Wednesday, 31 October 2018

The Letter: One Year Later

Some of my early readers may remember that some of the first posts on 'Musings' were about Fr Thomas Weinandy, the Capuchin who was a consultant to the USCCB Committee on Doctrine. When he wrote a letter to Francis asking him to clarify things he had said and written, Father 'resigned' his position with the USCCB, or in other words, he was fired.

This is his reflection, written one year after he made the letter public.

From The Catholic Thing

A year ago tomorrow I made public a letter that I wrote to Pope Francis expressing my deep concern about the “chronic confusion” in the Church and the way that his “seemingly intentional lack of clarity risks sinning against the Holy Spirit.”

In the immediate aftermath of the letter’s publication, I received over 300 emails and over 40 letters (most from the United States, but a fair number from many countries around the world) – all of which, except two, were positive.

Moreover, over the course of the past year I received another 100 or so emails and even Christmas cards from people I did not know – all of which were, again, positive. The majority of the responses were from the laity who expressed their support and invariably thanked me for giving expression to their concerns and thoughts, but believed either that they did not have the ability to articulate them or felt, if they did express them, that they would not be heard or taken seriously.

Besides the laity, I also received significant responses from Catholic academics and, surprisingly, from over thirty bishops – all positive. And this does not include the many affirmative comments, from laity, academics and bishops, I have received in person when speaking at or attending conferences over the past year.

Many people have expressed their regret that I have suffered because of the letter, but I have suffered very little compared to the joy I have experienced – the delight of knowing that so many of the faithful were grateful and pleased at what I had done.

What I want to highpoint in this brief message, however, is not the importance of my letter to Pope Francis or the positive responses to it, but what for me is the significance of what Jesus is doing in his Church.

Readers may recall that, while I was in Rome last year, I spent a considerable amount of time in St. Peter’s praying about whether I should articulate my apprehensions and concerns about this present pontificate. In the end, I asked Jesus for a sign.

If he wanted me to write something, I asked that he allow me, within about a five-hour time frame, to meet someone I knew but had not seen in many years, and that I would never expect to see in Rome at this particular time. The person could not be from the United States, Canada or Great Britain. Moreover, in the course of our conversation, the person would have to say to me – “Keep up the good writing.”

Two clerics publicly mocked and made fun of the sign and its fulfillment, but here I want to offer my personal opinion concerning its importance – at least its significance for me.That is a very complex sign to say the least, and I now believe that it is in itself an inspiration of the Holy Spirit because, on my own, I could never have concocted such an intricate scenario. Jesus did fulfill the sign in every particular and did so in a most marvelous way, for the person he chose to enact the sign was an archbishop.

That Jesus fulfilled my requested sign struck me as Jesus expressing his own concern for the troubling situation that presently exists within the Church, his body. From this personal perspective, I thought that, in the end, his loving concern for his Church far exceeds my own, and what he is doing is far more important than the writing of my letter to Pope Francis.

I came to see my letter as a mere postscript to the concern Jesus himself manifested when he fulfilled my sign. Others may have different interpretations or no perspective at all, but I thought it worthwhile that I share my own understanding.

A great deal has happened within the Church in the year since I made public my letter. I do not need to rehearse all of the evils that have now come to light. They are common knowledge. The concerns and apprehensions that I expressed in my letter are more relevant now than they were a year ago.

The Body of Christ presently suffers more than it did then – and I fear the suffering will become even more intense. Moreover, in the midst of what has been exposed, many commentaries and analyses have been published in newspapers, journals, the Internet, and in blogs, some better than others, but all decrying the present ecclesial situation and often offering ways forward.

For me, what is presently most troubling is the vague, uncertain and often seemingly nonchalant ecclesial response to the evil, not only to the grievous sexual misconduct among the clergy and bishops, but also to the scandalous undermining of the doctrinal and moral teaching of Scripture and the Church’s magisterial tradition.

Likewise, there appears to be little awareness of or concern for the suffering that this mentality has inflicted upon the Church, especially upon the laity. Significantly and sadly, even if those in authority were to make adequate responses to the evil at hand from this point on, it would not be sufficient to rebuild the trust that has been broken by their past words and actions.

Yes, many in high ecclesial positions are good and forthright men, but they are not the ones who are presently being listened to, or making the decisions, or setting the ecclesial tone.

I am, nonetheless, hopeful. I am hopeful because I know that many are praying and even fasting for the renewal of faith within the Church. Moreover, I am convinced more now than a year ago, that by exposing all of the evil, the Lord Jesus is in the process of purifying his body, the Church.

The present sin within the Church is often terrifying and disheartening to see. It is good for us to keep in mind, however, that the fire of the Holy Spirit may burn, but its burning is unto holiness – and that is wondrous to behold.

Holy Day of Choice?

'Holy Day of Appreciation', 'Holy Day of Opportunity'? Not in my Parish, thank God! This was the note in our bulletin: 'PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL SAINTS DAY is Thursday, November 1, and a Holy Day of Obligation under the pain of deadly sin for purposely missing Mass. 

From The American Catholic

So tomorrow is All Saints' Day…a holy day of obligation. Our parish calls it “a holy day of appreciation”. If memory serves, last year it was called “a holy day of opportunity”. Is this a trend at your parish also? Just curious…
I see it as an example of the Church bending to a narcissistic culture by trying to use accommodating language. You may have heard the term “owning the language”? It may seem trivial sometimes, but the words we choose are important because they express our thoughts, and thoughts have consequences. How does that saying go? Sow a thought and you reap an action; sow an act and you reap a habit; sow a habit and you reap a character; sow a character and you reap a destiny. An extreme example is when discussing the reality of abortion; some use the language of “choice” to give the illusion of freedom. An “opportunity’ to “appreciate” God at Mass also has a “choice” ring to it. God is all for free will, but we use the idea of “choice” as something virtuously neutral; it’s an important expression in the logic of relativism.
Choice is a big word and a big idea in modern western culture.  If you live in an industrialized nation, own a home, a car and have some extra money in the bank to boot, you’re probably one of the more wealthy people who ever lived on this planet; top 1% maybe? With such affluence come choices. We have choices in cloths, food, wine, entertainment, restaurants, books, etc. It’s no wonder that this “spirit of choice” leads people to demand options for things like abortion, sexual partners, or even choosing your own gender.
St. Augustine speaks of using words in Book 5 of Confessions, Paragraph 5.5.10. …He gives an analogy using food, where the food is the meaning behind the words and the dishes are the way the words are “served”. Junk food can be served on the finest china and wholesome food can be served on tattered paper plates; both kinds can be served on either. Today, “owning the language” mostly relates to serving junk food on elegant dinner ware.
Have a happy holy day (if you so choose), but bear in mind how important words must be to God. “And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us…” (John 1:14).

Synodality

Another take on the 'synod'. I hadn't heard 'smuggler synod' yet, but I like it! Reminds me of the Robber Council.

From De Omnibus Dubitandum Est.

So the Youth Synod is finally over (thank God). It is already widely being dubbed "The Smuggler Synod"
The smuggling began in the Synod’s preparatory phase. A “pre-Synod” meeting of young people in March 2018 was thoroughly rigged, according to the accounts of some brave souls who were there because the Synod managers either misidentified them or wanted them as cover. Working sessions were conducted long into the night, the goal being to get inserted into the meeting’s final document a number of progressive Catholic approaches to human sexuality. One discussion group leader banned an opening prayer before the group’s meetings – what had been proposed was a joint recitation of the Lord’s Prayer, the Hail Mary, and the Doxology – saying that this might make the non-Catholics present uncomfortable. The Synod managers and the new Dicastery for Laity, Family, and Life trumpeted this meeting as a great advance in “listening;” it was an exercise in manipulation and spin.
And it looks to everyone like the real winners were ze rich Germanz
Informed source close to : "The German synod fathers got all their points through — it’s winner takes all for them. They say it's a 'revolution of listening' but it's really a revolution."
Despite all this, Catholics do get it. If anything, more and more Catholics are getting it. Catholics get it because they are driven by a relationship with Jesus Christ and their motivation is to cleave ever more closely to Him.

Brian gets it! (see video below).

The Cardinals and bishops at the Synod DO NOT GET IT.

Don't affirm them in their awfulness, don't compromise Christ's message in order to attract people to Christ's message this is simply an act of futility!

What we have seen has been really disappointing. An abandonment of the path of faith and reason and a shameless descent into sentimentalism and politicking.

