Contact Us

Use the form on the right to contact us.

You can edit the text in this area, and change where the contact form on the right submits to, by entering edit mode using the modes on the bottom right. 

         

123 Street Avenue, City Town, 99999

(123) 555-6789

email@address.com

 

You can set your address, phone number, email and site description in the settings tab.
Link to read me page with more information.

Feed

Filtering by Tag: Catholic Doctrine

Buen Suceso Conferences Part IV: Suffering and Charity

Vox Catholica

In the fourth installment of the Buen Suceso Conference Series, Fr. Adam Purdy walks us through the relationship between Suffering and Charity.

Father shows us how, suffering reminds us that we are not created for this world, and how as members of the Mystical Body of Christ, each one of us may offer our sufferings, trials, and tribulations in this life, in union with Christ on the Cross, and apply those merits for the benefit of one another.

Father also shows us the different levels of suffering that one may offer, culminating in offering one's self as a Victim, in imitation of Christ for the Salvation of Souls.

This conference helps us more deeply understand WHY Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres' example is so important for us to understand in this age of degeneracy and apostasy, as well as helping us understand what she offered up for us, as a Victim Soul for the 20th Century.


Buen Suceso Conferences Part II: The History of Sacrifice and the Purification

Vox Catholica

This is the second installment in a series of conferences by Fr. Adam Purdy on the significance and the meaning of the apparitions of Maria del Buen Suceso de la Purification to Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres in Quito, Ecuador.

In this conference, Father Purdy walks us through a detailed history of sacrifice; from the first sacrifice after the fall of Adam, to the sacrifices of Noah, Abraham, Aaron & the Levites, and culminating in the sacrifice offered by the Blessed Virgin Mary in the Temple on the day of her Purification and the ultimate sacrifice of Our Lord on the Cross.

This history is integral to truly understanding WHAT the purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary is, it's relation to the priesthood and the religious life, and why it is important that Our Lady took the name Maria del Buen Suceso de la Purification when she appeared to Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres in Quito, Ecuador.

Father Purdy also discusses in detail the 'Quasi-Priestly' role that Our Lady plays in the mystery of redemption, using the principles Saint Thomas Aquinas on analogy.

Confirmations With Bishop Fellay 2018 - St. James Church - Pittsburgh

Vox Catholica

“The Sacrament of Confirmation is one of the most impressive sacraments. Difficult, because we don't have much under the senses. The Holy Ghost is different, He's a pure spirit. To Him was entrusted the work of our sanctification, and especially in the Sacrament of Confirmation we see that He sent to us to be our consoler, our defender our protector. He makes of us soldiers of Christ, imprinting in our soul the character of confirmation by which we are associated to the mission of saving souls in this fight: defending the Faith protecting the Church.

“The other effect of the confirmation are the gifts of the Holy Ghost. Very, very special capacities by which we are made docile to the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. He really wants to make us grow.

“These are the words of St. Paul from shining, from clarity to clarity, in the image of the Son of God. He really wants to transform us into children of God. His masterpiece was our Lord Jesus Christ; His humanity, and He wants to do the same with us. He's the one who is putting in us these feelings of a son of a child towards his father. In fact whenever we say “father” to God, it's always with Him, in Him. And we see how close He wants to be with us. He really wants to make out of us masterpieces for God.

“And so, you have different parts in the Confirmation. First the Bishop is asking for these gifts imposing the hands like the Apostles did from the very start of the history of the church. And then you have the Confirmation its self. The young or older come to the bishop accompanied by their sponsors. And the bishop is anointing their forehead with holy chrism saying these words "I sign you with the sign of the Cross and I confirm you with the chrism of salvation," and he says in which name does that: "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."

“It's very short words, but very mighty. They are vested by the might of God Himself. And so these words they affect, make real, what they mean. And when we say "sign of the sign of the Cross" the soul is marked with the character of Confirmation. "Confirm you with this chrism of salvation” and the soul is strengthened, with all this increase, this tremendous increase in Sanctifying Grace, in all the virtues and the gifts, the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost.

“It's so beautiful, it shows us how intimate God wants to be with us. In heaven it will be so, but He wants it to start here on earth. Of course it's more difficult you know, because we are in the regime of the faith, faith which is like a veil, who's hiding us, like the clouds are hiding the Sun. Nevertheless, we know that it's real; that there is a Sun if even if we are under the cover, and the same with the Faith, we know that it's real.

“God is real.

“And His gifts and His bounties, mercy but we don't see right now. Nevertheless and once again it's true; it's the reality to which we are called already here on earth in order to go to Heaven.”

+ Bishop Bernard Fellay

Fr. Marc Vernoy: An Open Letter To My Brother Priests

Vox Catholica

On the Feast of Saint John the Baptist, August 29th, 2018, Fr. Marc Vernoy, Prior of St. Thomas More Church in Sanford, Florida wrote a letter to his brother priests in Florida. This letter is wide ranging in scope, and deals with the current crisis in the Catholic Church, and what priests can do to fight back against the overwhelming wave of corruption that is consuming God's Holy Church.

Father's suggested remedies (attending the Mass, praying our daily Rosary, adoration and contemplation, and sincere prayers to the Mother of God) are all things we can also do as lay Catholics to beg God for an end to the crisis, and a restoration of our Holy Mother Church. 

Please share this video (especially to priests who aren't in a Traditional order), and subscribe to the YouTube channel. This will be a great help to continue building this new apostolate.


Dear Brother Priest,

Greetings in the united Hearts of Jesus and Mary. My name is Marc Vernoy, I was ordained a Catholic priest for the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X on June 29, 1995. After having been sent to Asia, Europe and Africa. I was assigned in Sanford, Florida, eight years ago to establish our Priory.

We are “a priestly society of common life without vows, after the example of the Societies of Foreign Missions.”[1] Our “purpose is the priesthood and all that pertains to it and nothing but what concerns it; i.e., the priesthood as Our Lord Jesus Christ willed it when He said, “Do this for a commemoration of me.”[2]

Before founding our Society, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre led the largest Catholic missionary congregation, the Holy Ghost Fathers and was the Apostolic Delegate for West Africa. His experience showed him the necessity of a real common life to preserve and strengthen our priestly life against the challenges and dangers of modern life in this world.

As our Lord suffered His terrible Passion, so His Mystical Body, holy Mother the Church is atrociously suffering today through so many victims, children and young adults and in her immaculate and divine dignity. Some of her beloved sons, consecrated in the Priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ, have appallingly betrayed her and have sorely defiled their persons with horrible crimes. Their unnatural depravation is so evil that Holy Scripture[3] places it among the four sins that cry to heaven for vengeance. In their sacrilegious abuses, they crucify the whole Church, they desecrate their holy Unction and even give up their fatherhood and their human dignity, as there is no dignity anymore when you depart so sinfully from God, our Creator and Redeemer.

