“O Hell” And Traditional Catholics Saving Souls

by:traditionalcatholicpreist.com Father Carotas blog

“O Hell” And Traditional Catholics Saving Souls

hellissoThere are many ways that the word HELL is thrown around today.  For those trying to be holy, they see the word HELL as a bad word.  Inside and outside of the Catholic Church, there is a strong drive to not believe in or to not talk about hell or the devil.  In spite of this attempt to deny or forget the reality of hell, (the consequence of un-repented sin),  the word hell is still a big part of our language.  This shows that there still is a strong sub-conscious awareness of the devil and hell in society.  Here are a few of the sayings about hell that are still used today in ordinary talk.

E060_Hell4“The boss is hell when a job is poorly done.”

“I went through hell on the job.”

“He gave the student hell for cheating.”

“We did it for the sheer hell of it.”

“How the hell can I go?”

“You did one hell of a job.”

“I walked home by the old school for the hell of it”

“If we’re wrong, there’ll be hell to pay.”

“He ran like hell to catch the bus.”

He says he’s going along with us. — “Like hell he is!”

Flemish-Painter-Dieric-Bouts-the-Elder-Hell-Renaissance-Oil-PaintingHell is so so horrible.  It is:

  1. extreme eternal suffering from being tortured by demons,
  2. eternal regret and remorse, knowing that you caused yourself to be damned,
  3. horrific smells, sights, sounds,
  4. total loss of freedom,
  5. only hate everywhere,
  6. extreme despair and depression,
  7. no hope,
  8. fire,
  9. evil supernatural snakes, spiders, worms crawling around inside and outside of you,
  10. and no God or love.

hellI was lighting a Kerosene lamp and for just a second, I burned my hand with the hot match.  It caused me a pain I did not like at all.  Then I bit my tongue, it hurt a lot.  I did not like that at all either.  Instantly, it reminded of the eternal pains of hell.

I think because we are normally not in pain, or have low levels of pain like a headache, we cannot imagine the horrors and pains of hell.  So every time there is some temporary pain in our lives, we need to remind ourselves and those around us to not go into the eternal pains of hell.

H095_hell2When I get a little down, I remind myself to be so so grateful that I am still not damned to the tortures of hell.  I still have the opportunity to do what God wants and to obey Him.

The pope, cardinals, bishops, religious, priests and catechism teachers in the Catholic Church today do not really love people if they fail to tell them about hell.  By not telling them about the dangers and horrors of going to hell for one mortal sin, they are helping people to be damned forever.  Is that true love?

hell4That is why, no matter how much we traditional Catholics are persecuted by the powerbrokers in the Church, out of true love, we have to continue to tell the truth that Jesus told us, “hell is horrible and do everything possible to not go there for all eternity”.


Latin Mass, Apocalypse And Our Lady Of La Salette

we must become children of LIGHT!!!


I want to continue a little more on the apparition of Mary at La Salette France to Mélanie Calvat and Maximin Giraud, on September 19, 1846.  Mary appeared crying, brilliant with light and with a large crucifix on her chest, (that gave off light too).

250px-Our_Lady_of_La_Salette_(tears)After the apparition, a fountain of water emerged near to where Mary had appeared.   Many miracles began to happen when people would drink this water or put it on the sick. More and more miracles also began to happen when people would pray through the intercession of Mary.  Because of all these miracles, Pope Pius IX approved having devotion to Our Lady of La Salette.

A French seminarian, M. Martin was unable to lean on his left leg without excruciating pain.  This made it hard for him to accomplish what was expected on him and for this reason his bishop would not give him minor orders until he was completely healed.  He started a Novena to Our Lady of La Salette.  Then his spiritual director gave him a glass of water from the miraculous spring at 6 pm.  By 7 pm, he was completely cured, walking, going up and down stairs and running around.  This miracle made a huge impression on the whole seminary.

Then the calamities that Mary had foretold at La Salette began to happen.  In 1846, the potato famine occurred.  1,000,000 people starved to death in Europe from the shortage of wheat and corn.  French grapes became affected with a disease.

When all these things began to happen, people started to return to Holy Mass and close their businesses on the Lord’s Day.  Blasphemies began to subside, to some degree too.

Mary asked the children if they did their prayers well and they responded: “Not too well, My Lady.”  This question should be asked to each one of us.  It is hard to pray and even harder to pray well.  Our Lady wants heart felt prayers done with faith and slowly.

Our Lady told Melanie:

“What I’m to say to you will not always be a secret; you can announce it in 1858. Priests, my Son’s ministers, priests, by their evil life, by their irreverences and their impiety in celebrating the holy mysteries, love of money, love of honor and pleasures, priests have become sewers of impurity. Yes, priests call forth vengeance, and vengeance is suspended over their heads. Woe to priests, and to persons consecrated to God, who by their infidelities and their evil life are crucifying my son anew! The sins of persons consecrated to God cry to heaven and call for vengeance, and now here is vengeance at their very doors, for no longer is anyone found to beg mercy and pardon for the people; there are no more generous souls, there is nowno one worthy of offering the spotless Victim to the Eternal on the worlds behalf.”

la_salette_ourladyIn this, you can see the importance of the Latin Mass’ focus on reverence when offering the Holy Mysteries.  The Latin Mass also emphasizes the offering of the Jesus to the Father for the salvation of souls and the world.ick1

“God will strike in an unparalleled manner. Woe to the inhabitants of the earth! God will exhaust His anger, and no one will be able to escape so many evils at once. The heads, the leaders of the people of God, have neglected prayer and penance, and the devil has darkened their minds; they have become those wandering stars which the ancient devil will drag with his tail to destruction. God will permit the ancient serpent to sow divisions among rulers, in all societies and in all families; both physical and moral punishments will be suffered. God will abandon men to themselves and will send chastisements one after the other for over 35 years.

“Society is on the very eve of most terrible scourges and greatest events; one must expect to be governed by a rod of iron and to drink the chalice of God’s wrath.

“In the year 1864 Lucifer, together with a great number of devils, will be loosed from hell; little by little they will abolish the faith, and that even in persons consecrated to God; they will so blind them, that without a special grace, these persons will take on the spirit of these evil angels; a number of religious houses will lose the faith entirely and cause many souls to be damned.

“Bad books will abound over the earth, and the spirits of darkness will everywhere spread universal relaxation in everything concerning God’s service: they will have very great power over nature; there will be churches to serve these spirits. People will be transported form one place to another by these evil spirits, and even priests, because they will not have lived by the good spirit of the gospel, which is a spirit of humility, charity and zeal for the glory of God.

Civil governments will all have the same objective, which will be to abolish and make every religious principle disappear, to make way for materialism, atheism, spiritism and vices of all kinds.

Sermon and Deeds of Antichrist_Luca SignorelliIn the convents the flowers of the Church will putrefy, and the devil will establish himself as king of all hearts. Let those who are at the head of religious communities be on their guard concerning the persons they are to receive, because the devil will use all his malice to introduce into religious orders persons given to sin, fordisorders and love of carnal pleasures will be widespread over the whole earth.

The righteous will suffer greatly; their prayers, their penances and their tears will rise to heaven and all God’s people will ask pardon and mercy and will ask my help and intercession. Then Jesus Christ, by an act of His justice and His great mercy toward the righteous, will command His angels to put all His enemies to death.


“At one blow the persecutors of the Church of Jesus Christ and all men given to sin will perish, and the earth will become like adesert. Then there will be peace, the reconciliation of God with men;Jesus Christ will be served, adored and glorified; charity will flourish everywhere. The new kings will be the right arm of Holy Church, which will be strong, humble, pious, poor, zealous and imitative of the virtues of Jesus Christ. The Gospel will be preached everywhere, and men will make great strides in the faith, because there will be unity among Jesus Christ’s workers and men will live in the fear of God.

“This peace among men will not last long: 25 years of abundant harvests will make them forget that the sins of men are the cause of all the woes which happen on earth.

“I address a pressing appeal to the earth: I call upon the true disciples of the God living and reigning in the heavens; I call upon the true imitators of Christ made man, the one true Savior of men; I call upon my children, my true devotees, those who have given themselves to me so that I may lead them to my Divine Son, those whom I bear as it were in my arms, those who have lived in my spirit; finally, I call upon the Apostles of the Latter Times, the faithful disciples of Jesus Christ who have lived in contempt of the world and of themselves, in poverty and humility, in contempt and silence, in prayer and mortification, in chastity and in union with God, in suffering, and unknown to the world. It is time for them to emerge and come enlighten the earth. Go, show yourselves to be my dear children; I am with you and in you, provided your faith is the light enlightening you in these evil times. May your zeal make your famished for the glory and honor of Jesus Christ. Do battle, children of light, you, the few who see thereby; for the time of times, the end of ends, is at hand.”

jesus 9Let us be happy that God allows Our Mother Mary to give us encouragement for these last times.  But each one of us needs to be busy cooperating with God and Mary to save SOULS.  We are so blessed to be traditional Catholics.  We love God and Mary so much that we try hard to obey them.

St. Engelbert Of Cologne Nov. 7

St. Engelbert Of Cologne Nov. 7

Saint of the day!



“St. Engelbert of Cologne was Archbishop of that city (1216-1225); b. at Berg, about 1185; d. near Schwelm, 7 November, 1225. His father was Engelbert, Count of Berg, his mother, Margaret, daughter of the Count of Gelderland. He studied at the cathedral school of Cologne and while still a boy was, according to an abuse of that time, made provost of the churches of St. George and St. Severin at Cologne, and of St. Mary’s at Aachen. In 1199 he was elected provost of the cathedral at Cologne. He led a worldly life and in the conflict between Archbishops Adolf and Bruno sided with his cousin Adolf, and waged war for him. He was in consequence excommunicated by the pope together with his cousin and deposed in 1206. After his submission he was reinstated in 1208 and, to atone for his sin, joined the crusade against the Albigenses in 1212. On 29 Feb., 1216, the chapter of the cathedral elected him archbishop by a unanimous vote. In appearance he was tall and handsome. He possessed a penetrating mind and keen discernment, was kind and condescending and loved justice and peace, but he was also ambitious and self willed. His archiepiscopal see had passed through sever struggles and suffered heavily, and he worked strenuously to repair the damage and to restore order. He took care of its possessions and revenues and was on that account compelled to resort to arms. He defeated the Duke of Limburg and the Count of Cleves and defended against them also the countship of Berg, which he had inherited in 1218 on the death of his brother. He restrained the impetuous citizens of Cologne, broke the stubbornness of the nobility, and erected strongholds for the defence of his territories. He did not spare even his own relations when guilty. In this way he gained the universal veneration of his people and increased the number of his vassals from year to year. Although in exterior bearing a sovereign rather than a bishop, for which he was blamed by pious persons, he did not disregard his duties to the Church, but strove to uplift the religious life of his people. The mendicant orders which had been founded shortly before his accession, settled in cologne during his administration, the Franciscans in 1219, the Dominicans in 1221. He was well disposed towards the monasteries and insisted on strict religious observance in them. Ecclesiastical affairs were regulated in provincial synods. Blameless in his own life, he was a friend of the clergy and a helper of the poor.

In the affairs of the empire Engelbert exerted a strong influence. Emperor Frederick II, who had taken up his residence permanently in Sicily, gave Germany to his son, Henry VII, then still a minor, and in 1221 appointed Engelbert guardian of the king and administrator of the empire. When the young king reached the age of twelve he was crowned at Aachen, 8 May, 122, by Engelbert, who loved him as his own son and honoured him as his sovereign. He watched over the king’s education and governed the empire in his name, careful above all to secure peace both within and without the realm. At the Diet of Nordhausen (24 Sept., 1223) he made an important treaty with Denmark; in the rupture between England and France he sided with England and broke off relations with France. The poet Walther von der Vogelweide extols him as “Master of sovereigns”, and “True guardian of the king, thy exalted traits do honour to our emperor; chancellor whose like has never been”.

520px-Solingen_-_Schloss_Burg_-_Engelbert_01_iesSt. Engelbert’s devotion to duty, and his obedience to the pope and to the emperor were eventually the cause of his ruin. Many of the nobility feared rather than loved him, and he was obliged to surround himself with a body-guard. The greatest danger threatened him from among his relations. His cousin, count Frederick of Isenberg, the secular administrator for the nuns of Essen, had grievously oppressed that abbey. Honorius III and the emperor urged Engelbert to protect the nuns in their rights. Frederick wished to forestall the archbishop, and his wife incited him to murder. Even his two brothers, the Bishops of M¸nster and Osnabr¸ck, were suspected as privy to the matter. Engelbert was warned, commended himself to the protection of Divine Providence, and amid tears made a confession of his whole life to the Bishop of Minden. On 7 Nov., 1225, as he was journeying from Soest to Schwelm to consecrate a church, he was attacked on a dark evening by Frederick and his associates in a narrow defile, was wounded in the thigh, torn from his horse and killed. His body was covered with forty-seven wounds. It was placed on a dung-cart and brought to cologne on the fourth day. King Henry wept bitterly over the remains, put the murderer under the ban of the empire, and saw him broken on the wheel a year later at Cologne. He died contrite, having acknowledged and confessed his guilt. His associates also perished miserably within a short time. The crime, moreover, was disastrous for the German Empire, for the young king had now lost his best adviser and soon met a very sad fate, to the misfortune of his house and country.

Engelbert, by his martyrdom made amends for his human weaknesses. His body was placed in the old cathedral of Cologne, 24 Feb., 1226, by Cardinal Conrad von Urach. The latter also declared him a martyr; a formal canonization did not take place. In 1618 Archbishop Ferdinand ordered that his feast be celebrated on 7 November and solemnly raised his remains in 1622. In the martyrology Engelbert is commemorated on 7 Nov., as a martyr. A convent for nuns was erected at the place of his death. By order of Engelbert’s successor, Henry I, CÊsarius of Heisterbach, who possessed good information and a ready pen, wrote in 1226 the life of the saint in two books and added a third about his miracles.”  1914 Catholic Encyclopedia

by: http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/

Who Do You Want Watching You, “Big Brother” Or “Christ The King”

by: http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/ by: http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/ by: http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/ by: http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/ by: http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/ by: http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/ by: http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/ by: http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/  by: http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/  by: http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/

Before when communism was not popular in the United States, you would hear the saying that in Russia and China, “Big Brother” is watching you.  That meant that the communist government was spying and watching everything you did.  It is a lot like what is happening with our government collecting all our computer and cell phone information.

communism_doesn't_workAs we have gotten rid of obeying Christ The King’s laws; (Ten Commandments And The New Testament), we have to obey “Big Brother’s” laws.  Not too long ago the Ten Commandments were to some extent honored here in the United States.  There were real laws against using birth control, abortion and homosexual sex, (“sodomy laws”).  Now Big Brother and Big Sister (In the case of the mayor of Houston), are watching you if you go against the LGBT group or will not “marry” homosexual couples.  You are in trouble if you keep Christ the Kings laws.

ForGodandCountryJesus is God.  Jesus Created us.  Jesus died on the cross to redeem and save us from death and hell.  Jesus loves us infinitely more than “Big Brother and Big Sister”.

From Constantine till the Renaissance, Jesus Christ was King of the Roman Empire.  That is called Christendom.  God gives authority to popes who gave it to cardinals, bishops, abbesses, emperors, kings and queens.  The Catholic Church’s authority was respected and obeyed.  Popes, emperors and kings were obeyed.

christ-the-kingI will be the first to say that Christendom was never perfect.  There was all sorts of abuse of power and wealth by bad popes, cardinals, bishops, emperors, kings and queens (and everyone else).  Concupiscence, original sin, always wrecks things.  But that does not say that Christendom in itself is bad.  The evil is in the rulers and the people, not the power and legal system created by God.

800px-Carlow_Cathedral_St_Patrick_Preaching_to_the_Kings_2009_09_03Under Christendom, there were injustices and corruption.  There were unjust capital punishment and imprisonment.  But over all it was a very good way of enforcing God’s rules and governing and taking care of people.

You can criticize it all you want.  But that does not make you right.  Just look at the democratic government we have here in the United States.  There is corruption.  We pay enormous taxes to the government.  No one is happy with the Democrats or the Republicans.  Most people no longer vote because it is a sham.

Our government continues to do subversive military activity in many parts of the world.  We continue to fight a war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It dictates to poor countries who need financial aid that they have to have abortions, birth control, condoms, and promote homosexuality in order to get finical help.

Under this democratic government and penal system, 2.3 million adults are in prison or jail, 4.8 million are on probation and another 7 million are under correctional supervision.  Is this good?  What is wrong with “Big Brother” (US Government)? Or little brother (the average citizen).

Under Christendom there was way fewer people incarcerated.

PFA89439No matter what you or I think.  God wants to be the boss and will be in the end.  He is honest, just, fair and loving.  I would rather have Him dictating my life than all these corrupt politicians.  And whether you like it or not, in the end, Christ the King will judge you and rule you at death.  Why not be subject to Him right now?

At this second in time I can do almost anything I want.  But eventually I will come before the “Judge”, The King, God.  Then He will have all the say.  Right now I can be rebellious against God’s rules, small or big.  But only for a short time.

José_Gil_de_Castro_isabel_portugalMost Catholics and people choose to disobey God’s rules in small or big ways.  But it always catches up with them someday.  It is like not paying a traffic ticket.  Eventually you will be caught and have to pay way more.  It is like smoking, eating too much, having sex before marriage, all this will have a lasting effect on you, sooner or later, and whether you like it or not.  I just talked with a woman who caught Herpes.  25 % of people in the USA have Herpes.  It is incurable.

All this has happened by kicking God’s rules out of government.  In HIs place we have put the “god MAN”.  We are in, God is out.  “It is my life, it is my body, and I will do with it what I want”.  No God, No interior peace.  Know God, Know interior peace.

To have Christendom like Jesus wants we need to:

  1. Acknowledge God as our King and totally obey Him and His laws.
  2. Be holy popes, cardinals, bishops, religious, priests, emperors, kings, queens, civic leaders, parents and children.
  3. Humbly obey God’s rules.
  4. Not be materialistic or put our treasures in this life, but in heaven.
  5. Be humble servants who serve rather than be served.
  6. Be transparent and totally honest.

If you want to obey Christ the King, you will be happier and will reign with Jesus for ever.  He is a humble loving King, only looking out for our good.  He wants to share His divine Kingship with all of us who love, trust and obey Him in this life.  We are so blessed to be traditional Catholics and to be working for the restoration of the Temporal Rule of Jesus Christ as King over Creation, the Catholic Church and all Governments.

The French Revolution Persecuted, Exiled, Executed Traditional Catholic Priests And Nuns

The French Revolution Persecuted, Exiled, Executed Traditional Catholic Priests And Nuns

By”: Father Carota;    traditionalcatholicpriest.com

 I want to encourage all of you to take the time to read the whole article.

French-Revolution“The last thirty years have given us a new version of the history of the French Revolution, the most diverse and hostile schools having contributed to it. The philosopher, Taine, drew attention to the affinity between the revolutionary and what he calls the classic spirit, that is, the spirit of abstraction which gave rise to Cartesianism and produced certain masterpieces of French literature. Moreover he admirably demonstrated the mechanism of the local revolutionary committees and showed how a daring Jacobin minority was able to enforce its will as that of “the people”. Following up this line of research M. Augustin Cochin has quite recently studied the mechanism of the sociétés de pensée in which the revolutionary doctrine was developed and in which were formed men quite prepared to put this doctrine into execution.

The influence of freemasonry in the French Revolution proclaimed by Louis Blanc and by freemasonry itself is proved by the researches of M. Cochin. Sorel has brought out the connection between the diplomacy of the Revolution and that of the old regime. His works prove that the Revolution did not mark a break in the continuity of the foreign policy of France. The radically inclined historical school, founded and led by M. Aulard, has published numerous useful documents as well as the review, “La Révolution Française”. Two years since, a schism occured in this school, M. Mathiez undertaking opposition to M. Aulard the defence of Robespierre, in consequence of which he founded a new review “Les Annales Révolutionaires”. The “Société d’histoire contemporaine”, founded under Catholic auspices, has published a series of texts bearing on revolutionary history. Lastly the works of Abbé Sicard have revealed in the clergy who remained faithful to Rome various tendencies, some legitimist, others more favourable to the new political forms, a new side of the history of the French clergy being thus developed.