Ich habe schon viele Synoden erlebt, aber noch keine, die so schön, so lebendig und so fröhlich war. Das lag auch daran, dass uns Papst Franziskus ermutigt hat, wirklich aufeinander zu hören und voneinander zu lernen.
Pro-Francis Cardinals have literally deified Francis, calling him the successor of Christ. Other Cardinals timidly question the validity of the changes he is making and the reasoning behind the synod's topicality, material and purpose.
The deification of Francis by his associates is the spirit of the antichrist

Official news portal of Vatican @VaticanNews repeatedly calls Francis the 'successor of Christ'

This is the spirit of antichrist

Why didn't alarm bells ring at @VaticanNews?http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2018/10/vaticannews-styles-pope-as-successor-of.html 
Meanwhile, the mainstream media is reporting Francis' persistent attacks on Archbishop Vigano from the pulpit as him rallying the faithful to launch attacks on those who ask genuine questions about the Church's accountability in cases of abuse: not a good look!

When you pander to young people it provokes a reaction of cynicism. The synod is the Church hiding behind a facade of relatability. How this ended up was in a failed attempt to project young people's characteristics back at them - how is that possibly attractive to young people? Simply trying to be relevant by joining in with what young people are doing and saying. Any parent will tell you this strategy NEVER works.
When you pander to someone in this way, you demean them. Anyone with a shred of authenticity will simply write this off as a cynical ploy.

More on the Anglican Cult of the Beevy Emm

Fr H, with an interesting observation. I, too, am confused by people who refer to Our Lady as the Madonna, which means 'the My Lady', but perhaps Father is right.

From Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment

Isis had, as one of her Names, polyonumos (there ought to be a special term for words which help to validate themselves), and it occurs to me that manynamed appears to be true also of our blessed Lady, the Theotokos ... and I'm not just thinking of the Akathist Hymn or the Litany of Loreto.

I recall, a few decades ago, we put a statue of our Lady up in Lancing College Chapel. Somehow or other, somebody contrived that a little plaque was set into the side of the plinth explaining that This statue of the Madonna was given by etc..

I know Italians do refer to the Mother of God as La Madonna, but am I alone in finding the English phrase with the definite article a little odd?

My theory is that the usage carries a subliminal message of  "This object is to be seen as merely an expression of a convention within Art History. On no account should you jump to the the conclusion that you should or might or could have a relationship with the person to whom this artefact relates."

Some readers will recall the Great Chesterton Compromise.

Intellect, Will and Human Freedom: How the Jesuits Replaced Holy Obedience With Tyranny and Brainwashed the Whole Church

Hilary White poses a question and gives some thoughts as to the answer.

From What's Up With FrancisChurch


Here’s a question no one seems to be asking so far: why does Jorge Bergoglio think it’s OK to be a tyrant?

It’s not often these days that I have the concentration to read though something on a screen all the way through, but this from my friend John Lamont is a real grabber if you know even a little about what is going on in the Church right now.
Restoration of discipline among clergy and religious was one of the main goals of the Counter-Reformation. The theories of law and authority that guided this restoration differed from a pure nominalist position, but these differences were lost when the practical principles for training in obedience were devised. These principles embodied a tyrannical understanding of authority, and a servile understanding of rightful obedience as consisting in total submission to the will of the superior. The most influential formulation of these principles was given in the writings of St. Ignatius Loyola on obedience. 
I’m doing a thing on all this for the Remnant’s next print edition. It’s very complicated and of course it’s written in John’s usual academic style, which can be daunting for a lot of us who are used to reading things intended for the internet.
The intellectual origins of this conception of authority and obedience are largely to be found in nominalist theology and philosophy. William of Ockham notoriously came down on one side of the Euthyphro dilemma by asserting that good actions are good simply because they are commanded by God, and that God could make idolatry, murder, and sodomy good, and abstention from these actions evil, if he commanded that they be performed. This conception of divine authority lends support to a tyrannical understanding of authority in general as based on the arbitrary will of the possessor of power, rather than on law.
Like other writers, Rodriguez makes the usual exception for obedience to commands that are manifestly contrary to the divine law. It has however been noted that the Jesuit doctrine of probabilism tends to nullify this exception. According to this doctrine, there is no sin in doing any action that a reputable authority maintains to be permissible; and one’s religious superior normally counts as a reputable authority. There is also a psychological fact that tends to make this exception nugatory. Internalising and practicing this notion of obedience is difficult, and requires time, motivation, and effort. When it has been done successfully, it has a lasting effect.
Once one has destroyed one’s capacity to criticise the actions of one’s superiors, one cannot revive this capacity and its exercise at will. Following the directive to refuse obedience to one’s superiors when their commands are manifestly sinful then becomes psychologically difficult or even impossible – except perhaps in the most extreme cases, such as commands to murder someone, which are not the sort of sinful commands that religious superiors often have an interest in giving in any case.

