Francis was born at Assisi in Umbria, and, after his father’s example, followed from his youth a mercantile career. One day, contrary to his custom, he repulsed a poor man who begged an alms of him for Christ’s sake; but, immediately repenting of what he had done, he bestowed a large bounty upon the beggar, and at the same time made a promise to God, never to refuse an alms to any one that asked him. After this he fell into a serious illness; and on his recovery, devoted himself more eagerly than ever to works of charity, making such rapid progress in this virtue, that, desirous of attaining evangelical perfection, he gave all he had to the poor. His father, angered at his proceedings, brought Francis before the bishop of Assisi, that, in his presence, he might formally renounce all claim to his patrimony. The saint gave up all to his father, even stripping off his garments, that he might, he said, for the future, have more right to say: Our Father who art in Heaven.
After hear one day this passage of the Gospel: Do not possess gold nor silver, nor money in your purses; nor scrip for your journey, nor two coats, nor shoes, he took it for his rule of life, laid aside his shoes and kept but one tunic. He gathered together twelve disciples and founded the Order of Minors. In the year of our salvation 1209 he went to Rome, to obtain the confirmation of his rule and Order from the apostolic See. Pope Innocent III at first refused to see him; but having in sleep beheld the man he had repulsed supporting with his shoulders the Lateran basilica which was threatening to fall, he had him sought out and brought to him; and receiving him kindly confirmed the whole system of his institute. Francis then sent his brethren into every part of the world to preach the Gospel. He himself, desirous of an opportunity of martyrdom, sailed into Syria; but the Soldan treated him most kindly; so that, unable to gain his end, he returned into Italy.
He built many convents of his Order; and then retired into solitude on Mount Alvernia; where he fasted forty days in honour of the Archangel St. Michael. On the feast of the Exaltation of the holy Cross, he had a vision of a seraph bearing between his wings the figure of the Crucified, who impressed the sacred stigmata on his hands and feet and side. St. Bonaventure says he heard Pope Alexander IV, while preaching, relate how he had himself seen thse wounds. These signs of Christ’s exceeding love for his servant excited universal wonder and admiration. Two years later, Francis grew very ill, and was carried, at his own request, into the church of St. Mary of the angels; that he might give up his mortal life to God, in the very place where he had commenced his life of grace. There, after exhorting the brethren to poverty and patience, and the preservation of the faith of the holy Roman Church, he said the psalm: I cried to the Lord with my voice. When he reached the verse: The just wait for me, until thou reward me, he breathed forth his soul, on the fourth of the Nones of October. He was renowned for miracles; and Pope Gregory IX enrolled him among the saints.
-from The Liturgical Year by Abbot Gueranger, O.S.B.
from The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Volume II, Canon George D. Smith:
First, Has Christ instituted any other positive means of regeneration besides baptism, either by way of addition to or exception from the law of baptism? Secondly, Is it not possible that, from the very nature of things which precedes all positive law and is allowed for in positive law, it might happen that a person could receive justification without the actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism?
We answer to the first of these questions in the negative. We cannot admit any other means of salvation positively instituted by Christ, for the very good reason that his positive law has provided one means and only one. If, therefore, any theories are advanced on the question of salvation which involves the recognition of some means of salvation positively instituted by Christ, other than baptism, such theories must immediately be rejected as at least erroneous.
We answer to the second question in the affirmative. It can happen that a person receives justification without actually receiving the Sacrament of Baptism. And it can happen in one of two ways: either, 1. by Martyrdom, or 2. by Charity.
p.778-779
…. Now, an act of charity always and necessarily contains a desire for the Sacrament of Baptism, hence the expression Baptism of Desire. The reason why it must contain this desire is that an act of the love of God must contain a desire of conforming to his will in every way. Therefore, since it is God’s will that we should receive the Sacrament of Baptism, this act must contain the desire for baptism. But this desire may either be implicitly or explicitly, and each alternative requires our careful consideration.
It is implicit in anyone who makes an act of the love of God, and, through invincible ignorance, does not know of the necessity of sacrament baptism. This might happen in a country like England to people who are not baptised.
Might it not also happen to heathens who have never heard of Christ?
It might, if we suppose that these heathens have in some way obtained the necessary minimum knowledge of Revelation, and are capable of a salutary faith and hope in God. For it is very important to understand that when we speak of charity, we do not mean just any kind of love of God above all else, such as the natural love of a creature for its Creator. Charity is essentially a love of friendship (Our Blessed Lord does not call us servants, but friends), which implies an intimate communication with God, such as is only possible in a supernatural order. The existence of this supernatural order can only be known through Revelation. Charity, therefore, cannot exist without at least the knowledge of the principle truth of Revelation. p. 782-783
(1) All of those outside the Church, even the individuals who have committed no sin against the faith itself, are in a position in which they cannot be saved unless they in some way enter or join the Church before they die.
(2) The alternative to eternal and supernatural salvation is deprivation of the Beatific Vision. In the case of those who are guilty of mortal sin which remains unrepented, this includes both the penalty of loss and the penalty of sense in hell.
(3) The spiritual condition of one who is not “within” the Church at least by an act of implicit desire is incompatible with the reception of the life of sanctifying grace.
This document insists that pagans, Jews, heretics, and schismatics will not be saved unless, before the end of their lives, they are joined (aggregati) to the one true Church. p. 40-41
Pius IX
… it is perfectly possible for a man to die “outside” the true Church and to be excluded from the Beatific Vision forever without having his ignorance of the true Church or of the true religion counted as a moral fault. That is precisely what Pope Pius IX said in the Singulari quadam. He said it, as the context shows, as part of his explanation of the fact that the Catholic dogma of the Church’s necessity for the attainment of eternal salvation in no way involves a contradiction of the doctrines about God’s sovereign mercy and justice.
In this section of the Singulari quadam Pope Pius IX goes on to urge the Bishops of the Catholic Church to use all of their energies to drive from the minds of men the deadly error that the way of salvation can be found in any religion. To a certain extent this is a mere restatement of the erroneous opinion according to which we may well hope for the salvation of men who have never entered in any way into the Catholic Church, the first misinterpretation of Catholic teaching…
One of the most interesting factors in this section of the allocution is the fact that Pope Pius IX forbids his people to inquire into the presence or the lack or the extent of invincible ignorance in individual cases. He actually goes so far as to insist that it is wrong to go beyond the teaching that there is one God, one faith, and one baptism. p. 47
The primary and central object of the Church’s doctrinal ministry is to be found in the body of truth revealed by God through Our Lord Jesus Christ, and delivered to the Church by His Apostles as doctrine to be accepted with the assent of divine faith. The secondary object of that ministry embraces all and only those truths which the Church must be able to teach inerrantly in order to teach its primary object adequately as a living and infallible teaching body. The decision as to just what would constitute invincible, as distinct from vincible or culpable, ignorance of the Catholic Church in any individual case does not fall within the confines of either object. And, as a matter of fact, this decision is something which man in this life is quite incapable of forming rightly. p.48
On, Singulari quadam:
(1) It is a ruinous error to imagine that one can have grounds for hope that people now dead, and who had not entered into the Church in any way during the course of their lives, are saved.
(2) The dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is in no way opposed to the truth that God is all-merciful and all-just.
(3) The doctrine that no one is saved outside the Catholic Church is a truth revealed by God through Jesus Christ, and a truth which all men must believe with the assent of divine faith. It is a Catholic dogma.
(4) Invincible ignorance, of the true Church or of anything else, is not considered by God as a sin. The dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church in no way implies that invincible ignorance is sinful.
(5) It is an impious and deadly error to hold that salvation may be attained in any religion.
(6) It is not within the field either of our competence or of our rights to search out the way in which God’s mercy and His justice operate in any given case of a person ignorant of the true Church or of the true religion. We shall see how these divine attributes have operated in the light of the Beatific Vision itself. p. 56
by Very Rev. Francis J. Connell, C.SS., S.T.D., LL.D., L.H.D.
Country or Conscience
Question: One of the questions sometimes put to Catholics in the United States is this: “In the event that there was a conflict between the laws of our country and the teachings of the Catholic Church, which would you obey?” What reply should a Catholic give to this query?
Answer: The question quoted by our correspondent is often intended to put Catholics in a situation in which they can be blamed, whatever answer they may give. If they answer that they would obey the civil law, they will be told that they are not consistent with the principles of the Catholic faith; if they answer that they would obey the teachings of the Church, they will be accused of disloyalty to their country.
I believe that the best rejoinder to this question is the question the interrogator: “What would you do if a civil law was passed that would be contrary to the law of God as your conscience dictates?” If the person questioned answers that under all circumstances he would regard the civil law as superior to every other form of legislation- in other words, if he accepts the principle “My country, right or wrong”- there would not be much advantage in arguing with him, since there is no common ground on which a discussion can be conducted. But I do not believe that there are many Americans who follow such an extreme view.
Most of the citizens of our land accept the principle that in a conflict between civil legislation and the divine law, the latter should be given precedence. Actually, the American government put this principle into operation several years ago, to refute some of the Nazi war criminals. When they claimed that they performed acts of cruelty because they were commanded to do so by their civil laws or by their superiors, they were told that there is a higher law (the law which is called the natural law by Catholics) which must be obeyed, even when it is contrary to the civil laws or the laws of superiors. Most of the citizens of our land accept this principle, whatever be their religious beliefs.
However, if some legislative act were passed in our land which the Church would officially declare contrary to the law of God, Catholics would accept the decision of the Church. For example, if any state legalized “mercy killing” (and attempts are being made to pass such a measure in some of our states) Catholics would be bound in conscience to refuse all participation in this procedure, which is simply murder. Thus, a Catholic judge would not be permitted to authorize the killing of a sick person, a Catholic doctor would not be allowed to administer a lethal drug, even though this were commanded by state law or civil officials. Catholics should not hesitate to explain these principles to their non-Catholic fellow citizens. We are not shamed to declare our stand- that in the event of a conflict between civil la w and God’s law as authoritatively declared by our Church, we should give preference to God’s law.
In a recent pamphlet written by a Julio Pro, M.D., objections were raised against the sedevacantists. One “proof” given was the supposed apostasy of Pope St. Marcellinus. It was erroneously claimed that this saintly Pope offered worship to false gods and still remained Pope. The following excerpt refutes this historical error:
“The States subject to Rome, watered with the blood of the persecuted, only because the more productive of Christian branches. Tortures tore the bodies of the martyrs, but their souls, firmly embracing the faith, remained invulnerable and invincible. Nevertheless, there were some weak spirits that yielded to threats, and with whom self-love prevailed over religion; and it has even been said that among those weak ones was Marcellinus himself. The falsehood which was circulated on this head was adorned with all the circumstances which might give it an air of probability. It was pretended that the pontiff, perceiving his fault, presented himself as a suppliant before a council of three hundred bishops, assembled at Sinuessa. There, ran the story, the culprit confessed his error, and, weeping, demanded that she should be sentenced to the punishment he had incurred; and the council replied: ’Pronounced sentence on thyself; the chief see cannot be judged but by itself.’ But in this statement every particular is false; it is now ascertained that the accusation is calumnious, and that the pontiff committed no fault. Saint Augustine, speaking of Petilius, author of that fable, says: ‘He calls Marcellinus a sacrilegious wretch; I declare him innocent. It is not necessary for me to weary myself to support my defence by proofs; for Petilius himself supports his accusations by no proof.”
-excerpt from Lives and Times of the Popes by Chevalier Artaud de Montor (1909)
Obviously, the insistence of the Popes upon the rights of truth is anathema to contemporary Liberalism in which unrestricted Liberty, including the liberty to propagate error, is the supreme norm. This liberty had been proclaimed in the Masonically inspired Rights of Man of the French Revolution and was subjected to one resignation only, the demands of public order. Papal teaching on the right of a Catholic state to repress error was embarrassing to such Catholic Liberals as Father Murray who wished to make Catholicism acceptable to contemporary American society. He was, no doubt, sincere in his efforts and considered them to be for the good of the Church. His principal argument was that the teaching of the Popes which has just been cited was related to a particular period in the history of the Church and was not of permanent validity. He was answered by no less an authority than Cardinal Ottaviani in an important article which appeared in the May 1953 issue of the American Ecclesiastical Review:
The first fault of these persons consists in their failure to accept fully the arma veritatis and the teaching which the Roman Pontiffs during the past century, and particularly the reigning Pontiff Pius XII, have given to Catholics on this subject in encyclical letters, allocutions, and instructions of various kinds.
To justify themselves these people assert that in the body of teaching imparted within the Church there are to be distinguished two elements, the one permanent, and the other transient. The latter is supposed to be due to the reflection of particular contemporary conditions.
Unfortunately, they carry this tactic so far as to apply it to the principles taught in pontifical documents, principles on which the teachings of the Popes have remained constant so as to make these principles a part of the patrimony of Catholic doctrine.
Archbishop Lefebvre and Religious Liberty by Michael Davies, p. 8-9.
74. “And in order that thou mayest better understand the answer to thy doubt, remember, that there is neither any succession of time in my decrees, nor any need of it for the perception and the execution of them. Those that say that the Word became incarnate in order to redeem the world, say well; and those that say, that He would have become incarnate also, if man had not sinned, likewise speak well, only it must be understood in the right way. For if Adam had not sinned, Christ would have descended from heaven in that form, which would be suitable to the state of man’s innocence; but as Adam sinned, I resolved by the secondary decree, that He should be made of passible nature; since foreseeing sin, it was proper, that it should be repaired in the way in which He has done it. And as you desire to know, how the mystery of the Incarnation would have taken place, if man had preserved the state of innocence, know, that the human substance would have been essentially the same as now, only it would be clothed with the gifts of impassibility and immortality, such as my Onlybegotten possessed after his Resurrection and before his Ascension. He would live and converse with men; the hidden sacraments and mysteries would all be manifest; and many times would his glory shine forth as it happened once in his mortal life (Mark 17, 1). He would, in that state of man’s innocence, have become manifest to all men in the same manner as He once showed Himself to the three apostles in his mortal state. All those on the way to heaven would see the great glory of my Onlybegotten; they would be consoled by conversing with Him and they would place no obstacle to his divine workings, for they would be without sin. But all this was impeded and spoiled by the guilt of sin and on that account it was proper, that He should come in passible and mortal nature.”
“The Mystical City of God”, Mary of Agreda, p. 77-78.
Peter Dimond did a wonderful job of exposing Warren H. Carroll as a heretic. This is one of the reasons why the Vatican II Church cannot be the Catholic Church, because it fails to discipline and condemn heretics. If someone as reputable as Warren H. Carroll can get away with heresy, what can we expect from the Vatican II Church in matters of doctrine and morality?
Too long have we let these things go to the wayside of typical musings of radical professionals who claim to be Catholic, too long has the Catholic Church been silenced (due to the popular acceptance of false ecumenism and religious liberty) that we regrettably witness these aberrations from an acclaimed historical revisionist and false intellectual.
In likely future, when true Catholic hierarchy is restored (presuming that it may be), these things will have to be pointed out as usurpation of papal authority and rejection of Catholic dogma.
St. Paul says of “the man of sin,” “the son of perdition, who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God showing himself as if he were God.” (2 Thessalonians 2:4) These words are interpreted by the Fathers to mean that he will claim divine honours, and that in the Temple of Jerusalem (my comment– even in the Catholic Church). St. Irenaeus says that “Antichrist being an apostate and a robber, will claim to be adorned as God,” and “that he will endeavor to show himself off as God.” Lactantius, that “he will call himself God.” The writer under the name of St. Ambrose says, “He will affirm himself to be God.” St. Jerome, “He will call himself God, and claim to be worshipped by all.” St. John Chrysostom, “He will profess himself to be the God of all, and call himself and show himself off as God.” So also Theodoret, Theophylact, Ecumenius, St. Anselm, and many others.
Suarez, in explaining this passage, says;
It is likely that Antichrist will in no way believe himself what he will teach and compel others to believe. For though in the beginning he may persuade the Jews that he is the Messias and is sent from God, and may pretend to believe that the law of Moses is true and to be observed, yet he will do all this in dissimulation, to deceive them and to obtain supreme power. For afterwards he will reject the law of Moses, and will deny the true God who gave it. For which reason many believe that he will craftily destroy idolatry in order to deceive the Jews.
How great his perfidy will be, and what he will really believe concerning God, we cannot conjecture. But it is likely that he will be an atheist, and will deny both reward and punishment in another life, and will venerate only the preternatural being from whom he has learned the art of deceit and acquired his riches, by which wealth he will obtain supreme power.
“The Pope and the Antichrist”, Cardinal Manning, p. 31-32.
Pope Pius XII in his discourse Ecco che gia un anno, of 6 October 1946, that:
The Catholic Church, as we have already said, is a perfect society and has as its foundation the truth of Faith infallibly revealed by God. For this reason, that which is opposed to this truth is, necessarily, an error, and the same rights which are objectively recognized for truth cannot be afforded to error. In this manner, liberty of thought and liberty of conscience have their essential limits in the truthfulness of God in Revelation.
Father Connell in an article in the American Ecclesiastical Review in 1964:
Some have tried to argue that while error has no rights, persons inculpably holding erroneous doctrines have the right to hold them. But it must be borne in mind that error can be believed, spread, and activated only by persons and so it is difficult to see what it would mean to say “error has no right to be spread” if one held at the same time “persons can have a right to spread error”– that is if “right” be taken in the same sense in both statements… How can one have a genuine right to believe, spread, or practice what is objectively false or morally wrong? For a genuine right is based on what is objectively true and good.
Comment: It is a matter of fact that these principles are not followed by the new teachings of religious liberty and liberty of conscience as taught by the Vatican II documents and the subsequent conciliar popes.
