pains of Hell

The Pains of Hell

From the Writings of St. Anthony Mary Claret

The sensation of pain in Hell is essentially very dreadful. Picture yourself, my soul, on a dark night on the summit of a high mountain. Beneath you is a deep valley, and the earth opens so that with your gaze you can see Hell in the cavity of it. Picture it as a prison situated in the center of the earth, many leagues down, all full of fire, hemmed in so impenetrably that for all eternity not even the smoke can escape. In this prison the damned are packed so tightly one on the other like bricks in a kiln... Consider the quality of the fire in which they burn. 

First, the fire is all-extensive and tortures the whole body and the whole soul. A damned person lies in Hell forever in the same spot, which he was assigned by divine justice, without being able to move, as a prisoner in stocks. 

The fire, in which he is totally enveloped, as a fish in water, burns around him, on his left, his right, above and below. His head, his breast, his shoulders, his arms, his hands, and his feet are all penetrated with fire, so that he completely resembles a glowing hot piece of iron, which has just been withdrawn from an oven. The roof beneath which the damned person dwells is fire; the food he takes is fire; the drink he tastes is fire; the air he breathes is fire; whatever he sees and touches is all fire....

But this fire is not merely outside him; it also passes within the condemned person. It penetrates his brain, his teeth, his tongue, his throat, his liver, his lungs, his bowels, his belly, his heart, his veins, his nerves, his bones, even to the marrow, and even his blood. 

"In Hell," according to St. Gregory the Great, "there will be a fire that cannot be put out, a worm which cannot die, a stench one cannot bear, a darkness one can feel, a scourging by savage hands, with those present despairing of anything good." 

A most dreadful fact is that by the divine power this fire goes so far as to work on the very faculties of the soul, burning them and tormenting them. Suppose I were to find myself placed at the oven of a smith so that my whole body was in the open air but for one arm placed in the fire, and that God were to preserve my life for a thousand years in this position. Would this not be an unbearable torture? What, then, would it be like to be completely penetrated and surrounded by fire, which would affect not just an arm, but even all the faculties of the soul? 

More Dreadful than Man Can Imagine

Secondly, this fire is far more dreadful than man can imagine. The natural fire that we see during this life has great power to burn and torment. Yet this is not even a shadow of the fire of Hell. There are two reasons why the fire of Hell is more dreadful beyond all comparison than the fire of this life.

The first reason is the justice of God, which the fire serves as an instrument in order to punish the infinite wrong done to his supreme majesty, which has been despised by a creature. Therefore, justice supplies this element with a burning power, which almost reaches the infinite.... 

The second reason is the malice of sin. As God knows that the fire of this world is not enough to punish sin, as it deserves, He has given the fire of Hell a power so strong that it can never be comprehended by any human mind.   Now, how powerfully does this fire burn? 

It burns so powerfully, O my soul, that, according to the ascetical masters, if a mere spark of it fell on a millstone; it would reduce it in a moment to powder. If it fell on a ball of bronze, it would melt it in an instant as if it were wax. If it landed on a frozen lake, it would make it boil in an instant.

Pause here briefly, my soul, and answer a few questions I will put. First, I ask you: If a special furnace were fired up as was customarily done to torment the holy martyrs, and then men placed before you all kinds of good things that the human heart might want, and added the offer of a prosperous kingdom –  if all this were promised you on condition that for just a half-hour you enclose yourself within the furnace, what would you choose? 

 Fatima: The Vision of Hell & the Torments of the Damned in Hell 

A Hundred Kingdoms

 "Ah!" you would say, "If you offered me a hundred kingdoms I would never be so foolish as to accept your brutal terms, regardless of how grand your offer might be, even if I were sure that God would preserve my life during those moments of suffering." 

Second, I ask you: If you already had possession of a great kingdom and were swimming in a sea of wealth so that nothing was wanting to you, and then you were attacked by an enemy, were imprisoned and put in chains and obliged to either renounce your kingdom or else spend a half-hour in a hot furnace, what would you choose? "Ah!" you would say, "I would prefer to spend my whole life in extreme poverty and submit to any other hardship and misfortune, than suffer such a great torment!"

