Author Topic: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism  (Read 805 times)

Offline Vetus Ordo

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3633
  • Thanked: 3946 times
  • Hopeful Fatalist
Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
« Reply #30 on: October 18, 2020, 10:51:14 AM »
1) As mentioned in my previous posts, it is possible to interpret Vatican II in an orthodox fashion. One does not have to hold to the position that Vatican II taught heresy if the evidence points to the impossibility of a pastoral, non-dogmatic council teaching heresy. We do not need to go down the road of false dichotomies.

2) A dogma of the Catholic Church is defined as "a truth revealed by God, which the magisterium of the Church declares as binding." New dogma would mean in this case, a truth revealed by God that just now being proposed by the Catholic Church as binding. Hence Papal Infallibility not being a dogma for nearly 1900 years.

3) Yes, Vatican II was convened and ratified by two valid Popes. So what?

4) I don't understand why it is difficult for you to grasp the rather obvious point here. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L'Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966) Hence by its infallible nature as an ecumenical council, it declared infalliblly, that it did not proclaim any new dogmas.

What does that mean? That means religious liberty and the rest of what was novel as interpreted by modernists in Vatican II are new ideas that did not exist in the Church before except as condemned errors. Hence these novelties are not infallible and thus can be rejected if one holds to the view that Vatican II cannot be interpreted in an orthodox fashion.

5) Correction: not full communion; rather "imperfect communion"; groups that reject VII.

1) If by "orthodox fashion" you mean Tridentine Catholicism, it's not possible.

2) Yes, which is another problem unto itself;

3) So it must be accepted and adhered to, the same way other councils were;

4) The pastoral nature is irrelevant to the point. The Church, even in her ordinary magisterium, cannot teach heresy much less in her extraordinary magisterium (which is what ecumenical councils are). Vatican II defined Church doctrine, as per the words of John XXIII, Paul VI and the dogmatic constitutions themselves. Traditionally speaking, when the Church teaches doctrine, and applies it pastorally, she is still free from error. Infallibility is not reserved to formal anathemas. Religious liberty, as defined by Vatican II declaration Dignitatis humanae, cannot be rejected without severing communion with Rome. This has been clear since 1965.

5) Groups that reject Vatican II are not in communion with Rome.
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.
 
The following users thanked this post: Maximilian, Michael Wilson, queen.saints, Fleur-de-Lys

Offline Prayerful

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 7041
  • Thanked: 3237 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
« Reply #31 on: October 18, 2020, 01:18:37 PM »
I would agree with you 100% if VII were a dogmatic ecumenical council. But its not. The council by its own authority declared that it was not defining anything

Three of the documents of Vatican II are even titled "Dogmatic Constitution," including
   Sacrosanctum Concilium which destroyed the Catholic Mass and
   Lumen Gentium which is considered the most problematic by many traditional Catholics.

As for the third, Dei Verbum, I haven't given it much study, but this recent article examines its deleterious effects:

https://onepeterfive.com/dei-verbum-moral-theology/

Dei Verbum and the Collapse of Moral Theology

In a previous article, we discussed how the error of Limited Inerrancy was condemned by multiple popes as well as the original document [he means the pre-Council schema] on Revelation from Vatican II. Because Dei Verbum was vague on this point, it allowed liberal heretics to place themselves as authorities over the Word of God to pass judgement on its “errors” while pushing their feminist, Marxist, or other erroneous interpretations. In this article, we will discuss another related issue that the document helped to unleash: the collapse of moral theology.

It is likely that most who voted through SC took as legalising some measure of liturgical experimentation, Gregorian chant apparently retaining its place, nothing too radical. Abp John Charles McQuaid of Dublin was keen to assure his archdiocesan faithful that nothing that changed, and in a way that was so, at least how the Church retained a certain social dominance. One thing he did was mandate that altars in Dublin be positioned to allow both ad orientem and versus populum, maybe a Hermeneutic of Continuity man before his time. Yet all those bishops so well trained in fine neo-Thomism still presided over a de-facto abolition of the Mass for most people. The non-dogmatic claim seems like it was designed to put the vigilant to sleep. JP2 as an auxiliary bp was part of the vigilant element. Given his years in office, something put him to sleep. Most of the documents can be understood in an orthodox way, excepting statements (Lumen Gentium and other horrors) that Moslems and Christians worshiped the same God. I don't think an honest Moslem would accept that. No Christian should either.