As poor sinners, we all know that human nature is weak and wounded, always ready to fall into sin. Thus, our Lord Jesus Christ is alerting us, “watch ye, and pray that you enter not into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak”[4]. He constantly admonishes us against the perils of the world, whose Prince is Satan[5], and has no positive or “optimistic attitude” towards them. “The world does hate me, because I denounce it for its evil doings.”[6] “If you belonged to the world, the world would know you for its own and love you; it is because you do not belong to the world, because I have singled you out from the midst of the world, that the world hates you.”[7] “Have you never been told that the world’s friendship means enmity with God, and the man who would have the world for his friend makes himself God’s enemy?”[8]

However, after the Second Vatican Council and through the liturgical reform as well, these evangelical exhortations have been silenced in the Church. In the General Audience of July 3, 1974, Pope Paul VI explained this change as follows: “We have certainly heard of the severity of the saints for the evils of the world. Many are still familiar with the books of asceticism, which have a generally negative judgment on earthly corruption. But it is also certain that we live in a different spiritual climate, being invited, especially by the recent council, to take an optimistic look at the modern world, its values, its conquests.”[9] He then continues his speech praising modern materialism, comfort and technology and gave this advice: “We must maintain a line of demarcation between Christian life and secular life. Between the spiritual and the temporal there cannot exist this communion - or rather this confusion - of interests and ways of life that the old unitary conception of Christianity made easier and more habitual.”[10]

We Catholics, faithful to the Word of our Lord and to the holy Tradition of His Church have always been aware of the distinction between the spiritual and the temporal worlds, but not a separation, “a line of demarcation”, as we believe in the social Kingship of the Son of God. We are for a communion coming from subsidiarity, but certainly not for any confusion. We want divine Love to be known in this world, to spread and to be loved.

These words of Paul VI along with many others regarding a new “spiritual” attitude towards the “world” are very disturbing and confusing, as they frankly depart from divine doctrine and from the constant teaching and practice of the Catholic Church. The absence of God the Father in any society is at the root of all evils we may witness today. How could Paul VI open the gates of the Church to the fetid and evil spirit of the world, promoting a liberal and godless attitude with the world? This invitation has unfortunately been observed in what was called the aggiornamento of our Church. The holy Father, instead promoting the salvific influence of the Church in our world and caring for the spiritual good of his flock, exposed both to the sinful contamination of the world for their own ruin. At the first rank of this contamination have been the consecrated persons. 120,000 priests left the priesthood for the world and its corruption and many who stayed in their position have greatly suffered. Also, the changes in the liturgy contributed to a confusion regarding the identity of the Priest and even to a desecration of Priesthood. Every day of our life we need to be reminded about our sacred identity and divine vocation.

Paul VI concluded the Second Vatican Council with these words: “Indeed, an immense love for men profoundly permeated it. Human needs examined and considered in detail... have absorbed the attention of our Synod. You worshipers of humanity (cultores humanitatis) who renounce transcendental truths ought to pay tribute to the Council for at least this and acknowledge our new Humanism. For we also, and we more than anyone, are worshipers of man.”[11]

This new horizontal attitude, worldly and man-centered, forgetting the primal and preliminary vertical attitude towards God Almighty altered completely the meaning of Christian life and had enormous effects on Catholic doctrine and liturgy.

Nevertheless, the Apostle admonished the Romans regarding this very attitude leading to all perversions and abuses. “For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man... Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonor their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, that prompts them to disgraceful acts. They are versed in every kind of injustice, knavery, impurity, avarice, and ill-will; spiteful, murderous, contentious, deceitful, depraved, backbiters, slanderers, God’s enemies; insolent, haughty, vainglorious; inventive in wickedness, disobedient to their parents; without prudence, without honor, without love, without loyalty, without pity. Yet, with the just decree of God before their minds, they never grasped the truth that those who so live are deserving of death; not only those who commit such acts, but they also that consent to them that do them.”[12]

Let us keep in mind that Saint Paul is not targeting only abusers, but also those who cover for and promote this kind of behavior. As a consequence, it is quite clear that this new “optimistic look at the modern world” deprives the flock from any spiritual protection and abandon them to pride, idolatry, adultery, egotism, narcissism, “selfism”, blindness, contraception and abortion, addiction, practical atheism, abuse of power, irresponsibility, revolutionary feminism, social chaos, homosexuality and many other evils that we do better not to name.

In a society as large as the Church, there is a force of inertia that can still give the illusion of its strength, and cohesion for a certain time after a serious and disabling event. The Church is partially unplugged for half a century, as God did not fully abandon her. Confused and without a clear supernatural goal, her human side simply continued to roll thanks to the strength it had accumulated until those years and thanks to an intense and overwhelming emphasis on administration. Many societies deprived of fatherhood, a loving authority that gives a vision, have forgotten the “why” of their lives to focus on the “how” of their organization.

Today, we are witnessing the result of a disconnection with God the Father, the batteries are very low and the spectacle of the fall in shameful convulsions is lamentable. While Pope Paul VI approved and promoted the disconnection, some Roman Pontiffs tried to fix things, especially the moral life with cosmetic measures, which are worthless, as the only effective medicine, which is in the truth of our Faith in the Word of God and in His mystical Body. Very few in the Catholic Church are those who really believe in this article of Faith that She in union with Her Head Who is Christ, is the only One Who provides the necessary means of salvation to human beings[13].

The true Church and chaste celibacy cannot be the cause of today’s scandals. The crime comes from a carelessness for spiritual good, from an invasive anti-Catholic subculture and from the absence of true Shepherds and Fathers. The new collegial way of governing the Church deprived the Fathers of their full authority, responsibility and accountability and finally of their paternal heart.

The Second Vatican Council and its consequences were supposed to revivify the Church with a reformation, but it obviously favored a dreadful deformation. Never has a true Catholic reformation ever been liberal and confusing in its teaching, lax and permissive in its practice, as it clearly was in the last Council.

We know that a fish rots from the head, but we also know that the good outcome always comes from Peter and we must pray for the Pope. “Thou art Peter, and it is upon this rock that I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”[14]

However, in his Letter to the People of God[15], Pope Francis unfortunately avoids the deep causes of so many heartbreaking scandals. Three key words are missing: “homosexual”, “bishop” and “sacrilege”. We do not hear Peter warning us and taking any concrete measure against the liberal and homosexual subculture, corrupting from the highest prelates to the simple assistant priest. We know for years that many in the hierarchy are covering up for and even promoting this evil subculture, liberal in its theory and confusing and perverting in its latest practical consequences. We unfortunately know today that Peter is apparently tainted with this subcultural influence[16]. In the Letter to the People of God Pope Francis gives no concrete direction. Being accountable and responsible for whatever happens under their authority to the flock, Pope Francis is not asking his brother bishops to investigate, to inquire, to thoroughly and canonically visit their diocese. Where is the sense of Fatherhood? Though, “no man can serve two masters![17] and we expect our Holy Father to set a clear example, as the Vicar of our Lord and to act as a true Father in order to confirm His Brothers under the authority our only Master, Christ our Lord.

Background checks are a cosmetic measure. We need the help of God the Father, we need to beg the Holy Ghost for the grace to keep the Faith, the grace to persevere in His Charity and Love, the grace to be led by His Hope and to live in His Peace. This requires remaining in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ. The very minimum we must do is to pray faithfully our Breviary, our Rosary, to reserve a quiet time of contemplation, another to savor Holy Scripture, to entertain a deep love for the sacrament of Penance and its frequent use and finally a supreme devotion for the holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is the summit of our lives and reminds us who we are. We must also ask for prayers. Traditionally, first Thursdays are dedicated to pray for priests, at masses, adoration, holy hour, etc. Our brother priests need our presence and comfort to avoid the curse of loneliness that affects many, which is a deadly danger and for some a foretaste of Hell. “Woe to him that is alone, for when he falls, he has none to lift him up.”[18]

We, first sons of our Immaculate Blessed Lady, need to ask her intercession to live a holy and chaste life. It is a gift that we must daily beg through prayer, fasting, corporal penance and ascetic life. “They that are Christ’s have crucified their flesh with the vices and concupiscences.”[19] Our Lord warns us, “unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish”[20]. The first move of a worldly life is to abandon the ascetic life and the splendid and radiating virtue of chastity. The gift of this delicate virtue is a fruit of our constant understanding, renewal and love of our consecration.

We have been set apart and we shall not take back what we have sacrificed and given to God Almighty. The holy sacrifice of the Mass is at the core of our fidelity and a necessity to continue to grow in the dedication of our own “fiat”. “Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood. Meditate upon these things, be wholly in these things: that thy profiting may be manifest to all. Take heed to thyself and to doctrine: be earnest in them. For in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee.”[21] Our identity is a divine gift and we must have a vivid sense of it to live it wholly.

We, priests of our Lord Jesus Christ are expected to preach fully, courageously and without any ambiguity the mysteries of God and all the means He gives us to live these mysteries.

The doctrine regarding sin and the last ends are extremely efficient. “Sin is the one and only evil in the world. We mortals are accustomed to regard the sufferings and contradictions of this life as evils, whereas they are graces in reality; since, far from separating us from God, they bring us nearer to Him. Through sin man becomes worthless in God’s sight; through sin, he, who is made of nothing, returns to his original nothingness. St. John Chrysostom says: ‘Many consider eternal damnation to be the greatest of all evils; but for my part, I always assert that to offend Jesus Christ is a far greater evil’. Sin is a greater evil than the annihilation of the world, nay, of a million worlds, with their countless inhabitants. Sin is the only real disgrace.”[22]

We, priests and sinners, united with the Passion and Crucifixion of our Redeemer, alter Christus, must fulfil our duty of reparation and expiation for the sin of the world, the sin of our fallen brothers and set a good example for this purpose. In these troubled and confused times, we have the great duty to remind ourselves and the faithful about the evil of the practice of homosexuality and seriously fight against its unnatural contamination.

We pray to Mary Immaculate, who prophesized this crisis at Akita, Fatima, La Salette, Quito, etc. We pray to her for the Church and for you my dear brother priest, who are expected, after our necessary and certainly sorrowful purification, to be a key instrument in the absolutely needed conversion and reformation to return to the Love of Christ.


Sources:

[1] F.S.S.P.X Statutes (I:1) “approved by a decree of the Bishop of Fribourg, November 1, 1970, and praised in a letter from the Sacred Congregation of the Clergy, dated February 18, 1971”.

[2] Idem (II:1)

[3] Gn 18:20-21

[4] Mk 14:38

[5] Jn 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; Ap 12:9; etc.

[6] Jn 7:7

[7] Jn 15:19

[8] Js 4:4

[9] https://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/audiences/1974/documents/hf_p-vi_aud_19740703.html

[10] Idem

[11] Paul VI, Homily of the closing Mass of the Second Vatican Council on December 7, 1965, from the original Latin version: http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/la/speeches/1965/documents/hf_p-vi_spe_19651207_epilogo-concilio.html

[12] Rm 1:22-32

[13] Salus extra ecclesiam non est, St Cyprian Ep 4:4; Ep 73:21,2. Extraordinary Magisterium: Innocent III, 4th Lateran Council. Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam. Eugene IV, Cantate Domino. All Popes taught this dogma, especially from Leo XII to Pius XII.

[14] Mt 16:18-19

[15] http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2018/documents/papa-francesco_20180820_lettera-popolo-didio.html

[16] https://s3.amazonaws.com/lifesite/TESTIMONYXCMVX-XENGLISH-CORRECTED-FINAL_VERSION_-_G-2.pdf : TESTIMONY by His Excellency Carlo Maria Viganò Titular Archbishop of Ulpiana Apostolic Nuncio.

[17] Mt 6:24

[18] Eccles 4:10

[19] Gal 5:24-25

[20] Lk 13:3

[21] 1Tim 4:14-16

[22] The Catechism explained, Spirago, III Sin 2:3

Catholic Catechism: On Ignorance And Sin

Vox Catholica

Article 1. Whether ignorance can be a cause of sin?

Objection 1. It would seem that ignorance cannot be a cause of sin: because a non-being is not the cause of anything. Now ignorance is a non-being, since it is a privation of knowledge. Therefore ignorance is not a cause of sin.

Objection 2. Further, causes of sin should be reckoned in respect of sin being a "turning to" something, as was stated above (I-II:75:1). Now ignorance seems to savor of "turning away" from something. Therefore it should not be reckoned a cause of sin.

Objection 3. Further, every sin is seated in the will. Now the will does not turn to that which is not known, because its object is the good apprehended. Therefore ignorancecannot be a cause of sin.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Nat. et Grat. lxvii) "that some sin through ignorance."

I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Phys. viii, 27) a moving cause is twofold, direct and indirect. A direct cause is one that moves by its own power, as the generator is the moving cause of heavy and light things. An indirect cause, is either one that removes an impediment, or the removal itself of an impediment: and it is in this way that ignorance can be the cause of a sinfulact; because it is a privation of knowledge perfecting the reason that forbids the act of sin, in so far as it directs human acts.

Now we must observe that the reason directs human acts in accordance with a twofold knowledge, universal and particular: because in conferring about what is to be done, it employs a syllogism, the conclusion of which is an act of judgment, or of choice, or an operation. Now actions are about singulars: wherefore the conclusion of a practical syllogism is a singular proposition. But a singular proposition does not follow from a universal proposition, except through the medium of a particular proposition: thus a man is restrained from an act of parricide, by the knowledge that it is wrong to kill one's father, and that this man is his father. Hence ignorance about either of these two propositions, viz. of the universal principle which is a rule of reason, or of the particular circumstance, could cause an act of parricide. Hence it is clear that not every kind of ignorance is the cause of a sin, but that alone which removes the knowledge which would prevent the sinful act. Consequently if a man's will be so disposed that he would not be restrained from the act of parricide, even though he recognized his father, his ignorance about his father is not the cause of his committing the sin, but is concomitant with the sin: wherefore such a man sins, not "through ignorance" but "in ignorance," as the Philosopher states (Ethic. iii, 1).

Reply to Objection 1. Non-being cannot be the direct cause of anything: but it can be an accidental cause, as being the removal of an impediment.

Reply to Objection 2. As knowledge, which is removed by ignorance, regards sin as turning towards something, so too, ignoranceof this respect of a sin is the cause of that sin, as removing its impediment.

Reply to Objection 3. The will cannot turn to that which is absolutely unknown: but if something be known in one respect, and unknown in another, the will can will it. It is thus that ignorance is the cause of sin: for instance, when a man knows that what he is killing is a man, but not that it is his own father; or when one knows that a certain act is pleasurable, but not that it is a sin.