A Prison of Eternal Fire

Now turn your thoughts from the temporal to the eternal. To avoid the torment of a hot furnace, which would last but a half-hour, you would forgo all your property, even things you are most fond of; you would suffer any other temporal loss, however burdensome. Then why do you not think the same way when you are dealing of eternal torments? God threatens you not just with a half-hour in a furnace, but with a prison of eternal fire. To escape it, should you not forgo whatever He has forbidden, no matter how pleasant it can be for you, and gladly embrace whatever He commands, even if it be extremely unpleasant? 

A most terrible thing about Hell is its duration. The condemned person loses God and loses Him for all eternity. Now, what is eternity? O my soul, up to now there has not been any angel who has been able to comprehend what eternity is. So how can you comprehend it? Yet, to form some idea of it, consider the following truths: 

Eternity never ends. This is the truth that has made even the great saints tremble. The final judgment will come, the world will be destroyed, the earth will swallow up those who are damned, and they will be cast into Hell. Then, with His almighty hand, God will shut them up in that most unhappy prison. 

From then on, as many years will pass as there are leaves on the trees and plants on all the earth, as many thousands of years as there are drops of water in all seas and rivers, as many thousands of years as there are atoms in the air, as there are grains of sand on all the shores of all seas. Then, after the passage of this countless number of years, what will eternity be? Up to then there will not even have been a hundredth part of it, nor a thousandth – nothing. It then begins again and will last as long again, even after this has been repeated a thousand times, and a thousand million times again. And then, after so long a period, not even a half will have passed, not even a hundredth part nor a thousandth, not even any part of eternity. For all this time there is no interruption in the burnings of those who are damned, and it begins all over again.

Oh, a deep mystery indeed! A terror above all terrors! O eternity! Who can comprehend thee?

The Tears of Cain

Suppose that, in the case of unhappy Cain, weeping in Hell, he shed in every thousand years just one tear. Now, O my soul, recollect your thoughts and suppose this case: For six thousand years at least Cain has been in Hell and shed only six tears, which God miraculously preserves. How many years would pass for his tears to fill all the valleys of the earth and flood all the cities and towns and villages and cover all the mountains so as to flood the whole earth? We understand the distance from the earth to the sun is thirty-four million leagues. How many years would be necessary for Cain's tears to fill that immense space? From the earth to the firmament is, let us suppose, a distance of a hundred and sixty million leagues. 

O God! What number of years might one imagine to be sufficient to fill with these tears this immense space? And yet – O truth so incomprehensible – be sure of it, as that God cannot lie – a time will arrive in which these tears of Cain would be sufficient to flood the world, to reach even the sun, to touch the firmament, and fill all the space between earth and the highest heaven. But that is not all. 

If God dried up all these tears to the last drop and Cain began again to weep, he would again fill the same entire space with them and fill it a thousands times and a million times in succession, and after all those countless years, not even half of eternity would have passed, not even a fraction. After all that time burning in Hell, Cain's sufferings will be just beginning.

This eternity is also without relief. It would indeed be a small consolation and of little benefit for the condemned persons to be able to receive a brief respite once every thousand years. 

 FATIMA CHILDREN'S VISION OF HELL! 

 

No Relief

Picture in Hell a place where there are three reprobates. The first is plunged in a lake of sulfuric fire, the second is chained to a large rock and is being tormented by two devils, one of whom continually pours molten lead down his throat while the other spills it all over his body, covering him from head to foot. The third reprobate is being tortured by two serpents, one of which wraps around the man's body and cruelly gnaws on it, while the other enters within the body and attacks the heart. Suppose God is moved to pity and grants a short respite. 

The first man, after the passage of a thousand years is drawn from the lake and receives the relief of a drink of cool water, and at the end of an hour is cast again into the lake. The second, after a thousand years, is released from his place and allowed to rest, but after an hour is again returned to the same torment. The third, after a thousand years, is delivered from the serpents; but after an hour of relief, is again abused and tormented by them. Ah, how little this consolation would be – to suffer a thousand years and to rest only one hour. 

