Friday
June 17, 2005
vol 16, no. 168

Blame it on the French! 'Scholars' under the fleur de lis are the culprits for the origins of why even today there is still confusion as to the approbation of the wondrous, voluminous mystical work of a simple, humble and extremely obedient nun who moved popes to praise her work and deem it worthy of reading. Yet the problems can be traced to a faulty translation into French. Mon Dieu! The Translation is the Traitor!

"The third reason is one I have often heard - that The City of God is 'on the Index' of forbidden books. Here again the 1907 CE chimes in with discordant information. '(Venerable Mary's) works had been put on the Index, but when the Franciscans protested they were accorded satisfaction by being assured that it was a trick of the printer ('supercheria'), as no condemnation appeared there' (Vol 1,230). Could someone kindly unravel this distorted statement for me? Why do they say her works "had been put on the Index" only to state they in fact had not? And what is meant by a 'trick'? The fact is that such 'tricks' have been used against The City of God from day one by the powers of hell afraid of being crushed anew by the virtues they knew would be practiced by faithful imitators of Our Lady's virtues detailed therein. Besides, as we have seen, Clement XI 'prohibited its being placed on the Index' (Boullan, 4)."

    Continuing the thought trend from last time, the circumstances for prohibiting The City of God were:

    1) The entire basis of the attack - and this cannot be emphasized enough - was a faulty French translation published about 1678 (Carrico, 87, 90; Fr. George J. Blatter, Conception, xvii).

    2) The primary attackers, it seems, were heretics, especially Jansenists (Carrico, 88; Blatter, ibid.) and Gallicans (Blatter, ibid.). The Sorbonne, it must be stated, was the veritable cradle of both of these heresies. 7 The Jansenists, who have always tried to minimize devotion to Our Lady, were especially irked by the magnificent defense of the Immaculate Conception, still hotly debated at that time, in The City of God. The Gallicans, who sought to undermine the power of the Pope in favor of temporal authority, were likewise incensed by the defense of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. (Venerable Mary of Agredaherself during her lifetime repeatedly petitioned the Pope to define ex cathedra the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility, both of which were solemnly defined some two hundred years later. No wonder her major attackers were Gallicans and Jansenists!) More specifically, the three foremost attackers were: Dr. Louis Elias du Pin, "called by Pope Clement XI 'Nequioris doctrinae hominem,' 'A man of pernicious doctrines'" (Blatter, Conception, xvii); Dr. Hideux, who "turned out to be a rabid and fanatical Jansenist, cut off from the Church as a heretic" (ibid.); and Dr. Amort, known as the "most formidable adversary of Mary d'Agreda" (Boullan, 322), who led a Sorbonne censure of The City of God in 1696 (years after the book had been approved by the Church, as we shall see), yet who later, according to Pope Benedict XIV, acknowledged the censure to be "without foundation and of no value" (ibid.). Why "without foundation"? Because it was based on a faulty translation!

    3) The censor whose criticisms led to the condemnation by Rome was biased against The City of God, and the Tribunal was unaware of this bias (Carrico, 87). Blatter even calls this a "sectarian attemption" utilizing "Gallican courtiers" (Conception, xvii-xviii), a charge for which here is much evidence.

    4) Cardinal Aquaviva said: "(T)he prohibition (of the books) came out from the Sacred Tribunal without its having before it, the writings of the venerable authoress either in the original or in authentic copy" (Carrico, 87). Thus one could argue it was not The City of God which was prohibited but the false French translation of it.

    "Spain and Portugal were scandalized at the treatment ac-corded the books" (Carrico, 89). King Charles II and his Queen Ludovica wrote numerous letters to Innocent XI, himself fervently devoted to Our Lady.

    At this crucial juncture, Blessed Innocent did something totally unpredictable -- he read The City of God for himself!

    The result shall ever redound to the glory of God, the honor of our Immaculate Queen, the salvation of souls, and his own glory. Three months after the prohibition, he suspended the sentence, i.e., delayed the execution of the sentence until the matter could be further studied. The suspension was given by way of a letter written to King Charles II dated November 9, 1681:

"In negotio librorum sanctimonialis Marine a Jesu de Agreda supersedendum duximus quamvis sacrae hujus inquisitionis ratio et stylus aliter suaderunt" (Boullan, 318). "Regarding the cause of the books of the nun, Mary de Agreda, we have decided to suspend sentence...even though the procedure and practice of this Sacred Inquisition would counsel otherwise. ..Given at Rome from St. Mary Major, under the Ring of the Fisherman, November 9,1681, the sixth year of Our Pontificate" (Carrico, 90).

    Simply put, this meant The City of God could be read by all the faithful until the contrary was commanded.

    Curiously, the article in the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia twice says the suspension was "for Spain only" (Vol. I, 229, 230). Yet Blessed Innocent did not say this - the prohibition was for the whole Church, as was the suspension. This is proven by an event referred to by Blatter (Conception, xxi) and described in detail by Boullan (318-319). In 1713, the Bishop of Ceneda, Italy, objected to the publication of The City of God in his diocese. On September 26, 1713, the Holy Office in Rome published the following decree (Boullan, 319):

"In the Congregation held September 19, 1713, when were present their Eminences, Cardinals Acciaioli, Spada, Ferrari, Fabroni, and Ottobani, it was decreed, that the letter of the Inquisitor de (Ceneda) must be withdrawn, and that the suspensory decree has the force of law throughout the Universal Church."

    Blatter (Conception, xxi) states Blessed Innocent XI also issued a breve on July 3, 1686, "permitting the publication and reading of the 'Ciudad de Dios.'"

    Blessed Innocent's successor, Alexander VIII, "expressly authorized (The City of God) to be -- read, 'oraculo vivae vocis'" (Boullan, 319), i.e., he stated this orally. This fact is noted by Blatter (Transfixion, xv) and the exact words are given in Carrico (90). Remember - this is a verbatim quote from the original document in the Archives of the Congregation of Rites (English translation in Carrico):

"Hos libros posse ab omnibus impune legi:" = "These books may be read by everybody with impunity."

    In the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia, it is stated that Alexander VIII refused to approve the book (Vol. 1230). More on this later. Finally, what is perhaps the greatest possible official Church approbation of private revelation was given. The cause for Venerable Mary's beatification having been introduced, a council was named to minutely and officially - in the name of the Church - examine The City of God to determine whether anything in it (i.e. errors in faith or morals) could hinder her beatification and canonization. I quote Buollon (319), who himself quotes the official document: "...Finally, under Pope Benedict XIII, the Sacred Congregation of Rites passed the following decree: It is ordered that the cause of the above-mentioned servant of God shall be continued before the holy Congregation of Rites without further examination of the 'Cite Mys-tique,' and these books can be retained and read. March 14,1729.' This decree is signed by Pope Benedict XIII."

    The favorable decision of His Holiness is not surprising since he himself was a great devotee of The City of God, for "when he was archbishop of Benevent, (he) used these revelations as material for a series of sermons on the Blessed Virgin" (Blatter, Conception, xxi).

    Moreover, two decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, signed by Popes Benedict XIV and Clement XIV, "officially declare that The City of God was not only originally written but also composed exclusively" by Venerable Mary (Blatter, Transfixion, xv; cf. Boullan, 324).

Further Papal Approbation

    To round out this discussion of papal approbation of The City of God, mention shall be made of four additional Popes whose views I have found. First is Clement IX. the story is interesting: Venerable Mary was first elected Abbess of her convent at the age of 25, and thereafter every three years (except once) until her death. At each election a special dispensation was required, and the nuns of her convent, who wished to elect her, had to apply each time to the Apostolic Nuncio, Venerable Mary each time pleading with him not to grant it since she felt herself unworthy. The only Nuncio to accede to her pleas and refuse the dispensation was Msgr. Rospigliose -later Clement IX, who became a "great defender of Agreda's writings" (Carrico, 98, fn. 32), though not officially.

    Clement XI prohibited The City of God from being placed on the Index (Boullan, 4) and in two decrees of June 5,1705, and September 26,1713, declared it could be read by all the faithful (Blatter, Transfixion, xv). - Lastly, two Popes in our century have given the Apostolic Blessing to readers and promoters of The City of God.

    In 1900 a devout lay woman sought to spread the "science of the saints" by publishing some verbatim extracts from The City of God. 8 She informed Pope Leo XIII of the project, and the great Pontiff not only gave her the Apostolic Blessing, but amazingly, allowed her book to be "printed by the presses of the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda in Rome"! 9 A few months later it was observed by a Canadian diocesan journal:

"The reserve which is ordinarily maintained on the subject of revelations really no longer has any reason to exist in relation to The Mystical City, since His Holiness Leo XIII has been so good as gladly to encourage the project of spreading among the faithful the science of the saints which is contained in that heavenly life of the Mother of God."

    Finally, His Holiness Pius XI on April 29,1929, told the publisher of The City of God in a private address:

"You have done a great work in honor of the Mother of God. She will never permit herself to be outdone in generosity and will know how to reward a thousandfold. We grant the Apostolic Benediction to all readers and promoters of The City of God. 10

Conclusion

    Thus, the question which posed the purpose of this article is answered, i.e., whether anyone of whatever authority may forbid the reading of The City of God. In the words of Boullan (319, my emphasis):

"We have, consequently, the right to declare that no one is permitted to forbid the reading of these works, and that whomsoever shall attempt such a prohibition must not only be disregarded, but even obliged to retract what he has had the boldness to utter."

    This conclusion is shared by numerous Cardinals, bishops and theologians, and while whole volumes would be needed to print their high praises, I cannot help mentioning three. The incomparable Dom Gueranger, author of the monumental Liturgical Year, after carefully studying both sides of the issue, wrote a series of 24 articles between 1858-1859 defending The City of God. 11 Father Faber, one of the most popular spiritual writers of our time, quotes freely from the book in his works, as does the Dominican theologian, Father Juan Arintero, considered an authority in the discernment of spirits, in his masterpiece, The Mystical Evolution in the History and Vitality of the Church.

Why Still "Condemned"?

    Despite the approval of the Church as shown above, why do so many today believe The City of God is "condemned" by the Catholic Church? I believe that there are three main reasons.

    The first is the belief that Innocent XI's original prohibition is still valid, or has only been lifted for Spain. Certainly a fundamental reason so many believe this is the article in the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia (CE) already quoted. I have long wondered why so many traditional priests hold the opinions they do regarding The City of God - the fact that the 1907 CE is used by so many as a reference may be a major reason. I shall summarize the main errors of this article, found in Volume I, pp. 229-230, and written by T.J. Campbell, S.J., Associate Editor of The Messenger, New York.

    1) The primary error is the twice-repeated statement that Innocent XI's suspension was for Spain only. As amply proven above, this statement is simply false. (Besides, the idea that a book could be condemned everywhere in the Church except Spain seems ludicrous in itself-what, does the air in Spain possess special immunizing properties?)

    2) A second, and no less important, error states that Alexander VIII did not issue an approval of the book, but only "confirmed the Brief of his predecessor" (confusing in itself since Innocent's brief suspended sentence for the whole Church).

    3) No mention is made of any other Pope having spoken on the subject, whereas no less than four others officially, and four more "unofficially," have approved the book. All this leads the reader to believe the book is still condemned (outside Spain, that is!), which is exactly what so many traditional priests believe.

    4) The only University opinion cited was that of the Sorbonne, yet this heresy-riddled faculty (later suppressed) was the only one in Europe which dared issue a "condemnation," and this fully fifteen years after Innocent XI allowed the books to be read! The faculties of "Madrid, Alcala, Salamanca, Toulouse and Louvain" (among others 12) all vied in holy competition to see which could heap the highest praises on the book.

    5) Also unmentioned is the approval of "practically all the religious orders" (cf. Blatter's list in Coronation, xii) and the imprimaturs of so many bishops that it has been said no book except Holy Scriptures has so many!

    With all the objective evidence showing Church approval of the work, and since ignorance or lack of reference materials are unplausible excuses for the editors of this massive 16-volume work, to level the charge of bias does not seem altogether unfair. 13 An interesting anecdote, related to me by two traditional priests, may shed some light on the subject: I have been told that when St. Pius X was presented Volume I of the 1907 set (ironically, the very one containing the article on Venerable Mary), he threw it on the floor! 14

    A second possible reason why so many believe The City of God is prohibited is that they have confused the Church's judgment of these writings with the cause for the beatification of Venerable Mary. The two are entirely different processes. It is true that on April 27, 1778, Pope Pius VI placed a perpetual silence on the cause of Venerable Mary, and that on March 16, 1886, Pope Leo XIII decided not to change this decree (Carrico, 82) This, however, was "because, according to a decree of Pope Urban VIII, all the manuscripts of Venerable Mary of Jesus must be submitted for a minute examination" (ibid., my emphasis). 15 This has absolutely nothing to do with The City of God, which already had been submitted for such an examination and fully approved, as noted above.

    The third reason is one I have often heard - that The City of God is "on the Index" of forbidden books. Here again the 1907 CE chimes in with discordant information. "(Venerable Mary's) works had been put on the Index, but when the Franciscans protested they were accorded satisfaction by being assured that it was a trick of the printer ('supercheria'), as no condemnation appeared there" (Vol 1,230). Could someone kindly unravel this distorted statement for me? Why do they say her works "had been put on the Index" only to state they in fact had not? And what is meant by a "trick"? The fact is that such "tricks" have been used against The City of God from day one by the powers of hell afraid of being crushed anew by the virtues they knew would be practiced by faithful imitators of Our Lady's virtues detailed therein. Besides, as we have seen, Clement XI "prohibited its being placed on the Index" (Boullan, 4).

Epilogue: Recommendation

    The Church has approved The City of God, which means we are permitted to believe the revelations therein on human faith but in no way commanded to believe them with divine and Catholic faith except, of course, in those doctrines already defined and taught by the infallible Magisterium. (For an excellent article on this distinction, cf. "Concerning the Perusal of Private Revelations" in The Reign of Mary, Vol. XXIV, No. 72, pp. 20-21.) But in order to entice you, the reader, to obtain the 4-volume set, read it for yourself, and reap its fruits, no greater recommendation can be given than that of God the Father Himself. Speaking of The City of God to Venerable Mary, He said (Conception, 33-34):

"Happy they who find it, and blessed they who shall appreciate its value, rich they who shall come upon this treasure, and blessed and very wise those who shall search into and shall under-stand its marvels and hidden mysteries. I desire to make known to mortals how much intercession of her is worth, who brought restoration of life by giving mortal existence to the immortal God... I have not revealed these mysteries in the primitive Church, because they are so great, that the faithful would have been lost in the contemplation and admiration of them at a time when it was more necessary to establish firmly the law of grace and of the Gospel... But now, mankind has greater need for this manifestation, and this necessity urges Me to disregard their evil disposition. And if men would now seek to please Me by reverencing, believing and studying the wonders, which are intimately connected with this Mother of Piety, and if they would all begin to solicit her intercession from their whole heart, the world would find some relief. I will not longer withhold from men this mystical City of refuge; describe and delineate it to them, as far as thy shortcomings allow. I do not intend that thy descriptions and declarations of the life of the Blessed Virgin shall be mere opinions or contemplations, but reliable truth. They that have ears to hear, let them hear. Let those who thirst come to the living waters and leave the dried-out cisterns; let those who are seeking for the light, follow it to the end. Thus speaks the Lord God Almighty!"

    O Immaculate Queen! May our hearts burn with love for Thee and thy holy Son and with gratitude for giving us The Mystical City of God in fulfillment of thy prophecy uttered in thy name by thy Spouse, the Holy Ghost:

"I will yet pour out doctrine as prophecy, and will leave it to them that seek wisdom, and will not cease to instruct their offspring even to the holy age" (Ecclus. 24:46).

FOOTNOTES:

7 Of Gallicanism: cf. 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VI, pp. 354 ff., and Vol. XIV, p. 150; of Jansenism: ibid., Vol. VIII, pp. 287 ff.

8 This story is taken from Raphael Brown's The Life of Mary as Seen by the Mystics (Rockford IL: TAN Books, 1991), pp. 11-12.

9 The book is: Marie d'Agreda, Sublime Doctrine de la Mere de Dieu sur les Vertus Chretiennes; Extrait de la Cite Mystiquede Dieu (Rome: 1900).

10 Divine Mysteries of the Most Holy Rosary (Necedah, WI: JMJ Book Co., 1979), p. 282; also Carrico, pamphlet Sister Mary of Agreda: America's Own Lady in Blue, reprinted from Marian Helpers Bulletin, Vol. XII, #3.

11 Brown, p. 10; also Carrico pamphlet.

12 cf. Boullan, p. 321 and Blatter, Coronation, p. xi-xiii.

13 The consistency of the condemnatory tone is evidenced in Vol. II, p. 701 in which Venerable Mary's revelations are dubbed "mystic reveries."

14 One example of Modernist "scholarship" is the article on the Apostles' Creed (Vol. I, 629-632) written by the Jesuit Herbert Thurston, somewhat infamous, as I have been told, for his Modernist leanings. Thurston states (among other things) that the Apostles did not call the Creed a "symbol," (p. 630) and even says: "(W)e cannot safely affirm the Apostolic composition of the Creed" (p. 631). Contrast that with the following from the Catechism of the Council of Trent (Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1982), p. 11: "(The Creed), drawn up by themselves, the Apostles called a 'symbol.'" While there is certainly much in the 1907 CE which is true and valuable, yet, as we can see, it must be used with the utmost discretion.

15 The process has been delayed for over two hundred years because it is not even certain if any of her other works are extant, though I believe there is a deeper, more spiritual reason for the long delay.

(First Published in Reign of Mary #75, Fall 1993)

For the full volumes of Venerable Mary of Agreda's work on line, see THE MYSTICAL CITY OF GOD

For past articles in Fiat Voluntas Dei, see 2005tim.htm Archives