All those who are interested in the message of Fatima know our Lady’s words: ‘In the end, my immaculate Heart will triumph’. But what exactly will she triumph over? Immediately before these words, she explained what would happen if Russia were not consecrated as she would request: ‘The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated’. It seems quite likely that what Mary is describing here is the rise and brief reign of antichrist.

People often imagine that the overthrow of antichrist will be the work of Christ alone at His second coming. In fact, Scripture apparently indicates that the two events will not be simultaneous:-

From the time when the continual sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination unto desolation shall be set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he that waits and comes unto a thousand three hundred and thirty-five days (Dan. 12:11-12).

The angel does not explain this riddle, and so we cannot say what will take place on the one thousand three hundred and thirty fifth day. St Jerome thought it would be the second coming. Cornelius a Lapide thought it would be a great triumph of the Church, though still within this present world, the scattered remnant having collected themselves together during the previous forty five days. But whatever it will be, it will apparently take place forty five days after the continual sacrifice will have been restored and the abomination cast down; which seems to mean after the destruction of the antichrist.

So the overthrow of antichrist will not be exactly simultaneous with the Second Coming. Still, they will be close, relatively speaking. Bellarmine says that the time between the two events will be so small as to be reputed as nothing – compared, I take him to mean, to the entire history of the world. St Paul, after all, says that our Lord will destroy him ‘with the epiphany of His coming’ (2 Thess. 2:8).  This suggests that the first event is almost the beginning of the second, as first light is the epiphany of sunrise.

But given that the destruction of antichrist will take place at some point before, however soon before, the end of the world, there is place to suppose that it will in a special way be the work of our Lady. There are several reasons to think this.

First, our Lord wishes to associate the blessed Virgin Mary with His own victory to the highest degree. She has already shared in this victory in her own person, by her bodily assumption into glory. It would seem very appropriate that she should share in it in this other way, intervening in history to bring the last persecution to an end.

Secondly, Christ is the head of the city of God, as the devil is the head of the opposite city. The man of sin is not the devil, but the one in whom that fallen spirit is most completely active. It seems therefore appropriate that his adversary should be our Lady, the one in whom Christ’s Holy Spirit is most active.

Again, St Paul says that our Lord will destroy the man of sin ‘with the breath of his mouth’ (2 Thess 2:8). The Book of Wisdom describes wisdom as being, among other things, ‘a breath of the power of God’ (Wis. 7:25). This is significant because the Church’s liturgy applies the Old Testament encomia of wisdom to Mary. The word for breath, admittedly, is not the same in each case: πνεῦμα in St Paul and ἀτμίς in Wisdom; the former may also be translated as ‘spirit’ and the latter as ‘vapour’. Still, it is interesting, all the same.

A lesser known part of the Fatima message is Mary’s promise of a seventh apparition. Sr Lucia described her first conversation with the Queen of heaven in this way:-

Our Lady said to us: ‘Do not be afraid. I will do you no harm.’

‘Where is Your Grace from?’ I asked Her.

‘I am of Heaven.’

‘What does Your Grace want of me?’

‘I have come to ask you to come here for six months in succession, on the 13th day, at this same hour. Later on, I will tell you who I am and what I want. Afterwards, I will return here yet a seventh time.’

That seventh apparition has not yet occurred.  The promise of it must be intended to console and strengthen the faithful during some exceptionally dark time.

According to this report, on Monday of Holy Week, Malta ‘legalised’ same-sex ‘partnerships’, just two years after it ‘legalised’ divorce (one of the more minor consequences of the abandonment of natural law is a proliferation of apostrophes.)  The protest of the opposition leader is characteristically depressing: ‘Malta has not been prepared for such a step’, he objects, as if it were fine to step off a cliff provided one does so after due preparation.

Two years! It is not many. Motus in fine velocior, indeed. That island was specially protected, seemingly as a divine reward for the welcome once given to St Luke and St Paul:-

But the barbarians showed us no small courtesy. For kindling a fire, they refreshed us all, because of the present rain, and of the cold. And when Paul had gathered together a bundle of sticks, and had laid them on the fire, a viper coming out of the heat, fastened on his hand. And when the barbarians saw the beast hanging on his hand, they said one to another, ‘Undoubtedly this man is a murderer, who though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance doth not suffer him to live.’ And he indeed shaking off the beast into the fire, suffered no harm. But they supposed that he would begin to swell up and and that the would suddenly fall down and die. But expecting long, and seeing that there came no harm to him, changing their minds, they said that he was a god (Acts 28).

For almost two thousand years that serpent’s venom was powerless against the apostle. But it seems that the head which received the mortal wound has been healed, and the poison is at last at work. 80% of the people are opposed to the new legislation, we read. But with what sort of an opposition? Not, alas, the kind that leads them to invade the parliament and keep the deputies under guard until they comes to their senses. If it is lawful for a man to fight off a criminal who has invaded his house and is threatening his family, is it unlawful for a people to fight off politicians who are threatening their country? Private citizens, perhaps, cannot depose their deputies until their term of office has run its course. But they can use the force necessary to restrain them from acts of violence against the commonwealth. Such an action would be worthy of the courage and Catholic spirit of the Maltese people down the ages. Has the venom paralysed them?

“The splendour of your presence was like a lightning flash to Hades, and it was completely dazzled by your descent; for it could not bear the brightness of day” (Jerusalem matins).

We are within the five days that pass between the selection of the Lamb and the sacrifice. Moses orders the lamb to be chosen on the tenth day of the month of Nisan, and so our Lord enters Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. Moses orders the lamb to be sacrificed on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening, and so Christ will be mystically sacrificed by the sword of His own voice on Holy Thursday after the supper has been eaten. Moses commanded that if a man’s family was not sufficient to eat the lamb, he must bring his neighbour into his house to eat it with him. So because the twelve were not sufficient to receive all graces, Christ has brought into His house many others, His neighbours according to the flesh, who will eat of this Lamb until the end of the world.

It could be chosen from the sheep or from the goats, because if we consider Christ as He is in Himself, we confess ‘no guile was found in His mouth’; but when we think of the roughness of our transgressions that cover Him we admit ‘God has made Him sin for us’. The lamb must be a male, because Christ is the head of every man as man is the head of the woman. It must be one year old, for in that time the material sun prefigures the Sun of justice rejoicing like a giant to complete his course, nor is there any who can hide from His heat.

In these five days, though the Lamb had been set apart, the Sacrifice was unaccomplished. Even though the apostles had some dim awareness of what was to come, they enjoyed no clear perception of it. So in the Roman Mass, though Host and Chalice have now been offered, the priest continues to speak so quietly, that even those who stand nearest to him cannot distinctly make out his words. And immediately before the consecration he makes five crosses over what has been set apart and what is now to be sacrificed to recall the five days that passed so long ago.

These are the five days foreshadowed at the beginning of the world, when there was as yet no rational voice to offer a sacrifice of praise. Only on the sixth day was man formed who might praise his creator with words; only on the sixth day was the silence broken and the centurion being newly created cried out as the Lamb was offered, ‘This indeed is the Son of God who takes away the sins of the world!’

These are the five days of which Ozias foolishly said, ‘let us wait these five days for mercy from our Lord, for perhaps he will put a stop to his indignation, but if after five days there come no aid, we will yield ourselves to the Assyrians’, and he was rebuked by the faith of her who was the glory of Jerusalem for presuming to put God to the test. Yet he had said this not from himself, but being a ruler of the people he prophesied that after five days the anger of God would be extinguished by the severing of the devil’s head.

These are the five porches of the sheep’s pool, through which the rational Lamb is passing to sacrifice. Whether or not we may follow Him wherever He goes, we may follow Him there at least, and so coming to the foot of the Cross recognise the fulfillment of the word spoken by father Abraham on that same mountain, exclaiming with him:  Deus providebit sibi victimam holocausti, ‘God Himself has provided the Lamb for the offering’. For He stands as One who was slain before the foundation of the world, and from Him come forth the rivers of living water.



There has been a lot of buzz recently around the June 16-29th St Albert the Great Summer School in Norcia. Norcia is a sort of Catholic paradise. The town itself is beautiful, situated next to the Sibylline Mountains it looks like a scale model of Western Civilization. In the centre of the town square is a statue of St Benedict who (with his twin sister St Scholastica) was born there in 480. Around the square there is an imposing sixteenth century fortress, a renaissance cathedral, a fourteenth century town hall and the Basilica of St Benedict. The Basilica is built over the fortified former Roman secular basilica where the holy twins were born. Behind the Basilica is the wonderful observant monastic community of English speaking Benedictines who sing the full office and the Mass in Latin according to the pre-1962 books. The crypt of the Basilica where the monks sing most of their offices is constructed out of the very room where Ss Benedict and Scholastica were born. The Monks also brew the most wonderful beer. The gastronomic delights do not end there either because Norcia is the centre of Wild Boar and Pork butchery (and truffles) in Italy and is full of splendid restaurants and pizzerias. The previous Albert the Great summer schools involved the close study of the text of St Thomas in seminars, spiritual conferences by the superior of the Monastery Fr. Cassian Folsom, ending with a scholastic disputation presided over by another of the monks. It seems the same format is planned for this year when they will be studying the Letter of St Paul to the Romans with the commentary of St Thomas. I know at least one Laodicean is going. It all sounds rather splendid.