However, Hell does not even have that much relief. One burns always in those dreadful flames and never receives any relief for all eternity. He is forever gnawed and stricken with remorse, and will never have a rest for all eternity. He will suffer always a very ardent thirst and never receive the refreshment of a sip of water for all eternity. He will see himself always abhorred by God and will never enjoy a single tender glance from Him for all eternity. He will find himself forever cursed by heaven and Hell, and will never receive a single gesture of friendship.

It is an essential misfortune of Hell that everything will be without relief, without remedy, without interruption, without end, eternal.

The Kindness of His Mercy

Now I understand in part, O my God, what Hell is. It is a place of extreme pain, of extreme despair. It is where I deserve to be for my sins, where I would have been confined for some years already if your immense mercy had not delivered me. I will keep repeating a thousand times: The Heart of Jesus has loved me, or else I would now be in Hell! The mercy of Jesus has pitied me, for otherwise I would be in Hell! The Blood of Jesus has reconciled me with the heavenly Father, or my dwelling place would be Hell. This shall be the hymn that I want to sing to Thee, my God, for all eternity. Yes, from now on my intention is to repeat these words as many times as there are moments that have passed since that unhappy hour in which I first offended You. 

Warnings from Our Lady of Fatima 

What has been my gratitude to God for his kind mercy that He showed me? He delivered me from Hell. O, immense charity! O, infinite goodness! After a benefit so great, should I not have given Him my whole heart and loved Him with the love of the most ardent Seraphim? Should I not have directed all my actions to Him and in everything sought only His divine pleasure, accepting all contradictions with joy, in order to return to Him my love? Could I do less than that after a kindness that was so great? And yet, what is it that I have done? Oh, ingratitude worthy of another Hell! I cast You aside, O my God! I reacted to Your mercy by committing new sins and offenses. I know that I have done evil, O my God, and I repent with my whole heart. Ah, would that I could shed a sea of tears for such outrageous ingratitude! O Jesus, have mercy on me; for I now resolve to rather suffer a thousand deaths than offend You again.

 

The Urgency of Hell

It is of faith that Heaven exists for the good and Hell for the wicked. Faith teaches that the pains of Hell are eternal, and it also warns us that one single mortal sin suffices to condemn a soul forever because of the infinite malice by which it offends an infinite God. With these most positive principles in mind, how can I remain indifferent when I see the ease with which sins are committed, sins that occur as frequently as one takes a glass of water, sins and offenses that are perpetrated out of levity or diversion? How can I rest when so many are to be seen living continually in mortal sin and rushing in this blind manner to their eternal destruction? No indeed, I cannot rest, but must needs run and shout a warning to them. If I saw anyone about to fall into a pit or a fire, would I not run up to him and warn him, and do all in my power to help him from falling in? Why should I not do this much to keep sinners from falling into the pit and fires of Hell? 

Neither can I understand why other priests who believe the selfsame truths as I do, as we all must do, do not preach or exhort their flock so that they might avoid this unbearable eternity of Hell. It is still a source of wonder to me how the laity – those men and women blessed with the Faith – do not give warning to those who need it. If a house were to catch fire in the middle of the night, and if the inhabitants of the same house and the other townsfolk were asleep and did not see the danger, would not the one who first noticed it shout and run along the streets, exclaiming: "Fire! Fire! In that house over there!" Then why should there not be a warning of eternal fire to waken those who are drifting in the sleep of sin in such a way that when they open their eyes they will find themselves burning in the eternal flames of Hell? 

---

Zeal for the salvation of souls spurred St. Anthony Mary Claret to preach an estimated 25,000 sermons, write 144 books, found three religious orders, preach countless missions, and in six years as a bishop, confirm over 300,000 and validate more than 9,000 marriages. Starting as a missionary in Spain and the Canary Islands, he was later appointed Archbishop of Santiago, Cuba, and thereafter confessor to the Queen of Spain. But in all he did, he labored so ceaselessly, so tirelessly, and so fruitfully for the cause of Christ and His Church that he is simply called a “Modern Apostle.”

Miracles surrounded his work, and he possessed the gifts of prophecy and the reading of hearts. He often saw Our Lord and Our Lady (to whom he was especially devoted), receiving from them instruction, encouragement, and prophecies. Driven by the overwhelming motivation of saving immortal souls from eternal damnation, St. Anthony Mary Claret directed all his energies to this end, finding all other goals worthless in comparison.