Article 2. Whether ignorance is a sin?

Objection 1. It would seem that ignorance is not a sin. For sin is "a word, deed or desire contrary to God's law," as stated above (I-II:71:5). Now ignorance does not denote an act, either internal or external. Therefore ignorance is not a sin.

Objection 2. Further, sin is more directly opposed to grace than to knowledge. Now privation of grace is not a sin, but a punishment resulting from sin. Therefore ignorance which is privation of knowledge is not a sin.

Objection 3. Further, if ignorance is a sin, this can only be in so far as it is voluntary. But if ignorance is a sin, through being voluntary, it seems that the sin will consist in the act itself of the will, rather than in the ignorance. Therefore the ignorance will not be a sin, but rather a result of sin.

Objection 4. Further, every sin is taken away by repentance, nor does any sin, except only original sin, pass as to guilt, yet remain in act. Now ignorance is not removed by repentance, but remains in act, all its guilt being removed by repentance. Therefore ignorance is not a sin, unless perchance it be original sin.

Objection 5. Further, if ignorance be a sin, then a man will be sinning, as long as he remains in ignorance. But ignorance is continual in the one who is ignorant. Therefore a person in ignorance would be continually sinning, which is clearly false, else ignorance would be a most grievous sin. Therefore ignorance is not a sin.

On the contrary, Nothing but sin deserves punishment. But ignorance deserves punishment, according to 1 Corinthians 14:38: "If any man know not, he shall not be known." Therefore ignorance is a sin.

I answer that, Ignorance differs from nescience, in that nescience denotes mere absence of knowledge; wherefore whoever lacks knowledge about anything, can be said to be nescient about it: in which sense Dionysius puts nescience in the angels (Coel. Hier. vii). On the other hand, ignorance denotes privation of knowledge, i.e. lack of knowledge of those things that one has a naturalaptitude to know. Some of these we are under an obligation to know, those, to wit, without the knowledge of which we are unable to accomplish a due act rightly. Wherefore all are bound in common to know the articles of faith, and the universal principles of right, and each individual is bound to know matters regarding his duty or state. Meanwhile there are other things which a man may have a natural aptitude to know, yet he is not bound to know them, such as the geometrical theorems, and contingent particulars, except in some individual case. Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called "invincible," because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know.

Reply to Objection 1. As stated above (I-II:71:6 ad 1), when we say that sin is a "word, deed or desire," we include the opposite negations, by reason of which omissions have the character of sin; so that negligence, in as much as ignorance is a sin, is comprised in the above definition of sin; in so far as one omits to say what one ought, or to do what one ought, or to desire what one ought, in order to acquire the knowledge which we ought to have.

Reply to Objection 2. Although privation of grace is not a sin in itself, yet by reason of negligence in preparing oneself for grace, it may have the character of sin, even as ignorance; nevertheless even here there is a difference, since man can acquire knowledgeby his acts, whereas grace is not acquired by acts, but by God's favor.

Reply to Objection 3. Just as in a sin of transgression, the sin consists not only in the act of the will, but also in the act willed, which is commanded by the will; so in a sin of omission not only the act of the will is a sin, but also the omission, in so far as it is in some way voluntary; and accordingly, the neglect to know, or even lack of consideration is a sin.

Reply to Objection 4. Although when the guilt has passed away through repentance, the ignorance remains, according as it is a privation of knowledge, nevertheless the negligence does not remain, by reason of which the ignorance is said to be a sin.

Reply to Objection 5. Just as in other sins of omissionman sins actually only at the time at which the affirmative precept is binding, so is it with the sin of ignorance. For the ignorant man sins actually indeed, not continually, but only at the time for acquiring the knowledge that he ought to have.

Article 3. Whether ignorance excuses from sin altogether?

Objection 1. It would seem that ignorance excuses from sin altogether. For as Augustine says (Retract. i, 9), every sin is voluntary. Now ignorance causes involuntariness, as stated above (I-II:6:8). Therefore ignorance excuses from sin altogether.

Objection 2. Further, that which is done beside the intention, is done accidentally. Now the intention cannot be about what is unknown. Therefore what a man does through ignorance is accidental in human acts. But what is accidental does not give the species. Therefore nothing that is done through ignorance in human acts, should be deemed sinful or virtuous.

Objection 3. Further, man is the subject of virtue and sin, inasmuch as he is partaker of reason. Now ignorance excludes knowledge which perfects the reason. Therefore ignorance excuses from sin altogether.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. iii, 18) that "some things done through ignorance are rightly reproved." Now those things alone are rightly reproved which are sins. Therefore some things done through ignorance are sins. Therefore ignorance does not altogether excuse from sin.

I answer that, Ignorance, by its very nature, renders the act which it causes involuntary. Now it has already been stated (Articles 1 and 2) that ignorance is said to cause the act which the contrary knowledge would have prevented; so that this act, if knowledgewere to hand, would be contrary to the will, which is the meaning of the word involuntary. If, however, the knowledge, which is removed by ignorance, would not have prevented the act, on account of the inclination of the will thereto, the lack of this knowledge does not make that man unwilling, but not willing, as stated in Ethic. iii, 1: and such like ignorance which is not the cause of the sinful act, as already stated, since it does not make the act to be involuntary, does not excuse from sin. The same applies to any ignorance that does not cause, but follows or accompanies the sinful act.

On the other hand, ignorance which is the cause of the act, since it makes it to be involuntary, of its very nature excuses from sin, because voluntariness is essential to sin. But it may fail to excuse altogether from sin, and this for two reasons. First, on the part of the thing itself which is not known. For ignorance excuses from sin, in so far as something is not known to be a sin. Now it may happen that a person ignores some circumstance of a sin, the knowledge of which circumstance would prevent him from sinning, whether it belong to the substance of the sin, or not; and nevertheless his knowledge is sufficient for him to be aware that the act is sinful; for instance, if a man strike someone, knowing that it is a man (which suffices for it to be sinful) and yet be ignorant of the fact that it is his father, (which is a circumstance constituting another species of sin); or, suppose that he is unaware that this manwill defend himself and strike him back, and that if he had known this, he would not have struck him (which does not affect the sinfulness of the act). Wherefore, though this man sins through ignorance, yet he is not altogether excused, because, not withstanding, he has knowledge of the sin. Secondly, this may happen on the part of the ignorance itself, because, to wit, this ignorance is voluntary, either directly, as when a man wishes of set purpose to be ignorant of certain things that he may sin the more freely; or indirectly, as when a man, through stress of work or other occupations, neglects to acquire the knowledge which would restrain him from sin. For such like negligence renders the ignorance itself voluntary and sinful, provided it be about matters one is bound and able to know. Consequently this ignorance does not altogether excuse from sin. If, however, the ignorance be such as to be entirely involuntary, either through being invincible, or through being of matters one is not bound to know, then such like ignorance excuses from sin altogether.

Reply to Objection 1. Not every ignorance causes involuntariness, as stated above (I-II:6:8). Hence not every ignorance excuses from sin altogether.

Reply to Objection 2. So far as voluntariness remains in the ignorant person, the intention of sin remains in him: so that, in this respect, his sin is not accidental.