One of the main tasks we bloggers/commenters have is to translate this kind of writing for a broader audience. This one is so important that my usual reluctance to get into things is going to have to be set aside. (It was how I started all this, back in 1999 when I started learning the implications of our civilisational acceptance of the 18th century materialist philosophy of Utilitarianism. I discovered that something horrifying and invisible was eating everyone’s brains, like a damn Lovecraftian monster.)
It’s a bit of a slog, though. And as we all know, these days none of our attention spans are what they were. But as I wade through it, I’ll toss up some notes here so we can all start getting an idea of how to come to grips with it.
For now I’ll just say that John’s article is extremely important. The thing we’re all going through right now has a great deal to do with what is clearly an erroneous, and very harmful, concept of holy obedience. It has incredibly far-reaching implications, and he’s put me on to some more material. I think the most important thing to ask is how to fix it.
More and more I think we need to focus on solutions; what can we do? is starting to become the most crucial of all questions, and a big part of the answer is going to be to “re-train” our Catholic minds in a more authentic spirituality than has been largely unavailable for a long time, and offer the start of a way through it all.
Hi John…I am in communication with some nuns who are right now having a mighty struggle against their programming with regards the terrible goings on in Rome. One of the things we have identified is precisely this “infantilisation” in their conception of holy obedience that you wrote about in your piece for Rorate Caeli. As soon as I read it, I realised this is a big key to the problem. They know with their intellect that they cannot follow the path to auto-destruction that Cor orans and that pack of vultures would have them take, but the emotional and psychological toll it is taking on them to overcome this mental training is fearsome to behold. They are coming to understand that it was something that was done to them deliberately and amounts to a form of brainwashing. I passed along your article and they said yes, they had in fact been given Rodriguez to read as the main source of the novitiate training.
What we need now is more of the earlier, Thomistic/medieval idea of obedience this militaristic Jesuit thing replaced. Or at least some sources to find it. Your exposition of the problem was masterful (and damning!). I guess we just need to have more on the solution. As I’m sure you know, I’m a big believer in the Restoration theory that flatly proposes that we do indeed turn back the clock. As a Benedictine I’m not that sold in the Tridentine reforms, and am pretty keen on digging down to pre-tridentine ways to see what they have to offer. What could the medievals have for us that has been lost. What, for instance, was their response to the wicked Ockham?
A great many religious are having a terrible struggle right now, and are faced with having to make momentous decisions for which they have been quite deliberately stripped of all psychological and emotional preparation. I think at least for their sake more on this subject that can be useful in a practical sense is greatly needed right now.
I hope we can answer some pressing questions. A lot of us want to know, for instance, where did “papal positivism” really come from? Why are the great majority of the remaining believers so eager to jump off the Bergoglian cliff?
I and others have been saying it comes from the John Paul II period in which the structures of the Church were crumbling into Modernist chaos following Vatican II and Catholics ceased trusting their local bishops, turning instead to the pope and “Rome”. This keystone of the “conservative” narrative is what has fuelled the monstrosity of the current pontificate and all its attendant horrors. We traded the actual content of the Catholic religion, the Holy Faith, for “The pope says…”
But that explanation is insufficient. It doesn’t account for why all the bishops who attended the Second Vatican Council went in Catholic and came out Modernist. It doesn’t explain why ALL the religious orders obediently stuck their heads into the noose of Novusordoism, and even the ones who still want to save their orders and charisms even now continue to absolutely refuse to look fearlessly at the obvious causes of their own destruction. Virtually all religious orders in the Catholic Church are hovering on the edge of extinction, and they brought it on themselves and seem eager to finish themselves off.
Why, even now are famous “conservative” communities of cloistered nuns insisting on going along with the plans for them by these manifestly evil men? Why, for example, is the Benedictine monastery of St. Cecilia of Ryde – perhaps the only Benedictine house of nuns in the UK worthy of the name – now requiring TWO YEARS of letter writing from potential candidates before even considering admitting them to the postulancy, citing Cor orans as the reason? Can they really afford to lose so much?
The entire Church has adopted this corrupted, Jesuit conception of Holy Obedience – alien to the Faith before Trent – and infantilised ourselves. 
I am only now starting to understand that the training that nearly all religious undertook was in fact a form of brainwashing. From one of the sisters I communicate with, to whom I sent the article by John, I received the following shocking information. I hesitated a bit to share it because it is so horrifying, but I think its important for the whole Church to start understanding how much we’ve been harmed by this quite frankly evil misconception of obedience:
Never question, never criticize, just accept. Get your own thoughts out of the way and conform your mind and will to that of the Superior. All will go well if you simply obey and never ever question. Never voice your opinion. Always try to have the same opinion as the superior. Yep. That’s what many of us have been taught. We read it in practically every book. These ideas have crept in everywhere. They are completely devastating. I have experienced it first hand. There is so much to say about this, but I really don’t know how.
With a concept of obedience like this, you lose the ability to think on your feet. Decision making, especially split second decision making, becomes very difficult because you never want to make a decision without your superior’s permission or approval. You would rather not make a decision than make the wrong one. You are rendered totally helpless.

Making decisions in very critical moments is almost impossible because obedience is the first thing on your mind. One example comes to mind. There were many circumstances that contributed to the tragic fire at Our Lady of the Angels School in 1958, and you cannot blame it on just one thing.

But, one thing that contributed to the high death toll was the fact that the smoke alarm had to be rung manually. And in order to ring it, you had to have the permission of the Superior. Unfortunately on that awful day, the Superior was not in her usual place and no one could get to her quickly (she was teaching in a different building on campus). There was a delay in ringing the alarm. Finally a lay teacher just rang it. But precious minutes were lost and so were 95 lives. 

How much more is this Jesuit corruption going to cost us?

ASK FATHER: How to Gain the 1-8 November Plenary Indulgence

Hallowtide begins tomorrow! We can gain a pleanary indulgence for the Poor Souls every day during the Octave of All Saints. Fr Zed explains how.

From Fr Z's Blog

From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
Thanks to you and your blog, I am intending to receive a plenary indulgence or three (aim high!) for the souls in purgatory over Nov 1 – Nov 8. Reading through the Manual of Indulgences, from the fourth edition (1999) of Enchiridion Indulgentiarum: Normae et Concessiones, N23 states:
“To gain an indulgence it is sufficient to recite the prayer
alternately with a companion or to follow it mentally while it is
being recited by another”.
To me this reads as though an indulgence cannot be granted if I only say the prayer silently to myself; that the prayer(s) need to be said with someone or recite them mentally when someone else is saying the prayer out loud. Have I interpreted this correctly? Can you please clarify?
At the Vatican site HERE we find the current text.
29
Pro fidelibus defunctis
§ 1. Plenaria indulgentia, animabus in Purgatorio detentis tantummodo applicabilis, conceditur christifideli qui
1° singulis diebus, a primo usque ad octavum novembris, coemeterium devote visitaverit et, vel mente tantum, pro defunctis exoraverit;
2° die Commemorationis omnium fidelium defunctorum (vel, de consensu Ordinarii, die Dominico antecedenti aut subsequenti aut die solemnitatis Omnium Sanctorum) ecclesiam aut oratorium pie visitaverit ibique recitaverit Pater et Credo.
There is no mention of having to pray with someone else.  Also, it says that the prayer can be offered “mentally”, so it doesn’t have to be aloud.
You can go to the cemetery and each day and gain the indulgence from 1-8 November by praying for the dead.   On All Souls (and other days determined by the bishop) could can gain the indulgence by visiting the church and praying the Our Father and Creed.
The usual conditions apply for a plenary indulgence.
The Church is pretty flexible with these grants.  While it is good to be in a group, sometimes that’s not possible.  Other people can’t get to church, so they can pray at home. We should try for the idea: at church or with others.  But the important thing is the get the indulgence!
I hope that people will pray for me when I die.

Off the Menu: Episode 74 - Southern Comfort

Originally uploaded on 9 July 2018

8:35 The Quiet Revolution 16:27 Charles's Confederate Sympathies 43:04 Putin, Russia, & Fatima 52:58 How Could God Allow Suffering? 1:01:10 How Much to Put in the Collection Plate 1:10:28 Knights Naming their Swords? 1:13:38 The Mass and Its Folklore


What We Pray For When We Pray For the Intentions of the Holy Father

As Hallowtide commences, we can gain a plenary indulgence for the poor souls every day from All Saints through its octave (1-8 November). I know many people have questions about praying for Francis's intentions. This article from January 2016 should set minds at ease.

From One Peter Five

Pope Francis was recently featured in a short online video to promote his monthly prayer intention. Unfortunately, the video has given the impression that the pope is promoting religious indifferentism, and as such, it has scandalized not a few Catholics. My purpose here is not to analyze this particular video or intention, but to examine a larger question that a number of Catholics have found themselves asking in recent years:
What does it mean to pray “for the intentions of the Holy Father”?
If a pope’s stated intentions seem questionable, or even as though they are incongruous with our Catholic faith, how can we pray for them in good conscience?
As a prelude to addressing that question, we must first examine the reason why Catholics pray for the intentions of the Holy Father in the first place. The most common reason is that prayer for these intentions is almost always required in our attempts to obtain plenary indulgences. As the Baltimore Catechism says:
237 Q. What must we do to gain an indulgence? A. To gain an indulgence we must be in a state of grace and perform the works enjoined.
One of the works enjoined for plenary indulgences is to pray for the intentions of the Holy Father.
So just what are the intentions of the Holy Father? First, these include the specific monthly prayer intentions composed by the Holy Father. Fr. Thomas Kincaid, in his commentary on the Baltimore Catechism (widely known as Baltimore Catechism № 4) describes just what you are praying for when you pray for the intentions of the Holy Father:
Now, what does praying for the intention of the Pope or bishop or anyone else mean? It does not mean that you are to pray for the Pope himself, but for whatever he is praying for or wishes you to pray for. For instance, on one day the Holy Father may be praying for the success of some missions that he is establishing in pagan lands; on another, he may be praying that the enemies of the Church may not succeed in their plans against it; on another, he may be praying for the conversion of some nation, and so on; whatever he is praying for or wishes you to pray for is called his intention.
This is where many Catholics become concerned. If the pope is wishing us to pray for something that is not Catholic, or in some way harms the Church, then when we pray for the intentions of the Holy Father, it seems that we are also praying for these problematic intentions.
So if a Catholic can’t in good, well-formed conscience support a particular intention of the Holy Father, is that it? Does this mean that such a Catholic cannot obtain a plenary indulgence until such time as the pope stops having problematic prayer intentions?
I don’t think so, for several reasons.
First and foremost, the Church cannot enjoin us to do evil. Yet for centuries, she has enjoined us in many magisterial teachings to make a blanket prayer for the intentions of the Holy Father in order to obtain a plenary indulgence. It follows that making such a blanket prayer cannot be a material contribution to evil on our part.
Second, when you pray generically for the intentions of the Holy Father, we know that four specific, objective intentions are prayed for every time. From the Raccolta, a collection of indulgences that used to be published by the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences:
23. The Pope’s intention always includes the following objects:
i. The progress of the Faith and triumph of the Church.
ii. Peace and union among Christian Princes and Rulers.
iii. The conversion of sinners.
iv. The uprooting of heresy.
Whenever you pray for the pope’s intentions, you are praying for these extremely Catholic intentions. You are even praying for these intentions if you are praying in the sede vacante period between different papal reigns.
Finally, God is in charge. He knows that we intend only good when we follow the teaching of the Church to pray for the pope’s intentions. If His Church tells us to pray for the intentions of the pope, and the pope then fails to live up to his office in that regard, the responsibility for that rests with the pope creating those intentions, not with us.
Despite our misgivings, I believe that we can with confidence pray an Our Father, a Hail Mary, and a Glory Be for the intentions of the Holy Father whenever this is required of us.  We should do what the Church enjoins us to do to receive a plenary indulgence. If we do this with faith, and unite our will to God’s, only good can come of it.