We Can't Imagine the Pain of Hell 

The Forgotten Order - The Knights of St. Lazarus

The Forgotten Order - The Knights of St. Lazarus 

By: Helena P. Schrader 

 

The most famous of the “fighting orders” or militant orders were of course the Knights Templar, and the Knights Hospitaller (Knights of St. John), two orders founded in the Holy Land and, for their age, truly international in character. Although not powerful and largely forgotten, there was a third military order also founded in the Holy Land, the Order of St. Lazarus.

The Order of St. Lazarus evolved from a leper hospital that had existed in Jerusalem prior to the First Crusade. After the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem was established, it became part of the Hospitaller network of hospitals, but by 1142 the Order of St. Lazarus broke away, and by 1147 it was known as the Leper Brothers of Jerusalem. The Leper Pool and the foundations of the leper hospital run by the Knights of St. Lazarus have been located just beyond the norther wall of Jerusalem.

Critical to understanding the Knights of St. Lazarus is the fact that leprosy was far more common in the East than in Western Europe and the influence of Greek Orthodox ideology on the territories of the crusader states. By the end of the 10th century, the Byzantine clergy had come to see leprosy as a "holy disease" -- its victims were not seen as particularly vile sinner but rather as men and women marked by God's favor. A number of Greek Orthodox legends entailed Christ appearing as a leper. Caring for lepers was therefore seen as an act of great charity that would gain a person credit in heaven.

It is probably not surprising, therefore, that the Order of St. Lazarus grew rapidly in the mid-12th century, eventually having houses in Tiberias, Ascalon, Acre, Caesarea, Beirut, and possibly other cities as well. More surprising, however, is the fact that it began to have military brethren.  

 Hospitaller Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem

It appears that initially, the role of these armed monks was primarily the defense of the leper hospitals. Some of these military men were undoubtedly former Templars and Hospitallers who had contracted leprosy, because we know that both the Templar and Hospitaller Rules required members with leprosy to join the Order of St. Lazarus. However, secular knights of the crusader kingdoms who contracted the desease were also expected to join the Knights of St. Lazarus. 

Knights already afflicted with disease would have been facing a steady deterioration of their fighting capabilities, however, and it appears that just as some healthy monks and nuns devoted themselves to the care of the sick in the habit of the Knights of St. Lazarus, some healthy fighting men likewise chose to join the Knights of St. Lazarus rather than the more powerful (and arrogant) military orders of the Templars and Hospitallers. This supposition is supported by the fact that there are recorded incidents of the Order of St. Lazarus taking part in military operations – possibly at the Battle of Hattin, and certainly at the Battle of Gaza in 1244, at Ramla in 1253, and during the defense of Acre in 1291.

 Order of St. Lazarus during the Crusader Period 

Meanwhile, in 1265 Pope Clement IV issued a papal bull that commanded all the prelates of the church to assist in transferring the care of all lepers -- male and female -- to leprosariums run by the Knights of St. Lazarus. Pope Clement had taken a strong interest in the care of lepers before he became pope, and had written a set of regulations for leprosariums while still Bishop of Le Puy that included such remarkable features as the right of lepers to elect their own superiors from among their members. As pope, however, he seems to have been most concerned with ensuring that lepers remained segretrated from the rest of society by putting them under the control of the Knights of St. Lazarus. 

Thus after the fall of Acre, the Order of St. Lazarus moved its headquarters to Cyprus, abandoned all military activities, and thereafter concentrated on its mission of providing comfort and care for the victims of leprosy until the mid-14th century. Of all the so-called militant orders, arguably this was the "most Christian."

Order of St Lazarus - A history 

Liturgical blues? Don’t blame Pius X!

Liturgical blues? Don’t blame Pius X!

Louie Verrecchio

http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/blame/ 

A recent post on the Archdiocese of Washington blog by Monsignor Charles Pope, How a Paragon of Liturgical Tradition May Have Caused Unintended Effects, has gotten a good bit of attention in traditional circles.

In this post, Msgr. Pope attempts to make the case that the unilateral changes made to the Roman Breviary by Pope St. Pius X in 1911, which “arguably did away with almost 1500 years of tradition,” set a precedent for the “sweeping changes” that were inflicted upon the Mass by Pope Paul VI.
This premise leads Msgr. Pope to posit that “the Liturgy is just too important to have it all depend on the notions of one man, even a holy man like Pius X.”

As such, he imagines that the best case scenario is one in which the local bishop enjoys enough authority over the liturgy to prevent a future ham-handed pope from inflicting his personal tastes upon the Mass as it’s celebrated in his local Church, while at the same time keeping a sufficient degree of control in the hands of the pope in order to prevent “too much diversity” in the way the Rite is celebrated in various locations.
Msgr. Pope concludes, therefore:

Traditional Catholics would also do well to understand the problems inherent in having an overly centralized control of the Sacred Liturgy. More needs to be done by traditional Catholics to build a foundation for good Liturgy in the local churches where they reside by building a culture that is respectful of tradition and sober about the pitfalls of depending too much on papal authority.

I have to disagree all the way around, beginning with the premise.
The changes that were made to the Roman Breviary by Pope St. Pius X in no way set a precedent for the destruction of the Mass that took place at the hands of Paul VI for several reasons:
Monsignor Pope himself suggests the first of these when he states that “the issue may seem minor to those unfamiliar with the Office…”

Since the great majority of Catholics have little exposure to the Liturgy of the Hours, when a pope makes changes to the Office such as Pope St. Pius X did, he does so knowing that this will have but a limited, or perhaps secondary, impact on Catholic life as a whole.

Unlike the Breviary, assisting at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation is a precept of the Church that all must observe. Any changes made to the Mass, therefore, will necessarily have an immediate, universal, impact on Catholic life.

Given the principle “lex orandi, lex credendi,” the drastic changes that were made to the actual content of the Mass by Paul VI quite predictably led to a change in the content of what is believed by those who pray it. (Based on the witness of the last fifty years, could anything possibly be more obvious?)
As such, the burden placed upon Paul VI to tread with caution relative to the Mass was exponentially greater than that placed upon Pius X relative to the Breviary.

All of this having been said, it is important to note that Pope St. Pius X, properly speaking, did not change the content of the Breviary, but rather the arrangement of the Psalter. Now, one may wish to argue that doing so was a poor decision, but the reality is that the changes that were made in this case were of a disciplinary nature.

The same cannot be said of the changes that were made to the Mass by Paul VI.
On these points alone, the comparison being drawn by Msgr. Pope falls short; it is truly a matter of apples and oranges.

And then there is the matter of Quo Primum and its binding effect on future popes…
Rather than attempting to restate the argument here, I invite you to view the video below wherein canonist Fr. Gregory Hesse (starting at approximately the 7:40 mark) argues that the Missale Romanum promulgated by Pope Pius V in 1570, as decreed in Quo Primum, cannot be changed by future popes.

The "New Mass" is a NEW Rite NOT organic change to the Latin Mass. Thus under Trent's Dogmatic decree Sess 7, Canon 13...we have an illicit/schismatic modernist "New Mass"...

As for the notion that less centralized control of the liturgy can reasonably serve to curb the kind of destruction that was wrought on the Mass by Pope Paul VI, this strikes me as a recipe for further disaster.

While the Pauline assault on the Mass was unprecedented in the extreme, on a much smaller scale, we already know what enhanced “local control” looks like and it’s not very pretty.

There is a staggering degree of diversity in the way in which the Novus Ordo is celebrated even now, not just between various Sees in a given nation, but even among neighboring parishes in a given diocese. If you think we have too much liturgical diversity now at the hands of those who have usurped an authority that is not their own, just imagine the effect that a codification of enhanced local authority would have!

Not only would this exacerbate the problem of endless innovation in the Novus Ordo world (setting aside for the present discussion the deficiencies inherent to the rite), it could open the door for the same disease to infect the traditional Mass.

“The Novus Ordo Missae,
even when said with piety and respect
for the liturgical rules…
is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism.
It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith.”
(Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter
to Confused Catholics, p.29)

The problem under discussion; namely, that of the post-conciliar liturgical changes that run roughshod over centuries of tradition, stems neither from there being too much control in the hands of one man, nor the precedent supposedly set by Pope Pius X, but rather from a derogation of duty and a stunning lack of sensus catholicus  on the part of the one man in whose hands that authority was placed on 21 June 1963; Pope Paul VI.