I bought Dr Kolakowski's book. I seems worth reading. And perhaps some here should do so. You see statements here at times that Predestination is Calvinist, when the problem arises from Double Predestination. Many seem to have a sleepy idea downstream of a mix of semi-Pelagianism and Molinism.
Padre Pio: Pray, hope, and don't worry. Worry is useless. God is merciful and will hear your prayer.
 
The following users thanked this post: Maximilian, queen.saints

Offline Sin of Adam

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 54
  • Thanked: 31 times
  • in hoc signo vinces
  • Religion: Traditional Roman Catholic
Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
« Reply #32 on: October 18, 2020, 01:24:02 PM »
1) As mentioned in my previous posts, it is possible to interpret Vatican II in an orthodox fashion. One does not have to hold to the position that Vatican II taught heresy if the evidence points to the impossibility of a pastoral, non-dogmatic council teaching heresy. We do not need to go down the road of false dichotomies.

2) A dogma of the Catholic Church is defined as "a truth revealed by God, which the magisterium of the Church declares as binding." New dogma would mean in this case, a truth revealed by God that just now being proposed by the Catholic Church as binding. Hence Papal Infallibility not being a dogma for nearly 1900 years.

3) Yes, Vatican II was convened and ratified by two valid Popes. So what?

4) I don't understand why it is difficult for you to grasp the rather obvious point here. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L'Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966) Hence by its infallible nature as an ecumenical council, it declared infalliblly, that it did not proclaim any new dogmas.

What does that mean? That means religious liberty and the rest of what was novel as interpreted by modernists in Vatican II are new ideas that did not exist in the Church before except as condemned errors. Hence these novelties are not infallible and thus can be rejected if one holds to the view that Vatican II cannot be interpreted in an orthodox fashion.

5) Correction: not full communion; rather "imperfect communion"; groups that reject VII.

1) If by "orthodox fashion" you mean Tridentine Catholicism, it's not possible.

2) Yes, which is another problem unto itself;

3) So it must be accepted and adhered to, the same way other councils were;

4) The pastoral nature is irrelevant to the point. The Church, even in her ordinary magisterium, cannot teach heresy much less in her extraordinary magisterium (which is what ecumenical councils are). Vatican II defined Church doctrine, as per the words of John XXIII, Paul VI and the dogmatic constitutions themselves. Traditionally speaking, when the Church teaches doctrine, and applies it pastorally, she is still free from error. Infallibility is not reserved to formal anathemas. Religious liberty, as defined by Vatican II declaration Dignitatis humanae, cannot be rejected without severing communion with Rome. This has been clear since 1965.

5) Groups that reject Vatican II are not in communion with Rome.

1. Says who? You? With all due respect there are countless academic studies out there that fully reconcile Vatican II with prior Church councils and tradition, especially Trent. See Vatican II: Renewal within Tradition by Matthew Lamb, Oxford University Press, for an in depth analysis or see From Trent to Vatican II: Historical and Theological Investigations, Oxford University Press, as well for a historical dogmatic analysis

2. Not a problem at all; except for heretics, those who misunderstand the nature of the Church, and those who are ignorant of the concept of the development of doctrine.

3. I agree; when interpreted within tradition. Hermeneutic of continuity being key here as outlined by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

4. There is no problem if one interprets Vatican II in an orthodox fashion. Nonetheless for those that do reject it; once again Roman authority has not declared them to be heretics nor schismatics unlike those who dared to reject previous ecumenical councils. By logical necessity it means that VII cannot be of the same species as the previous councils; only in genus is it similar. It defined nothing and only repeated prior teaching; so what is there to reject but "the pastoral attitude" toward the modern world which it heavily focused on aside from the above?

5. The SSPX, a chapel of which I personally attend just to list a fun fact, is in "imperfect communion" with Rome per Popes Benedict XVI & Francis I. This is beyond dispute. And the SSPX completely rejects Vatican II.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2020, 02:49:05 PM by Sin of Adam »
Lumen ad revelationem gentium: et gloriam plebes tuae Israel.
 

Offline Arvinger

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 348
  • Thanked: 412 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
« Reply #33 on: October 22, 2020, 06:45:32 AM »
No, anyone who denies Vatican II (which is essentially everyone here on SD) has already rejected Vatican I whether they realize it or not. Vatican II has falsified Vatican I. When you state that Vatican II contains errors and heresies, you are thereby stating that Vatican I was false, since every document of Vatican II was solemnly promulgated by Pope Paul VI using his full authority as supreme pontiff speaking on matters of faith and morals.

I don't agree at all with your conclusion that Vatican I was falsified and I think it was already sufficiently refuted in this thread. But lets grant it for the sake of argument. What does it mean? If Vatican I was falsified, that means epistemological falsification of the whole Christian faith, since claims of the authority (Catholic Church) which teaches principles of the Catholic faith have been falsified empirically through its own rules. If an Ecumenical Council (Vatican I) erred in its most solemn promulgation, there is no guarantee whatsoever that Trent did not err on transsubstantiation, justification or canon of Sacred Scripture, or that Nicaea did not err on the Deity of Christ. Catholicism turns out to be just another religion which has some truth and some falsehood in it, and there is no principled way to distinguish one from another (since Vatican I demonstrates that solemn promulgations do not guarantee truth at all). Consequently, no principled epistemological argument for overall truth of Catholicism can be made, since Church's claims to any sort of teaching authority were falsified by error in solemn teaching of Vatican I.

In other words, rejection of Vatican I logically means rejection of Catholicism. Fortunately, you are wrong.

I see nothing but empty denial, lack of evidence, and circular reasoning i.e using an annex to an encyclical and non-infallible Papal documents to demonstrate the authority of encyclicals or non-infallible documents.

Read "Rome Has Spoken . . .: A Guide to Forgotten Papal Statements, and How They Have Changed Through the Centuries" and see for yourself instead of regurgitating discredited nonsense.

Following this logic modernism could well be correct. After all, condemnations of modernism, false ecumenism, separation of Church and State etc. where made in fallible documents, which - you claim - can be radically erroneous. Maybe St. Pius X was wrong in his fallible condemnation of modernism and Pius XI was wrong in his condemnation of false ecumenism. Maybe Vatican II corrected their errors, modernism and JP2's style ecumenism is the right way to go and consequently Francis is one of the best Popes in history.

People who argue "it is not infallible, therefore it could be completely wrong and still be part of the Magisterium" never take their argument to its logical conclusion.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2020, 06:47:27 AM by Arvinger »
 
The following users thanked this post: Blue Violet

Offline Maximilian

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5566
  • Thanked: 3717 times
Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
« Reply #34 on: October 22, 2020, 08:47:40 AM »
If an Ecumenical Council (Vatican II) erred in its most solemn promulgation, there is no guarantee whatsoever that Trent did not err on transsubstantiation, justification or canon of Sacred Scripture, or that Nicaea did not err on the Deity of Christ. Catholicism turns out to be just another religion which has some truth and some falsehood in it, and there is no principled way to distinguish one from another (since Vatican II demonstrates that solemn promulgations do not guarantee truth at all). Consequently, no principled epistemological argument for overall truth of Catholicism can be made, since Church's claims to any sort of teaching authority were falsified by error in solemn teaching of Vatican II.

All you're doing by focusing on Vatican I is pushing back the problem, like those evolutionists who claim that life arrived to Earth on meteors. They push the problem away into another realm without solving the issue.

Everything you claim in your post that would happen if Vatican I were false actually did happen at Vatican II. By being present here on SD we all agree on that point.

So all of your epistemological concerns are just the reality in which we live now that Vatican II has taken place. We have to deal with this reality and its consequences.
 

Offline Sin of Adam

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 54
  • Thanked: 31 times
  • in hoc signo vinces
  • Religion: Traditional Roman Catholic
Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
« Reply #35 on: October 22, 2020, 02:05:25 PM »
If an Ecumenical Council (Vatican II) erred in its most solemn promulgation, there is no guarantee whatsoever that Trent did not err on transsubstantiation, justification or canon of Sacred Scripture, or that Nicaea did not err on the Deity of Christ. Catholicism turns out to be just another religion which has some truth and some falsehood in it, and there is no principled way to distinguish one from another (since Vatican II demonstrates that solemn promulgations do not guarantee truth at all). Consequently, no principled epistemological argument for overall truth of Catholicism can be made, since Church's claims to any sort of teaching authority were falsified by error in solemn teaching of Vatican II.

