SAN BERNARDO: DE LAUDE NOVAE MILITIAE AD MILITES TEMPLI.

 

 NOTE. This beautiful letter from Saint Bernard exalts the Templar order in its noble mission of defending the holy places of the Saracens or Muslims and, at the same time, is a testimony against its detractors both at that time and today.

But now this letter can be addressed to us Catholics of the 21st century who, in the midst of great confusion, live the mystery of iniquity in our own flesh and, who want to be in conformity with the doctrine of Our Lord Jesus Christ, faithful defenders of the faith, of the Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ and faithful devotees of his Blessed Mother, we must take the words of Saint Bernard as directed to us or the "pusilus grex" in the midst of this shameful general apostasy.

May the exhortations of the Holy Abbot fall like divine oil and impregnate our aching souls and rejoice our downcast hearts so depressed by the present times that they are not good at all.

 

Book to the Knights Templar

Praise of the new militia

Foreword

Bernardo, abbot of Clairvaux, but only in name, Hugo, knight of Jesus Christ and grand master of Christ's militia: may he fight a good fight.

You asked me once, twice and even three times, if I am not mistaken, dear Hugo, to write an exhortatory sermon for you and your knights. As I was not allowed to use the spear against the insults of the enemies, you wished, at least, that I brandish my tongue and my wits against them, assuring me that I would give you a no small help if I animated with my pen those who could not animate for the exercise of arms. It took me a while to respond, not because I had little respect for the task you had given me, but because of the fear that I would be accused of haste and lightness if I undertook, with my usual inexperience, what another more enlightened person than I could accomplish with greater success, and that I should not meddle in a matter of such interest and so vital, so that in the end something much less profitable would come out.But after waiting in vain for so long, I resolve to do what I can, fearing that they believe that I lack will rather than inability: the reader will judge whether or not I advance in the company. If what I have written does not please or is not enough for someone, it does not matter, because, in the field of my knowledge, I did what I could to satisfy your wishes.

I. Exhortatory sermon to the Knights Templar.

1. The news is spreading around the world that not long ago a new genre of knights was born in that region in which the Orient that rises from above, made visible in the flesh, honored with its presence, to exterminate, in the same place where He put it, with the strength of his arm, to the princes of darkness, to his unhappy ministers, who are children of infidelity, dissipating them by the courage of these brave knights, carrying out even today the redemption of their people and raising up a saving force in the house of David, his servant. This is, I say again, the new genre of militia not known in centuries past; in which two battles with invincible courage take place at the same time:  against flesh and blood and against the spirits of malice that are scattered through the air. The truth is, I believe that it is neither original nor exceptional to generously resist an earthly enemy with the force of arms alone, nor is it extraordinary, even if it is laudable, to wage war on vices or demons with the virtue of the spirit, since it is see the whole world full of monks who are continually in this exercise. But who will not be astonished by something so admirable and so unusual as to see one and the other man girding his sword and nobly clothed with the girdle?  Certainly, this soldier is fearless and safe everywhere; his spirit is armed with the armor of faith, just like his body of iron breastplate. Being fortified with these two kinds of weapons, he fears neither demons nor men. I say more, you do not fear death because you want to die.

And, indeed, what can fear, whether living or dying, who finds his life in Jesus Christ and his reward in death?  It is true that he fights with confidence and ardor for Jesus Christ; but he still wants more to die and be with Jesus Christ, because this is the best thing. March, then, brave knights, firm and with intrepid courage, charge against the enemies of the cross of Christ, sure that neither death nor life will be able to separate you from the love of God, which is Christ Jesus; and in the moment of danger, repeat within yourself: Live or die, we are of God. With what glory those who have won a battle return! How happy these martyrs die in combat! Rejoice, gallant athlete, to live and to win in the Lord; but rejoice even more if you die and join the Lord intimately. Without a doubt, your life is fruitful and your victory glorious; but a holy death must be considered more noble. Because, "if those who die in the Lord are blessed," how much more so will those who die for the Lord be? 2. The truth, in any way, whether one dies, whether in bed, or in war, the death of the saints will always be precious before God; But what happens in war is all the more precious the greater the glory that accompanies it. What security there is in life with a pure conscience! What security, ¡I repeat, there is in life that awaits death without fear, ¡that desires it with sweet tranquility and accepts it with devotion! Holy and firm is this militia because it is exempt from this double danger in which the human race finds itself that does not have Christ at the end of its battles.

As many times as you enter the fight, you, who fight in the ranks of a profane militia, must fear killing your enemy bodily and yourself spiritually or perhaps that he may kill you body and soul. The defeat or victory of the Christian must be valued not by fortune in combat, but by the feelings of the heart.

If the reason for fighting is just, the outcome of the battle cannot be bad; but neither can its final result be considered a success when it is not preceded by a good cause and a just intention. If, with the will to kill your enemy, you yourself lie down, you die as if you were a murderer; and, if you are victorious and you kill someone for wanting to triumph or for revenge, you are a murderer. Well, die or live, victorious or defeated, it is in no way advantageous to be a murderer.

Unfortunate victory that makes you succumb to sin at the same time as defeating a man. In vain do you boast of having conquered your enemy when anger and pride conquered you. There are others who kill a man not out of the lust for revenge or the arrogance of triumph, but only to rid themselves of danger. But not even in this case would I call it a good victory, because of two evils, it is lighter to die in the body than in the soul. Not because the body perishes does the soul die; on the contrary, only the soul that sins will die.

Templar cross

II. The secular militia.

3. What is the end and the fruit, ¿I am not saying of this militia, but of this evil of the age, ¿when he who kills sins mortally and he who dies perishes for an eternity? To use the words of the Apostle:  He who works must work in the hope of the harvest, and he who sows grain, must do so in the hope of enjoying its fruit. Tell me, soldiers: ¿what dreadful illusion is this and what unbearable fury to fight with so much effort and expense without any wages other than death or crime? You cover the horses with beautiful silk clothes, you line the breastplates with rich fabrics that hang from them, you paint the pikes, the shields and the guards, you wear the bridles of the horses and the spurs covered with gold, silver and stones, and with all that brilliant pomp you rush to your death with shameful fury and with a stupidity that has no regard. ¿Are these military trappings, or pure feminine adornments?  Or do you think that the enemy's sword is going to be intimidated by the gold you carry, that the stones will preserve you and that it will not be able to penetrate those silk fabrics? In short, I judge, and no doubt you will experience it quite frequently, that there are three things that are entirely necessary for a combatant:  that the soldier be strong, skillful and careful to defend himself, that he have total freedom of movement in his body to being able to move around, and decision to load. You, on the other hand, pamper your head like the ladies, you wear large hair that is an obstacle to the view; you make your legs pregnant with your long dresses, you wrap your tender and delicate hands with large mittens. But above all, and it is what should most disturb the conscience of a soldier, is that the reasons why such dangerous wars are waged are slight and futile. Because what arouses the fighting and the quarrels between you is not, most of the time, but an unstoppable anger, a desire for pride or the greed to possess any territory. For reasons of this kind, it is not worth killing or exposing oneself to being defeated.

 

 

SAN BERNARDO: DE LAUDE NOVAE MILITIAE AD MILITES TEMPLI.

 

NOTA. Esta hermosa carta de San Bernardo enaltece a la orden templaria en su noble misión de defender los lugares santos de los sarracenos o musulmanes y, a la vez, es un testimonio contra sus detractores tanto de aquel tiempo como del actual.

Pero ahora esta carta puede ir dirigida a nosotros católicos del siglo XXI que, en medio de la gran confusión, vivimos el misterio de iniquidad en carne propia y, quienes queremos ser conformes a la doctrina de Nuestro Señor Jesucristo, fieles defensores de la fe, de la Iglesia fundada por nuestro Señor Jesucristo y fieles devotos de su Santísima Madre, debamos tomar las palabras de San Bernardo como dirigidas a nosotros o la “pusilus grex” en medio de esta vergonzosa apostasía general.

Que las exhortaciones del Santo Abad caigan como aceite divino e impregnen nuestra adolorida alma y alegren nuestros alicaídos corazones tan deprimidos por los tiempos actuales que no son para nada buenos.

 

Libro a los caballeros templarios

Elogio de la nueva milicia

Prólogo

Bernardo, abad de Claraval, pero sólo de nombre, a Hugo, caballero de Jesucristo y gran maestre de la milicia de Cristo: que pueda librar una buena batalla.

Me pediste una, dos y hasta tres veces, si no me engaño, querido Hugo, que escribiera un sermón exhortatorio para ti y tus caballeros. Como no me era permitido servirme de la lanza contra los insultos de los enemigos, deseaste, al menos, que blandiese mi lengua y mi ingenio contra ellos, asegurándome que te proporcionaría una no pequeña ayuda si animaba con mi pluma a los que no podía animar por el ejercicio de las armas. Tardé un poco en responder, no porque tuviese poco respeto hacia el encargo que me habías hecho, sino por el temor a que me acusasen de precipitación y ligereza si emprendía, con mi impericia acostumbrada, lo que otro más ilustrado que yo podría cumplir con mayor éxito, y que no debía entrometerme en un asunto de tanto interés y tan vital, para que al final saliese algo mucho menos provechoso. Pero después de esperar en vano tanto tiempo, resuelvo hacer lo que pueda, temiendo crean que me falta voluntad más que incapacidad: el lector juzgará si adelanto o no en la empresa. Si lo que he escrito no agrada o no es suficiente para alguien, no tiene importancia, pues, en el ámbito de mi conocimiento, hice lo que pude para satisfacer tus deseos.

I. Sermón exhortatorio a los caballeros templarios.

1. Corre por el mundo la noticia de que no hace mucho nació un nuevo género de caballeros en aquella región en la que el Oriente que nace de lo alto, hecho visible en la carne, honró con su presencia, para exterminar, en el mismo lugar donde lo puso Él, con la fuerza de su brazo, a los príncipes de las tinieblas, a sus infelices ministros, que son hijos de la infidelidad, disipándolos por el valor de estos bravos caballeros, realizando aun hoy en día la redención de su pueblo y suscitándonos una fuerza de salvación en la casa de David, su siervo. Éste es, vuelvo a decir, el nuevo género de milicia no conocido en siglos pasados; en el cual se dan a un mismo tiempo dos combates con un valor invencible: contra la carne y la sangre y contra los espíritus de la malicia que están esparcidos por el aire. La verdad, creo que no es original ni excepcional resistir generosamente a un enemigo terrenal sólo con la fuerza de las armas, como tampoco es extraordinario, aunque sea loable, hacer la guerra a los vicios o a los demonios con la virtud del espíritu, pues se ve todo el mundo lleno de monjes que están continuamente en ese ejercicio. Pero, ¿quién no se asombrará por cosa tan admirable y tan poco usual como ver a uno y otro hombre ciñéndose cada uno la espada y noblemente revestido con el cíngulo? Ciertamente, este soldado es intrépido y está seguro por todas partes; su espíritu está armado con la armadura de la fe, igual que su cuerpo de coraza de hierro. Estando fortalecido con estas dos clases de armas, no teme ni a los demonios ni a los hombres. Yo digo más, no teme la muerte porque desea morir.

Y, en efecto, ¿qué puede hacer temer, sea viviendo o muriendo, a quien encuentra su vida en Jesucristo y su recompensa en la muerte? Es cierto que combate con confianza y con ardor por Jesucristo; pero aún desea más morir y estar con Jesucristo, porque esto es la cosa mejor. Marchad, pues, valerosos caballeros, firmes y con coraje intrépido cargad contra los enemigos de la cruz de Cristo, seguros de que ni la muerte ni la vida os podrán separar del amor de Dios, que está Cristo Jesús; y en el momento del peligro repetid en vuestro interior: Vivamos o muramos, somos de Dios. ¡Con cuánta gloria vuelven los que vencieron en una batalla! ¡Qué felices mueren estos mártires en el combate! Regocíjate, gallardo atleta, de vivir y de vencer en el Señor; pero regocíjate aún más si mueres y te unes íntimamente al Señor. Sin duda, tu vida es fecunda y gloriosa tu victoria; pero una santa muerte debe ser considerada más noble. Porque, “si los que mueren en el Señor son bienaventurados”, ¿cuánto más lo serán los que mueren por el Señor? 2. La verdad, de cualquier modo, que se muera, sea en el lecho, sean en la guerra, la muerte de los santos será siempre preciosa delante de Dios; pero la que ocurre en la guerra es tanto más preciosa cuanto mayor es la gloria que la acompaña. ¡Qué seguridad hay en la vida con la conciencia pura! ¡Qué seguridad, repito, hay en la vida que aguarda la muerte sin temor alguno, que la desea con dulce tranquilidad y la acepta con devoción! Santa y firme es esta milicia porque está exenta de este doble peligro en el que se encuentra el género humano que no tiene a Cristo por fin de sus combates.

Tantas veces como entras en la pelea, tu, que combates en las filas de una milicia profana, debes temer matar a tu enemigo corporalmente y a ti mismo espiritualmente o quizás que él te pueda matar a ti en cuerpo y alma. La derrota o la victoria del cristiano se debe valorar no por la fortuna en el combate, sino por los sentimientos del corazón.

Si el motivo por el cual se combate es justo, el resultado de la batalla no puede ser malo; pero tampoco se puede considerar como un éxito su resultado final cuando no está precedido de una buena causa y una justa intención. Si, con la voluntad de matar a tu enemigo, tú mismo quedas tendido, mueres como si fueras un homicida; y, si quedas vencedor y matas a alguien por desear triunfar o por venganza, vives homicida. Pues, mueras o vivas, victorioso o vencido, de ningún modo es ventajoso ser homicida.

Desgraciada victoria la que te hace sucumbir al pecado al mismo tiempo que vencer a un hombre. En vano presumes de haber vencido a tu enemigo cuando la ira y el orgullo te vencieron a ti. Hay otros que matan a un hombre no por el ansia de la venganza ni por la arrogancia del triunfo, sino sólo por librarse del peligro. Pero ni en este caso le llamaría yo una buena victoria, porque de dos males, es más leve morir en el cuerpo que en el alma. No porque el cuerpo perezca muere el alma; al contrario, sólo el alma que peca morirá.

Cruz templaria

II. La milicia secular.

3. ¿Cuál es el fin y el fruto, no digo de esta milicia, sino de esta malicia del siglo, cuando aquel que mata peca mortalmente y aquel que muere perece por una eternidad? Por servirme de palabras del Apóstol: Aquel que trabaja, debe trabajar en la esperanza de la recolección, y aquel que siembra grano, debe hacerlo en la esperanza de gozar de su fruto. Decidme, soldados: ¿qué ilusión espantosa es esta y que insoportable furor combatir con tantas fatigas y gastos sin otro jornal que el de la muerte o del crimen? Cubrís los caballos de bellas ropas de seda, forráis las corazas con ricas telas que cuelgan de ellas, pintáis las picas, los escudos y las guardas, lleváis las bridas de los caballos y las espuelas cubiertas de oro, de plata y de pedrería, y con toda esa pompa brillante os precipitáis a la muerte con vergonzoso furor y con una estupidez que no tiene el menor miramiento. ¿Son estos arreos militares, o puros adornos femeninos? ¿O pensáis que la espada del enemigo se va a amedrentar por el oro que lleváis, que os preservará la pedrería y que no será capaz de traspasar esas telas de seda? En fin, yo juzgo, y sin duda vosotros lo experimentaréis con bastante frecuencia, que hay tres cosas que son enteramente necesarias a un combatiente: que el soldado sea fuerte, hábil y precavido para defenderse, que tenga total libertad de movimientos en su cuerpo para poder desplazarse por todos los lados, y decisión para cargar. Vosotros, por contra, mimáis la cabeza como las damas, lleváis grandes cabelleras que constituyen un obstáculo para la vista; embarazáis las piernas con vuestros largos vestidos, envolvéis vuestras tiernas y delicadas manos con grandes manoplas. Pero, sobre todo, y es lo que debe turbar más la conciencia de un soldado, es que las razones por las que se emprenden guerras tan peligrosas son ligeras y fútiles. Porque lo que suscita los combates y las querellas entre vosotros no es, en la mayor parte de las veces, sino una cólera irrefrenable, un afán de vanagloria o la avaricia de poseer cualquier territorio. Por motivos de tal género no vale la pena matar o exponerse a ser vencido.

 

 

"It is I, the accused, who would have to judge you" Bishop Marcel Lefebvre.

 

CHAPTER 3

 

Encyclical Qui pluribus

of Pope Pius IX

in rationalism and other modern errors

 spread by the Masons

(November 9, 1846)

 In his encyclical Qui pluribus, of November 9, 1846, Pope Pius IX provides even more details than his Predecessors regarding the action of Freemasons. It should be noted that this was his first encyclical and it is quite long, which shows how important the Pope treated this issue.

 At first, as later St. Pius X in his first encyclical, he expresses his admiration and apprehensions at the weight of the position he has just received:

 «… We have hardly been placed in the Chair of the Prince of the Apostles, without deserving it, and received the commission, from the Prince of the Shepherds himself, to act as Saint Peter, pasturing and guiding, not only lambs, that is to say, everything the Christian people, but also the sheep, that is, the Prelates» ...

The Pope immediately expresses his desire to address the bishops and faithful:

«… We desire nothing so strongly as to speak to you with the intimate affection of charity. As soon as we take possession of the Supreme Pontificate, as is the custom of Our predecessors, in Our Lateran Basilica, in the year we send you this letter» ... The Pope begins by exposing the situation of the Church at the time of assuming the position of Supreme Pontiff:

 «We know, Venerable Brothers, that in the calamitous times that we live in, men united in perverse society and imbued with unhealthy doctrine, closing their ears to the truth, have unleashed a cruel and fearsome war against everything Catholic, they have scattered and disseminated among the people all kinds of errors, sprouted from falsehood and darkness. We are horrified and it hurts our souls to consider the monstrous errors and the various devices they invent to harm» ... It has been said sometimes that Pius IX, in the first years of his pontificate, was liberal and that later, with the experience of the pontificate, he became very firm and showed himself as an admirable fighter, above all, of course, at the time he published his encyclical Quanta cura and the famous Syllabus, which caused the horror of all progressives and liberals of that time. But that's not true. It is a kind of legend that circulated, but it is false. Pope Pius IX, from his first encyclical, reveals himself as a man of faith, fighter and traditional:

«Because you know, Venerable Brothers, that these enemies of the Christian man, caught up with a blind impetus of mad impiety, come in their recklessness even to teach in public, without feeling ashamed, with unprecedented audacity, opening their mouths and blaspheming God (Rev. 3, 6), that the mysteries of our sacrosanct Religion are stories invented by men, that the Church goes against the welfare of human society, and they even dare to insult Christ and Lord himself. The Pope realizes that the sects condemned for more than a century by his predecessors continue to live and in turn denounces the evil that they continue to perpetrate with their perverse doctrines.

 The error of rationalism

 With a crooked and fallacious argument, they endeavor to proclaim the strength and excellence of human reason, elevating it above the faith of Christ, and boldly shout that faith is opposed to human reason. Nothing so foolish, nor so impious, nor so opposed to the same reason.

 Obviously, deep down the radical vice of these enemies of the Church is to proclaim independent human reason and say that everything that surpasses it and cannot understand, such as mysteries, of course, is inadmissible. "Human reason is preponderant," they say. he has to dominate and he cannot be asked to submit to anyone or anything he cannot understand”.

For this reason, Pope Pius IX affirms the superiority of faith over reason and shows that they cannot contradict each other: "Because even when faith is above reason, there is no opposition or disagreement between them, since both come from the same source of eternal and immutable Truth, God Optimum and Maximum."

 Faith is above reason. Reason, with its natural light, cannot understand the supernatural mysteries that are the object of faith. However, faith is not opposed to reason. Of course, we cannot understand either faith or our mysteries, but our faith in these mysteries is reasonable and based on valid motives: apologetics, and the credibility of those who have taught us what we know, in particular Our Lord Jesus Christ that He has taught us these mysteries.

Why do we believe? By the authority of God, author of revelation, of course; and on a human level, we also have solid reasons to believe. When the Church asks us to believe, it does not ask us for anything contrary to reason. Obviously, He asks us to do an act that is above our reason and that we assert to truths that we cannot understand in this world: the mystery of the Holy Trinity, of the Incarnation, of Redemption, etc.

 If the Church asks us to believe in mysteries, it does not do so in an irrational way, but on the contrary, based on reasons of credibility, such as the miracles of Our Lord and that prove that He was God. As He proved, we have to believe in His words that they come from God and we cannot oppose Him.  Faith not only does not contradict our science, but it is an infinitely higher and greater complement to it, since this knowledge comes to us from God and not simply from our human reason.

 Philosophy at the service of theology

 Saint Thomas Aquinas has said that philosophy is the handmaid of theology, since theological science is much higher than philosophical. Philosophical science has to put itself at the service of theological science in order to show us precisely that theology is in no way opposed to reason, even when it is above human understanding.

But the basic principle of all modern philosophies categorically rejects all revealed truth as imposed. This argument assumes that the understanding, only with the lights of natural reason, can understand all truths.

 Individual reason cannot prove everything

 This concept is not only false when it refers to the truths of faith, but it is also false when it refers to the truths that belong to reason, philosophy and human science. Indeed, how many things do we have to accept without being able to verify? Even if it is said: "Yes, but reason could prove them." Agree. For example: we are taught the principles of philosophy, the evidence of which we cannot always have; and the same is true for all sciences. We cannot redo the reasoning that men have been developing for centuries since science began to take its first steps, since it has been accumulating since men exist, and you cannot know everything or rediscover everything.

 How can you imagine that everyone who is born said: “I don't want anyone to teach me, nor do I want any teacher or teacher; ¿I want to know everything for myself”? It would be impossible. Who can know all the sciences for himself? We are forced to have teachers and to be taught precisely in order to progress much faster in science. If each one had to rediscover all scientific reasoning to find the origin and evolution of all laws, how to get to define this or that philosophical principle or chemical law, no one would succeed.

 Existence of even natural mysteries

 Those who say: “I don't believe anything they tell me; I have to be able to prove it myself”, they are foolish, because by acting in this way nothing could be known. Also in nature there are mysteries. Inevitably the conclusion is reached that there is a God who is the creator of all things and that he has created us.

 For example: philosophy shows that there is a first being, infinitely active, intelligent and powerful, who is called God, who has to be the author of everything we see and are.

 If we want to delve a little into the notion of creation, we realize that it is a great mystery. How can God, author of all creation, create beings that are not Himself but are not outside of Him, since nothing can be outside of God? It's a mystery 4. How to consider human freedom and the omnipotence of God? God, in a way, sustains our free acts in being. We cannot do any free act without God being present. Some are inclined to say that God does everything and, as it were, we are not free; while others claim that man, being free, does everything and that God does not intervene at all. That cannot be, because it would be to pretend that in some acts God is not present, since there is no being and no action is carried out without God giving him what; otherwise, we would be God. If we could do some work alone, without God's intervention, we would be the authors of being, and in that case we could do all beings; but it is not like that, because we cannot do it.It is something that those who do not accept that there are mysteries in nature do not want to admit.

 On the one hand, then, we see that, by apologetics, reason demonstrates the natural foundations of faith and that in turn faith enlightens us even with regard to simply natural mysteries. As Pope Pius IX says, faith and reason not only do not oppose each other, but: “in such a way they help each other, that right reason demonstrates, confirms and defends the truths of faith; and faith frees reason from errors, illustrates, confirms and perfects it with the knowledge of divine truths.

 As other rationalists appeal to the indefinite progress of human reason against the supremacy of faith and against the immutability of the truths of faith, the Pope also condemns them: «With no less daring and deceit, Venerable Brothers, these enemies of revelation, they exalt human progress and, recklessly and sacrilegiously, they would like to confront it with the Catholic Religion as if Religion were not the work of God but of men or some philosophical invention that is perfected with human methods ».

 The Pope then specifies his refutation of what, later, was to be called semi-rationalism: «Our most holy Religion was not invented by human reason, but most mercifully manifested to men by God. It is easily understood that this Religion has to draw its strength from the authority of God himself, and that, therefore, it cannot be deduced from reason or perfected by it. "

«Soy yo, el acusado, quien tendría que juzgaros» Mons. Marcel Lefebvre.

 CAPÍTULO 3

Encíclica Qui pluribus

del Papa Pío IX

sobre el racionalismo y otros errores modernos

difundidos por los Masones

(9 de noviembre de 1846)

En su encíclica Qui pluribus, del 9 de noviembre de 1846, el Papa Pío IX proporciona aún más detalles que sus Predecesores respecto a la acción que ejercen los Masones. Hay que destacar que ésta fue su primera encíclica y es bastante larga, lo que muestra con qué importancia el Papa trató este tema.

Al principio, lo mismo que más tarde San Pío X en su primera encíclica, expresa su admiración y sus aprehensiones ante el peso del cargo que acaba de recibir:

«…Apenas hemos sido colocados en la Cátedra del Príncipe de los Apóstoles, sin merecerlo, y recibido el encargo, del mismo Príncipe de los Pastores, de hacer las veces de San Pedro, apacentando y guiando, no sólo corderos, es decir, todo el pueblo cristiano, sino también las ovejas, es decir, los Prelados» …

El Papa manifiesta enseguida su deseo de dirigirse a los obispos y fieles:

«…nada deseamos tan vivamente como hablaros con el afecto íntimo de caridad. No bien tomamos posesión del Sumo Pontificado, según es costumbre de Nuestros predecesores, en Nuestra Basílica Lateranense, en el año os enviamos esta carta» …

El Papa comienza exponiendo la situación de la Iglesia en el momento de asumir el cargo de Sumo Pontífice:

«Sabemos, Venerables Hermanos, que en los tiempos calamitosos que vivimos, hombres unidos en perversa sociedad e imbuidos de malsana doctrina, cerrando sus oídos a la verdad, han desencadenado una guerra cruel y temible contra todo lo católico, han esparcido y diseminado entre el pueblo toda clase de errores, brotados de la falsía y de las tinieblas. Nos horroriza y Nos duele en el alma considerar los monstruosos errores y los artificios varios que inventan para dañar» …

Se ha dicho algunas veces que Pío IX, en los primeros años de su pontificado, se mostró liberal y que después, con la experiencia del ejercicio del pontificado, se volvió muy firme y se mostró como un luchador admirable, sobre todo, por supuesto, en el momento en que publicó su encíclica Quanta cura y el famoso Syllabus, que provocó el horror de todos los progresistas y liberales de esa época. Pero eso no es cierto. Es una especie de leyenda que circuló, pero es falsa. El Papa Pío IX, desde su primera encíclica, se revela como un hombre de fe, luchador y tradicional:

«Porque sabéis, Venerables Hermanos, que estos enemigos del hombre cristiano, arrebatados de un ímpetu ciego de alocada impiedad, llegan en su temeridad hasta a enseñar en público, sin sentir vergüenza, con audacia inaudita abriendo su boca y blasfemando contra Dios (Apoc. 3, 6), que son cuentos inventados por los hombres los misterios de nuestra Religión sacrosanta, que la Iglesia va contra el bienestar de la sociedad humana, e incluso se atreven a insultar al mismo Cristo y Señor».

El Papa se da cuenta de que las sectas condenadas desde hace más de un siglo por sus predecesores continúan viviendo y a su vez denuncia el mal que siguen perpetrando con sus doctrinas perversas.

El error del racionalismo

«Con torcido y falaz argumento, se esfuerzan en proclamar la fuerza y excelencia de la razón humana, elevándola por encima de la fe de Cristo, y vociferan con audacia que la fe se opone a la razón humana. Nada tan insensato, ni tan impío, ni tan opuesto a la misma razón».

Evidentemente, en el fondo el vicio radical de estos enemigos de la Iglesia es el de proclamar a la razón humana independiente y decir que todo lo que le sobrepasa y no puede comprender, como los misterios, por supuesto, es inadmisible. “La razón humana es preponderante —dicen—; tiene que dominar y no se le puede pedir que se someta a nadie ni a nada que no pueda comprender”.

Por esto, el Papa Pío IX afirma la superioridad de la fe sobre la razón y muestra que no pueden contradecirse entre sí:

«Porque aun cuando la fe esté sobre la razón, no hay entre ellas oposición ni desacuerdo alguno, por cuanto ambos proceden de la misma fuente de la Verdad eterna e inmutable, Dios Optimo y Máximo».

La fe está por encima de la razón. La razón, con su luz natural, no puede comprender los misterios sobrenaturales que son el objeto de la fe. Sin embargo, la fe no se opone a la razón. Por supuesto, no podemos comprender ni la fe ni nuestros misterios, pero nuestra fe en estos misterios es algo razonable y se funda en motivos válidos: la apologética, y la credibilidad de quienes nos han enseñado lo que sabemos, en particular Nuestro Señor Jesucristo que nos ha enseñado estos misterios.

¿Por qué creemos? Por la autoridad de Dios, autor de la revelación, por supuesto; y a nivel humano, también tenemos sólidos motivos para creer. Cuando la Iglesia nos pide que creamos, no nos pide nada contrario a la razón. Nos pide, evidentemente, que hagamos un acto que está por encima de nuestra razón y que asintamos a verdades que no podemos comprender en este mundo: el misterio de la Santísima Trinidad, de la Encarnación, de la Redención, etc.

Si la Iglesia nos pide que creamos en misterios, no lo hace de un modo irracional, sino al contrario, basado en motivos de credibilidad, como los milagros de Nuestro Señor y que prueban que Él era Dios. Como Él lo probó, tenemos que creer en sus palabras que proceden de Dios y no podemos oponernos a Él.

La fe no sólo no contradice a nuestra ciencia, sino que le es un complemento infinitamente más elevado y más grande, pues este conocimiento nos viene de Dios y no simplemente de nuestra razón humana.

La filosofía, al servicio de la teología

Santo Tomás de Aquino ha dicho que la filosofía es la sierva de la teología, pues la ciencia teológica es mucho más elevada que la filosófica. La ciencia filosófica tiene que ponerse al servicio de la teológica para mostrarnos precisamente que la teología no se opone de ningún modo a la razón, aun cuando está por encima de la humana comprensión.

Pero el principio básico de todas las filosofías modernas rechaza categóricamente toda verdad revelada como algo impuesto. Este argumento supone que el entendimiento, únicamente con las luces de la razón natural, puede comprender todas las verdades.

La razón individual no puede demostrarlo todo

Este concepto no solamente es falso cuando se refiere a las verdades de la fe, sino que también lo es cuando se refiere a las verdades que pertenecen a la razón, a la filosofía y a la ciencia humana. En efecto, ¿cuántas cosas tenemos que aceptar sin poderlas comprobar? Aunque se diga: “Sí, pero la razón podría comprobarlas”. De acuerdo. Por ejemplo: se nos enseñan los principios de la filosofía, cuya evidencia no siempre podemos tener; y lo mismo vale para todas las ciencias. No podemos volver a hacer los razonamientos que los hombres han ido desarrollando durante siglos desde que la ciencia empezó a dar sus primeros pasos, pues se ha ido acumulando desde que los hombres existen, y no se puede saber todo ni volver a descubrirlo todo.

¿Cómo se puede imaginar que todos los que nacen dijeran: “Yo no quiero que nadie me enseñe, ni quiero ningún profesor ni maestro; todo lo quiero saber por mí mismo”? Sería imposible. ¿Quién puede conocer todas las ciencias por sí mismo? Nos vemos obligados a tener maestros y a recibir una enseñanza, precisamente para progresar mucho más rápido en la ciencia. Si cada uno tuviera que volver a descubrir todos los razonamientos científicos para hallar el origen y la evolución de todas las leyes, como llegar a definir tal o cual principio filosófico o ley química, nadie lo conseguiría.

Existencia de misterios incluso naturales

Los que dicen: “Yo no creo nada de lo que me dicen; tengo que poderlo probar yo mismo”, son insensatos, porque obrando de este modo no se podría saber nada. También en la naturaleza hay misterios. Inevitablemente se llega a la conclusión de que existe un Dios creador de todas las cosas y que nos ha creado.

Por ejemplo: la filosofía demuestra que hay un ser primero, infinitamente activo, inteligente y poderoso, al que se llama Dios, que tiene que ser el autor de todo lo que vemos y somos.

Si queremos ahondar un poco en la noción de la creación, nos damos cuenta que es un gran misterio. ¿Cómo puede Dios, autor de toda la creación, crear seres que no sean Él mismo pero que no estén fuera de Él, puesto que nada puede estar fuera de Dios? Es un misterio ⁴. ¿Cómo considerar la libertad humana y la omnipotencia de Dios? Dios, en cierto modo, sostiene nuestros actos libres en el ser. No podemos hacer ningún acto libre sin que Dios esté presente. Algunos se inclinan a decir que Dios lo hace todo y, por así decirlo, no somos libres; mientras que otros pretenden que el hombre, al ser libre, hace todo y que Dios no interviene para nada. Eso no puede ser, porque sería pretender que en algunos actos Dios no está presente, siendo que no existe ningún ser ni se lleva a cabo ninguna acción sin que Dios le dé con qué; de otro modo, nosotros seríamos Dios. Si pudiésemos hacer alguna obra solos, sin la intervención de Dios, seríamos los autores del ser, y en ese caso podríamos hacer a todos los seres; pero no es así, pues no lo podemos hacer. Es algo que no quieren admitir los que no aceptan que hay misterios en la naturaleza.

Por una parte, vemos, pues, que, por la apologética, la razón demuestra los fundamentos naturales de la fe y que a su vez la fe nos ilumina aun respecto a los misterios sencillamente naturales. Como dice el Papa Pío IX, la fe y la razón no sólo no se oponen, sino que: «de tal manera se prestan mutua ayuda, que la recta razón demuestra, confirma y defiende las verdades de la fe; y la fe libra de errores a la razón, la ilustra, confirma y perfecciona con el conocimiento de las verdades divinas».

Como otros racionalistas apelan al progreso indefinido de la razón humana contra la supremacía de la fe y contra la inmutabilidad de las verdades de fe, el Papa también los condena: «Con no menor atrevimiento y engaño, Venerables Hermanos, estos enemigos de la revelación, exaltan el humano progreso y, temeraria y sacrílegamente, quisieran enfrentarlo con la Religión católica como si la Religión no fuese obra de Dios sino de los hombres o algún invento filosófico que se perfecciona con métodos humanos».

El Papa precisa entonces su refutación de lo que, más tarde, se iba a llamar semirracionalismo: «Nuestra santísima Religión no fue inventada por la razón humana, sino clementísimamente manifestada a los hombres por Dios. Se comprende con facilidad que esta Religión ha de sacar su fuerza de la autoridad del mismo Dios, y que, por lo tanto, no puede deducirse de la razón ni perfeccionarse por ella"

Why is the battle against the anti-Marian Revolution of the modernist Popes today the center of our struggle?

 

Because the Holy Trinity has let us know, at Fatima, what time it wants to establish love for the Blessed Virgin in the world : "God wants to establish in the world the devotion to My Immaculate Heart" "In the end, the Immaculate Heart will triumph ." (The last words denote a final triumph against his enemies, among whom are no longer the devil, nor Freemasonry, but those of the Church itself, that is, the modernists, its most bitter enemies, as stated below)  Also because the The devil is using the men of the Church to try to stop him.  Since Genesis this battle has been announced and also its end: "She will crush your head."

In the year 1200 the Blessed Virgin gave the Rosary to Saint Dominic, this was the historical event that marked the beginning of the exaltation of the Blessed Virgin.

Since then the enemy, who always goes against the will of God, unleashed the World Revolution which, as Pius XII teaches in his speech of October 12, 1952, at first it was a humanist, then a Protestant, then a liberal and then a communist, bringing as a consequence a atheist society. This was the pretext for the modernists infiltrating the Church - as St. Pius X denounced it, since 1907, in the Encyclical Pascendi - to make a call to unite all religions in the face of "the challenges of the world", "to make ourselves credible ”, As they repeat since the Second Vatican Council.

During the Second Vatican Council the modernists managed to introduce ecumenism into the Church with other religions, following the slogan of John XXIII who in the Encyclical "Pascem in Terris" argued: "to unite one must put aside what divides or separates us ”.  (And here comes mainly what separates the true Catholic Church such as the Blessed Virgin Mary)

With that slogan, and as Protestants do not accept the Catholic Magisterium on the Holy Virgin, then the enemies infiltrated the Church, began to lower and block Marian dogmas. This explains that:

1) They have not made the Consecration of Russia as the Virgin had requested it at Fatima. When they do, it will be too late as the Blessed Virgin announced it at Fatima.

2) During the same Vatican II there was a very big fight between the bishops that after the apparitions of La Salette,

Lourdes and Fatima and the definition of the dogmas of the Immaculate and the Assumption (1950), asked for a separate document in favor of the Virgin, as it was in the preparatory scheme, and on the other side the bishops who saw in this a obstacle to ecumenism with the Protestants did not want. The seconds won and everything was reduced to only one chapter of the " Lumen gentium ". Despite the apparent triumph, the two dogmas remain in force to this day, although they have been played down a lot of importance. Who is winning in the end, the modernists or the Virgin Mary? Of course there is the Virgin Mother of God.

3) The Document on Ecumenism "Unitatis redentigratio" in which it speaks: " hierarchies of truths". After the Council, a mixed Commission of Catholics and Protestants was created in Dombes, which worked for 6 years to find a doctrinal agreement on the Blessed Virgin. And making an application of the theory of the hierarchy of truths, he has concluded that there are fundamental dogmas and non-fundamental dogmas, and the non-fundamental dogmas are the dogma of the Immaculate and the Assumption.In this way, by making union with the Protestants, the Blessed Virgin is lowered. But without the expected results in said adulterous union with the Protestants and against the Mother of God, the modernists will never prevail because the honor of the Son Jesus Christ is compromised, neither more nor less.

4) After the Council the personal anti-Marian magisterium of the Popes begins: The Agreement on the Doctrine of Justification, signed on October 31, 1999 by John Paul II and the Protestants, in which the Protestant doctrine that the man is saved only by faith without grace and without merit, therefore, they say that the Virgin cannot have merit. Already the International Marian Congress in Poland had declared that : " The titles of Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocatea are ambiguous and constitute an ecumenical difficulty" , (O, R. 04.06.1997.)   That man is saved only by faith without grace and merits is the heretical "doctrine" of Martin Luther reproduced and adapted since the Second Vatican Council, it is not recent.

Pope John Paul II declared: " On the Cross Jesus Christ has not formally proclaimed universal motherhood " ( OR 24-04-1997). However, in the Gospel of Saint John we are told the opposite: “His Mother and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene, stood next to the cross of Jesus. Jesus seeing his Mother and the disciple whom he loved, who was there, says to his Mother: Woman, there is your son. Then he says to the disciple: Behold your Mother. (San Jn cap 19. 25-28)

Pope John Paul II cast doubt on the Virgin's faith in the Resurrection saying: “ Could she expect that she would rise again on the third day? The secret will remain in your Heart ” (OR 19-08-2002).

Pope John Paul II puts in evidence the thesis that we are explaining that God now wants to exalt the Virgin to the maximum, but He opposes: " Attributing the maximum to the Virgin cannot become the norm of Mariology " (OR 04- 01-1996).

Pope Benedict XVI (former Card. Ratzinger) denies that the conception of Jesus is the work of God the Holy Spirit. He already wrote this in the book “ Introduction to Christianity ” (II, 4, 2,1) and had it published in the Osservatore Romano as Pope: “ The conception of Jesus is not a generation by God ” (OR 25- 12-2008). If we follow its conclusion it is only the work of the Virgin Mary totally ignoring the annunciation of Saint Gabriel to the Virgin Mary.

Pope Benedict XVI teaches that the Woman of the Apocalypse is the Church: " The Woman of the Apocalypse is the Church " (OR 17-08-2007). It has always been believed that the woman of the Apocalypse is the Virgin Mary, why go against the ancient tradition? I think it is an outdated affirmation of this Pontiff before Car. Ratzinger.

Pope Benedict XVI teaches that Jesus crushes the head of the serpent: " A woman's son will come and crush his head " (OR 09-12-2009). Quite the opposite of what Genesis says, where it says: "I put perpetual enmity between you and the woman ..." (Gen. Ch. 3. Vers 15)

Pope Benedict XVI denies that the body of the Virgin is in a place in the universe: “ Today everyone knows that the body of the Holy Virgin is not anywhere in the universe, neither in a star nor in a similar place ” (OR 17.08 2010). So where is ex Card Ratzinger? As a fervent animist, his answer is logical. These deny the immortality of the human soul.

Card. Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) taught that: " Marian dogmas cannot absolutely be derived from the New Testament" (OR 13-05-1995).  Pope Francis has his theologians write in the Osservatore Romano that: “ The House of Loreto is a legend and a false historical ” (OR 02-03-2014). Well, soon he will also be a legend in bad taste.

Pope Francis has his theologians write in the Osservatore Romano that Saint Anne was a witch: “ This opera reveals how Saint Anne, as a great woman, was considered a witch ” (OR supplement “ Women, Church and world ” June 2015 , no. 36). Could it be that this pope's mother is also a witch?

Pope Francis has written in the Osservatore Romano by his theologians that it can be doubted that the Virgin had other children, in Alain Besancon's article he quotes a theologian who teaches with much documentation, that the Virgin has had other children, and he does not is up to the task of answering so much documentation and affirms only in a few lines that the Catholic Church does not accept this thesis (OR 06.09.2015). Nor will we ever accept her because she was and is a Virgin before childbirth, a Virgin after childbirth and a Virgin after childbirth.

Pope Francis has written in the Ossrvatore Romano that the Virgin is not Co-redemptrix: OR 23.11.2017: « The icons of the Virgin, even the most triumphant, never run the risk of showing Mary as an authentic" corredentrix "(co- redemptrix): she is "humble power " ». This topic was already covered in depth in another article uploaded to this blog.

In conclusion, the Holy Trinity now wants to exalt the Virgin in history, but the devil, using not the Masons or the Communists, but the Popes of Vatican II with their modernist bishops and priests - wants to prevent it.

History has yet to be written. Who will be the winner? With full confidence we can affirm that the triumph of the Immaculate Heart will be enormous, worldwide; it will be the fourth surprise in history after Creation, the Incarnation with Redemption and Pentecost.

At La Salette, the Virgin announced that two thirds of humanity will disappear, that all works of pride of man will disappear and that God will be served as in ancient times.

Let us begin to beg the intervention of the Virgin on this atheist, secular world, where souls are lost  for all eternity; let us begin to desire and plead for his intervention as the Patriarchs and Prophets pleaded for the coming  of the Messiah.

"The last two remedies that God gives to the world are the Rosary  and devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary" (Fatima).  Pope Benedict XVI to the International Congress of Mariology… R. 09.09.2012: «In the Council, in which I participated as a young theologian as an expert, ... an important group of Fathers asked that it be the Virgin within the Constitution on the Church, while another equally numerous group maintained the need for a specific document that would conveniently highlight the dignity, privileges and particular task of Mary in the redemption wrought by Christ.  With the vote of October 29, 1963, it was decided to opt for the first proposal … Mary… Her cooperation on the divine plane

of salvation and to the only [?] mediation of Christ " [Thus the definition of the dogma of the Mediation of Mary is blocked]. Interview with Card. Oddi published in 30 Giorni, Italy, November 1990, on the third secret of Fatima.

Card. Oddi: « In my opinion, the third secret of Fatima does not speak of the conversion of Russia. If it had been this, John XXIII would have shouted it from the rooftops. In my opinion the secret of Fatima contains a sad prophecy about the Church, that is why Pope John has not published it; Paul VI and John Paul II did the same.

I think it must be written, more or less, that in 1960 the Pope would convene a Council from which, indirectly, and against all hope, great difficulties for the Church would emerge  . There is no more blind than the one who does not want to see, the Virgin Mary in Fatima made the consecration of Russia very clear that Card. Oddi denies and the reasons why the secret was not revealed is because the modernist heresy would sit in the Cathedral of Saint Peter, this was the terrible news from which we are all suffering its dire consequences