It was this that opened the way for him to do what no other pope in the previous four hundred years would even dare.

What Paul VI did to the Mass was not just the “heavy-handed use of papal power” as Msgr. Pope suggested; rather, it was a grave abuse of papal power and a clear violation of what every pope from Pius V forward, at least until the time of Pius XII, understood to be the law of the Church.

For this there simply is no precedent whatsoever to be found in the pontificate of Pope St. Pius X.

While it is true that even a holy pope can make an error in judgment, if the sacred liturgy is first and foremost an action of Jesus Christ, and we know that it is, it is right that its regulation should rest largely on the authority of His Vicar.

The one thing that is most needed in order to rectify the crisis at hand, liturgical and otherwise, is a pope who has an ability to sentire cum ecclesia; that is, a Roman Pontiff who genuinely thinks and feels and is willing to act according to the mind of the Holy Catholic Church as made known throughout the centuries.

May the Lord in His mercy grant us just such a Holy Father soon.

 

Birth Pangs: December, 2014

Birth Pangs: December, 2014

The Planet X system moves closer!

Bishop Williamson: Archbishop’s Sense – II

Archbishop’s Sense – II

Towards Rome a great Archbishop, yes, did push.
But what can be done when Romans’ minds are mush?

Twelve weeks ago (Oct. 5) “Eleison Comments” presented a first series of extracts from the last public interview of Archbishop Lefebvre, given to Fideliter magazine in early 1991. Here follows a second and last series of extracts, slightly edited but only for the sake of brevity and clarity:—

Q: What conclusions can we draw from the Society of St Pius X after 20 years of its existence?
A: The Good Lord wanted Catholic Tradition. I am deeply convinced that the Society is the means that God wanted to keep and maintain the Faith, the truth of the Church. We must continue faithfully to keep the treasures of the Church, hoping that one day they may resume the place which they should never have lost in Rome.

Q: You often say that, more than the liturgy, it is now the Faith which opposes us to modern Rome.
A: Certainly the question of the liturgy and the sacraments is very important, but the most important is the question of the Faith. This is not a question for us. We have the Faith of all time, of the Council of Trent, of the Catechism of St. Pius X, of all the Councils and all the Popes before Vatican II. For years they have tried in Rome to show that everything in the Council was fully consistent with this Tradition. Now they are showing their true colours by saying there is no longer any Tradition or Deposit to be transmitted. Tradition in the Church is whatever the Pope is saying today. You must submit to what the Pope and the bishops say today. Here is their famous ‘Living Tradition,’ which was the only basis for our condemnation in 1988.

Now they have given up trying to prove that what they say is consistent with what Pius IX wrote or with what the Council of Trent promulgated. No, all of that is over; it’s outdated, as Cardinal Ratzinger said. It is clear, and they might have said so earlier. There was no point in our talking, in our discussing with them. Now we suffer from the tyranny of authority, because there are no longer any rules from the past.
 
They are showing more and more that we are right. We are dealing with people who have a different philosophy from ours, a different way of seeing, who are influenced by all modern subjectivist philosophers. For them there is no fixed truth, there is no dogma. Everything is evolving. This is really the Masonic destruction of the Faith. Fortunately, we have Tradition to lean on!
 
Q: You have emphasized that you are sure that the Society is blessed by God, because at several points it could have disappeared.
A: Indeed. It has kept coming under very difficult attacks. That is very painful, but we must nonetheless believe that the line of Faith and Tradition that we are following, is imperishable, because God cannot allow his Church to perish.

Q; What can you say to those of the faithful who still hope in the possibility of an agreement with Rome?
A: Our true faithful, those who have understood the problem and who have precisely helped us to continue along the straight and firm path of Tradition and the Faith, told me that the approaches I was making towards Rome were dangerous and that I was wasting my time. Yet I hoped until the last minute that in Rome we would witness a little bit of loyalty, so I cannot be blamed for not having done the maximum. So now too, to those who say to me, “You’ve got to reach an agreement with Rome,” I think I can say that I then went even further than I should have.

Kyrie eleison.