Before anything else, again and again I get questions like:
“Things are going badly. I feel like I have to do something, but I feel helpless. I don’t have any power to stop what is going on. What can I do?”
Do these things and you will be more at peace and you will be more effective in your particular vocation and sphere of influence.
- Strive to be in the state of grace: examine your conscience daily and GO TO CONFESSION
- Use the sacraments and sacramentals well. You are baptized, which means you are incorporated into Christ’s Person. You are confirmed with the seal of the Holy Spirit. Are you sacramentally married, ordained? Call upon those sacraments with confidence.
- Do not forget that God called YOU into existence HERE and NOW, not somewhere else or in some other time. You are part of “His team” whom He knew and chose before the creation of the cosmos. God will give you all the actual graces you need to do His will according to His plan.
- God makes His works our own and gives us the strength to carry them out. We live by grace and elbow grease. Get to work. Get to work and and let God judge your successes, because He knows more than you do. You cannot fathom in the moment of the doing what fruits your grace-informed efforts will bear down the line.
- You cannot love or give what you do not know or have. Therefore, you must learn your faith well. Read a) Scripture, b) lives of the saints c) sound catechisms, d) tried and true spiritual and devotional writings and prayer books. Always be ready to GIVE reasons for your faith. This is the work of a lifetime, not just early years and then coast.
Speaking of catechisms and speaking of being at peace…
Last night I attended the Rome presentation of Bp. Athanasius Schneider’s catechism entitled Credo: Compendium of the Catholic Faith published by Sophia Institute Press.
I did not have time last night to ask my question during the Q&A, but I approached Bp. Schneider afterward (he and I were at the Augustinianum together back in the day). I asked him if his new catechism presupposes some knowledge, some idea of Christianity or the Catholic Faith in order to be helpful or could a person with zero knowledge or experience use it effectively.
He responded that, in his opinion, a person with no previous background in the Faith could use the new catechism. There are foundational sections that be introductions for people who have never known anything about the Faith before.
This would be a good gift for people with little of no knowledge of the Faith. It would be an excellent resuscitator for the fallen away. It would be a great review for the practicing and committed.
Priests could find in it a rich resource for preaching (and the confessional) because it deals with things that previous catechisms could not, because they weren’t issues when those catechisms were composed. Gender ideology, trans stuff, environment, COVID lockdowns, etc…. they’re in there.
One of the presenters last night was the great Robert Card. Sarah, from whose writings we glean that he fasts and spends a lot of time in silence and prayer before the Blessed Sacrament.
Last night Card. Sarah, one of the newest set of “Dubia Cardinals”, told us in Italian – his remarks were live streamed and the video is available HERE – that …
… the Church is not in crisis, the Church’s pastors are in crisis.
Card. Sarah has made a distinction, and qui distinguit bene docet… He teaches well who makes distinctions.
I’ll riff on that.
The Church is the bride of Christ. Her four “marks”, her characteristics identifying her, are known to us: unity, holiness, catholicity and apostolicity. These cannot be overturned or rooted out or morphed into what they are not. It is not possible.
Christ gave the Church two gifts to ensure her mission until His return: indefectibility and infallibility. These cannot fail or be removed by any human agency, by an individual or by a multitude.
Remember that in Matthew 16 Christ gave to Peter (and his successors) an office and gifts to guarantee that office. After Christ did this, Peter screwed up by defying God’s will for Christ and was called by Christ a “satan”. Peter fled the Garden. Peter denied the Lord. Peter was challenged by Paul in Antioch regarding Gentile Christians and Jewish practices. Not everything Peter and his successors would do would be protected by the Holy Spirit. Only some things. When in the Council of Jerusalem all the debate was done, James, the local leader, handed the whole thing over the Peter. Ultimately, Peter manifested that the Holy Spirit was with him in the most important moments.
The attributes and gifts of the Church are guaranteed by the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit cannot be pitted against the Holy Spirit.
If there is ever a claim that an immemorial teaching of the Church regarding the faith and morals, guaranteed to be true by the working of the Holy Spirit, must now be changed because of the working “of the Holy Spirit”, then the claim is wrong not the immemorial teaching.
Last night in his speech, Bp. Schneider brought in the 5th century theologian Vincent of Lérins who said in Commonitorium 4 (my emphases):
What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb. But what if some novel contagion tries to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty. What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men. But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation.
Finally, at the end of his own talk last night, Bp. Schneider said:
Let us humbly ask the Lord to grant us through the intercession of our Lady the grace to be able to say, “I know my Catholic Faith. I will not permit to be confused. For the sake of this Faith I am ready to die.”
“I know my Catholic Faith.”
“I will not permit myself to be confused.”
Do you know your Catholic Faith?
If you are disturbed, confused by what you see going on in the Church and in the world, perhaps also in your smaller world of your family and other relationships, take my advice in the points I made at the top, which include learning and reviewing your Catholic Faith with sound, time-proven catechisms – Bp. Schneider mentioned the Baltimore Catechism – as well as new tools from reliable sources such as this new compendium.
Loading ...
Pingback: ROME 23/10 – Day 27: Making history | Fr. Z's Blog
All sound advice! So much confusion out there. Let’s begin to do good!
I would add that we are often far too concerned about doing something to rectify the situation, rather than because they are excellent in themselves. And because they are excellent in themselves they are eminently enjoyable.
Aristotle gives us the example of flute playing. It is an excellence, and done for its own sake. As with many of the arts. I would go further, an claim that to do it NOT for its excellence, but some other end, would render it far less pleasant.
The study of our religion, and it’s observances, are eminently excellent. They fulfill our natures and produce our flourishing. As a result, they are also very fine, and very refined, and we ought to savour them
I like to think of it as rolling back to a previously safe status on a computer. If a program gets corrupted, you can delete all the changes made after the issue arose.
I do think organic development was necessary in the liturgy but we need to roll back changes to 1970 at the latest and try again. Perhaps just a faithful as possible vernacular translation of the Roman Missal. And of course freedom to attend masses in Latin anywhere without restrictions.
I managed to get a copy, last week, here in the UK. This book is an absolute belter. As soon as I started reading it, it’s quality was obvious. I use it to help catechise my children. It’s a must-have. God bless Bishop Schneider.
I was listening to a discussion with a famous classicist, who observed that there is almost no issue that wasn’t already addressed by at least one Ancient Greek writer.
It is much the same with the Patristic authors. Read them.
As I have often said, one of the earliest Epistles is First Corinthians. St. Paul is not writing to laud the accomplishments of a thriving community. He is writing because they are trying to bust Hell wide open with their scandals.
Zach: “I do think organic development was necessary in the liturgy but we need to roll back changes to 1970 at the latest and try again”
Yes, I’d say 1965, others would say 1955 but…
The thing is, as you know, the liturgy always developed organically. But what was imposed after 1965 (7/3/65 to be precise) and then in 1969/70 was anything but organic. It was a forcing-house. And we can see the fruits. And smell them.
This whole post, including the comments, is a breath of fresh, clean air in the midst of the murky Synodality we’ve been subjected to lately. (BTW, my computer doubts my spelling of synodality, indicating that the word is a neologism.)
My friends (clerical and lay) and I, here in Michigan and scattered throughout these (more or less) United States of America, have come to pretty much the same conclusions as you great minds in Rome. I dare to count you and all the men you mentioned in this report as friends too, having kept up with many of their writings for quite a while now. May we merrily meet in heaven.
This publication is a great breath of fresh, clean mountain air – after gasping for relief in the odors of a swamp. I believe many, many in the Church will be greatly relieved and strengthened by this book even if they never use it! It exists! The Church is not sick and dying in some dark isolated corner – or dead – she lives! And we are not overcome.
That said, allow me to offer one complaint. Credo does not include a separate section on prayer. All I know is what I read in the Table of Contents on-line (Amazon), there I find some traditional formula prayers and devotions, but not as much on prayer itself as the CCC does.
True teachings, clearly presented, are wonderful! But the heart in union with God – how do we find that? Not in the mind only, but in the fullness of the soul, in the vitality of an Interior Life, in the fervor of zeal in that Holy Truth. We need to learn as well how to pray, and how to grow and mature in the life of prayer, into union with Him.
fidelis1: There is a Section on Christian Prayer under Part III Worship, with several chapters. They are brief, excellent, and to the point. One learns how to pray by doing, trusting—and as Archbishop Schneider says: “The principle of all true prayer is the Holy Spirit” (Pt III, Sec 2, Ch 3, 68) and “God Himself must take the initiative in this loving communion within our souls.” (69)
Well, for children (even teens) the Baltimore Catechism revised #2 cannot be beat. Read it aloud as a family so that younger ones can just have it sink in. Older ones ask questions. Adults get reinforcement for what they already know and clarification for defense of the faith. Ask yourself: do you really know all the gifts of the Holy Spirit? Your children memorize it faster.
A link to amazondotcom? pfft.
I want the book…but unless you get a kickback from the site I won’t get it from there.
[Interesting. Every single day I post that I get a percentage of sales from your purchases at Amazon if you use my link. LOL! So… I guess I need to be even more obvious. Really. Every day. It’s even at the top of my side bar here.]
Got my copy today. Generally quite impressive but after just a quick 10 minute scan I chanced upon one item that gives me pause about the book’s accuracy.
Page 279 – #514 What if we are unsure of whether a sin was mortal, or if we truly committed one? Answer: There is no obligation to confess such a sin, although it is best to do so.
I was raised (pre-V2) that when in such doubt one is obliged to discuss it with the priest in Confession. Was that incorrect or is the Bishop give a Novus Ordo answer?
Thomas says: Page 279 – #514
Bp. Schneider is correct. And it is NOT a “Novus Ordo” answer. Really, that doesn’t help. Moreover this is very much a VETUS answer.
First, I know where you are coming from about the obligation. However, there is a lot more to this than you might have been told.
Before I lose a lot of readers of this comment, review the basics:
Simply put, we are “obliged to confess in kind and number all grave sins committed after baptism and not yet remitted directly through the keys of the Church nor acknowledged in individual confession, of which the person has knowledge after diligent examination of conscience.”
If you are certain that you have committed a mortal sin, you are obliged to confess that sin (in kind and number in the case of repeated acts or omission). If you are NOT certain about whether a sin was mortal or not, you are NOT obliged to confess it, just as you are not obliged to confess any venial sins… though it is good to do so (given time, etc.). If you aren’t aware of having committed a mortal sin, confession of a venial is sufficient matter for absolution.
If you are truly in doubt whether an act was a mortal sin or not, after an examination of conscience, it is a very good idea to ask the confessor his opinion. Asking for an opinion from a confessor, even in the confessional, is not the same as the confession of the sin if it turns out that it was indeed probably a mortal sin.
I’ve read the classic manuals for confessors strongly influenced by certain Jesuits such as Alphonsus Rodriguez, SJ. I’m pretty sure you got what you got from that stream of thought about doubt about a sin. In that school of thought, it is enough to be in doubt about whether a fault was a mortal sin to be bound to confess it also under pain of mortal sin and omitting to confess it would result in a sacrilegious confession. That’s pretty hard core.
However, others in the line of St. Alphonsus Liguori would say that if one has a doubt and then ignores that doubt and goes ahead and does the doubtful without trying to resolve it commits a mortal sin. Otherwise, if after an action one has doubt there is no obligation to confess it, whether the doubt is about the matter of the act or one’s will, etc. It is spiritually more perfect to confess or seek guidance about the act that was committed but it is not obligatory. This is the general thought of theologians for a couple of centuries such as manualists like Prümmer, Sabetti/Barrett, Tanquerey, Vermeersch, all the biggies.
Succinctly, don’t act with a doubtful conscience: resolve before acting. Acting in doubt is tantamount to willingness to displease God.
After an act, if there is doubt, ask a confessor or look it up, etc. But there is no precise way by which we are obliged to resolve the doubt (e.g., you must go to a confessor).
Another thing: If you choose to confess a doubtful mortal sin (one you aren’t sure about), confess it as doubtful and not simply as “a mortal sin”. “I don’t know if this was a mortal sin or not…”. The confessor might ask some details to help figure it out.
Another another thing. Penitents who suffer from scrupulousness are quite often instructed by confessors and spiritual directors NOT to confess doubtful sins. Ordinary non-scrupulous penitents are encouraged to confess doubtful sins but they are not obliged.
Be mindful that you can go from one spiritual writer to another and get varying and differing opinions on this matter. The very fact that they differ should put a person a little more at ease, not make him more nervous. Very great writers seem to be at odds, as a matter of fact. Some authors take a stark view of what St. Thomas Aquinas leans towards, which is the obligation to confess doubtful sins (In IV Sent d.21, q. 2, a. 3, ad 3m). Suarez, for example, says it is necessary to confess doubts about mortal sins. St. Alphonsus Liguori interprets the Angelic Doctor less stringently (Theologia Moralis 6. n. 474). A careful reading of Thomas could lead one to think that this is one of those rare cases when he was just wrong. And there’s always the quibble about what a “doubt” is. Suarez comes up with several different kinds!
The Council of Trent says in Sessio 14 De sacramento poenitentiae, 5 that…
Thanks a lot, Trent, for dodging doubts. That means that both positions can lay claim to this section. And they do.
A related question is whether or not one is OBLIGED to confess something when there is doubt about whether he has confessed it before or not. One school of thought is that so long as the person has good reasons for thinking that he did already confess it, there is no obligation. This is the majority view of manualists. Some might respond that there is a doubtful obligation about the doubtful confession, but a doubtful obligation… isn’t. It isn’t an obligation at all.
I think I’ve said about enough on this.
Thank you, Father, for the thoughtful and very helpful reply. Also, point taken about the “Novus Ordo” remark. Apologies for that.
Pingback: “Get to work and and let God judge your successes, because He know more than you do” – non veni pacem
Pingback: ACTION ITEM! “I will not permit myself to be confused.” | Fr. Z's Blog