All you're doing by focusing on Vatican I is pushing back the problem, like those evolutionists who claim that life arrived to Earth on meteors. They push the problem away into another realm without solving the issue.

Everything you claim in your post that would happen if Vatican I were false actually did happen at Vatican II. By being present here on SD we all agree on that point.

So all of your epistemological concerns are just the reality in which we live now that Vatican II has taken place. We have to deal with this reality and its consequences.

If ecumenical councils are fallible then RC & EO are both false religions. Protestantism would be the natural conclusion which eventually leads to irreligion as Protestantism is the gateway to relativism.
Lumen ad revelationem gentium: et gloriam plebes tuae Israel.
 
The following users thanked this post: Arvinger, Blue Violet

Offline Maximilian

  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5566
  • Thanked: 3717 times
Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
« Reply #36 on: October 22, 2020, 04:30:36 PM »
If ecumenical councils are fallible then RC & EO are both false religions.

1. Ecumenical councils are fallible. Vatican I and Vatican II weren't the first failed councils. That doesn't make the Catholic Faith false.

2. It's always a mistake to take the position: "If X is true, then there are Y bad consequences. Therefore I choose not to believe that X is true."

Instead, determine objectively whether X is true, and if it is, then deal with the consequences.
 

Offline Sin of Adam

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 54
  • Thanked: 31 times
  • in hoc signo vinces
  • Religion: Traditional Roman Catholic
Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
« Reply #37 on: October 22, 2020, 04:34:17 PM »
If ecumenical councils are fallible then RC & EO are both false religions.

1. Ecumenical councils are fallible. Vatican I and Vatican II weren't the first failed councils. That doesn't make the Catholic Faith false.

2. It's always a mistake to take the position: "If X is true, then there are Y bad consequences. Therefore I choose not to believe that X is true."

Instead, determine objectively whether X is true, and if it is, then deal with the consequences.

What you are saying is heresy. Ecumenical councils are infallible. This is a dogma of the Catholic faith. Even the Eastern Orthodox believe this. It was believed by everyone and everywhere. The only people who deny/denied it are Protestants & extinct heretical groups.

I am taking your opinion to its logical conclusion. If a dogma of the Catholic religion is false then Catholicism is false. Also you cannot be a Roman Catholic and willingly deny a dogma of the faith. That makes you a non-Catholic objectively, not formally.

P.S
If you do, however, argue that there is objectively irrefutable evidence that ecumenical councils are fallible and can err then let's hear it. Protestantism would be the necessary consequence if this is true though if one is to remain in Christianity.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2020, 05:06:04 PM by Sin of Adam »
Lumen ad revelationem gentium: et gloriam plebes tuae Israel.
 

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8096
  • Thanked: 6467 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
« Reply #38 on: October 22, 2020, 05:02:47 PM »
Quote
1. Ecumenical councils are fallible. Vatican I and Vatican II weren't the first failed councils. That doesn't make the Catholic Faith false.

2. It's always a mistake to take the position: "If X is true, then there are Y bad consequences. Therefore I choose not to believe that X is true."

Instead, determine objectively whether X is true, and if it is, then deal with the consequences.
It certainly does, because the Catholic Church claims that they are; and demands assent of faith for the decrees of Church Councils; therefore If Councils can err in their teachings, then the Catholic Church has erred in demanding assent of faith in those teachings; therefore the Catholic Church is a false Church.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 
The following users thanked this post: Arvinger

Offline Arvinger

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 348
  • Thanked: 412 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
« Reply #39 on: October 23, 2020, 02:15:28 PM »
If ecumenical councils are fallible then RC & EO are both false religions.

1. Ecumenical councils are fallible. Vatican I and Vatican II weren't the first failed councils. That doesn't make the Catholic Faith false.

2. It's always a mistake to take the position: "If X is true, then there are Y bad consequences. Therefore I choose not to believe that X is true."

Instead, determine objectively whether X is true, and if it is, then deal with the consequences.

In regards to dogmas of faith, no - it is backwards. We start from the dogma (such as indefectibility of the Church and Papal infallibility), knowing it is necessarily true. Therefore, if something contradicts the dogma, it cannot be true. You say "an Ecumenical Council has gravely erred in solemn promulgation", citing example of Vatican II (for the sake of argument I will leave aside the fact that Vatican II taught no dogma) - but that contradicts the dogma, therefore it cannot be true. This leave two possibilities:

1) Vatican II did not err, and all the errors are only apparent and not actual (Novus Ordo/indult position)
2) Vatican II did not come from the Catholic Church and was not an Ecumenical Council (sedevacantism/sedeprivationism).   
 

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8096
  • Thanked: 6467 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
« Reply #40 on: October 23, 2020, 02:48:07 PM »
S.O.A. Stated:
Quote
P.S
If you do, however, argue that there is objectively irrefutable evidence that ecumenical councils are fallible and can err then let's hear it. Protestantism would be the necessary consequence if this is true though if one is to remain in Christianity.
No it wouldn't be; first, because there is no such thing as Protestantism; just a bunch of sects that declare that the only rule of faith is the Bible. Second, because there is no way to ascertain what books are contained in the Bible; third, whether the Bible is an inspired collection of books; fourth, what is the true meaning of the doctrine in the Bible. This can only be done by appealing to a divinely founded Church (or appointed) person that can determine these. Essentially Protestantism has no basis for believing any of these propositions; thus the endless disagreements among Protestants.
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers
 
The following users thanked this post: Blue Violet

Offline abc123

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1040
  • Thanked: 987 times
  • Religion: Reformed
Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
« Reply #41 on: October 23, 2020, 03:54:45 PM »
S.O.A. Stated:
Quote
P.S
If you do, however, argue that there is objectively irrefutable evidence that ecumenical councils are fallible and can err then let's hear it. Protestantism would be the necessary consequence if this is true though if one is to remain in Christianity.
No it wouldn't be; first, because there is no such thing as Protestantism; just a bunch of sects that declare that the only rule of faith is the Bible. Second, because there is no way to ascertain what books are contained in the Bible; third, whether the Bible is an inspired collection of books; fourth, what is the true meaning of the doctrine in the Bible. This can only be done by appealing to a divinely founded Church (or appointed) person that can determine these. Essentially Protestantism has no basis for believing any of these propositions; thus the endless disagreements among Protestants.

All this does is push the problem one step further back. How do you know the Church is infallible? Because certain passages of Scripture imply such when a certain hermeneutic is applied? Which Church? The Roman or Eastern Orthodox? Tradition? Whose Tradition?

All the issues within Roman Catholicism stem from a self proclaimed authority which has manifestly contradicted itself many times over while maintaining that it hasn't. And why must you believe it hasn't? Because she's infallible and She says so.

Give me the unchanging Word of God written. Some may disagree about the meaning of certain passages; but you never have to worry about opening the Bible in 2020 and having it say something different than it did in 1520. One certainly cannot say the same regarding popes.
"I once laboured hard for the free will of man until the grace of God at length overcame me."- St. Augustine
 

Offline Michael Wilson

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 8096
  • Thanked: 6467 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Why the Catholic Church abandoned St. Augustine & condemned Jansenism
« Reply #42 on: October 23, 2020, 04:29:52 PM »
abc,
yes, it is pushing the problem back; but it goes to the very nub of the problem; for a Protestant doesn't have any way of knowing what books belong to the bible and whether they where inspired or not; and Protestants certainly have no way of deciding what the bible truly teaches; as R.C. Sproul noted famously:  the Bible is "a fallible collection of fallible books". In other words there is no secure base for a Protestant to even begin to investigate the true religion.
How does a Catholic know that the Church is the true Church? Not by beginning with taking for granted the inspired nature of the bible, but by accepting the books of the New Testament as historically accurate records of the person of Jesus Christ, who through His teaching and miracles, founded a Church with authority to receive and transmit His teachings; that Church as the unbroken testimony of the early Christian witnesses and their authorized successors tell us is the Catholic Church; the Catholic Church in turn tells us which testimonies of the early disciples of Our Lord are inspired and which ones belong in the collection of Sacred Scripture. This same Church claims the commissioned authority from Christ Himself to "teach all nations"; and His promise to be with her until the end of the world. Therefore it is the Church who guarantees the collection, inspiration and interpretation of the Bible; not the other way around.
It is similar to the U.S. Constitution; it is the historical fact of our Founding Fathers that establishes our Country and writes the Constitution; and it is the Supreme Court established by these same Founders that interprets and tells us what the Constitution really means.  Without the authority of our founders and government, we would have no Constitution; no Supreme Court and no reliable way to decide what the governing laws of our country are based on. 
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers