The Lord spoke to St. Francis, "Go, and repair my house, which as you see is falling completely into ruin!"

   
     It was St. Francis who crossed the battle lines during the Fifth Crusade in order to try to convert the Muslims to Christ and His Church, setting an example which is unheeded today.  Not only are we not to "proselytize," but in just what condition is the Church to which one should be converted?  Today the Church is being torn by Progressivist laxity on the one hand, and those trying to preserve traditional Roman Catholicism on the other.  The words the Lord spoke to St. Francis over 800 years ago seem to be more relevant and urgent now than they were then.  As to what specifically must be done to "repair" His House, I will leave that to your comments below.

    "Francis left the town one day to meditate out-of-doors, and as he was passing by the church of San Damiano which was threatening to collapse with age, he felt urged to go in and pray.  There as he knelt in prayer before a painted image of the Crucified, he felt greatly comforted in spirit and his eyes were full of tears as he gazed at the cross.  Then, all of a sudden, he heard a voice coming from the cross and telling him three times, "Francis, go and repair my house.  You see it is all falling down."
     Francis was alone in the church and he was terrified at the sound of the voice, but the power of its message penetrated his heart and he went into an ecstasy.  Eventually, he came back to himself and prepared to obey the command he had received.  He was quite willing to devote himself entirely to repairing the ruined church of San Damiano, although the message really referred to the universal Church which Christ "won for himself at the price of his own blood" (Acts 20:28), as the Holy Spirit afterwards made him realize and he himself explained to the friars."
(St. Bonaventure, Major Life of St. Francis, circa 1263 A.D., Chap. II, no. 1).

    ". . . while he was walking near the church of San Damiano, an inner voice bade him go in and pray.  He obeyed, and kneeling before an image of the crucified Savior, he began to pray most devoutly.  A tender, compassionate voice then spoke to him: "Francis, do you not see that my house is falling into ruin?  Go, and repair it for me."  Trembling and amazed Francis replied: "Gladly I will do so O Lord."  He had understood that the Lord was speaking of that very church which, on account of its age, was indeed falling into ruin.
     These words filled him with the greatest joy and inner light because in spirit he knew that it was indeed Jesus Christ who had spoken to him.  On leaving the church he found the priest who had charge of it sitting outside, and taking a handful of money from his purse, he said: "I beg you , Sir, to buy oil and keep the lamp before this image of Christ constantly alight."
(Legend of the Three Companions, circa 1246 A.D., Chapter V).

                                                  http://www.bspenance.org/The_Crucifix_our_living_book.shtml

    "Changed now perfectly in heart and soon to be changed in body too, he was walking one day near the church of St. Damiano, which had nearly fallen to ruin and was abandoned by everyone.  Led by the Spirit, he went in and fell down before the crucifix in devout and humble supplication; and smitten by unusual visitations, he found himself other than he had been when he entered.  While he was thus affected, something unheard of before happened to him:  the painted image of Christ crucified moved its lips and spoke.  Calling him by name it said: "Francis, go, repair my house, which as you see is falling completely to ruin."
     Trembling, Francis was not a little amazed and became almost deranged by these words.  He prepared himself to obey and gave himself completely to the fulfillment of this command.  But since he felt that the change he had undergone was beyond expression, it is becoming that we should be silent about what he could not express.  From then on compassion for the Crucified was rooted in his holy soul, and, and it can be piously supposed, the stigmata of the venerable passion were deeply imprinted in his heart, thought not as yet upon his flesh."
(Thomas of Celano, Second Life of St. Francis, circa 1247 A.D.,  Chapter VI, no. 10).

     "The church of San Damiano seemed to be collapsing from old age, already beyond repair, desolate, without devout worshipers and without prayers . . . . The painted wooden image of the Crucified Lord that hung by the altar had survived all that decay - an image of goodness and suffering, expressing with extraordinary vividness both martyrdom and love.  One day, going up to the city, Francis went into the church, knelt, and began to pray.  He asked to be given light in the midst of all his darkness, to know the divine will, in accordance with the promise made during the night in Spoleto.
     Suddenly it seemed to him that Jesus' gaze was fixed on him.  There was no doubt about it.  Those eyes had become animated, taken on life.  They were speaking and expressing a burning passion.  And, as in the night of the vision of the enchanted castle, the cavalier consecrated to a high undertaking distinctly heard his name being called.  The words fell like a whisper, a light sigh, scarcely perceptible.
     "Francis, go and repair my house, which, as you see, is falling into ruin."  After a short pause, the sad call was repeated for the second time, and for the third time.  Francis got up, frightened.  The church was again sunk into a silence without beginning or end.  He went out, sought the old priest who had custody of the place, and offered him all the money he had with him so that he might relight the lamp before the crucifix.
     Then he rushed up to Assisi.  He went to the shop [of his father] and took down some scarlet, the noblest and most expensive cloth that then existed, used for making mantles suitable for the grandeur of kings and elaborate gowns with trains for beautiful women.  Francis wanted to use it to cover the poor abandoned church in sumptuous purple."
(Arnaldo Fortini, Nova Vita di San Francesco, 1959, trans. by Helen Moak, Chap. 6.  Fortini was mayor of Assisi for 20 years, and his 800 page book is considered the most authoritative of the modern biographies.)

   

Our Crosses are Good and Come from God

I.  Jesus gives us our own cross.

Mt. 16: 24.   Then Jesus said to his disciples, if anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Lk. 9: 23.   If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

Lk. 14: 27.   And he who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

Mt. 10: 38.   He who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.  He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it.

II.  God can only give us good things. 

Mt. 7: 11   Therefore, if you, evil as you are, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him.

Rom. 8: 28.  Now we know that for those who love God all things work together unto good.

III.  The cross is for our good.
 
Gal 6: 14.   God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world. 

Rom. 6: 6.   For we know that our old self has been crucified with him, in order that the body of sin may be destroyed, that we may longer be slaves to sin.   

Col 1: 24.   I rejoice now in the sufferings I bear for your sake.  

1 Cor. 2: 2   For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

IV.   To say that the cross is good and comes from God sounds like nonsense. 

1 Cor. 1: 18   For the doctrine of the cross, to them that perish, is foolishness, but to them that are saved, that is you, it is the power of God.

1 Cor. 2: 23    We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumbling block, and unto the Gentiles foolishness.

 The Cross of San Damiano, from which Christ spoke to St. Francis of Assisi these words: "Go repair my Church, which as you see is falling completely into ruin."

Posted 10/04/2015 Feast of St. Francis of Assisi.

The Four Mini-Gospels

I.
The Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit (Is 11:2,3).

1  Fear of the Lord

2  Piety

3  Knowledge

4  Fortitude

5  Counsel 

6  Understanding

7  Wisdom 

II.

The Seven Beatitudes (Mt 5: 1-9).  

1  Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.  

2  Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth. 

3  Blessed are they that mourn for they shall be comforted.

4  Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice for they shall have their fill.

5  Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy.

6  Blessed are the clean of heart for they shall see God.

7  Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called Children of God.

III.

The Seven Petitions of the Lord's Prayer (Mt. 6: 9-13; Lk 11: 2-4). 

1  Our Father who art in heaven hallowed by thy name

2  Thy kingdom come,

3  Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven

4  Give us this day our daily bread

5  And forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us

6  And lead us not into temptation

7  But deliver us from evil

IV.
The Seven Words of Our Lord on the Holy Cross.

1  "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." (Lk 23:34)

2  "Amen, I say to thee: this day thou shalt be with me in paradise." (Lk 23:43)

3  “Woman, behold thy son.” To the disciple, “Behold your mother.” (Jn 19:26-27)

4  "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mk 15:34)

5  “I thirst.” (Jn 19:28)

6  “It is consummated.”  (Jn 19:30)

7  “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.”  (Lk 23:46)

Here is the key to meditating upon them:  The four Mini-Gospels correspond to each other in the order in which they are numbered one through seven.  St. Augustine and St. Thomas established the correspondence for the first three Mini-Gospels, and Bishop Fulton Sheen incorporated the fourth. 

The mini-gospels can be applied to the mysteries of the Rosary.  There is an easy way to connect them to the ten decades of Hail Mary prayers of the Rosary.  Please see the book How to Pray the Secret Rosary, here. 

How a Mystic prepares for Holy Communion

The mystic Luisa Piccarreta was a victim soul, confined to her bed and living solely on the Eucharist and the Divine Will for some 60 years.  She received the command of obedience from her confessor to reveal how she prepares herself to receive and thank Jesus at Holy Communion. Here is what she wrote on April 10, 1910:   

I write to obey, but I feel my heart crack from the effort I am making. But, Viva Obedience – Viva the Will of God! I write, but I tremble, and I myself don’t know what I am saying. Obedience wants me to write something about how I prepare myself and thank blessed Jesus at Communion. I don’t know how to say anything about it, because my sweet Jesus, in seeing my incapacity and that I am good at nothing, does everything Himself: He prepares my soul, and He Himself administers the thanksgiving to me; and I follow Him.

Now, the way of Jesus is always immense, and together with Jesus, I too feel immense, and as if I were able to do something. Then Jesus withdraws, and I remain always the stupid one that I am, the little ignorant one, the little naughty one. And it is exactly because of this that Jesus loves me – because I am ignorant, and I am no one, and I can do nothing. Knowing that I want to receive Him at any cost, so as not to receive dishonor in coming into me, but rather, highest honor, He Himself prepares my poor soul. He gives me His own things, His merits, His clothing, His works, His desires – in sum, all of Himself. If necessary, also that which the Saints did, because everything is His own; if necessary, also that which the Most Holy Mama did. And I too say to all: ‘Jesus, give honor to Yourself in coming into me. My Queen Mama, Saints, all Angels, I am so very poor; everything that is yours – put it in my heart, not for me, but for the honor of Jesus.’ And I feel that all of Heaven contributes to preparing me. And after Jesus has descended within me, I seem to see Him all pleased, seeing Himself honored by His own things; and sometimes He tells me: “Brava, brava, my daughter, how happy I am – how pleased I am. Everywhere I look within you, I find things worthy of Me. Everything that is mine, is yours; how many beautiful things you made Me find!”

Knowing that I am so very poor, that I have done nothing, and that nothing is mine, I laugh at the contentment of Jesus, and I say: ‘Thank goodness Jesus thinks like this! It is enough that He came – this is enough for me. It doesn’t matter that I have used His own things – the poor must receive from the rich.’ Now, it is true that a few glimmers here and there remain in me about the way Jesus has at Communion, but I am unable to reunite these glimmers together, and form a preparation and a thanksgiving. I lack the capacity; it seems to me that I prepare myself in Jesus Himself, and that I thank Him with Jesus Himself.

From the approved Volume Nine of the spiritual "Diary" Book of Heaven, of the Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta.  Imprimatur of Archbishop Joseph Leo and Nihil Obstat of (now Saint) Fr. Annibale Di Francia.

Did St. Paul withstand St. Peter to his Face?

There is ample evidence to suggest that he did not - that the person he rebuked in this Biblical incident was not Simon Peter, but another “Cephas.”

   

     It is an almost universal assumption in today's Catholic world that St. Paul did in fact rebuke the first Pope to his face. As is written in Galatians 2:11: “But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” This assumption is used to justify the concept that it is acceptable in extreme circumstances to publicly confront a Pope with what one believes to be his errors, and it is also an argument used to justify “resisting” the ordinances of a Pope. 
     

    However, while reading a short but well-documented biography of St. Peter, which I came across in an 1892 collection of Catholic writings, the following paragraph immediately struck me: 

 

"That the Cephas who was reprehended by St. Paul for the inconsistency of his conduct with respect to the Mosaic rites, was not St. Peter, is the opinion of the best writers.  Eusebius quotes Clement Alexandrinus as maintaining that this Cephas was one of the seventy disciples.  This opinion is followed by the most learned writers of antiquity, by St. Jerome, by St. Gregory the Great, by St. Anselm, and by many others."

  

    This surprising statement has caused me to investigate this issue further. 

 

    James Likoudis wrote a two-part article in the late 1990's entitled “Were the Apostle Peter and Cephas of Antioch the same person?” He admits that some of the greatest Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and contemporary exegetes contend that the person confronted by Paul was Simon Peter. However, he then presents arguments published by Jesuit Fr. D. Pujol over a century ago “. . . effectively demonstrating that the Apostle Peter and the Cephas of Antioch and Corinth could not have been the same person.” Fr. Pujol asserted that “Whether the dispute at Antioch between Paul and Cephas occurred before or after the Council of Jerusalem, it was chronologically impossible that Peter could have been there at either time.”

    Likoudis also mentions a vision by the stigmatist Theresa Neuman (d. 1962) in which she revealed:

 

"Cephas of the Epistle to the Galatians, whom Paul withstood to his face was not Peter, the prince of the Apostles. That there is no mention of this important personage in antiquity is based on the fact that Cephas was drowned in the sea while on a mission tour and thereupon the opinion arose that he did nothing in his new field of endeavor or even fell away from the faith." 

  

    Likoudis summarizes the work of other scholars on this issue, and concludes “That Peter and the Cephas (of Antioch and Corinth) are two different personages needs to be seriously re-examined and not be testily dismissed as a 'cockeyed theory'." He further states: ”The upshot of all the above is that in Gal. 2:7-14 where Petros is mentioned and then followed by a shift to Cephas, two distinct personages are differentiated.” 

       A quite intriguing article by James M. Scott delves into a 1708 work in Latin by French Jesuit Fr. Jean Hardouin called Dissertatio: In Qua Cepham a Paulo Reprehensum Petrum Non Esse Ostenditur (An Examination in Which It Is Demonstrated that Cephas Rebuked by Paul Is not Peter).
   

  The following quotes are representative of the views of Fr. Hardouin: 

      

“ Hardouin opens in AD 49, the year of the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15. The general line of this argument is that the Cephas in Antioch in Gal 2 cannot be Peter, since for chronological and motivational reasons Peter could not have returned to Jerusalem for the Council. “

      

“ Hardouin maintains that it is all but impossible that Peter, who never had seen Antioch within the 14 year period from Paul’s conversion, would in the fifteenth year “have raced in unbelievable speed” (“incredibili celeritate advolasse”) from Jerusalem to Antioch, been rebuked there by Paul, and within a month have hastened back to Jerusalem to be consulted by Paul about the very controversy back in Antioch.” 

 

“Hardouin says that Peter must be “clean from any blemish of heresy” (“immunem haereos labe…Petrum”) and that it is unthinkable that any “Summus Pontifex” would withdraw himself from baptized Christians solely because they were not circumcised. “

    For a thorough scriptural analysis of this controversy, I recommend this article by Bryan Davis. Although it is in the interest of Protestants to contend that Peter/Cephas are one and the same, since it implies fallibility, weakness and even sin to Peter, Mr. Davis, who is not Catholic, concludes with:

The evidence, both biblical and historical, is overwhelming that the man Paul confronted in Galatians is not the apostle Peter. That man was named Cephas, likely a Jew who sympathized with the Judaizers.

Because of Peter’s faithful defense of the Gentiles and their reception of the true gospel at every turn, it is important to make sure we do not denigrate Peter’s legacy with the false charge that he dissembled in Galatians chapter two. After the Holy Spirit indwelt him at Pentecost, he was sure and steadfast. Let us honor the truth about Peter and clear his name in the church, especially among those who have so greatly benefited from his faithful stand for our inclusion in the faith.

    Personally I am convinced that St. Paul did not rebuke St. Peter. Of course this blog post is certainly not going to resolve the problem, and scholars, pundits and bloggers will continue to debate the issue. However, it is clear that there is sufficient room to doubt the conventional scenario that St. Paul withstood St. Peter to his face. Catholics who take comfort in this incident in order to contemplate a public reproof of their pope or resist his teaching should take heed.

View all of my books.

Theology of the Community of Believers

Progressivist rationale for altering Catholic Doctrine.

From the time of the Council and even before, numerous progressivist authors have been demeaning the importance of Scripture and Tradition as the only sources of Revelation, in order to promote the inner experiences of the ecclesial community as a valid font of the Truth. This of course is in keeping with the Modernist concept of immanence, whereby each person primarily hears and senses the word of God spoken from within and only secondarily may hear it from a preacher of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus, all people of any religion whatsoever have something to offer. Hence the call for an ecumenical dialog with these omnipresent elements of sanctity, and the need to consider the religious feelings of the believing community as indicators of God's ongoing revelation for the Church.

This progressivist rationale for modifying dogmatic Catholic doctrine has been brought to light in the well-researched and thoroughly documented study by prolific Catholic author Atila Sinke Guimarães. He asserts that along with Scripture and Catholic Tradition, and the dogmatic teaching of the Magisterium, progressivists consider that Faith as an object of belief will also encompass an ensemble of the 'divine experiences' of the community. In his book Will He Find Faith? (Inveniet Fidem?), Guimarães uses direct quotations from these thinkers to convincingly document their belief that salvation history as it unfolds in the religious experiences of the ecclesial community, is an additional criterion for determining doctrine.

As far back as 1970, Fr. Walter Kasper wrote:

“. . . the charism of truth does not fall to the competence of a single individual, but to the unanimous testimony of the whole community of the faithful.” Kasper cites Lumen Gentium chapter 12, wherein we read:

“The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples' supernatural discernment in matters of faith when 'from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful' they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals.”

It's a matter of dialog!

Kasper continues: “From this, a new, less static and more dynamic and dialogical conception of orthodoxy is born. The correct understanding of the Faith today must be periodically established through an open and public dialogue among all charisms, services and orientations existing in the Church, and by means of a communitarian listening to the Gospel”. [p. 339; Will He Find Faith?]

 

The Magisterium of the Diocesan Survey

According to Fr. Karl Rahner: [p. 321] “Catholic exegesis and biblical theology are seriously questioning themselves today regarding the words of Jesus, asking what can be literally considered an original word by the historic Jesus himself, and what …. is already a formulation of the 'theology of the community'.” “For not every word of the historic Jesus can be identified with the concept of an original revelation.”

Fr. M .D. Chenu: [p. 334] “As a consequence of the Council, theology is now conceived as 'salvation history'. Tradition is substantially qualified as living tradition.”

The Jesuit Fr. Alberto Franzini: [pp. 323-4] “Then one understands why the transmission of revelation is not confided only to preaching and teaching, but also to the witness of faith of all the believers.” “Finally, one understands how in the Church the Scripture is 'insufficient' to disseminate the revelation of Christ without the reality of the ecclesial community's living Tradition.” Franzini states that there must be a socially visible presence of salvation, “a presence that can be adequately assured by an ecclesial-communitarian form of believers. “

Thus it should not be a surprise that the Catholic understanding of marriage, the family, and reception of Holy Communion is now subject to the Magisterium of the Diocesan Survey, in the Pope Francis era. If this tactic succeeds in actually altering any traditional doctrine in the upcoming Synod or thereafter, then in this blogger's opinion, Modernism will have triumphed in the Vatican. The true Church, however, will persist like live coals under the ashes, even without the support of the hierarchy.

Guimarães' book, Will He Find Faith? (Inveniet Fidem?), from which the above quotes are taken, traces the history of the progressivists' influence on the Church and on the fruits of the Council. He demonstrates that to them, the Faith is subjective rather than objective, and is relative rather than absolute. After presenting an overview of Scholasticism, he turns to a consideration of modern thought from the Cartesian revolution and the French Enlightenment, through liberalism, modernism and existentialism. He quotes profusely from conciliar theologians such as Karl Rahner, Hans Von Balthasar, Yves Congar, Edward Schillebeeckx, and lesser known “lights.” The book is Volume VI of his indispensable eleven volume study of Vatican II.

Atila Sinke Guimarães' books on the Council are available Here.

Effeminate Priests

Our Lord laments to Luisa Piccarreta about effeminate Priests, sacrilegious Masses, and the laity touching the Blessed Sacrament with their hands. 

From the Church-approved Volume Seven of the spiritual "Diary" Book of Heaven, of the Servant of God Luisa Piccarreta.  Imprimatur of Archbishop Joseph Leo and Nihil Obstat of (now Saint) Fr. Annibale Di Francia. 

The Lord, in a very afflicted state, lamented to Luisa: “My daughter, so much bitterness is given to Me by creatures that I cannot contain it all. For this reason, I wanted you to participate in it [as a victim soul]. In these times, all is effeminate. Even the clergy have lost the masculine character, and have acquired feminine manners. It has become more difficult to find masculine Priests, since there is an abundance of effeminate ones around. Oh, in what a deplorable state humanity is found in.” Luisa then wrote that she did not understand the meaning if what He had told her, but she still writes it down because she is under obedience to do so. (Oct. 23, 1906.)

My note: Since Luisa did not understand about effeminate priests, this appears to have been a prophetic utterance on the part of the Lord, who was talking about a future time, as He frequently does with Luisa. Seminarian Francesco Forgione, now known as St. Padre Pio, in that same year of 1906, was undergoing his formation in southern Italy, where Luisa lived. His training for the priesthood was very rigorous and demanding. Padre Pio himself in later life admitted that his seminary regimen could have been less severe and strict. It is not likely that there was a problem with effeminate priests in that era.

Three days prior to the above experience, Luisa had a vision which also appears to have been prophetic. Here it is revealed that Jesus considers that the laity, by putting their hands on the Holy Sacrament, entering the Sanctuary, and touching the Priests, are guilty of profanations deserving of severe chastisements.

In this vision Luisa found herself in a church where many people were taking part in the sacred ceremonies. Then, it seemed that with the approval of those in authority, other persons entered who began to profane the Sanctuary. Scurrying here and there, they sacrilegiously put their hands on the Holy Sacrament and also upon the Priests. Luisa, upon seeing this, cried out to the Lord to stop them from profaning His Sacred Temples, and she feared for the severe chastisements that He would pour out upon men for such horrible sins.

But the Lord replied that these enormous crimes are caused by the sins of the Priests. First, they profaned in a hidden manner His Holy Church with sacrilegious Masses, by mixing impure acts in the administration of the Sacraments. Committing these acts under the guise of holiness, they have arrived at not only profaning His churches of stone, but also at violating His living temples which are the souls, and profaning His very Body.

All of this eventually filtered down to the laity. Not seeing in the Priests the necessary light for their own progress, finding instead only shadows, they have become so darkened as to lose the beautiful light of the Faith; and without this light it is no wonder that they have come to such grave excesses. Prayer is needed so that the Priests may become a light for the people, permitting the seculars to reacquire the light to see the errors they are committing. Seeing them, the they will be reluctant to continue these grave excesses, which will be the cause of equally grave chastisements.

I have freely translated the above from the original Italian found Here. 

To learn more about the mystic Luisa Piccarreta, click Here.