Monday, April 17, 2017

The Elect


 When someone hears the word predestination, they almost invariably think of the heretic John Calvin, and the Protestant sects that ascribe to this error. There is a correct teaching on predestination faithfully taught by Holy Mother Church. In these evil times, people quote from St. Matthew 24: 24, "For there shall arise false christs and false prophets and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." "The elect," are those who are "chosen" to be saved. The context makes it clear they cannot be deceived by falsehood so as to be condemned eternally. Much of predestination remains a mystery. In this post I will explain the true notion of predestination along with heretical ideas about it, and offer possible solutions for some controversial questions surrounding the issue.


Predestination: True and Heretical Teachings Distinguished
  
 1. Heretical teaching. John Calvin revived and gave a resurgence to heresies going back as far as the fifth and ninth centuries (e.g. that of Lucidus, Gottschalk) which taught God does not Will all humans to be saved, but only those God had chosen or "elected." Consequently, Christ died only for the elect. (In the words of consecration over the wine at Mass, it is stated that Christ's Blood was shed for "many"--those who would cooperate with God's grace and attain Heaven. However, Christ did die for "all" in that His sacrifice was sufficient to save everyone, but only for some [many], would it be efficacious. The Catechism of the Council of Trent clearly explains that Christ was referring to the efficacy of His Bloodshed, not its sufficiency. Hence, for years, the Novus Bogus implied universal salvation, by substituting "all" for the word "many.")

 The error of Calvin developed into two groups. The Antelapsarians (i.e., "before the Fall") who maintained that before the Fall of our First Parents was foreseen and considered by God, He randomly chose some to be saved and others to be damned simply to manifest His Mercy and His Justice. The Postlapsarians (i.e., "after the Fall") claimed that in view of the Fall, God destined some for glory and the rest to perdition as a consequence and punishment for Original Sin. All theories of Calvin are heretical and stand condemned as such. 

 2. The Teaching of the Church
 All the pre-Vatican II theologians agree that God sincerely desires the salvation of all people and does not positively predestine anyone to Hell. Anyone who is damned stands condemned by the misuse of their free will. The decision of Christ at the Last Judgement manifestly supposes that the reprobate are to be condemned only because of their evil works, not because of the arbitrary Will of God or because of Original Sin. For thus will Christ address the damned, "Depart from Me, you cursed, into everlasting fire...for I was hungry and you gave me not to eat...(St. Matthew 25). God's salvific will is seen in 1 Timothy 2: 3-4, "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth." 

 There is a division among the theologians (upon which the Church has not taken sides) as to whether God decrees predestination to glory, with or without taking the merits of humans into consideration. 

The Thomists: The theologians of this school (along with some others) teach that God gives to the predestined effective graces and then rewards them for the merits which flow from their free cooperation with these graces.

The Molinists: These followers of the great theologian Fr. Luis de Molina teach that God infallibly knows what use each person will  make of the graces bestowed on him. He then elects for Heaven those who, by virtue of their foreseen merits, persevere in cooperating with grace. Conversely, He determines damnation upon those whom He foresees will accrue demerits and refuse to cooperate with grace, choosing evil.   

St. Francis De Sales: Although not a Molinist, this great Doctor of the Church said that the Molinist theory was more likely true than the Thomist. 

3. Objection: Unbaptized babies
 It has been objected that God's will cannot be said to be universal because of the fate of babies who die without baptism. The objection does not hold because (a) God's salvific Will does not require miraculous intervention to baptize every baby. In some cases, He would have to frustrate the free will of other agents. For example, parents who have apostatized refuse to have their baby baptized, and then the child dies in infancy. God would need to override the free will of the parents to have the baby baptized, which He is not required to do. It would further entail His interference in much of the natural order He created and the free will of humanity. God desires the salvation of all, but all impediments which arise in the world order He created, especially involving (directly or indirectly) the free will of others, need not be removed by miraculous intervention. (b) The babies not baptized will not suffer the pain of the damned, but will be consigned to Limbo, where they will have a degree of natural happiness. Those who die in Original Sin alone are subject to the separation from God, but not the positive infliction of pain (Hell fire) This conclusion, which is taught by nearly every theologian in the past eight hundred years, is in accordance with a pronouncement of Pope Innocent III (III Decr. 42:3): "The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God; of actual sin, the eternal pains of hell."

The Number of the Elect and the Fate of Infidels Who Never Knew the Church

 1. The Number of the Elect. Only God knows the number of the elect. Will more people be damned or saved? The more common teaching is that when the human race is taken as a whole, there will be more damned than saved. "Many are called but few are chosen." (St. Matthew 22: 14). However, there are theologians who reject this claim based on the salvific Will of God, and Christ's universal act of Redemption. They claim it is repugnant to think the Kingdom of Satan will be more populous, and thereby larger, than the Kingdom of God. 

 In the matter of True Catholics alone, the great theologian Suarez teaches (with the majority of theologians) that more will be saved than damned because of the sanctity of Holy Mother Church, the salvific Will of God, and the parable of the wedding banquet, at which only one person was found without a garment (i.e., sanctifying grace). 

As to True Catholics combined with schismatics and heretics, the majority of theologians declare more will be damned than saved because of the deprivation (in regards to the schismatics and heretics) of the efficacy of the Holy Sacrifice and the sacraments which are only efficacious unto salvation within the Church. However, a significant minority hold that more will be saved than damned in this scenario.     

2. The fate of Infidels. What of infidels who never heard the Gospel? (By the term infidel it is to be understood all the unbaptized; principally Jews, Mohammedans, and pagans). In 1690, Pope Alexander VIII condemned the propositions that Christ died for the faithful only and pagans, Jews and heretics receive no grace from Him. If they cooperate with grace they can receive the great grace of Baptism of Desire (BOD) and be saved within the One True Church. However, this is a rare miracle of God. It would make the Great Commission a farce, if they need not convert because of miraculous intervention. 

 What are we to make of the billions who did not have the opportunity to believe through no fault of their own? A possible solution is God wants as many people as possible to be saved and he wants as few as possible to be lost. So what God has done is to create a world having an optimal balance between saved and lost. A world that involves the maximum number of saved for the minimum number of lost people. And he gives sufficient grace for salvation to everyone whom He creates. Everyone can be saved if they want to be saved. Perhaps God has so ordered the world that those who never hear about Christ and the Church and are lost are only people who would not have believed in Him even if they had heard about it. In other words, anyone who would have believed and entered the Church to be saved if he heard it, is born at a time and place in history where he does hear it. 

 The logical objection would be, "So isn't it more merciful not to create such a person in the first place if God knows they freely choose damnation?" To this it can be replied that if you change one thing in this world, it will have repercussions on everything else. Who knows how the absence of those people would affect the salvation of others? Remember too, people are only lost through their own fault.

Signs of Predestination

No one can be certain of having the greatest grace; Final Perseverance. To die in the state of sanctifying grace is to achieve Heaven. We can not earn it, but the theologians teach that God will not turn away someone who prays for it unceasingly. Even that, however, does not guarantee it; no one can be certain if they are among the elect except by special revelation from Almighty God.  There are signs that salvation is probable, and gives rise to great hope while we "...workout Thy salvation with fear and trembling."(Philippians 2:12). The Calvinists falsely taught that if you were predestined by God, he would give you rewards on Earth. Therefore, if you were rich, it would be a sign of predestination--hence, the so-called "Protestant Work Ethic." Work and become rich, and it's a sign of predestination! 

The teachings of the theologians of the One True Church outline eight (8) signs of probable predestination:
  • a conscience that fears danger
  • contempt for the things of the world
  • patience in adversity
  • zeal for the salvation of souls
  • constant practice of the Eight Beatitudes
  • devotion to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus
  • devotion to the Most Blessed Virgin Mary (and her Rosary)
  • frequent and fervent Holy Communion
(Most of the above post was condensed from theologians Tanquerey, Dogmatic Theology Vol. 1; Pohle, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. 7; Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma; and Parente, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology)


Conclusion

 This post was but a brief sketch of the dogma of predestination. We will never fully understand its mystery. "O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are His judgments, and how unsearchable His ways!For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been His counselor?" (Romans 11:33- 34).

 Two things are certain; our salvation is in the Hands of God, as well as our own. God wills for us to be saved, but we must do our part. Pray for Final Perseverance, and cultivate love of the Blessed Mother and the Sacred Heart. Make frequent and fervent Holy Communions. To sum it up, there's the old aphorism, "Pray as if everything depends on God, then work as if everything depends on you." 


48 comments:

  1. Happy Easter
    I went to SSPV Holy Mass for Easter.(due to lack of a priest in our mission chapel)
    Its difficult to hear priests give Sermons about Jesus Christ & deny others sacraments because we have no problem with the Thuc or
    Duarte-Costa lines.
    After Holy Mass I remembered how much Christ suffered for us & that many many many Catholics have no true Holy Mass within 100-200 miles from their home.
    Made me realize just how easy I have it compared to others.
    Dominus Vobiscum

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love the SSPV, but disagree on their Thuc stance. Those of us lucky enough to have a Traditionalist Church or Chapel near them, must be ever-grateful to God and never take it for granted. New York is the "home of Traditionalism." There are no less than 4 Churches/Chapels within an easy traveling distance from me.

      God bless my friend!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. I love the SSPV too its just a pity they deny the Thuc and
      Duarte-Costa lines.
      The Thuc bishops
      Des Lauriers,Carmona,and Storck were of high intelligence.Those priests wouldn't have allowed a lunatic heretic to consecrate them.Fr.Miller lived with Bishop Thuc in the early 1980's.He has stated Bishop Thuc was razor sharp in his mind and could converse in multiple languages.
      Bishop Des Lauriers is said to have helped write the Dogma of the Assumption and Ottaviani Intervention.

      Delete
    3. I agree. You are correct Bp de Lauriers drafted the Apostolic Constitution "Munificentisimus Deus" which defined the Assumption, on behalf of Pope Pius XII. He was also one of the theologians behind the Ottaviani Intervention. I have some reservations about Duarte Costa. His breakaway sect began consecrating Anglican "priests" without reordination as they reject the teaching of Pope Leo XIII that Anglican Orders are "absolutely null and utterly void." That would make those "bishops" in the Duarte Costa line dubious at best.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. Introibo, could you tell me a little bit about this SSPV-Thuc question?

      God Bless you and your family!

      Delete
    5. Due to some behavior deemed erratic and unstable (ordaining and consecrating the Palmar de Troya "seers", etc), the question of Thuc's mental state was called into question. Fr Cekada believed (with the rest of the SSPV) that Thuc's consecrations were dubious. Upon further study and investigation, he changed his mind. Bp Kelly did not. Some SSPV priests left over this question and obtained consecration from Thuc-line bishops. Today, virtually everyone EXCEPT the SSPV considers the Thuc lineage valid. In my opinion, it stems from Bp Kelly either unwilling to fairly consider the manifest weight of the credible evidence or refusing to admit he was wrong.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    6. There are Bishops in
      Duarte-Costa line that haven't ordained Anglicans.

      Delete
    7. True. That's why you need to be careful. If there are invalid candidates or they tamper with the ordination/consecration rite, it throws everything into doubt or outright invalidity. I don't know of any Thuc line bishops that do such things.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    8. Didn't the Palmar De Troya bishops change the words to both rites of Holy orders in 1981?

      Delete
    9. Yes, but no sane person considers the Palmar de Troya cult Traditionalist bishops in the Thuc line. They are an aberration

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    10. I can't recall his name but,I remember reading that a Palmar De Troya Bishop (who was ordained in catholic church pre-April 1969 he was valid) was accepted back in the Novus Ordo in the early 80's.
      He was one of the priests consecrated by Bishop Thuc or was consecrated validily by one of those first bishops before Palmar changed Holy Orders.
      The N.O. didnt require him to be conditionally consecrated, they accepted his orders from Thuc line.
      I could be wrong,maybe this story was fake.
      I read story in 2011,
      I can't remember this Bishops name.
      Sound Familiar?

      Delete
    11. I personally would accept as valid if a bishop ordained-consecrated in traditional rites before
      April 4,1969 suddenly ordained a priest or 2 and consecrated a traditional bishop or 2 before he died.
      Some say if a Novus Ordo bishop were to do this,he'd have to be ordained-consecrated before May 1965 when they made first changes to Holy Mass.
      My take is if he is a valid priest & bishop with proper orders and hasn't been schismatic,I would accept his candidates for Holy Orders,no matter if its May 1965 or April 1969.
      What is the general opinion within traditional circles on this topic.
      I ask because this very scenario may happen in the future.

      Delete
    12. As to Anon @ 4/19 7:10, This is the person to whom I believe you are referring:
      The Rev. Alfred Paul Seiwert-Fleige is a traditional catholic priest and former Palmarian Catholic/Carmelite Holy Face Order and later on Traditionalist Catholic bishop (vagant) who resides in Rosenheim, Germany.

      He was ordained a priest by Traditional Catholic Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc for the Carmelite Order of the Holy Face (an religious congegration within the Independent Catholic movement) on December 31, 1975 and later Antipope Dominguez consecrated him a bishop for his Palmarian Catholic Church on November 1, 1978 at El Palmar de Troya, Spain. In 1980 Seiwert-Fleige left the Palmarian movement.

      Bishop Jean-Gérard Roux (not in communion with the Holy See)later re-consecrated him conditionally on April 8, 1995.

      On various internet pages it is said that he eventually reconciled with the Holy See under Pope John Paul II and publicly concelebrated at a papal Mass and that he was regularised as a priest, and therefore his Holy Orders were not regarded as invalid, though his episcopal orders seem to have been suppressed. From this assertion it is the deduced that he would be one of the first of the Thuc-line clergy to be regularised and fully recognised by the Holy See. He continues to function as a priest at Rosenheim, near Munich, Bavaria, Federal Republic of Germany. These informations however are quite incorrect. To start with, his place of residence is Rosenheim (Westerwald), which is far from Bavaria, and the above mentioned photograph is only proof of the fact that Seiwert managed to get himself into a Papal Liturgy, during which he then was taken a picture of. However, there is no official statement whatsoever about his reconciliation with the Catholic Church. And thus, from the catholic point of view, he should not be considered a clergyman or even a member of the Church. Instead, several Dioceses in Germany have put out warnings against his illicit activities bu which some priests and faithful have already been deceived, sometimes not without spiritual or financial damage.

      Moreover, approval of the Modernist Vatican which has only invalid orders is proof of nothing in regards to sacramental validity

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    13. To anon @ 4/19 7:16
      Changes in Mass do not affect the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Holy Orders was changed and invalidated in 1968. The rule of dogmatic theology in this area is pretty straightforward.

      If the bishop was validly ordained and consecrated in the Traditional Rite of the Church by another valid bishop, his orders are presumed valid unless/until proven invalid.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    14. So you Bishop Seiwert-Fleige is or isnt a Catholic bishop?
      I understand he isn't novus ordo but should traditional Catholics avoid him as well?

      Delete
    15. If the report is accurate, I would accept him as a priest but not a bishop. His ordination by Thuc would be valid, but consecration by Dominguez ("Pope" Gregory XVII) would be dubious. Dominguez was an illiterate farmer and had no formal Ecclesiastical training whatsoever. Did he know Latin well enough to perform the rite correctly? Highly dubious. You could attend his functions as a priest provided he holds the True Faith and not heretical ideas from the Palmar de Troya sect or the V2 sect.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  2. Dear Intro,

    I think that you missed one. Father Faber writes that those who have a true sorrow and devotion to Our Lady's Dolors are probably among the predestined. Of course, a true devotion to Our Lady and the Rosary causes a person to withdraw from sin and to fervently desire as many communions as possible in the times of Apostacy in imitation of her. I was reflecting at how wonderful the rosary is as a prayer. During a full 15 decades, a person makes 15 petitions: humility, charity for neighbor, poverty of spirit, purity of body and soul, wisdom, true contrition, mortification, contempt of the world, the grace for Our Lady to help us carry Our cross daily, perseverance of the just, conversion of sinners, succor of the souls in purgatory, true faith, true hope, the Holy Ghost, true devotion to Our Lady, and final perseverance. It is the best prayer after the Mass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I couldn't agree more! I think all devotions to Our Lady comprise a sign of predestination.

      May Our Lady watch over you!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  3. Why was Daily Holy Communion not encouraged before Pope Pius X?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It fell into disuse after the unfortunate overemphasis on "not being worthy." What a difference in juxtaposition to the Novus Bogus where the "Communion" is taken in the hand, while standing, by men dressed as slobs and women dressed immorally. Everyone receives the "host" as no one commits serious sin.

      "In media stat veritas." Pope St Pius X showed us the correct Catholic way, avoiding exaggerated avoidance and unworthy reception of the Blessed Sacrament.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. Everyone going to communion in the Novus Ordo also stems from the meal emphasis of the new mass.

      What's the point of going to a meal if you don't eat and drink?

      Delete
    3. Very true Mike! The unbloody Sacrifice of the Cross has been replaced with the McDonald's Happy Meal.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  4. Dear IAA,

    "Perhaps God has so ordered the world that those who never hear about Christ and the Church and are lost are only people who would not have believed in Him even if they had heard about it. In other words, anyone who would have believed and entered the Church to be saved if he heard it, is born at a time and place in history where he does hear it."

    For if the above-quoted paragraph is true, then what is the point of Baptism of Desire? Not a Feeneyite here, not trying to pick a fight, just a sincere question.

    God bless,

    G.P.W.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Theory: BOD would apply to those exceptions who WOULD respond to God's grace and enter the Church, but--for reasons known only to God---they were needed in a time and place where they never hear about Christ. God, in His mercy and due to the prayers of the Faitthful on behalf of the infidels and poor sinners, saves them by the rare miracle of BOD.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  5. Introibo, have you read the sermon of Saint Leonard of Porto Mauricio about the few souls who are saved? I understood that you affirmed that the Kingdom of Satan can not be greater than the Kingdom of God, but in this sermon the Franciscan saint uses several examples and sayings of the Fathers of the Church to assert that the great majority of souls are lost. I saw no problem with this sermon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nor do I. There are opinions on the elect. Most theologians do believe most of humanity is damned, a significant minority believes otherwise.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. That sermon is pretty pessimistic. I tend to agree based on what I know about the world, though I can only judge the times I live in which seem to be very wicked to me. As for the opinion that most of humanity is saved, I cannot understand how that could be true. Far fewer than half of mankind is even Baptized so if more than half of mankind is saved then there would be more people saved without Baptism than with it which seems to make Baptism rather pointless to me.

      Delete
    3. And we live in worse times than the eighteenth century before the Revolution, a scene where the Saint Leornado preached - at the same time saints of the level of St. Paul of the Cross and St. Alphonsus Liguori. Nowadays I do not see the same holiness, the piety that allowed the hearts of the simplest. Yes, we live in black times aggravated by the Vatican II Sect.

      Delete
  6. A very timely post as I have been reading various articles on predestination from Catholics that seem to be in align with the Protestant belief. Figured they must be from the Protestantized Novus Ordo as none of them made any sense, nor sounded Catholic to me. It never ceases to amaze me how much more Protestant the Novus Ordo is becoming. It just gets worse and worse, especially with anti-Pope Francis at the helm spreading more confusion everyday. Thanks for the article!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm always glad when God can use me to spread His truth! Thanks for your comment Joann!

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  7. The question of what percentage of the human race will be saved is an interesting one, however obscure. Obviously now we live in a time of universal apostasy. The great Fr. Frederick Faber has discussed this question at length in his book "The Creator and the Creature", which I can't recommend highly enough, and he applied his astonishing capacity for research to look up what almost every theologian in the history of the Church believed on this question, and distilled the results of his research in the chapter called "The Great Mass of Believers".

    The book is available online: https://archive.org/details/TheCreatorAndTheCreature

    After listing many of the heavy hitters in the theological world and giving each of their opinion on this question, he gives a list of his results in general.

    In reading this list it's important to remember that he makes a big deal about infant mortality, because for most of human history a large number of babies never made it past infancy. Since many heretics and schismatics practice baptism, and do so validly, their infants who died would go straight to heaven. This skews the statistics quite a bit, as Fr. Faber notes.

    I think it's interesting to quote Fr. Faber at some length in his summary:

    "1. Many writers hold that the majority of mankind will be lost, because heathen, and unbelievers, and heretics make up a majority.
    "2. Some hold that a majority of all mankind, taking heathen, heretics, and Christians in one mass, will be saved. [...]
    "6. Of those writers who regard Catholics exclusively, some maintain that, even taking the children into account, the majority will be lost.
    "7. Others maintain that the majority will be saved, but the majority is only to be reached by reckoning in the children: this is perhaps the most common view of all. [...]
    "9. Others teach that the far greater majority of adult Catholics will be lost.
    "10. Others think that a small majority of adult Catholics will be saved.
    "11. Others finally, to whose opinion I strongly adhere myself, believe that the great majority of adult Catholics, perhaps nearly all of them, will be saved.
    "12. In point of theologians, the rigorous opinions regarding the whole mass of mankind have an overwhelming authority.
    "13. The rigorous opinions concerning the damnation of the majority of adult Cathoilcs have more theologians on their side than the milder view.
    "14. But if we substract moral, ascetical, and hortatory authors, who write to rouse and to impress their readers, and retain only pure theologians in the stricter sense, I think the authorities on the two sides will be not far from evenly balanced, the excess being however in favor of the rigorous views. [...]
    "16. Some of the authorities on the milder side are of very great weight."

    He treats the question with his usual brilliance at greater length, but this is the central passage.

    I can hardly recommend Fr. Frederick William Faber enthusiastically enough. He had an incredibly strong faith, and rejected even the slightest compromise with protestantism or the spirit of the world. He vehemently opposed any soft-selling of the Catholic faith, or Catholics having any concern that their beliefs might be offensive to their protestant neighbors. In fact, he warned Catholics living among unbelievers (that term includes protestants) about how their faith is weakened even without their realizing it by the toxic spiritual environment in which they live.

    Fr. Faber is truly an inspiration for our times, and his works would repay a lifetime of careful study.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for sharing the insight and wisdom of Fr. Faber.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  8. Introibo - "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God". What does "pure in heart" mean? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to theologian Haydock,
      "The poor in spirit;[1] which, according to the common exposition, signifies the humble of mind and heart. Yet some understand it of such as are truly in poverty and want, and who bear their indigent condition with patience and resignation. (Witham) --- That is, the humble; and they whose spirit is not set upon riches. (Challoner) --- It is not without reason that the beatitudes are disposed of in this order. Each preceding one prepares the way for what immediately follows, furnishing us in particular with spiritual arms of such graces as are necessary for obtaining the virtue of the subsequent beatitude. Thus the poor in spirit, i.e. the truly humble, will mourn for their transgressions, and whoever is filled with sorrow and confusion for his own sins, cannot but be just, and behave to others with meekness and clemency; when possessed of these virtues, he then becomes pure and clean of heart."

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  9. Speaking of Protestants (whose numbers are dwindling especially in Europa) what is your take on Prots saying "resurrection Sunday" instead of Easter Sunday?
    I know about Ostara and eggs bunnies etc being of pagan origin.
    Just curious what you think about their push to omit Easter and retitle it "Resurrection Sunday"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's an unnecessary abandonment of Tradition. Atheists like to point out the similarity between the word “Easter” and the Near Eastern goddess “Ishtar”. The problem is, the myth of Ishtar had nothing to do with resurrection from the dead. She was the goddess of fertility, and went down into the underworld, but that’s about the extent of the similarity between the myth of Ishtar and the life of Jesus Christ. I think it shows an unjustified retreat in the face of ignorant criticism. Nothing is overtly heretica, but the change, in my opinion, is asinine.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. My thoughts exactly.
      If what I have read is true,Ostara the holiday itself,was started by Pagans after Jesus Christ had risen from the dead.
      Don't know if its true but that's what I read.If it is true,then Easter has nothing to do with Ostara.

      Delete
  10. Introibo - I keep reading that "everyone is a child of God". Is this thinking more Novus Ordo garbage?? I thought you were only a "child of God" if you were in the State of Grace?? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are correct that to be a child of God is to be in the state of grace. However, some people use it in the imprecise and incorrect manner that we are all created by God. The V2 sect believes everyone (except Traditionalists) are children of God because there is universal salvation.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  11. God only saved Noah, his family and animals. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and saved Lot. If the past events in the Bible are any indication of how many are to be saved, I would say that the indication that few are to be saved is correct. Then there is the Bible verse that states "the way is narrow and few there be that find it".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is certainly the teaching of the majority of theologians.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
  12. Didn't Jacinta, one of the Fatima seers, say that in the forthcoming War (WW2), most of those who died would go to Hell? A very sobering thought!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That would be a private revelation no one is bound to believe. I refuse to treat private revelations like dogma or get caught in debates as to what is allegedly the "true meaning" of some apparition.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    2. IAAD: You are quite correct that one is not bound to accept private revelation. However, why would a youngster like Jacinta, who supposedly saw Our Lady, say such a thing? Her statement was quite clear and not susceptible of various meanings. There is no need to debate the issue anyway. Jacinta's opinion (which is all it is) does not conflict with Catholic teaching.

      Delete
    3. You are correct. Fatima is approved by the Church and contains nothing contrary to Faith or Morals. The saying attributed to Jacinta could very well be true. My point was that (esp during this time of the Great Apostasy) we should look deeper into Church teaching and less into private revelations. Some people put them on par with the Deposit of Faith (I'm not saying this of the commenter above).

      That's why I try and avoid discussions/arguments regarding the "true meaning" of any apparition---even those approved by the Church.

      ---Introibo

      Delete
    4. IAAD: Your measured response is one I concur with 100%. My own rejection of The Great Apostasy has always been based on the Church's teaching and practice. To my disappointment (and sadness), I have seen otherwise rational Catholics falling for all sorts of so-called revelations and apparitions as a basis of their response to the horrors engendered by the Bogus Ordo cult, and their last state has become worse than their first - priests included.

      Delete
    5. One sad reason why many indult & SSPX types cling to the New Order is the Our Lady of Good Success apparition says
      "There will be a living Saint in your convent till the end of days"
      Very sad there is nothing we can say to help these people.
      They are helpless.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous April 26, 2017 at 5:17 AM: SSPXers claim that "Our Lady of Good Success" made a prophecy about Archbishop Lefebvre specifically. No wonder they promote that apparition! Who can forget that Bayside led lots astray by claiming that Paul 6 was a prisoner, and that a double had been put in his place...conveniently forgetting that Montini was a dubious character long before being "elected". And so it goes...

      Delete