Such are the most recent additions to the history of the French Revolution. This article, however, will emphasize more especially the relations between the Revolution and the Church (see ).


The starting point of the French Revolution was the convocation of the States General by Louis XVI. They comprised three orders, nobility, clergy, and the third estate, the last named being permitted to have as many members as the two other orders together. The electoral regulation of 24 January, 1789, assured the parochial clergy a large majority in the meetings of the bailliages which were to elect clerical representatives to the States General. While chapters were to send to these meetings only a single delegate for ten canons, and each convent only one of its members, all the curés were permitted to vote. The number of the “order” of clergy at the States General exceeded 300, among whom were 44 prelates, 208 curés, 50 canons and commendatory abbots, and some monks. The clergy advocated almost as forcibly as did the Third Estate the establishment of a constitutional government based on the separation of the powers, the periodical convocation of the States General, their supremacy in financial matters, the responsibility of ministers, and the regular guarantee of individual liberty. Thus the true and great reforms tending to theestablishment of liberty were advocated by the clergy on the eve of the Revolution. When the Estates assembled 5 May, 1789, the Third Estate demanded that the verification of powers should be made in common by the three orders, the object being that the Estates should form but one assembly in which the distinction between the “orders” should disappear and where every member was to have a vote. Scarcely a fourth of the clergy advocated this reform, but from the opening of the Estates it was evident that the desired individual voting which would give the members of the Third Estate, the advocates of reform, an effectual preponderance.

EstatesgeneralAs early as 23 May, 1789, the curés at the house of the Archbishop of Bordeaux were of the opinion that the power of the deputies should be verified in the general assembly of the Estates, and when on 17 June the members of the Third Estate proclaimed themselves the “National Assembly”, the majority of the clergy decided (19 June) to join them. As the higher clergy and the nobility still held out, the king caused the hall where the meetings of the Third Estate were held to be closed (20 June), whereupon the deputies, with their president, Bailly, repaired to the Jeu de Paume and an oath was taken not to disband till they had provided France with a constitution. After Mirabeau’s thundering speech (23 June) addressed to the Marquis de Dreux-Brézé, master-of-ceremonies to Louis XVI, the king himself (27 June) invited the nobility to join the Third Estate. Louis XVI’s dismissal of the reforming minister, Necker, and the concentration of the royal army about Paris, brought about the insurrection of 14 July, and the capture of the Bastille. M. Funck-Brentano has destroyed the legends which rapidly arose in connection with the celebrated fortress. There was no rising en masse of the people of Paris, and the number of the besiegers was but a thousand at most; onlyseven prisoners were found at the Bastille, four of whom were forgers, one a young man guilty of monstrous crimes and who for the sake of his family was kept at the Bastille that he might escape the death penalty, and two insane prisoners. But in thepublic opinion the Bastille symbolized royal absolutism and the capture of this fortress was regarded as the overthrow of the whole regime, and foreign nations attached great importance to the event. Louis XVI yielded before this agitation; Necker was recalled; Bailly became Mayor of Paris; Lafayette, commander of the national militia; the tri-colour was adopted, and Louis XVI consented to recognize the title of “National Constituent Assembly”. Te Deums and processions celebrated the taking of the Bastille; in the pulpits the Abbé Fauchet preached the harmony of religion and liberty. As a result of the establishment of the “vote by order” the political privileges of the clergy may be considered to have ceased to exist.

French-Revolution1During the night of 4 August, 1789, at the instance of the Vicomte de Noailles, the Assembly voted with extraordinary enthusiasm the abolition of all privileges and feudal rights and the equality of all Frenchmen. A blow was thereby struck at the wealth of the clergy, but the churchmen were the first to give an example of sacrifice. Plurality of benefices and annates was abolished and the redemption of tithes was agreed upon, but two days later, the higher clergy becoming uneasy, demanded another discussion of the vote which had carried the redemption. The result was the abolition, pure and simple, of tithes without redemption. In the course of the discussion Buzot declared that the property of the clergy belonged to the nation. Louis XVI’s conscience began to be alarmed. He temporized for five weeks, then merely published the decrees as general principles, reserving the right to approve or reject the measures which the Assembly would take to enforce them.


Before giving France a constitution the Assembly judged it necessary to draw up a“Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen”, which should form a preamble to the Constitution. Camus’s suggestion that to the declaration of the rights of man should be added a declaration of his duties, was rejected. The Declaration of Rights mentions in its preamble that it is made in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, but out of three of the articles proposed by the clergy, guaranteeing the respect due to religion and public worship, two were rejected after speeches by the Protestant, Rabaut Saint-Etienne, and Mirabeau, and the only article relating to religion was worded as follows: “No one shall be disturbed for his opinions, even religious, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.”In fact it was the wish of the Assembly that Catholicism should cease to be the religion of the State and that liberty of worship should be established. It subsequently declared Protestants eligible to all offices (24 Dec., 1789), restored to their possessions and status as Frenchmen the heirs of Protestant refugees (10 July and 9 Dec., 1790), and took measures in favour of the Jews (28 January, 26 July, 16 Aug., 1790). But it soon became evident in the discussions relating to the Civil Constitution of the clergy that the Assembly desired that the Catholic Church, to which the majority of the French people belonged, should be subject to the State and really organized by the State.

760px-FrenchChurchOathConcordatThe rumours that Louis XVI sought to fly to Metz and place himself under the protection of the army of Bouillé in order to organize a counter-revolutionary movement and his refusal to promulgate the Declaration of the Rights of Man, brought about an uprising in Paris. The mob set out to Versailles, and amid insults brought back the king and queen to Paris (6 Oct., 1789). Thenceforth the Assembly sat at Paris, first at the archiepiscopal residence, then at the Tuileries. At this moment the idea of taking possession of the goods of the clergy in order to meet financial exigencies began to appear in a number of journals and pamphlets. The plan of confiscating this property, which had been suggested as early as 8 August by the Marquis de Lacoste, was resumed (24 Sept.) by the economist, Dupont de Nemours, and on 10 October was supported in the name of the Committee of Finances in a report which caused scandal by Talleyrand, Bishop of Autun, who under the old regime had been one of the two “general agents” charged with defending the financial interests of the French clergy. On 12 October Mirabeau requested the Assembly to decree (1) that the ownership of the church property belonged to the nation that it might provide for the support of the priests; (2) that the salary of each curé should not be less than 1200 livres. The plan was discussed from 13 October to 2 November. It was opposed the Abbé de Montesquieu, and the Abbé Maury, who contended that the clergy being a moral person could be an owner, disputed the estimates placed upon placed upon the wealth of the clergy, and suggested that their possessions should simply serve as a guarantee for a loan of 400,000,000 livres to the nation.The advocates of confiscation maintained that the clergy no longer existed as an order, that the property was like an escheated succession, and that the State had a right to claim it, that moreover the Royal Government had never expressly recognized the clergy as a proprietor, that in 1749 Louis XV had forbidden the clergy to receive anything without the authority of the State, and that he had confiscated the property of the Society of Jesus. Malouet took an intermediate stand and demanded that the State should confiscate only superfluous ecclesiastical possessions, but that the parochial clergy should be endowed with land. Finally, on 2 November, 1789, the Assembly decided that the possessions of the clergy be “placed at the disposal” of the nation. The results of this vote were not long in following. The first was Treilhard’s motion (17 December), demanding in the name of the ecclesiastical committee of the Assembly, the closing of useless convents, and decreeing that the State should permit the religious to release themselves from their monastic vows.

The discussion of this project began in February, 1790, after the Assembly by the creation of assemblies of departments, districts, and commons, had proceeded to the administrative reorganization of France. The discussion was again very violent. On 13 February, 1790, the Assembly, swayed by the more radical suggestions of Barnave and Thouret, decreed as a “constitutional article” that not only should the law no longer recognize monastic vows, but that religious orders and congregations were and should remain suppressed in France, and that no others should be established in the future. After having planned a partial suppression of monastic orders the Assembly voted for their total suppression. The proposal of Cazalès (17 February) calling for the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, and the rightful efforts, made by the higher clergy to prevent Catholics from purchasing the confiscated goods of the Church provoked reprisals. On 17 March, 1790, the Assembly decided that the 400,000,000 livres worth of alienated ecclesiastical properties should be sold to municipalities which in turn should sell them to private buyers. On 14 April it decided that the maintenance of Catholic worship should be provided for without recourse to the revenues of former ecclesiastical property and that a sufficient sum, fixed at more than 133,000,000 livres for the first year, should be entered in the budget for the allowances to be made to the clergy; on 17 April the decree was passed dealing with the assignats, the papers issued by the Government paying interest at 5 per cent, and which were to be accepted as money in payment for the ecclesial property, thenceforth called national property; finally, on 9 July, it was decreed that all this property should be put up for sale.


490px-Le_serment_de_La_Fayette_a_la_fete_de_la_Federation_14_July_1790_French_School_18th_centuryOn 6 February, 1790, the Assembly charged its ecclesiastical committee, appointed 20 Aug., 1789, and composed of fifteen members to prepare the reorganization of the clergy. Fifteen new members were added to the committee on 7 February. The “constituents” were disciples of the eighteenth century philosophes who subordinated religion to the State; moreover, to understand their standpoint it is well to bear in mind that many of them were jurists imbued with Gallican and Josephist ideas. Finally Taine has proved that in many respects their religious policy merely followed in the footsteps of the old regime, but while the old regime protected the Catholic Church and made it the church exclusive, recognized, the constituents planned to enslave it after having stripped it of its privileges. Furthermore they did not take into account that there are mixed matters that can only be regulated after an agreement with ecclesiastical authority. They were especially incensed against the clergy after the consistorial address in which Pius VI (22 March, 1790) reproved some of the measures already taken by the Constituent Assembly, and by the news received from the West and South where the just dissatisfaction of Catholic consciences had provoked disturbances; in particular the election of the Protestant Rabaut Saint-Etienne to the presidency of the National Assembly brought about commotions at Toulouse and Nimes. Under the influence of these disturbances the Civil Constitution of the Clergy was developed. On 29 May, 1790, it was laid before the Assembly. Bonal, Bishop of Clermont, and some members of the Right requested that the project should be submitted to a national council or to the pope. But the Assembly proceeded; it discussed the Civil Constitution of the Clergy from 1 June to 12 July, 1790, on which date it was passed.

This Constitution comprised four titles.

Title I, Ecclesiastical Offices: Diocesan boundaries were to agree with those of departments, 57 episcopal sees being thus suppressed. The title of archbishop was abolished; out of 83 remaining bishoprics 10 were called metropolitan bishoprics and given jurisdiction over the neighbouring dioceses. No section of French territory should recognize the authority of a bishop living abroad, or of his delegates, and this, adds the Constitution, “without prejudice to the unity of faith and the communion which shall be maintained with the head of the Universal Church”. Canonries, prebends, and priories were abolished. There should no longer be any sacerdotal posts especially devoted to fulfilling the conditions of Mass foundations. All appeals to Rome were forbidden.

Title II, Appointment to Benefice: Bishops should be appointed by the Electoral Assembly of the department; they should be invested and consecrated by the metropolitan and take an oath of fidelity to the nation, the King, the Law, and the Constitution; they should not seek any confirmation from the pope. Parish priests should be elected by the electoral assemblies of the districts. Thus all citizens, even Protestants, Jews, and nominal Catholics, might name titulars to ecclesiastical offices, and the first obligation of priests and bishops was to take an oath of fidelity to the Constitution which denied to the Holy See any effective power over the Church.

Title III, Salary of ministers of Religion: The Constitution fixed the salary of the Bishop of Paris at 51,000 livres (about $10,200), that of bishops of towns whose population exceeded 50,000 souls at 20,000 livres (about $4000), that of other bishops at 12,000 livres (about $2400), that of curés at a sum ranging from 6000 (about $1200) to 1200 livres (about $240). For the lower clergy this was a betterment of their material condition, especially as the real value of these sums was two and one-half times the present amount.

Title IV, dealing with residence, made very severe conditions regarding the absences of bishops and priests.

At the festival of the Federation (14 July, 1790) Talleyrand and three hundred priests officiating at the altar of the nation erected on the Champs-de-Mars wore the tri-colored girdle above their priestly vestments and besought the blessing of God on the Revolution. Deputations were present from the towns of France, and there was inaugurated a sort of cult, of the Fatherland, the remote origin of all the “Revolutionary cults”. On 10 July, 1790, in a confidential Brief to Louis XVI, Pius VI expressed the alarm with which the project under discussion filled him. He commissioned two ecclesiastics who were ministers of Louis XVI, Champion de Cicé and Lefranc de Pompignan, to urge the king not to sign the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. On 28 July, in a letter to the pope, Louis XVI replied that he would be compelled, “with death in his soul”, to promulgate the Constitution, that he would reserve the right to broach as soon as possible the matter of some concession, but that if he refused, his life and the lives of his family would be endangered.

The pope replied (17 August) that he still held the same opinion of the Constitution, but that he would make no public declaration on the subject until he consulted with the Sacred College. On 24 August the king promulgated the Constitution, for which he was blamed by the pope in a confidential Brief on 22 September. M. Mathiez claims to have proved that the hesitancy of Pius VI was due to temporal rather than to spiritual considerations, to his serious fears about the affairs of Avignon and the Comtat Venaissin, where certain popular parties were clamoring for French troops, but the truth is that Pius VI, who had made known his opinion of the Constitution to two French prelates, was awaiting some manifestation on the part of the French episcopate. Indeed the bishops spoke before the pope had spoken publicly. At the end of October, 1790, they published an “Exposition des principes sur la constitution civile du clergé“, compiled by Boisgelin, Archbishop of Aix in which they rejected the Constitution and called upon the faithful to do the same. This publication marks the beginning of a violent conflict between the episcopate an the Constitution. On 27 November, 1790, after a speech by Mirabeau, a decree stipulated that all bishops and priests should within a week, under penalty of losing their offices, take the oath to the Constitution, that all who refused and who nevertheless continued to discharge their priestly functions should be prosecuted as disturbers of the public peace. The king, who was much disturbed by this decree, eventually sanctioned it (26 December, 1790) in order to avoid a rising.

Hitherto a large section of the lesser clergy had shown a certain amount of sympathy for the Revolution, but when it was seen that the episcopal members of the Assembly refused to take the oath, thus sacrificing their sees, a number of the priests followed this disinterested example. It may be said that from the end of 1790 the higher clergy and the truly orthodox elements of the lower clergy were united against the revolutionary measures. Thenceforth there were two classes, the non-juring or refractory priests, who were faithful to Rome and refused the oath, and the jurors, sworn, or Constitutional priests, who had consented to take the oath. M. de la Gorce has recently sought to estimate the exact proportion of the priests who took the oath. Out of 125 bishops there were only four, Talleyrand of Autun, Brienne of Sens, Jarente of Orleans, and Lafond de Savine, of Viviers; three coadjutors or bishops in partibus, Gobel, Coadjutor Bishop of Bâle; Martial de Brienne, Coadjutor of Sens; and Dubourg-Miraudet, Bishop of Babylon. In the important towns most of the priests refused to take the oath. Statistics for the small boroughs and the country are more difficult to obtain. The national archives preserve the complete dockets of 42 departments which were sent to the Constituent Assembly by the civil authorities. This shows that in these 42 departments, of 23,093 priests called upon to swear, 13,118 took the oath. There would be therefore out of 100 priests, 56 to 57 jurors against 43 to 44 non-jurors. M. de la Gorce gives serious reasons for contesting these statistics, which were compiled by zealous bureaucrats anxious to please the central administrators. He asserts on the other hand that the schism had little hold in fifteen departments and concludes that in 1791 thenumber of priests faithful to Rome was 52 to 55 out of 100; this is a small enough majority, but one which M. de la Gorce considers authentic.

On 5 February, 1791, the Constituent Assembly forbade every non-juring priest to preach in public. In March the elections to provide for the vacant episcopal sees and parishes took place. Disorder grew in the Church of France; young and ambitious priests, better known for their political than for their religious zeal, were candidates, and in many places owing to the opposition of good Catholics those elected had muchdifficulty in taking possession of their churches. At this juncture, seeing the Constitutional Church thus setup in France against the legitimate Church, Pius VI wrote two letters, one to the bishops and one to Louis XVI, to inquire if there remained any means to prevent schism; and finally, on 13 April, 1791, he issued a solemn condemnation of the Civil Constitution in a solemn Brief to the clergy and the people. On 2 May, 1791, the annexation of the Comtat Venaissin and the city of Avignon by the French troops marked the rupture of diplomatic relations between France and the Holy See. From May, 1791, there was no longer an ambassador from France at Rome or a nuncio at Paris. The Brief of Pius VI encouraged the resistance of the Catholics. The Masses celebrated by non-juring priests attracted crowds of the faithful. Then mobs gathered and beat and outraged nuns and other pious women. On 7 May, 1791, the Assembly decided that the non-juring priests as prêtres habitués might continue to say Mass in parochial churches or conduct their services in other churches on condition that they would respect the laws and not stir up revolt against the Civil Constitution. The Constitutional priests became more and more unpopular with good Catholics; Sciout’s works go to show that the “departmental directories” had to spend their time in organizing regular police expeditions to protect the Constitutional priests against the opposition of good Catholics, or to prosecute the non-juring priests who heroically persisted in remaining at their posts. Finally on 9 June, 1791, the Assembly forbade the publication of all Bulls or Decrees of the Court of Rome, at least until they had been submitted to the legislative body and their publication authorized. Thus Revolutionary France not only broke with Rome, but wished to place a barrier between Rome and the Catholics of France.

QueenMarie-AntoinetteRevolutionaryTribunal-1024x769The king’s tormenting conscience was the chief reason for his attempted flight (20-21 June, 1791). Before fleeing he had addressed to the Assembly a declaration of his dissatisfaction with the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, and once more protested against the moral violence which had compelled him to accept such a document. Halted at Varennes, Louis XVI was brought back on 25 June, and was suspended from his functions till the completion of the Constitution, to which he took the oath 13 Sept., 1791. On 30 Sept., 1791, the Constituent Assembly dissolved, to make way for the Legislative Assembly, in which none of the members &f the Constituent Assembly could sit. The Constituent Assembly had passed 2500 laws and reorganized the whole French administration. Its chief error from a social standpoint, which Anatole Leroy-Beaulieu calls a capital one, was to pass the Chapelier Decree (15 June, 1791), which forbade working people to band together and form associations “for their so-called common interest”. Led astray by their spirit of individualism and their hatred for certain abuses of the old corporations, the Constituents did not understand that the world of labour should be organized. They were responsible for the economic anarchy which reigned during the nineteenth century, and the present syndicate movement as well as the efforts of the social Catholics in conformity with the Encyclical “Rerum novarum” marks a deep and decisive reaction against the work of the Constituent Assembly.


When the Constituent Assembly disbanded (30 Sept., 1791), France all was aflame concerning the religious question. More than half the French people did not want the new Church, the factitious creation of the law; the old the Church was ruined, demolished, hunted down, and the general amnesty decreed by the Constituent Assembly before disbanding could do nothing towards restoring peace in the country where that Assembly’s bungling work had unsettled the consciences of individuals. The parties in the Legislative Assembly were soon irreconcilable. The Feuillants, on the Right, saw no salvation save in the Constitution; the Girondins on the Left, and the Montagnards on the Extreme Left, made ready for the Republic. There were men who, like the poet André Chénier, dreamed of a complete Separation of Church and State. “The priests”, he wrote in a letter to the “Moniteur” (22 October, 1791), “will not trouble the Estates when no one is concerned about them, and they will always trouble them while anyone is concerned about them as at present.” But the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly had sat in the departmental or district assemblies; they had fought against the non-juring priests and brought violent passions and a hostile spirit to the Legislative Assembly. A report from Gensonné and Gallois to the Legislative Assembly (9 October, 1791) on the condition of the provinces of the West denounced the non-juring priests as exciting the populace to rebellion and called for measures against them. It accused them of complicity with the émigrés bishops. At Avignon theRevolutionary Lécuyer, having been slain in a church, some citizens reputed to be partisans of the pope were thrown into the ancient papal castle and strangled (16-17 Oct., 1791). Calvados was also the scene of serious disturbances.

Marie-Antoinette_au_Tribunal_révolutionnaire_by_Alphonse_FrançoisThe Legislative Assembly, instead of repairing the tremendous errors of the Constituent Assembly, took up the question of the non-juring priests. On 29 November, on the proposal of François de Neufchâteau, it decided that if within eight days they did not take the civil oath they should be deprived of all salary, that they should be place under the surveillance of the authorities, that if troubles arose where they resided they should be sent away, that they should be imprisoned for a year if they persisted in remaining and for two years if they were convicted of having provoked disobedience to the king. Finally it forbade non-juring priests the legal exercise of worship. It also requested from the departmental directories lists of the jurors and non-jurors, that it might, as it said, “stamp out the rebellion which disguises itself under the pretended dissidence in the exercise of the Catholic religion“. Thus its decree ended in a threat. But this decree was the object of a sharp conflict between Louis XVI and the Assembly. On 9 Dec., 1791, the king made his veto known officially. Parties began to form. On one side were the king and the Catholics faithful to Rome, on the other the Assembly and the priests who had taken the oath. The legislative power was on one side, the executive on the other. In March, 1792, the Assembly accused the ministers of Louis XVI; the king replaced them by a Girondin ministry headed by Dumouriez, with Roland, Servan, and Clavière among its members. They had a double policy: abroad, war with Austria, and at home, measures against the non-juring priests.Louis XVI, surrounded by dangers, was also accused of duplicity; his secret negotiations with foreign courts made it possible for his enemies to say that he had already conspired against France.

A papal Brief of 19 March, 1792, renewed the condemnation of the Civil Constitution and visited with major excommunication all juring priests who after sixty days should not have retracted, and all Catholics who remained faithful to these priests. The Assembly replied by the Decree of 27 May, 1792, declaring that all non-juring priests might be deported by the directory of their department at the request of twenty citizens, and if they should return after expulsion they would be liable to ten years of imprisonment. Louis vetoed this decree. Thus arose a struggle not only between Louis XVI and the Assembly, but between the king and his ministry. On 3 June 1792, the Assembly decreed the formation of a camp near Paris of 20,600 volunteers to guard the king. At the ministerial council Roland read an insulting letter to King Louis, in which he called upon him to sanction the decrees of November and May against the non-juring priests. He was dismissed, whereupon the populace of Paris arose and invaded the Tuileries (20 June, 1792). and for several hours the king and his family were the objects of all manner of outrages. After the public manifesto of the Duke of Brunswick in the name of the powers in coalition against France (25 July, 1792) and the Assembly’s declaration of “Fatherland in danger” there came petitions for the deposition of the king, who was accused of being in communication with foreign rulers. On 10 August, Santerre, Westermann, and Fournier l’Américain at the head of the national guard attacked the Tuileries defended by 800 Swiss. Louis refused to defend himself, and with his family sought refuge in the Legislative Assembly. The Assembly passed a decree which suspended the king’s powers, drew up a plan of education for the dauphin, and convoked a national convention. Louis XVI was imprisoned in the Temple by order of the insurrectionary Commune of Paris.

Madness spread through France caused by the threatened danger from without; arrests of non-juring priests multiplied. In an effort to make them give way. The Assembly decided (15 August) that the oath should consist only of the promise to uphold with all one’s might liberty, equality, and the execution of the law, or to die at one’s post”. But the non-juring priests remained firm and refused even this second oath. On 26 August the Assembly decreed that within fifteen days they should be expelled from the kingdom, that those who remained or returned to France should be deported to Guiana, or should be liable to ten years imprisonment. It then extended this threat to the priests, who, having no publicly recognized priestly duties, had hitherto been dispensed from the oath, declaring that they also might be expelled if they were convicted of having provoked disturbances. This was the signal for a real civil war. The peasants armed in La Vendée, Deux Sèvres, Loire Inférieure, Maine and Loire, Ile and Vilaine. This news and that of the invasion of Champagne by the Prussian army caused hidden influences to arouse the Parisian populaces hence the September massacres. In the prisons of La Force, the Conciergerie, and the Abbaye Saint Germain, at least 1500 Women, priests and soldiers fell under the axe or the club. The celebrated tribune, Danton, cannot be entirely acquitted of complicity in these massacres. The Legislative Assembly terminated its career by two measures against the Church: itdeprived priests of the right to register births etc., and authorize divorce. Laicizing the civil state was not in the minds of the Constituents, but was the result of the blocking of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. The Legislative Assembly was induced to enact it because the Catholics faithful to Rome would not have recourse to Constitutional priests for registering of births, baptisms, and deaths.


The opening of the National Convention (21 Sept., 1792) took place the day following Dumouriez’s victory at Valmy over the Prussian troops. The constitutional bishop, Grégoire, proclaimed the republic at the first session; he was surrounded in the assembly by fifteen constitutional bishops and twenty-eight constitutional priests. But the time was at hand when the constitutional clergy in turn was to be under suspicion, the majority of the Convention being hostile to Christianity itself. As early as 16 November, 1792, Cambon demanded that the salaries of the priests be suppressed and that thenceforth no religion be subsidized by the State, but the motion was rejected for the time being. Henceforth the Convention enacted all manner of arbitrary political measures: it undertook the trial of Louis XVI, and on 2 January, 1799, “hurled a kings head at Europe“.

louis-executionBut from a religious standpoint it was more timid; it feared to disturb the people of Savoy and Belgium, which its armies were annexing to France. From 10 to 15 March, 1793, formidable insurrections broke out in La Vendée, Anjou, and a part of Brittany. At the same time Dumouriez, having been defeated at Neerwinden, sought to turn his army against the Convention, and he himself went over to the Austrians. The Convention took fright; it instituted a Revolutionary Tribunal on 9 March and on 6 April the Committee of Public Safety, formidable powers, was established.

ExecutionIncreasingly severe measures were taken chiefly against the non-juring clergy. On 18 Feb., 1793, the Convention voted a prize one hundred livres to whomsoever should denounce a priest liable to deportation and who remained in France despite the law. On 1 March the émigrés were sentenced to perpetual banishment and their property confiscated. On 18 March it was decreed that any émigré or deported priest arrested on French soil should be executed within twenty-four hours. On 23 April it was enacted that all ecclesiastics, priests or monks, who had not taken the oathprescribed by the Decree of 15 August, 1792, should be transported to Guiana; even the priests who had taken the oath should be treated likewise if six citizens should denounce them for lack of citizenship. But despite all these measures the non-juring priests remained faithful to Rome. The pope had maintained in France an official internuncio, the Abbé de Salamon, who kept himself in hiding and performed his duties at the risk of his life, gave information concerning current events, and transmitted orders. The proconsuls of the Convention, Fréron and Barras at Marseilles and Toulon, Tallien at Bordeaux, Carrier at Nantes, perpetuated abominable massacres. In Paris the Revolutionary Tribunal, carrying out the proposals of the public accuser, Foquier-Tinville, inaugurated the Reign of Terror. The proscription of the Girondins by the Montagnards (2 June, 1793), marked a progress in demagogy. The assassination of the bloodthirsty in demagogue Marat, by Charlotte Corday 913 July 1793) gave rise to extravagant manifestations in honour of Marat. But the provinces did not follow this policy. News came of insurrections in Caen, Marseilles, Lyons, and Toulon; and at the same time the Spaniards were in Roussillon, the Piedmontese in Savoy, the Austrians in Valenciennes, and the Vendeans defeated Kleber at Torfou (Sept., 1793). The crazed Convention decreed a rising en masse; the heroic resistance of Valenciennes and Mainz gave Carnot time to organize new armies. At the same time the Convention passed the Law of Suspects. (17 Sept., 1793), which authorized the imprisonment of almost anyone and as a consequence of which 30,000 were imprisoned. Informing became a trade in France. Queen Marie Antoinette was beheaded 16 October, 1793.Exécution_de_Marie_Antoinette_le_16_octobre_1793Fourteen Carmelites who were executed 17 July, 1794, were declared Venerable by Leo XIII in 1902.

CarmelitesCompeigne1From a religious point of view a new feature arose at this period – the constitutional clergy, accused of sympathy with the Girondins, came to be suspected almost as much as the non-juring priests. Numerous conflicts arose between the constitutional priests and the civil authorities with regard to the decree of the Convention which did not permit the priests to ask those intending to marry if they were baptized, had been to confession, or were divorced. The constitutional bishops would not submit to the Convention when it required them to give apostate priests the nuptial blessing. Despite the example of the constitutional bishop, Thomas Lindet, a member of the Convention, who won the applause of the Assembly by his marriage, despite the scandal given by Gobel, Bishop of Paris, in appointing a married priest to a post in Paris the majority of constitutional bishops remained hostile to the marriage of priests. The conflict between them and the Convention became notorious when, on 19 July, 1793, a decree of the Convention decided that the bishops who directly or indirectly offered any obstacle to the marriage of priests should be deported and replaced. In Octoberthe Convention declared that the constitutional priests themselves should be deported if they were found wanting in citizenship. The measures taken by theConvention to substitute the Revolutionary calendar for the old Christian calendar, and the decrees ordering the municipalities to seize and melt down the bells and treasures of the churches, proved that certain currents prevailed tending to thedechristianization of France. On the one hand the rest of décadi, every tenth day, replaced the Sunday rest; on the other the Convention commissioned Leonard Bourdon (19 Sept., 1793) to compile a collection of the heroic actions of Republicans to replace the lives of the saints in the schools. The “missionary representatives”, sent to the provinces, closed churches, hunted down citizens suspected of religious practices, endeavoured to constrain priests to marry, and threatened with deportation for lack of citizenship priests who refused to abandon their posts. Persecution of all religious ideas began. At the request of the Paris Commune, Gobel, Bishop of Paris, and thirteen of his vicars resigned at the bar of the Convention (7 November) and their example was followed by several constitutional bishops.

257_CarmelitesThe Montagnards who considered worship necessary replaced the Catholic Sunday Mass by the civil mass of décadi. Having failed to reform and nationalize Catholicism they endeavoured to form a sort of civil cult, a development of the worship of the fatherland which had been inaugurated at the feast of the Federation. The Church ofNotre-Dame-de-Paris became a temple of Reason, and the feast of Reason was celebrated on 10 November. The Goddesses of Reason and Liberty were not always the daughters of low people; they frequently came of the middle classes. Recent research has thrown new light on the history of these cults. M. Aulard was the first to recognize that the idea of honouring the fatherland, which had its origin in the festival of the Federation in 1790 gave rise to successive cults. Going deeper M. Mathiez developed the theory that confronted by the blocking of the Civil Constitution, the Conventionals, who had witnessed in the successive feasts of the Federation the power of formulas on the minds of the masses, wanted to create a real culte de la patrie, a sanction of faith in the fatherland. On 23 November, 1793, Chaumette passed a law alienating all churches in the capital. This example was followed in the provinces, where all city churches and a number of those in the country were closed to Catholic worship. The Convention offered a prize for the abjuration of priests by passing a decree which assured a pension to Priests who abjured, and the most painful day of that sad period was 20 November, 1793, when men, women, and children dressed in Priestly garments taken from the Church of St. Germain des Prés marched through the hall of the Convention. Laloi, who presided, congratulated them, saying they had “wiped out eighteen centuries of error”. Despite the part played by Chaumette and the Commune of Paris in the work of violent dechristianization, M. Mathiez has proved that it is not correct to lay on the Commune and the Exagérés, they were called, the entire responsibility, and that a Moderate, an Indulgent, namely Thuriot, the friend of Danton, was one of the most violent instigators. It is thus clear why Robespierre who desired a reaction against these excesses, should attack both Exagérés and Indulgents.

Indeed a reactionary movement was soon evident. As early as 21 November, 1793,Robespierre complained of the “madmen who could only revive fanaticism”. On 5 December he caused the Convention to adopt the text of a manifesto to the nations of Europe in which the members declared that they sought to protect the liberty of all creeds; on 7 December, he supported the motion of the committee of public safety which reported the bad effect in the provinces of the intolerant violence of the missionary representatives, and which forbade in the future all threats or violence contrary to liberty of worship. These decrees were the cause of warfare between Robespierre and enthusiasts such as Hébert and Clootz. At first Robespierre sent his enemies to the scaffold; Hébert and Clootz were beheaded in March, 1704, Chaumette and Bishop Gobel in April. But in this same month of April Robespierre sent to the scaffold the Moderates, Desmoulins and Danton, who wanted to stop the Terror, and became the master of France with his lieutenants Couthon and Saint-Just. M. Aulard regards Robespierre as having been hostile to the dechristianization for religious and political motives; he explains that Robespierre shared the admiration for Christ felt by Rousseau’s Vicar Savoyard and that he feared the evil effect on the powers of Europe of the Convention’s anti-religious policy. M. Mathiez on the other hand considers that Robespierre did not condemn the dechristianization in principle; that he knew the common hostility to the Committee of Public Safety of Moderates such as Thuriot and enthusiasts like Hébert; and that on the information of Basire and Chabot he suspected both parties of having furthered the fanatical measures of dechristianization only to discredit the Convention abroad and thus more easily to plot with the powers hostile to France. Robespierre‘s true intentions are still an historical problem. On 6 April, 1794, he commissioned Couthon to propose in the name of the Committee of Public Safety that a feast be instituted in honour of the Supreme Being, and on 7 MayRobespierre himself outlined in a long speech the plan of the new religion. He explained that from the religious and Republican standpoint the idea of a Supreme Being was advantageous to the State, that religion should dispense with a priesthood, and that priests were to religion what charlatans were to medicine, and that the true priest of the Supreme Being was Nature. The Convention desired to have this speech translated into all languages and adopted a decree of which the first article was: “The French people recognize the existence of a Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul”. The same decree states that freedom of worship is maintained but adds that in the case of disturbances caused by the exercise of a religion those who “excite them by fanatical preaching or by counter Revolutionary innovations”, shall be punished according to the rigour of the law. Thus the condition of the Catholic Church remained equally precarious and the first festival of the Supreme Being was celebrated throughout France on 8 June, 1794, with aggressive splendour. Whereas the Exagérés wished simply to destroy Catholicism, and in the temples of Reason political rather than moral doctrines were taught. Robespierre desired that the civic religion should have a moral code which he based on the two dogmas of God and the immortality of the soul. He was of the opinion that the idea of God had a social value, that public morality depended on it and that Catholics would more readily support the republic under the auspices of a Supreme Being.

frenchroyalists_sacredheartThe victories of the Republican armies, especially that of Fleurus (July, 1794), reassured the patriots of the Convention; those of Cholet, Mans, and Savenay, marked the checking of the Vendean insurrection. Lyons and Toulon were recaptured, Alsace was delivered, and the victory of Fleurus (26 June, 1794) gave Belgium to France. While danger from abroad was decreasing, Robespierre made the mistake of putting to vote in June the terrible law of 22 Prairial, which still further shortened the summary procedure of the Revolutionary tribunal and allowed sentence to be passed almost without trial even on the members of the Convention. The Convention took fright and the next day struck out this last clause. Montagnards like Tallien, Billaud-Varenne, and Collot d’Herbois, threatened by Robespierre, joined with such Moderates as Boissy d’Anglas and Durand Maillane to bring about the coup d’état of 9 Thermidor (27 July, 1794). Robespierre and his partisans were executed, and the Thermidorian reaction began. The Commune of paris was suppressed, the Jacobin Club closed, the Revolutionary tribunal disappeared after having sent to the scaffold the public accuser Fouquier-tinville and the Terrorist, Carrier, the author of the noyades (drownings) of Nantes. The death of Robespierre was the signal for a change of policy which proved of advantage to the Church; many imprisoned priests were released and many émigrépriests returned. Not a single law hostile to Catholicism was repealed, but the application of them was greatly relaxed. The religious policy of the Convention became indecisive and changeable. On 21 December 1794, a speech of the constitutional bishop, Grégoire, claiming effective liberty of worship, aroused violent murmurings in the Convention, but was applauded by the people; and when in Feb., 1795, the generals and commissaries of the Convention in their negotiations with the Vendeans promised them the restoration of their religious liberties, the Convention returned to the idea supported by Grégoire, and at the suggestion of the Protestant, Boissy d’Anglas, it passed the Law of 3 Ventôse (21 Feb., 1795), which marked the enfranchisement of the Catholic Church. This law enacted that the republic should pay salaries to the ministers of no religion, and that no churches should be reopened, but it declared that the exercise of religion should not be disturbed, and prescribed penalties for disturbers. Immediately the constitutional bishops issued an Encyclical for the Establishment of Catholic worship, but their credit was shaken. The confidence of the faithful was given instead to the non-juring priests who were returning by degrees. These priests were soon so numerous that in April, 1795, the Convention ordered them to depart within the month under pain of death. This wasa fresh outbreak of anti-Catholicism. With the fluctuation which thenceforth characterized it the Convention soon made a counter-movement. On 20 May, 1795, the assembly hall was invaded by the mob and the deputy Féraud assassinated. These violences of the Extremists gave some influence to the Moderates, and 30 May, at the suggestion of the Catholic, Lanjuinais, the Convention decreed that (Law of 11 Prairial) the churches not confiscated should be place at the disposal of citizens for the exercise of their religion, but that every priest who wished to officiate in these churches should previously take an oath of submission to the laws; those who refused might legally hold services in private houses. This oath of submission to the laws was muchless serious than the oaths formerly prescribed by the Revolutionary authorities, and the Abbé Sicard has shown how Emery, Superior General of St. Sulpice, Bausset, Bishop of Alais and other ecclesiastics were inclined to a policy of pacification and to think that such an oath might be taken.

While it seemed to be favouring a more tolerant policy the Convention met with diplomatic successes, the reward of the military victories: the treaties of Paris with Tuscany, of the Hague with the Batavian Republic, of Basle with Spain, gave to France as boundaries the Alps, the Rhine, and the Meuse. But the policy of religious pacification was not lasting. Certain periods of the history of the Convention justify M. Champion’s theory that certain religious measures taken by the Revolutionists were forced upon them by circumstances. The descent of the émigrés on the Breton coasts, to be checked by Hoche at Quiberon,aroused fresh attacks on the priests. On 6 Sept., 1795 (Law of 20 Fructidor), the Convention exacted the oath of submission to the laws even of priests who officiated in private houses. The Royalist insurrection of 13 Vendémiaire, put down by Bonaparte, provoked a very severe decree against deported priests who should be found on French territory; they were to be sentenced to perpetual banishment. Thus at the time when the Convention was disbanding, churches were separated from the State. In theory worship was free; the Law of 29 Sept., 1795 (7 Vendémiaire), on the religious policy, though still far from satisfactory to the clergy, was nevertheless an improvement on the laws of the Terror, but anarchy and the spirit of persecution still disturbed the whole country. Nevertheless France owes to the Convention a number of lasting creations: the Ledger of the Public Debt, the Ecole Polytechnique, the Conservatory of Arts and Crafts, the Bureau of Longitudes, the Institute of France, and the adoption of the decimal system of weights and measures. The vast projects drawn up with regard to primary, secondary and higher education had almost no results.

CuoreVandea2_thumbTHE DIRECTORY

In virtue of the so-called “Constitution of the year III”, promulgated by the Convention 23 Sept., 1795, a Directory of five members (27 Oct., 1795) became the executive, and the Councils of Five Hundred and of the Ancients, the legislative power. At this time the public treasuries were empty, which was one reason why the people came by degrees to feel the necessity of a strong restorative power. The Directors Carnot, Barras, Letourneur, Rewbell, La Reveillière-Lépeaux were averse to Christianity, and in the separation of Church and State saw only a means of annihilating the Church. They wished that even the Constitutional episcopate, though they could not deny its attachment to the new regime, should become extinct by degrees, and when the constitutional bishops died they sought to prevent the election of successors, and multiplied measures against the non-juring priests. The Decree of 16 April, 1796, which made death the penalty for, provoking any attempt to overthrow the Republican government was a threat held perpetually over the heads of the non-juring priests. That the Directors really wished to throw difficulties in the way of all kinds of religion, despite theoretical declarations affirming liberty of worship is proved by the Law of 11 April, 1796, whichforbade the use of bells and all sorts of public convocation for the exercise of religion, under penalty of a year in prison, and, in case of a second offense of deportation. The Directory having ascertained that despite police interference some non-juring bishops were officiating publicly in Paris, and that before the end of 1796 more than thirty churches or oratories had been opened to non-juring priests in Paris, laid before the Five Hundred a plan which, after twenty days, allowed the expulsion from French soil, without admission to the oath prescribed by the Law of Vendémiaire, all priests who had not taken the Constitutional Oath prescribed in 1790, or the Oath of Liberty and Equality prescribed in 1792; those who after such time should be found in France would be put to death. But amid the discussions to which this project gave rise, the revolutionary Socialist conspiracy of Babeuf was discovered, which showed that danger lay on the Left; and on 5 Aug., 1796, the dreadful project which had only been passed with much difficulty by the Five Hundred was rejected by the Ancients.

The Directory began to feel that its policy of religious persecution was no longer followed by the Councils. It learned also that Bonaparte, who in Italy led the armies of the Directory from victory to victory, displayed consideration for the pope. Furthermore, the electors themselves showed that they desired a change of policy. The elections of 20 may, 1797, caused the majority of Councils to pass from the Left to the Right. Pichegru became president of the Five Hundred, a Royalist, Barthélemy, became one of the Five Directors. Violent discussions which took place from 26 June to 18 July, in which Royer-Collard distinguished himself, brought to the vote the proposal of the deputy Dubruel forthe abolition of all laws against non-juring priests passed since 1791. The Directors, alarmed by what they considered a reactionary movement, commissioned General Augereau to effect the coup d’état of 18 Fructidor (4 Sept., 1797); the elections of 49 departments were quashed, two Directors, Carnot and Barthélemy, proscribed, 53 deputies deported, and laws against the émigré and non-juring priests restored to their vigour. Organized hunting for these priests took place throughout France; the Directory cast hundreds of them on the unhealthy shore of Sinnamary, Guiana, where they died. At the same time the Directory commissioned Berthier to make the attack on the Papal States and the pope, from which Bonaparte had refrained. The Roman Republic was proclaimed in 1798 and Pius VI was taken prisoner to Valence. An especially odious persecution was renewed in France against the ancient Christian customs; it was known as the décadaire persecution. Officials and municipalities were called upon to overwhelm with vexations the partisans of Sunday and to restore the observance of décadi. The rest of that day became compulsory not only for administrations and schools, but also for business and industry. Marriages could only be celebrated on décadi at the chief town of each canton.

executionAnother religious venture of this period was that of Theophilanthropists, who wished to create a spiritualist church without dogmas, miracles, priesthood or sacraments, a sort of vague religiosity, similar to the “ethical societies of the United States.” Contrary to what has been asserted for one hundred years, M. Mathiez has proved that Theophilanthropism was not founded by the director La Réveillière-Lépeaux. It was the private initiative of a former Girondin, the librarian Chemin Dupontés, which gave rise to this cult; Valentine Hauy, instructor of the blind and former Terrorist, and the physiocrat, Dupont de Nemours, collaborated with him. During its early existence, the new Church was persecuted by agents of Cochon, Minister of Police, who was the tool of Camot, and it was only for a short time, after the coup d’état of 18 Fructidor, that the the Theophanthropists benefited by the protection of La Réveillière. In proportion to the efforts of the Directory for the culte décadaire, the Theophilanthropists suffered and were persecuted; in Paris, they were sometimes treated even worse than the Catholics, Catholic priests being at times permitted to occupy the buildings connected with certain churches while the Theophilanthropists were driven out. On a curious memoir written after 18 Fructidor entitled “Des circonstances actuelles qui peuvent terminer la Revolution et des principes qui doivent fonder la Républic en France”, the famous Madame de Stael, who was a Protestant, declared herself against Theophilanthropy; like many Protestants, she hoped that Protestantism would become the State religion of the Republic. Through its clumsy and odious religious policy the Directory exposed itself to serious difficulties. Disturbed by the anti-religious innovations, the Belgian provinces revolted; 6000 Belgian priests were proscribed. Brttany, Anjou. and Maine again revolted, winning over Normandy. Abroad the prestige of the French armies was upheld by were upheld by Bonaparte in Egypt, but they were hated on the Continent, and in 1799 were compelled to evacuate most of Italy. Bonaparte’s return and the coup d’état of 18 Brumaire (10 November 1799) were necessary to strengthen the glory of the French armies and to restore peace to the country and to consciences.”

Traditional Catholic

St. John Cantius Oct. 20

By: Father Peter Carota

3953St. John was born at Kenty, (whence the surname Cantius), a town in the diocese of Cracow. His parents Stanislaus and Anna, were devout honorable people. From his very infancy John gave promise of the greatest virtue by the sweetness and innocence of his way. After his ordination to the priesthood he redoubled his efforts to the Christian perfection. He administered the parish of Olkusz for several years with notable success, and then returned to teaching. Part of the time left him from this occupation he gave to the salvation of his neighbor, especially through preaching, and the rest to prayer. He came four times to the Apostolic See traveling on foot and carrying his own baggage, both to honor the Apostolic See, and as he said, to save himself from the punishments of purgatory, by the indulgences offered there daily. He watchfully preserved a virginal purity, and before his death he had abstained from meat for about thirty-five years. On Christmas Eve he went to the heavenly reward. He was enrolled among the Saints by Pope Clement XIII, and is honored as one of the primary Patrons of Poland and Lithuania.  1960 Roman Breviaryst-john-cantius-8

He made one pilgrimage to Jerusalem with the desire of becoming a martyr among the Turks.  He died Dec. 24, 1473. Catholic Encyclopedia

Progressive Modernist Liberal Catholics Will “Crash And Burn” Someday

In the Gospel from the Latin Mass for the 19th Sunday after Pentecost, Jesus talks about everyone being invited into His wonderful Son’s wedding feast.  I take this as the Holy Catholic Church.  Those in the Catholic Church, but without the proper wedding garment, eventually will “crash and burn”. “Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

hellGod invites everyone to become a member of the Catholic Church and enjoy the wedding feast.  But Jesus also says that “many are called, but few are chosen“.  I take this as that many who have been invited will eventually “crash and burn” and only a few are chosen to stay faithful to the Church’s teachings.

Many who were invited chose not enter the Church because of their love for the world, “their farm and business”.

The Jewish religious leaders would not enter either.  Instead they decided to “lay hands on His servants” the prophets and have them put to death, including Jesus, the King’s Son.  In the year 70, these progressive Jewish church leaders “crashed and burned” when the Romans killed them and burned down their city Jerusalem.

Destruction of Jerusalem by Ercole de' RobertiThe King is still goes on inviting us to the wedding feast.

“At that time, Jesus spoke to the chief priests and the Pharisees in parables, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a king, who made a marriage for his son. And he sent his servants, to call them that were invited to the marriage, and they would not come. Again he sent other servants, saying: Tell them that were invited, Behold I have prepared my dinner; my beeves and fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come ye to the marriage. But they neglected: and went their, ways, one to his farm, and another to his mer­chandise: and the rest laid hands on his servants, and having treated them contumeliously, put them to death. But when the king had heard, of it; he was angry: and sending his armies, he destroyed those murderers, and burnt their city. Then he saith to his servants: The marriage indeed is ready; but they, that were invited were not worthy. Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as you shall find, call to the marriage. And his servants going forth into the ways, gathered together, all that they found, both bad and good; and the marriage was filled with guests. And the king went in to fee the guests; and he saw there a man who had not on a wedding garment: and he saith to him: Friend, how camest thou in hither, not having on a wedding garment? But he was silent. Then the king said to the waiters: Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few are chosen.” St. Matthew 22:1-14

soulI also see the wedding garment as what is in the soul of each Catholic.

The wedding garment in the soul should be:

1) Jesus’ presence in our souls along with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

2) Sanctifying Grace.

3) Love for God and neighbor.

4) Purity of heart.  (Absence of sexual sins and other sins).

5) Humility.  (No pride).

6) Obedience of God and proper authority. (No rebelliousness against God like the devil).

Everyday, we have to decide if we want to stay inside the King’s wedding by staying faithful to Jesus and His Catholic Church.  If we do, we are so blessed because we have a safe place to belong with God as our protector.

Many children, when they be come teenagers, decide to leave the family because they do not want keep on their families wedding garment of obeying their parents rules.  They would rather make their own family of Gang members, or party goers or druggies, or homosexuals.  But these “families” do not last and eventually when things get bad, they eventually “crash and burn”.

Prodigal_Son_CHS_cathedralThe “Prodigal Son” learned this when he finally “crashed and burned” after using all his father’s wealth on sex and partying.  His new “family of partiers” abandoned him once his money was gone.  Now his new family became the pigs he took care of.  He longed to eat pig’s food, but not even that was offered to him.  He finally comes to his senses and returns back home to be a servant in His True Father’s home.  Once again he experiences the love and companionship of his true family.

Many of us traditional Catholics have already been outside the King’s wedding feast.  We have already seen “the exterior darkness”, “the weeping and gnashing of teeth“.  Yes it is hard to be a true Catholic and obey all of God’s rules.  But it sure beats “crashing and burning”.

Liberal Catholicism only leads to sin, which leads to suffering and suffering for those around us.  Let us humble ourselves and again put on the wedding garment of holiness and return back to the Bible and Church.  Then, once again, we will feel the security of Our Father’s loving home.

May GOD bless you all!!!

St. Charles Lwanga Burned To Death Rather Than To Sin By Homosexual Sex

written by Father Carota: traditionalcatholicpriest.com


What would St. Charles Lwanga say about the push for accepting homosexual unions at the Synod.  He is a saint for being a martyr slowly burned to death for teaching the youth and men that homosexual sex was sin and to not have homosexual relationships with the King Mwanga.  His feast day is June 3rd.  
I also ask the question, Why are the pope and bishops talking about homosexuals at a Synod on the family?  Catholics have always taught that a family consist of grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, father and mother and their biological children.  Just the idea that all the homosexuals have descended on Rome for a Synod on the Family is absurd.  
All of you traditional Catholics that have had your money spent on sexual abuse law suits need to remind your bishops that their John Jay Study showed that most law suits were under age young men being abuse by homosexual priests.
    • The largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% wer e 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% wer e under age 7. Overall, 81% of victims were male and 19% female. Male victims tended to be older than female victims. Over 40% of all victims were males between the ages of 11 and 14.  USCCB John Jay Study
Here is the story how St. Charles Lwanga died rather than support homosexuality.
charles-lwanga-50-148x350In the 1800’s the White Fathers reached Uganda as missionaries.  Among their converts were some men and male youth who were pages and attendants to King Mwanga.  When they found out that homosexual sex was sin, they resisted the advances of the homosexual King Mwanga.  
When the king killed a protestnt missionary, Joseph condemned his actions.  For this King Mwanga beat him with his spear, had his head cut off and body burned on Nov. 15, 1885.  HIs last words were: “A Christian who gives his life for God is not afraid to die.”
St. Charles Lwanga then took over teaching the Catholics in the king’s court and protected the youth and men from King Mwanga’s sexual advances.  In May 1886, the king asked a young page why he was avoiding him.  He replied because he was receiving religious instruction from Dennis Sebuggwawo and had learned that homosexual sex was wrong.  For this the king killed his teacher Dennis by thrusting a spear through his throat.
King Mwanga then had his compound closed and guarded so that none of the Catholics could escape.  Charles, knowing that they were going to pay for their faith, baptized four catechumens that night.  The king then separated the Christians from the pagans by saying:  “Those who do not pray stand by me, those who do pray stand over there.”  Fifteen youth and men, all under the age of 25, stayed faithful to their faith and were condemned to death.
They were forced to walk 37 miles to the place of their execution.  Along with them was a soldier James Buzabaliawo.  He told the king: “Goodbye, then. I am going to Heaven, and I will pray to God for you.”  And as he passed by the White Father Lourdel, he pointed to heaven with his bound hands and said: “Why are you so sad? This is nothing compared to the joys you have taught us to look forward to.”   Other youth kept joyful all the way to their execution.  
One of the martyrs was killed on the way by being cut and left to slowly die for three days.  When asked if his God would save him he replied: “God will rescue me.  But you will not see how he does it, because he will take my soul and leave you only my body.” 
Once arriving at Namugongo, the survivors were kept imprisoned for seven days. On June 3 1886 they were wrapped in reed mats, bound tightly and put on a fire.  They slowly died calling on the name of Jesus and saying: “You can burn our bodies, but you cannot harm our souls.”  St. Charles moaned and thrashed about, but never gave into screaming from the horrific pain of the flames.  
After King Mwanga’s death, the White Fathers returned to find one thousand catechumens waiting for baptism.StCharlesLwanga
  • Andrew Kagwa (Kaggwa, d. 1886) was a native chief of Kigowa and the royal bandmaster of King Mwanga. He was baptized in 1881, converted his wife, and became active in missionary work. He had gathered a large body of catechumens around him. Condemned to death for the faith, he right arm was severed from his body before he was beheaded.
  • Charles Lwanga (d. 1886) was a servant of the king, who was baptized in November 1885 and martyred the following June. He succeeded Joseph Mkasa as master of the pages and continued his predecessor’s censure of the king’s homosexual practices and corruption of the young pages. This intensified King Mwanga’s hatred of Catholics.
  • Denis (Dionysius) Sebuggwago (Sebuggwawo) (d. 1885) was a servant of the King. He was killed with a butcher’s cleaver by the king himself because he was taught teaching the catechism. He was the first victim of the persecution.
  • John Maria Muzeyi (d. 1886) practiced the corporal works of mercy until his martyrdom.
  • Joseph Mikasa (Mkasa, Musaka) Balikuddembe (d. 1885), was the Christian steward in charge of the pages, at the court of King Mwanga of Uganda. He was beheaded on November 15, when he denounced the king’s notorious immoralities and his murder of Joseph Harrington, a Protestant missionary, and his group.
  • Kizito (d. 1886), 13-year old boy, who went to his death “laughing and chattering,” was saved from the king’s pedophilic tendencies by Charles Lwanga, who baptized the child.
  • Mbanga (Mbaga) Tuzinde (d. 1886) was a page to the king and the adopted son of the chief executioner. He had to resist the pleas of his family up until the moment of he was thrown on the pyre at Namuyongo. At the last moment his father killed him with a blow to the neck to prevent him from suffering the agony of burning.
  • Matthias Kalemba (d. 1886) was a Membo judge, who was tortured to death.
  • Matthias Murumba, a Muslim assistant judge who converted, first to Protestantism, then to the Catholic faith. He was baptized by Fr. Livinhac, then martyred on Kumpala Hill.
  • Pontain Ngondwe (d. 1886), a soldier in the Royal Guard (Attwater, Benedictines, Bentley, Delaney, Farmer, Faupel, Gill, Thoonen, Walsh, White).  This list is from St. Patrick Catholic Church, Washington D.C. Saint of the day.

Today most of us traditional Catholics will not be slowly burned to death for speaking out the truth that homosexual sin is an abomination in the eyes of God. Yes it will earn us enemies in the Catholic Church and outside of her.  But may we learn from the heroic lives of these saints of Uganda how to stand to stand at one side and say, we are with Jesus Christ and His Church.  We are willing to suffer what ever for the truth.  Ask your progressive friends why these men were slowly burned to death if there is nothing wrong with homosexual sex?

Wolves In Sheep’s Clothing In The Catholic Church Since The Apostle’s Time

Posted on October 14, 2014


PLEASE VISIT THAT SITE ^ again: ;  http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/

Jesus and the Apostles warned us that there would come false prophets and apostles into the Catholic Church.  This has been the case from the very beginning of the Church.

1_0_735390“If laws do not lead people to Christ then they are obsolete,” Pope Francis said in his morning homily.  Catholic Herald Oct 13, 2014

Moses_With the Ten Commandments_CHAMPAIGNE, Philippe deHere are some excerpts from the mid term document from the Synod.

positive aspects” of relationships that are deemed irregular – such as between remarried couples or same-sex partners – and keep the “doors always wide open” to people in those relationships.

“Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions, it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners.”

“Realising the need, therefore, for spiritual discernment with regard to cohabitation, civil marriages and divorced and remarried persons, it is the task of the Church to recognisethose seeds of the Word that have spread beyond its visible and sacramental boundaries. Following the expansive gaze of Christ, whose light illuminates every man, the Church turns respectfully to those who participate in her life in an incomplete and imperfect way, appreciating the positive values they contain rather than their limitations and shortcomings.”

“although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure … these elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward Catholic unity”.  (Where is the Catholic Unity coming out of this Vatican II teaching?)

It says that some participants at the synod were opposed to the admission of the remarried to Communion, while others saw it as a possibility, perhaps after a “penitential path” undertaken under Church guidance.  Catholic Herald

Jesus warns us: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.  By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?  Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit.  A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.  Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire.  Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.”  Matt. 7:15.

jesus-christ-crucifiedSt. Paul also warns us: “I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock.  And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” Acts of the Apostles 20:29

“For if he that cometh preacheth another Christ, whom we have not preached; or if you receive another Spirit, whom you have not received; or another gospel which you have not received;”  2 Cor. 11:13

St. Paul teaches St. Timothy what to do in time when sound doctrine will not be endured: “I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom:  Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine.  For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:  And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.”  2 Tim. 4:1-4.

Destruction of Jerusalem by Ercole de' RobertiIn these terrible times with the Vatican watering down Catholic teaching, we faithful traditional Catholics need to: “Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine”.  It will not be easy, but we do it nonetheless.

When all is said and done, there has always been wolves in sheep’s clothing and false prophets since the beginning of the Church.  We stay faithful and God will take care of His Church as He has for the last 2000 years.  But it has always taken saints who spoke up and suffered for the defense of the true Catholic faith.  That is what it has taken throughout history and that is what is needed today.

St. Theresa Of Avila Oct. 15th

St. Theresa Of Avila Oct. 15th

By: Father Peter Carota : TraditionalCatholicpriest.com

Teresa of Avila_FONTEBASSO, FrancescoTheresa was born of devout and noble parents at Avilla in Spain. While still a child, burning with the desire of martyrdom, she ran away from home, and tried to go to Africa, but was brought back. After the death of her mother, she commended herself completely to the protection of the Blessed Virgin. When she was twenty, she professed the rule of the nuns of Our Lady of Mount Carmel. Eager for the salvation of souls, she restored the observance of the ancient Carmelite rule by both men and women and built many monasteries. She continually offered God the sufferings of her own body voluntarily assumed for the sake of infidels and heretics. And when burning with divine love she had made the very difficult vow always to do what she thought the most perfect, she was privileged to have her heart pierced by an Angel with a fiery lance. She wrote many works filled with lessons of heavenly wisdom and taught a great deal by word and by example, often having this saying on her lips: “Lord, either to suffer, or die”. She gave back her most pure soul to God at Alba at the sixty-seventh year of her age, on October 15, 1582.  1960 Roman Breviary

Let nothing disturb you,
Let nothing frighten you,
All things are passing away:
God never changes.
Patience obtains all things
Whoever has God lacks nothing;
God alone suffices.

– St. Teresa of Avila