No particular reason for this, I just like the passage. He is talking, of course, about the Pickwick Papers:-

{Dickens’s portrait} of Sam Weller has produced one particular effect in the book which I wonder that critics of Dickens have never noticed or discussed. Because it has no Dickens “pathos,” certain parts of it are truly pathetic. Dickens, realising rightly that the whole tone of the book was fun, felt that he ought to keep out of it any great experiments in sadness and keep within limits those that he put in. He used this restraint in order not to spoil the humour; but (if he had known himself better) he might well have used it in order not to spoil the pathos. This is the one book in which Dickens was, as it were, forced to trample down his tender feelings; and for that very reason it is the one book where all the tenderness there is is quite unquestionably true.

An admirable example of what I mean may be found in the scene in which Sam Weller goes down to see his bereaved father after the death of his step-mother. The most loyal admirer of Dickens can hardly prevent himself from giving a slight shudder when he thinks of what Dickens might have made of that scene in some of his more expansive and maudlin moments. For all I know old Mrs. Weller might have asked what the wild waves were saying; and for all I know old Mr. Weller might have told her. As it is, Dickens, being forced to keep the tale taut and humorous, gives a picture of humble respect and decency which is manly, dignified, and really sad. There is no attempt made by these simple and honest men, the father and son, to pretend that the dead woman was anything greatly other than she was; their respect is for death, and for the human weakness and mystery which it must finally cover. Old Tony Weller does not tell his shrewish wife that she is already a white-winged angel; he speaks to her with an admirable good nature and good sense:

“‘Susan,’ I says, ‘you’ve been a wery good vife to me altogether: keep a good heart, my dear, and you’ll live to see me punch that ‘ere Stiggins’s ‘ead yet.’ She smiled at this, Samivel . . . but she died arter all.”

That is perhaps the first and the last time that Dickens ever touched the extreme dignity of pathos.

God knows some things that He might not have known. For example, He knows you and me. Of course He would always have known us at least as possible beings, but He need not have known as actually existing beings. If He had not created us, He would not have known us as actual beings; but He did, and so He does.

So God knows some things that He might not have known. This is a remarkable thing, which has perhaps not been sufficiently pondered among perennial philosophers. It might seem at first to destroy the assertion that God is Actus Purus, pure act. Surely, one might think, if God knows something that He might not have known, then He must have had a potentiality to know this thing, and this potentiality must have been realised, so that He now knows it. But of course this is impossible.

Why do these things that God knows, but which He might not have known, not introduce potentiality and the realisation of potentiality into God? It is because none of these things that He knows but might not have known – for example, no creature – goes to constitute God’s own act of knowledge; no creature ‘shapes’ the divine act of understanding, making it to be like this rather than like that. To use the technical phrase, nothing other than God is the specifying object of God’s act of knowledge. Creatures are real objects of His knowledge; God really knows you and me, not just an idea of you and me. But we are not the specifying objects of the one, eternal, simple, divine act of understanding. We are secondary objects of the divine knowledge. The only specifying object of the divine act of understanding is God’s own essence.

What brings it about that God knows certain objects that He might not have known? In the case of real beings, such as you and me, the answer is simple. It is because He wills to create and sustain us. The divine will, or the divine initiative if you like, brings it about that He knows us. Because He wills to create, His eternal, simple act of knowledge is not only a knowledge of Himself but also a knowledge of us. But it is important to notice that it is not the fact that His knowledge of us is the result of His free initiative which explains why His knowledge of us is not the realisation of a potentiality in Himself. We also can take an initiative and come to know things that we need not have known. For example, I can choose to learn Spanish. But however free this initiative may have been on may part, my learning of Spanish will necessarily be an actualisation of potentiality within me. Likewise, it is not the fact of the divine initiative in creating which is the formal reason why His knowledge of us is not a realisation of potentiality, but simply the fact that we are not the specifying object of His act of knowledge.

Now, what about God’s knowledge of sins? Sins also are ‘things’ which God might not have known, since He might not have created free creatures capable of sinning. But He does know them, since He forgives and punishes them. Sins are, like creatures, ‘secondary objects’ of the divine knowledge. So how does a given sin, for example the fall of Lucifer, or the sin of Adam, become a secondary object of the divine knowledge?  A priori, there seem to be two possibilities. Either it becomes such an object because of God’s initiative of choosing to create a world of which it will certainly be a feature, or it becomes such an object in virtue of the creature’s initiative.

Does this latter alternative introduce passivity, that is potentiality and the realisation of potentiality, into God? Only if the formal reason why God’s knowledge of things which He might not have known is His having the first initiative in their coming about. But as I have argued in the last paragraph but one, this is not so. The formal reason why God’s knowledge of such things introduces no passivity into God is that they are not the specifying object of His act of understanding. So if we posit that Adam’s fall becomes an object of divine knowledge not because God chose to create that universe in which Adam would fall, but simply because Adam did in fact fall, we thereby introduce no passivity into God. Of course there are other things to be said about the causal relation between the first mover and creaturely free will. But this is enough for one post.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers