Aquinas on the Falsity of Mohammedanism

A certain false prophet in Hell, tortured by demons: 

a 15th C. fresco by Giovanni da Modena, 

in the Basilica of San Petronio, Bologna.

… Mohammed… seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us.  His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure.  In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men.  As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom.  Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity.  He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth.  On the contrary, Mohammed said that he was sent in the power of his arms – which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants.  What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning. Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Mohammed forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms.  Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness.  On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law.  It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly.

—   St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, I, 6, 4.

Santa Loves Jesus This Much

A famous fresco depicting St Nicholas striking Arius for his blasphemy against Christ (sent me by a Dominican father).

Joshua's Corollary to Neuhaus' Law

Whatever is not preached is not believed.

An Uplifting Hymn

For Peter, Patrick and Mary:

Samuel J. Stone (1839-1900) wrote the following well-known hymn, which interestingly enough formed part of his Lyra Fidelium; Twelve Hymns of the Twelve Articles of the Apostles’ Creed (1866).   

Given this fact, "The Church's One Foundation" is pretty obviously the hymn meant to correspond to the 9th article of the Apostles' Creed – "[I believe in] the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints" ([Credo in] sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam, sanctorum communionem) – where "communion of saints" can be understood in two ways, since sanctorum in the Latin can mean both "holy people" and "holy things":

1. as referring to the fellowship we have with each other here and throughout the earth, and with the saints above, and with the faithful departed, "all the whole Church", the Body of Christ; 
2. and as our communion in Holy Things, that is, in the Holy Gifts of the Eucharist, "which makes the Church" as the saying is, since in receiving the Body we are knit together as Christ's Body.

The many Scriptural references in the hymn I will not pick out at this time; I will note the seldom-sung 3rd stanza (marked with asterisks) of the original, which in many ways even more starkly insists on the message of the 4th.  So, too, what is normally sung as the last stanza is in reality but the first half of the 6th joined to the first half of the 7th – again, I've marked the lines usually omitted with asterisks, and put a mark of juncture between the two stanzas.

The Church’s one foundation

Is Jesus Christ her Lord,

She is His new creation

By water and the Word.

From Heav’n He came and sought her

To be His holy bride;

With His own blood He bought her

And for her life He died.

Elect from every nation,

Yet one o’er all the earth;

Her charter of salvation,

One Lord, one faith, one birth;

One holy Name she blesses,

Partakes one holy food,

And to one hope she presses,

With every grace endued.

*The Church shall never perish!

*Her dear Lord to defend,

*To guide, sustain, and cherish,

*Is with her to the end:

*Though there be those who hate her,

*And false sons in her pale,

*Against both foe or traitor

*She ever shall prevail.

Though with a scornful wonder

Men see her sore oppressed,

By schisms rent asunder,

By heresies distressed:

Yet saints their watch are keeping,

Their cry goes up, “How long?”

And soon the night of weeping

Shall be the morn of song!

’Mid toil and tribulation,

And tumult of her war,

She waits the consummation

Of peace forevermore;

Till, with the vision glorious,

Her longing eyes are blest,

And the great Church victorious

Shall be the Church at rest.

Yet she on earth hath union

With God the Three in One,

And mystic sweet communion

With those whose rest is won,

*With all her sons and daughters

*Who, by the Master’s hand

*Led through the deathly waters,

*Repose in Eden land.

(

O happy ones and holy!

Lord, give us grace that we

Like them, the meek and lowly,

On high may dwell with Thee:

*There, past the border mountains,

*Where in sweet vales the Bride

*With Thee by living fountains

*Forever shall abide!

(The tune for this is of course "Aurelia" (76.76.D), by Samuel Sebastian Wesley.)

Elevation of the All-Holy

The Byzantines have the curious custom (strange to Westerners) of elevating a triangular portion of bread, named the Panagia (All-Holy), in honour of Our Lady, at the end of the main monastic meal. Lifting it up, the priest cries "Great is the Name" and all reply "of the Holy Trinity" and then he cries (while moving the morsel horizontally, so as to complete making the Sign of the Cross with it) "All-Holy Theotokos, save us" (sôson hêmas), to which all reply "Through her intercessions, O God, have mercy and save us".

By its taking up, it is in a manner offered to God and blessed; and with it a blessing is imparted to all the faithful present who glorify the Lifegiving Trinity and invoke the Mother of God, thus implicitly commemorating the Incarnation of the Eternal Word, Who, being One of the Trinity, became Man to save us. It is a blessing to us when we bless God, and bless Him in His Saints, especially in God's Mother.

The Orthodox assert that this act is of apostolic origin - they state that after Our Lord's Ascension, the Apostles wherever they were always set aside some bread as Our Lord's portion at table (till He come again), which they would partake of, leaving a morsel, and had the custom of blessing the Trinity when lifting this last piece up at the end of the meal (recalling Christ's Ascension), ending by saying, "O Lord Jesus Christ, save us". However, soon after Our Lady's Dormition, she appeared to them in heavenly glory at the very moment they were conducting this dinnertime ritual - revealing that she had been resurrected and assumed into heaven - and they were so astonished that they spontaneously exclaimed, "All-Holy Theotokos, save us": and this has been said instead ever since.

The loaf for this purpose (which has been blessed at the Liturgy) is brought into the monastic refectory with some fanfare, and all come eventually to receive of it, perhaps dipping it in the wine provided and waving it over the censer if these be present. The triangular portion kept back until the end of the meal is set aside in a sometimes elaborate vessel on a table - the panagiarion - by itself, oft with a candle and even a censer before it, and there may be icons of the Trinity and the Blessed Virgin with it also. (Occasionally, even a chalice of wine is present - the whole rite is redolent of Eucharistic symbolism.)

This fragment of bread is a reminder that the Virgin Mary was blessed above all women to bring forth her Son Who is the Living Bread come down from heaven to nourish us unto everlasting life of soul and body. The portion is triangular to call to mind the Trinity, One of Whom became incarnate of the Virgin Mary to save us; and it is lifted up to make the Sign of the Cross to recall Christ's saving Passion. It is offered as a blessing of Our Lady, or, more correctly, through her as His Mother it is offered to bless Him Who was born of her. By being lifted up, it is exalted from humble bread to a vehicle of blessing; this also calls to mind Holy Mary's unique glorification in her bodily Assumption into heaven.

(Please consult Aquaro's article on the Lifting of the Panagia for more information.)

******

Forgive me for even mentioning it, and I cast no aspersions upon this decent and orthodox rite, but there once was a most unusual heretical practice that fraudulently resembled this one - for the sect of the Collyridians, against whom St Epiphanius wrote in his Panarion (late 4th C.), were mad women who idolatrously worshipped the Virgin Mary, and vainly offered unto her small cakes and bread rolls, feigning to act as priests!

In this they emulated, not the true Israel of God, but the disgraceful perversions of those who bowed down before the Moon-goddess or demon: "...the women knead the dough to make cakes to the queen of heaven..." (Jer. vii, 18). Unfortunately there are not lacking crazies to-day who claim this as a wretched warrant for goddess-worship and other heterodox nonsense, deceiving and deceived.

Enemies of Our Lady

Ethiopian Orthodox, sad to say, long called Catholics "enemies of Mary", for they had had bitter experiences of forced Romanization under the one and only Jesuit to be Abuna of Ethiopia, who had reacted against their overzealous doctrines about Our Lady (one group of monks contended that she ought be adored and worshipped!) by attempting to stamp out such abuses, and ended up only further alienating the Abyssinians from the Holy See, in the process earning for Catholics an embarrassingly anti-Marian reputation in that African empire.

De Maria numquam satis, of course, but one must also follow the advice of Cardinal Newman's confessor, who gave him the sage counsel to "love Our Lady as much as you like, so long as you love Our Lord a good deal more". I personally avoid an irreverent overfamiliarity by not all the time baldly speaking of "Mary" and "Jesus" (at the mention of which holy names all Catholics should bow their heads), but by referring to them as "Our (Blessed) Lady" and "Our (Blessed) Lord" respectively.

In regard to the Blessed Virgin (another esteemed title) in particular, I follow the good example of St Clement Mary Hofbauer, second founder of the Redemptorists (and evident model of the F.Ss.R., besides being the namesake of their Christchurch priest), who, if he heard talk of "Mary" without a fit and proper title, would ask "Which Mary do you mean?" - since the Mother of God deserves better than to be spoken of with but scant regard, maybe slightingly, even contemptuously. If even an Archangel in addressing her named her as Full of Grace, with what reverence ought fallen men call upon her, the All-Holy Ever-Virgin Theotokos?

I thoroughly disapprove of the modern Catholic mode speaking of her so plainly and as it were dismissively - just as too many scruple even to name Jesus as Lord and Christ: one fears such irreverence tends to or even signals doubt and disbelief. Against such dangerous laxity (for as Trent avers, irreverence cannot be separated from impiety) I make a stand, and call upon Holy Mary to help me: Dignare me laudare te, Virgo sacrata: da mihi virtutem contra hostes tuos.

The Scriptures bear solemn witness to the debt we owe one so highly exalted by the Lord, both implicitly and explicitly (as Livius teaches, following the Fathers, and thinking with the Church). First and foremost, we have the very self-prophecy of Our Lady in her Magnificat, whereby she gave all the glory to God for His great works in her, yet nonetheless in simple admission of the truth declared that "All generations shall call me blessed" - as my Douay notes, Let Protestants examine whether they are any way concerned in this prophecy.

Those who deny the Mother are but a step from denying the Son; as for their generation, as Proverbs declares (xxx, 11f), "There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother, a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet are not washed from their filthiness" - as they themselves madly aver, when denying any notion of baptismal regeneration.

As Esau hated Jacob for receiving his father's blessing (Gen. xxvii, 41), so such enemies of Holy Mary love her not, but even hate and curse her in their folly. They are like the pagan Balaam, whom God Himself forbade to curse the people He had blessed (Num. xxii, 12); and at best, like him (Num. xxxii, 20), they are so constrained by Truth as to bless despite their trying to resist doing so.

If any reject and revile God's Mother, what must be their punishment, if the Lord of old appointed (Deut. xxvii, 16) that whoso honoureth not father and mother shall be accursed? Such men are sons not of Abraham, but of the Devil (cf. St John viii, 44), a murderer from the beginning and the Father of lies. "But we are not ignorant of his devices" (II Cor. ii, 11), that ensnare and corrupt - as the Protoevangelium reveals, there shall be enmity between the Serpent and the Woman, between his seed and hers (Gen. iii, 15): but hers is the victory, for by the power of God, the grace of the Lord, she and all her true children, the brothers and co-heirs of her Firstborn, Christ, shall tread down Satan and crush him (cf. Rom. xvi, 20f); Gaude, Maria Virgo, cunctas hæreses sola interemisti in universo mundo.

Let us come to the throne of grace (Heb. iv, 16), and with the Magi fall down and adore Our Lord when we find Him with Mary His Mother (St Matthew ii, 11). Let us follow the advice of the Apostle, not merely in saluting every Saint in Christ Jesus (Phil. iv, 21), but let us salute Mary, who has done so much for us (Rom. xvi, 6), let us render honour to whom honour is due (Rom. xiii, 7), let us give glory and honour and peace to one who worketh good (Rom. ii, 10), to she who is full of grace, blessed of all women and of all generations, for having believed all that was told her by the Lord, blessed above all in bearing the Blessed Fruit of her womb (St Luke i, 28. 42. 45. 48), she who by her childbearing has saved us all (cf. I Tim. ii, 15), the rose among thorns, Mary of the race of Judah (cf. Heb. vii, 14), "of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things God, blessed for ever. Amen." (Rom. ix, 5)

Corrupt, irrelevant and ruthless

I certainly never heard a better description of liberalism than what Fr Kennedy rudely said of the Church's lawful authority that has now suspended him: "corrupt, irrelevant and ruthless".  Indeed, he damns himself out of his own mouth with this apt conjunction of adjectives: for his priestly ministry is corrupt, he is irrelevant, and by his rebellion against all doctrine, morals and legal norms has proved himself ruthless.  As the proverb has it, Scratch a liberal, find a fascist.

(The amusing thing is that Rome has had to goad Bathersby, that do-nothing liberal himself, into acting as he should have decades ago...)

What a dirty low fellow this renegade is, blasphemously denying Our Lord's Divinity, amongst much else; time was he would have been regarded with horror by all Christians, and in earlier ages the State itself, inflamed by his pernicious crimes, would have burnt him at the stake.  Remember always, Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.

I assume that all fellow-travelling liberals will be moaning and groaning about how it's all so unfair; a little more dialogue and supine inanition, and he would have become Archbishop of Brisbane himself, there to ring in the millennium by deifying President Obama as the new, better, inclusive Christ.  After all, isn't such utter compromise with the world, a wholesale surrender to secular/leftist dogmas and morals, just what liberals really want?

Limbus Anglicanorum

Everyone should have their own heresy - most of the clergy do, after all.

Mine is devout belief in the Limbus Anglicanorum, that is, a special Limbo for Anglicans.

Now, all know that the gates of heaven were closed from the Fall until Christ's triumph over death, when He reopened the everlasting gates that had been shut fast those many ages.

From this, and from accounts in the Scriptures of Sheol or Hades or Tartarus, etc., it is known that the souls of the righteous dead, awaiting Christ to deliver them, were not in Hell itself - else they would have perforce been tormented with the damned - but were to be found instead as if on its edge (limbus), separate from their offended God, but unpunished save by the absence of His Majesty (though of course God is present everywhere by reason of His boundlessness, and is present in the hearts of the just by His grace; nonetheless earth is not heaven, because there one beholds God face to face in the Beatific Vision, which all those souls lacked who died before Christ). This zone, called in the Gospel "Abraham's Bosom" (after one of its foremost inhabitants) is therefore styled the Limbus Patrum, the "Limbo (border-region) of the Fathers".

However, once Christ rose victorious o'er the grave, having burst the bonds and shattered the gates of hell, He drew all ransomed souls forth and led them forthwith into heaven, at least by the day of His Ascension, when He rose above and beyond all the heavens, by reason of His Divine plenitude of power being able to locate His Body outside of all space and time, in the empyrean heaven wherein reigns the Trinity above and beyond all creatures*.

(*For - says Augustine - God is beyond all things, yet not above them; within all things, yet not contained by them; beneath all things, yet not below them; around all things, yet not outside them.)

This left the Limbus Patrum empty.

But Nature abhors a vaccuum, saith the Philosopher. Again, Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity, avers William of Occam.

Hence God, in His all-seeing Providence, could not leave the Limbus Patrum empty, for that were a superfluous waste unbefitting Him.

It is clear, therefore, that this Limbo - distinct and separate from the Limbus Puerorum, the "Limbo of the Children" maintained for the unbaptized, as theologians have posited since Augustine, but yet sharing its property of being a place for the departed wherein is perfect natural happiness, but, alas, no Vision of nor communion with God - would not be suffered to remain empty, but would in due time be put back into use.

Hence, since "Outside the Church there is no salvation," and Anglicans are outside the Church, as all men know; and again, as the life of heaven is angelic, but these are not angels, but Anglicans (Non angeli, sed anglicani); and again, as the Anglican clergy customarily are "of the world, but not in it"; yet many among them have lived godly and pious lives in the esteem of mankind, as Thomas Ken, C.S. Lewis, Dorothy Sayers, Gregory Dix, and - some would add - their putative martyrs William Laud and Charles I, it would seem that these are spirits of a middle rank (Dryden, or Pope? I forget), neither fit for heaven nor worthy of hell, and so dropt down into a middle place: the Limbo of Anglicans.

Therein, the shade of C.S. Lewis takes tea with Ken and various other Non-Jurors (whose place in charity we assume is found with their sundered brethren), the soul of Lancelot Andrewes compares his pious meditations with those of Dorothy Sayers, and Gregory Dix works on the second edition of his magnum opus with William Laud, who had much practical experience in the pitfalls of being liturgical.

Comments, anyone?