Reply to Objection 3. If the ignorance be such as to exclude the use of reason entirely, it excuses from sin altogether, as is the case with madmen and imbeciles: but such is not always the ignorance that causes the sin; and so it does not always excuse from sin altogether.

Article 4. Whether ignorance diminishes a sin?

Objection 1. It would seem that ignorance does not diminish a sin. For that which is common to all sins does not diminish sin. Now ignorance is common to all sins, for the Philosopher says (Ethic. iii, 1) that "every evil man is ignorant." Therefore ignorance does not diminish sin.

Objection 2. Further, one sin added to another makes a greater sin. But ignorance is itself a sin, as stated above (Article 2). Therefore it does not diminish a sin.

Objection 3. Further, the same thing does not both aggravate and diminish sin. Now ignorance aggravates sin; for Ambrosecommenting on Romans 2:4, "Knowest thou not that the benignity of God leadeth thee to penance?" says: "Thy sin is most grievous if thou knowest not." Therefore ignorance does not diminish sin.

Objection 4. Further, if any kind of ignorance diminishes a sin, this would seem to be chiefly the case as regards the ignorancewhich removes the use of reason altogether. Now this kind of ignorance does not diminish sin, but increases it: for the Philosophersays (Ethic. iii, 5) that the "punishment is doubled for a drunken man." Therefore ignorance does not diminish sin.

On the contrary, Whatever is a reason for sin to be forgiven, diminishes sin. Now such is ignorance, as is clear from 1 Timothy 1:13: "I obtained . . . mercy . . . because I did it ignorantly." Therefore ignorance diminishes or alleviates sin.

I answer that, Since every sin is voluntaryignorance can diminish sin, in so far as it diminishes its voluntariness; and if it does not render it less voluntary, it nowise alleviates the sin. Now it is evident that the ignorance which excuses from sin altogether (through making it altogether involuntary) does not diminish a sin, but does away with it altogether. On the other hand, ignorancewhich is not the cause of the sin being committed, but is concomitant with it, neither diminishes nor increases the sin.

Therefore sin cannot be alleviated by any ignorance, but only by such as is a cause of the sin being committed, and yet does not excuse from the sin altogether. Now it happens sometimes that such like ignorance is directly and essentially voluntary, as when a man is purposely ignorant that he may sin more freely, and ignorance of this kind seems rather to make the act more voluntary and more sinful, since it is through the will's intention to sin that he is willing to bear the hurt of ignorance, for the sake of freedom in sinning. Sometimes, however, the ignorance which is the cause of a sin being committed, is not directly voluntary, but indirectly or accidentally, as when a man is unwilling to work hard at his studies, the result being that he is ignorant, or as when a man willfully drinks too much wine, the result being that he becomes drunk and indiscreet, and this ignorance diminishes voluntariness and consequently alleviates the sin. For when a thing is not known to be a sin, the will cannot be said to consent to the sin directly, but only accidentally; wherefore, in that case there is less contempt, and therefore less sin.

Reply to Objection 1. The ignorance whereby "every evil man is ignorant," is not the cause of sin being committed, but something resulting from that cause, viz. of the passion or habit inclining to sin.

Reply to Objection 2. One sin is added to another makes more sins, but it does not always make a sin greater, since, perchance, the two sins do not coincide, but are separate. It may happen, if the first diminishes the second, that the two together have not the same gravity as one of them alone would have; thus murder is a more grievous sin if committed by a man when sober, than if committed by a man when drunk, although in the latter case there are two sins: because drunkenness diminishes the sinfulness of the resulting sin more than its own gravity implies.

Reply to Objection 3. The words of Ambrose may be understood as referring to simply affected ignorance; or they may have reference to a species of the sin of ingratitude, the highest degree of which is that man even ignores the benefits he has received; or again, they may be an allusion to the ignorance of unbelief, which undermines the foundation of the spiritual edifice.

Reply to Objection 4. The drunken man deserves a "double punishment" for the two sins which he commits, viz. drunkenness, and the sin which results from his drunkenness: and yet drunkenness, on account of the ignorance connected therewith, diminishes the resulting sin, and more, perhaps, than the gravity of the drunkenness implies, as stated above (Reply to Objection 2). It might also be said that the words quoted refer to an ordinance of the legislator named Pittacus, who ordered drunkards to be more severely punished if they assaulted anyone; having an eye, not to the indulgence which the drunkard might claim, but to expediency, since more harm is done by the drunk than by the sober, as the Philosopher observes (Polit. ii).

Catholic Catechism: On The Causes Of Sin

Vox Catholica

In this lesson, Father addresses Question 75 of the Summa Theologica, on the causes of Sin.

•Does sin have a cause?
•Does it have an internal cause?
•Does it have an external cause?
•Is one sin the cause of another?

Article 1. Whether sin has a cause?

Objection 1. It would seem that sin has no cause. For sin has the nature of evil, as stated above (I-II:71:6). But evil has no cause, as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv). Therefore sin has no cause.

Objection 2. Further, a cause is that from which something follows of necessity. Now that which is of necessity, seems to be no sin, for every sin is voluntary. Therefore sinhas no cause.

Objection 3. Further, if sin has a cause, this cause is either good or evil. It is not a good, because good produces nothing but good, for "a good tree cannot bring forth evilfruit" (Matthew 7:18). Likewise neither can evil be the cause of sin, because the evil of punishment is a sequel to sin, and the evil of guilt is the same as sin. Therefore sin has no cause.

On the contrary, Whatever is done has a cause, for, according to Job 5:6, "nothing upon earth is done without a cause." But sin is something done; since it a "word, deed, or desire contrary to the law of God." Therefore sin has a cause.

I answer that, A sin is an inordinate act. Accordingly, so far as it is an act, it can have a direct cause, even as any other act; but, so far as it is inordinate, it has a cause, in the same way as a negation or privation can have a cause. Now two causes may be assigned to a negation: in the first place, absence of the cause of affirmation; i.e. the negation of the cause itself, is the cause of the negation in itself; since the result of the removing the cause is the removal of the effect: thus the absence of the sun is the cause of darkness. In the second place, the cause of an affirmation, of which a negation is a sequel, is the accidental cause of the resulting negation: thus fire by causing heat in virtue of its principal tendency, consequently causes a privation of cold. The first of these suffices to cause a simple negation. But, since the inordinateness of sin and of every evil is not a simple negation, but the privation of that which something ought naturally to have, such an inordinateness must needs have an accidental efficient cause. For that which naturally is and ought to be in a thing, is never lacking except on account of some impeding cause. And accordingly we are wont to say that evil, which consists in a certain privation, has a deficient cause, or an accidental efficient cause. Now every accidental cause is reducible to the direct cause. Since then sin, on the part of its inordinateness, has an accidental efficient cause, and on the part of the act, a direct efficient cause, it follows that the inordinateness of sin is a result of the cause of the act. Accordingly then, the will lacking the direction of the rule of reason and of the Divine law, and intent on some mutable goodcausesthe act of sin directly, and the inordinateness of the act, indirectly, and beside the intention: for the lack of order in the act results from the lack of direction in the will.

Reply to Objection 1. Sin signifies not only the privation of good, which privation is its inordinateness, but also the act which is the subject of that privation, which has the nature of evil: and how this evil has a cause, has been explained.

Reply to Objection 2. If this definition is to be verified in all cases, it must be understood as applying to a cause which is sufficient and not impeded. For it happens that a thing is the sufficient cause of something else, and that the effect does not follow of necessity, on account of some supervening impediment: else it would follow that all things happen of necessity, as is proved in Metaph. vi, text. 5. Accordingly, though sin has a cause, it does not follow that this is a necessary cause, since its effect can be impeded.

Reply to Objection 3. As stated above, the will in failing to apply the rule of reason or of the Divine law, is the cause of sin. Now the fact of not applying the rule of reason or of the Divine law, has not in itself the nature of evil, whether of punishment or of guilt, before it is applied to the act. Wherefore accordingly, evil is not the cause of the first sin, but some good lacking some other good.

Article 2. Whether sin has an internal cause?

Objection 1. It would seem that sin has no internal cause. For that which is within a thing is always in it. If therefore sin had an internal causeman would always be sinning, since given the cause, the effect follows.

Objection 2. Further, a thing is not its own cause. But the internal movements of a man are sins. Therefore they are not the causeof sin.

Objection 3. Further, whatever is within man is either natural or voluntary. Now that which is natural cannot be the cause of sin, for sin is contrary to nature, as Damascene states (De Fide Orth. ii, 3; iv, 21); while that which is voluntary, if it be inordinate, is already a sin. Therefore nothing intrinsic can be the cause of the first sin.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Duabus Anim. x, 10,11; Retract. i, 9) that "the will is the cause of sin."

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), the direct cause of sin must be considered on the part of the act. Now we may distinguish a twofold internal cause of human acts, one remote, the other proximate. The proximate internal cause of the human act is the reason and will, in respect of which man has a free-will; while the remote cause is the apprehension of the sensitive part, and also the sensitive appetite. For just as it is due to the judgment of reason, that the will is moved to something in accord with reason, so it is due to an apprehension of the senses that the sensitive appetite is inclined to something; which inclination sometimes influences the will and reason, as we shall explain further on (I-II:77:1. Accordingly a double interior cause of sin may be assigned; one proximate, on the part of the reason and will; and the other remote, on the part of the imagination or sensitive appetite.

But since we have said above (Article 1, Reply to Objection 3) that the cause of sin is some apparent good as motive, yet lacking the due motive, viz. the rule of reason or the Divine law, this motive which is an apparent good, appertains to the apprehension of the senses and to the appetite; while the lack of the due rule appertains to the reason, whose nature it is to consider this rule; and the completeness of the voluntary sinful act appertains to the will, so that the act of the will, given the conditions we have just mentioned, is already a sin.

Reply to Objection 1. That which is within a thing as its natural power, is always in it: but that which is within it, as the internal act of the appetitive or apprehensive power, is not always in it. Now the power of the will is the potential cause of sin, but is made actual by the preceding movements, both of the sensitive part, in the first place, and afterwards, of the reason. For it is because a thing is proposed as appetible to the senses, and because the appetite is inclined, that the reason sometimes fails to consider the due rule, so that the will produces the act of sin. Since therefore the movements that precede it are not always actual, neither is man always actually sinning.

Reply to Objection 2. It is not true that all the internal acts belong to the substance of sin, for this consists principally in the act of the will; but some precede and some follow the sin itself.

Reply to Objection 3. That which causes sin, as a power produces its act, is natural; and again, the movement of the sensitive part, from which sin follows, is natural sometimes, as, for instance, when anyone sins through appetite for food. Yet sin results in being unnatural from the very fact that the natural rule fails, which man, in accord with his nature, ought to observe.

Article 3. Whether sin has an external cause?

Objection 1. It would seem that sin has no external cause. For sin is a voluntary act. Now voluntary acts belong to principles that are within us, so that they have no external cause. Therefore sin has no external cause.

Objection 2. Further, as nature is an internal principle, so is the will. Now in natural things sin can be due to no other than an internal cause; for instance, the birth of a monster is due to the corruption of some internal principle. Therefore in the moral order, sin can arise from no other than an internal cause. Therefore it has no external cause.

Objection 3. Further, if the cause is multiplied, the effect is multiplied. Now the more numerous and weighty the external inducements to sin are, the less is a man's inordinate act imputed to him as a sin. Therefore nothing external is a cause of sin.

On the contrary, It is written (Numbers 21:16): "Are not these they, that deceived the children of Israel by the counsel of Balaam, and made you transgress against the Lord by the sin of Phogor?" Therefore something external can be a cause of sin.

I answer that, As stated above (Article 2), the internal cause of sin is both the will, as completing the sinful act, and the reason, as lacking the due rule, and the appetite, as inclining to sin. Accordingly something external might be a cause of sin in three ways, either by moving the will itself immediately, or by moving the reason, or by moving the sensitive appetite. Now, as stated above (I-II:9:6I-II:10:4), none can move the will inwardly save God alone, who cannot be a cause of sin, as we shall prove further on (I-II:79:1. Hence it follows that nothing external can be a cause of sin, except by moving the reason, as a man or devil by enticing to sin; or by moving the sensitive appetite, as certain external sensibles move it. Yet neither does external enticement move the reason, of necessity, in matters of action, nor do things proposed externally, of necessity move the sensitive appetite, except perhaps it be disposed thereto in a certain way; and even the sensitive appetite does not, of necessity, move the reason and will. Therefore something external can be a cause moving to sin, but not so as to be a sufficient cause thereof: and the will alone is the sufficient completive cause of sin being accomplished.

Reply to Objection 1. From the very fact that the external motive causes of sin do not lead to sin sufficiently and necessarily, it follows that it remains in our power to sin or not to sin.

Reply to Objection 2. The fact that sin has an internal cause does not prevent its having an external cause; for nothing external is a cause of sin, except through the medium of the internal cause, as stated.

Reply to Objection 3. If the external causes inclining to sin be multiplied, the sinful acts are multiplied, because they incline to the sinful act in both greater numbers and greater frequency. Nevertheless the character of guilt is lessened, since this depends on the act being voluntary and in our power.

Article 4. Whether one sin is a cause of another?

Objection 1. It would seem that one sin cannot be the cause of another. For there are four kinds of cause, none of which will fit in with one sin causing another. Because the end has the character of good; which is inconsistent with sin, which has the character of evil. In like manner neither can a sin be an efficient cause, since "evil is not an efficient cause, but is weak and powerless," as Dionysius declares (Div. Nom. iv). The material and formal cause seems to have no place except in natural bodies, which are composed of matter and form. Therefore sin cannot have either a material or a formal cause.

Objection 2. Further, "to produce its like belongs to a perfect thing," as stated in Meteor. iv, 2 [Cf. De Anima ii.]. But sin is essentially something imperfect. Therefore one sin cannot be a cause of another.

Objection 3. Further, if one sin is the cause of a second sin, in the same way, yet another sin will be the cause of the first, and thus we go on indefinitely, which is absurd. Therefore one sin is not the cause of another.

On the contrary, Gregory says on Ezechiel (Hom. xi): "A sin is not quickly blotted out by repentance, is both a sin and a cause of sin."

I answer that, Forasmuch as a sin has a cause on the part of the act of sin, it is possible for one sin to be the cause of another, in the same way as one human act is the cause of another. Hence it happens that one sin may be the cause of another in respect of the four kinds of causes. First, after the manner of an efficient or moving cause, both directly and indirectly. Indirectly, as that which removes an impediment is called an indirect cause of movement: for when man, by one sinful act, loses grace, or charity, or shame, or anything else that withdraws him from sin, he thereby falls into another sin, so that the first sin is the accidental cause of the second. Directly, as when, by one sinful act, man is disposed to commit more readily another like act: because acts causedispositions and habits inclining to like acts. Secondly, after the manner of a material cause, one sin is the cause of another, by preparing its matter: thus covetousness prepares the matter for strife, which is often about the wealth a man has amassed together. Thirdly, after the manner of a final cause, one sin causes another, in so far as a man commits one sin for the sake of another which is his end; as when a man is guilty of simony for the end of ambition, or fornication for the purpose of theft. And since the end gives the form to moral matters, as stated above (I-II:1:3Question 18, Articles 4 and 6), it follows that one sin is also the formal cause of another: because in the act of fornication committed for the purpose of theft, the former is material while the latter is formal.

Reply to Objection 1. Sin, in so far as it is inordinate, has the character of evil; but, in so far as it is an act, it has some good, at least apparent, for its end: so that, as an act, but not as being inordinate, it can be the cause, both final and efficient, of another sin. A sin has matter, not "of which" but "about which" it is: and it has its form from its end. Consequently one sin can be the causeof another, in respect of the four kinds of cause, as stated above.

Reply to Objection 2. Sin is something imperfect on account of its moral imperfection on the part of its inordinateness. Nevertheless, as an act it can have natural perfection: and thus it can be the cause of another sin.

Reply to Objection 3. Not every cause of one sin is another sin; so there is no need to go on indefinitely: for one may come to one sin which is not caused by another sin.

Our Lady of Buen Suceso and the Crisis in the Catholic Church

James Austin

Father Adam Purdy of the Society of Saint Pius X, held a conference in Quito, Ecuador on January 30th, 2018. Father Purdy described in detail the Crisis of Faith in the Catholic Church, and the crisis in the social and political orders due to the absence of the Kingship of Christ, and His Grace in our Society.

Father dissects everything from Vatican II to the numerous priestly scandals plaguing the Church, to the recent assaults on the Sacrament of Matrimony through the lens of the apparitions of Nuestra Señora del Buen Suceso, "Our Lady of Good Success of the Purification" in Quito, between 1594-1634.

Catholic Catechism: Are Some Sins More Severe Than Others?

Vox Catholica

In this Catholic Catechism class, Father reviews what we have learned in previous classes. Namely, whether virtue can exist in a soul where mortal sin is present, the distinction between Natural Virtues and Supernatural Virtues, the Formed Virtues (With Charity) and the Informed Virtues (Without Charity).

After this brief review, father continues with our study of the Summa Theologica with Question 73: On The Comparison of one sin to another.

The Question discussed can be found at: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2073.htm

At 27:00, Father discusses how Catholics should deal with homosexuality and homosexual persons (people suffering from same-sex attraction). Father lays out a charitable way of leading these individuals to the life of grace.

Catholic Catechism: Distinguishing Types of Sins

Vox Catholica

In this Catechism lesson from the late 1980's, Father teaches us about the different kinds of sin according to the method of Saint Thomas Aquinas.

Father covers the differences between Venial and Mortal sins, sins of the Flesh and sins of the Spirit, what constitutes a Mortal sin, the sins of the Angels and much more.

This catechism follows very closely Question 72 in the First Part of the Second Part of the Summa Theologica of Saint Thomas Aquinas.

Question 72 specifically asks the following questions:

  • Whether sins differ in species according to their objects?
  • Whether spiritual sins are fittingly distinguished from carnal sins?
  • Whether sins differ specifically in reference to their causes?
  • Whether sin is fittingly divided into sin against God, against oneself, and against one's neighbor?
  • Whether the division of sins according to their debt of punishment diversifies their species?
  • Whether sins of commission and omission differ specifically?
  • Whether sins are fittingly divided into sins of thought, word, and deed?
  • Whether excess and deficiency diversify the species of sins?
  • Whether sins differ specifically in respect of different circumstances?

The question from the Summa Theologica being discussed here can be found online, here: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2072.htm

Fr. John O'Connor: The Marxist Destruction of Western Civilization

Vox Catholica

In this talk, Fr. John O'Connor O.P. lays out the destruction, subversion and infiltration of Western Governments by revolutionary Marxists and communists.

Father O'Connor discusses the foundation of the Federal Reserve, the destructive power of usury, and the takeover of our government by Radical Leftists.

Father John O’Conner was a Dominican priest, born in Chicago in 1929. He studied at Notre Dame University and joined the Order of Preachers in 1949. He obtained degrees in philosophy and theology, and was ordained to the Catholic priesthood in San Francisco in 1955. He taught in Catholic colleges in Madison, Wisconsin and Austin, Texas from 1955 to 1966. He was associate pastor in New Orleans from 1966-1969, and since then, as a Dominican preacher, he has travelled over 300,000 miles over the United States and Canada giving missions and retreats to the laity.

Fr. John O'Connor: The Marxist Subversion of the Catholic Church

Vox Catholica

In this talk, Fr. John O'Connor O.P. lays out the destruction, subversion and infiltration of the Catholic Church by revolutionary Marxists and communists as well as Homosexuals.

Father O'Connor shares his experience as a seminarian, and a priest seeing the hierarchy of the church being taken over by "Gay" Sodomite priests, and his prophetic words ring more true today then they ever have. This talk, which was given in the early 90's, explains how we now have a Pope, who stands by while homosexual couples are blessed, who denies the existence of hell, and who supports communist and marxist ideals within society.

Father O'Connor also exposes the Radical Left-Wing agenda of the subverted, post Vatican II Church, showing how Communist leaders such as Bella Dodd, sent these leftists into our Catholic seminaries, which has brought about an almost near destruction of the Church in the West.

Father John O’Conner was a Dominican priest, born in Chicago in 1929. He studied at Notre Dame University and joined the Order of Preachers in 1949. He obtained degrees in philosophy and theology, and was ordained to the Catholic priesthood in San Francisco in 1955. He taught in Catholic colleges in Madison, Wisconsin and Austin, Texas from 1955 to 1966. He was associate pastor in New Orleans from 1966-1969, and since then, as a Dominican preacher, he has travelled over 300,000 miles over the United States and Canada giving missions and retreats to the laity.

Michael Davies: The Traditionalist Movement - Yesterday And Today

Vox Catholica

At the Roman Forum in 1988, renowned Catholic author, and advocate for Traditionalism, Michael Davies discusses the state of the Catholic Church, and outlines the destruction caused by Vatican II.

Michael Davies: Is The SSPX In Schism? A Refutation of Dr. E. Michael Jones

Vox Catholica

In this audio tape, renowned Catholic author of "The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber," "The Liturgical Revolution," "Apologia pro Marcel LeFebvre," "Partisans of Error (on Modernism)" and many other books, refutes the allegations that the Society of Saint Pius X is in Schism.

Michael Davies argues against another renowned Catholic scholar and publisher Dr. E. Michael Jones. Dr. Jones has published insightful and groundbreaking books such as "Dionysius Rising," "Libido Dominandi," "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit," "The Slaughter of Cities, Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing," and currently publishes "Culture Wars" magazine. www.CultureWars.com

This "Debate" is a wealth of information about the SSPX, and showcases Michael Davies' knowledge of the Catholic Church.

*VIDEO* John Vennari: Pope Francis - Modernism With a Smile

Vox Catholica

This conference is one of the last major conferences before John Vennari (RIP) lost his battle with Cancer and passed away.

In this talk, John dissects Jorge Bergolio (now Pope Francis) and his  background in the 60's and 70's as a Jesuit seminarian, and helps explain how the current pope views The Church and ecclesiology.

John traces the errors of Vatican II back through time to subjectivist philosophers such as René Descartes and Immanuel Kant, and their adoption into the modernist church by people like Maurice Blondell, Henri de Lubac, Yves Congar, Hans Kung, Josef Ratzinger and others.

This is a fantastic overview of the current crisis that has absolutely decimated the Catholic Church.

Bishop Tissier: On Marriage and The Family - 1992

Vox Catholica

This is an INCREDIBLE and previously un-published talk of Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais given in Ridgefield Connecticut on July 10, 1992 about the Christian Family and Education.

Since the family is the basic building block of society, without strong families, we will not have strong societies. 

The good Bishop speaks of the great Islamic Replacement happening in Western Countries (and many years before this became a main-stream talking point) and warns that if Christians do not have big families, we will lose our societies. 

Here are some notable quotations:

2:30 And so what the Conciliar Church no longer wants, and what the Conciliar Church has excommunicated, is not only the true bishops and the true priests, it is not only the Mass of Tradition, but it is all the bastions of the Catholic Faith.  I quote only the words of Cardinal Ratzinger… Several years ago Cardinal Ratzinger said with Hans Urs Von Balthazar, a heretical theologian, “we must say the must urgent thing today is the demolition of the bastions” he said. A cardinal. “The dismantling of the bastions”. And what are these bastions, the bastions of the catholic faith? The bastions of Catholicism? They are the Catholic Family, Catholic Schools, Catholic Churches, Catholic Mass, Catholic Catechisms, Catholic Civil Laws, Catholic Governments, and finally Catholic States. On the contrary, we are for these bastions. It is a mission of the priestly society of Saint Pius the X, to rebuild these bastions of the Catholic Faith. To rebuild these destroyed bastions of the Catholic Faith. And we have begun with the Catholic Mass and the Priesthood 22, 23 years ago in Switzerland with Archbishop LeFebvre. We have continued with our chapels, seminaries naturally, with our priories, because the priests must live a life of community… But this work would be totally useless if it is not continued with catholic families and catholic schools.

11:45 The Catholic Family is normally, if god allows it, permits it, the large family. A family with many children. Christian England, Christian France, Christian America, must not die for want of children. Must not die Islamized, oh yes. This is a great danger in France especially, and also in your country (America) to die Islamized. Because the only families with many children are Traditionalist families, and Islamic families. It is so in France. And so the Conciliar race is an endangered species. Deo Gratias, I would say. But it is dangerous, the Islamic people are very many, naturally. So only Tradition, only strong convictions are fruitful.

It is a fact that demonstrate it. Liberalism, Conciliarism, lead to sterility. They are sterile. The fruits of Vatican II, it is childless families, dead families. And especially the root of the problem is the new conception of marriage given by Vatican II. It is in Vatican II!

35:34 It is very sad to see the new type of christian family. Husband, wife, a boy and a girl. It is the typical family. A typical modern family. Television everywhere, with the advertising. A husband a wife, and a boy and a girl. It is false! Once I was driving my car and before me was another car. On the front seat was Mr. DuPont and Mrs. DuPont, you know, and on the back seat, was the dog. The model of the new Christian family. Of the Conciliar family. Mr., Mrs., and the dog. What an awful idea of marriage.

39:14 People marry, and especially in the Conciliar families, and also in the non-Catholic families, people marry and say “we will have two children, and only two children!” And if they say this, with a real will of doing so, this marriage is invalid. Invalid. They have no right to limit the number of their children. To limit so rigorously without any grave reason, makes this invalid.

40:05 …Even if we must be criticized, be mocked, be laughed at in the streets… “What is this family with 7, 10, 15 children? How ridiculous! What a scandal!” Even if we must be pointed out and called insane and mad by these grave diggers of marriage and family.

41:20 Homosexuality and Civil Unions…

48:00 With Vatican II and the [doctrine of] religious liberty; “with all false religions” said Archbishop LeFebvre, “bring with themselves immorality”. In the Islamic religion, it is well known that one husband can have up to 5 wives. It is allowed. And also, protestant denominations do not recognize the indissolubility of marriage. Many people who are our “separated brethren” say “we get married, but if it does not work, we have the possibility of divorce.” It is this saying that makes of this marriage, and invalid marriage also. Invalid. To marry with the idea of divorcing if it doesn’t work. It is invalid. So dear friends, let’s have the true idea of marriage. And let us react against these awful dangers that threaten the Christian marriage. Let us fight against these grave diggers of marriage. 

50:28 Catholic People need Catholic laws, and Catholic government. And here in America, why could that not be the case? In some states in America, there is almost a majority of Catholics. Why could it not exist a catholic state? And Catholic laws, that is laws which encourage the religion, marriage, the family, schools. Yes? We must fight for this ideal of the Catholic State. The reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the political life. In the social life. You must understand, our lord must not reign only in the churches and in the sacristies, no. He must reign everywhere. In society, in the politics, through our laws which correspond to the gospel. This is normal. It is our fight. Our Catholic Fight.

Fr. Schmidberger: Archbishop Lefebvre and the Modern Popes

Vox Catholica

Father Franz Schmidberger, former Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, discusses the relationship between Archbishop Marcel LeFebvre, and the modern Popes. 

Ever since the Second Vatican council, tension with Rome has been very high, as Liberals and Marxists hijacked the Church, and broke with the 2,000 year Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, and Archbishop LeFebvre stood up and defended the truth against those who were trying to destroy the church.

Father Schmidberger discusses the backstory of Vatican II and the changes implemented by John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II,  and Benedict.

Since this lecture was given on March 12, 2006, Pope Francis had not yet been elected Pope, and some of the new developments are obviously not discussed.

Father Schmidberger divides his talk into four parts: 

He starts by talking about the ministry of Saint Peter (The Pope). 

The second part discusses the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX towards these modern (conciliar) popes. 

The Third part asks weather these popes are TRUE popes (looking into the ideas of Sedevacantism). 

The Fourth Part draws some conclusions, and takes a look towards the future. 

www.VoxCatholica.com

Bishop Williamson: On Modern Music and Degenerate Culture

Vox Catholica

It is an absolute fact, that the music we listen to, shapes our attitudes, behaviors and has the potential to change our way of thinking in a very profound way. In this audio archive, from Vox Catholica, Bishop Williamson discusses Rock Music, Degenerate Culture and their impact on society. Everything from modern hard rock and electronic music, to the music of the 60's and how that shaped the Baby Boomer generation.

Garbage in - Garbage out.