Public Scandals From Private Revelations

 

I don't get to comment in the depth I would like to recently, with my life being extraordinarily busy as of late. I learn from my readers and love reading their comments. Recently there have been comments about the truth of approved apparitions (e.g., Our Lady of Guadalupe, Our Lady of Fatima) and other private revelations. The purpose of my post this week is three-fold: (1) give some general principles to apply; (2) apply said principles to approved and unapproved private revelations; (3) demonstrate that private revelations must not replace Church teaching or be given undue emphasis. I have dubbed those who exalt private revelations to the detriment of the Faith as "Apparitionists." 

(N.B. I have used numerous online and print resources in the making of this post. Of special note: Foley, Understanding Medjugorje: Heavenly Visions or Religious Illusion? (2006), Laurentin & Ljudevit, Is the Virgin Mary Appearing at Medjugorje (1988), and The Mystery of Garabandal [2015] by L.R. Walker. ---Introibo). 

In this age of the Great Apostasy, many Traditionalists will (unfortunately) abandon the approved theologians of the Church for private revelations. It is imperative that we learn the Faith, and not what passes for the "Faith" in some quarters. Certain people don't even understand basic terminology. "Public" and "private" revelation do not refer to how many people the revelation was given, but rather whether or not it is part of the Deposit of Faith to which we must assent. The Deposit of Faith, given by Jesus Christ to His One True Church, ended with the death of the last Apostle (St. John) in 100 A.D. That marks the end of public revelation. The Church has authority to make solemn pronouncements on what is contained in this revelation, and the faithful must give assent under pain of mortal sin and expulsion from the Mystical Body by heresy (e.g. It is part of the Deposit of Faith that Christ gave exactly seven (7) sacraments to His Church).

 Private revelation is given by God after the close of public revelation to certain individuals (usually saints or people considered to be such). If a private revelation is approved by the Church, it means that it does not contradict matters of Faith and/or morals. It is worthy of belief, but you can deny it outright and not be a heretic. You also commit no sin of disbelief, provided your lack of faith in a particular approved revelation does not stem from disdain of ecclesiastical authority. 

This does not mean that private revelations are "useless." Obviously, if the Church approves something as worthy of belief, we can believe it without fear of sinning against faith or morals. God communicates to us for a reason. However, I refuse to get drawn into arguments over what a particular apparition or a particular revelation "really means." Moreover, it is by studying the approved theologians that we can learn the One True Faith and make our Catholic way the best we can through these most difficult times. To be certain, I believe in approved apparitions without making them the focus point of faith. I have devotion to Our Lady of Hope and Our Lady of Fatima. I wear the Five-fold Scapular, pray the Rosary daily, insert the "Fatima Prayer" at the end of each Rosary decade, have devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and try to attend Mass every First Saturday of the month. These are great Catholic devotions all Traditionalists should try to maintain. I do not view "Consecrating Russia" as some panacea to the Great Apostasy. Nor will I quibble over specific sayings Our Lady is supposed to have said.

While non-approved revelations should be avoided like the plague, even those which are approved can be misunderstood or have the message corrupted since Church approval does not entail any kind of infallible (or even authoritative) teaching. An example is the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima. The late "Fr" Gruner made a business out of peddling dire predictions for the world. I have material of his dating back to the late 1980s claiming "we only have a couple of years left" unless the "pope" (John Paul II) consecrates Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. That never happened and more than 20 years have passed since Wojtyla went to Judgement without any calamity taking place. Of course this never prevented Mr. Gruner from asking for the largest donation you could give as he shamelessly continued to predict the sky would fall "very shortly."

 According to another prediction of Fatima, "Portugal will never lose the Faith." One need only take a look at the present day European country to see that it has rejected the Faith for Vatican II, and has promulgated many evil "laws" such as murdering babies by abortion. There are no more Traditionalists there (in sheer number or proportionately) than in any other neo-pagan State. I do believe Our Lady appeared in Fatima to three children, but I refuse to try and discern "true" from "false" messages, or listen to all the conspiracy theories involved. Holding on to the Faith will save us, not private revelations--especially ones laced with fearful consequences for those who refuse to propagate those messages.

 Some General Principles About Private Revelations

As explained by theologian Volksen in detail, and reproduced by me in outline form, some of the pertinent criteria in discerning private revelations are:

1. Every revelation must be rejected a priori if its context is opposed to Church teaching. In places where the Scripture speaks most explicitly of the discernment of spirits and where it urges Christians to "try the spirits if they be of God," it gives only one criterion which is of a doctrinal nature. "By this the spirit of God is known: every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God: and every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God." (1 John 4: 2-3). That must be understood as teaching that every private revelation which does not confess Christ as God, and in anyway derogates ("dissolveth") Him by rejecting the teaching of His One True Church, is not of God and must be rejected.

2. A medical examination of all seers should be had to determine physical and psychological soundness. If the seers are healthy in mind and body, this constitutes support for a favorable judgement. If it can be established that the seer(s) showed all the symptoms of hysteria or other mental illness when receiving the revelations, a favorable judgement cannot be reached.

3. The seers should have deep humility (not seeking self-glorification), be obedient to proper ecclesiastical authority, and have fortitude. Fortitude is necessary, as the seer(s) will be pressured to recant and in many cases persecuted/threatened (e.g., St. Bernadette and the three children of Fatima). While they need not be saints, they should display innocence and piety.

4. The revelations must be of a serious nature and not frivolous or overly concerned with mundane things.

5. Any indication of natural explanations and/or fraud must be ruled out to allow for a supernatural character.

(See Visions, Revelations, and the Church [1961] by theologian Volken). 

N.B. While an approved private revelation may be disbelieved, it is not contrary to Faith and Morals, and may not be attributed to demonic activities or Satanic origin.

If there is a true pope, when he approves an apparition as "worthy of belief," we cannot declare it the work of Satan. You can choose not to believe at all, but that's foolish. The pope is protected by the Holy Ghost from giving error and evil to the Church. Error and evil is all the devil works for, so that nothing that comes from the devil can ever have papal approval; the Holy Ghost would prohibit it. 

The Meaning and Role of Private Revelations

Definition of Private Revelation and Its Usefulness

According to theologian Volken, a private revelations are heavenly and verbal manifestations of the Divine Will made to man in an extraordinary way in order to direct human activity in a particular situation of life of private persons or of humanity in general. Theologian Volken goes on to explain what this definition means in detail. Heavenly refers to the agent(s) which must be either an intermediary of God such as angels, saints, the Blessed Mother, or God Himself, as was the case with Christ's revelations regarding His Most Sacred Heart. 

Verbal manifestations means that it cannot be purely visual; something audible either to the human ear or directly to the brain must be heard. Divine Will designates the object of the revelations. The subject of the revelation is Man whether that is a singular person, several people, children, adults, clerics, laymen, etc. The manifestation is made in an extraordinary way to the recipient, not through the Magisterium.  Direct human activity in a particular situation of life means that God intervenes to help either a private person(s) or humanity in general to do something beneficial to eternal salvation given the current situation in the world. Hence, Christ sent His Mother to the children at Fatima to warn humanity about the reality of Hell (the belief in which had begun to wane substantially) and introduce devotion to Mary's Immaculate Heart as a special spiritual remedy. (See Visions, Revelations, and the Church [1961], pgs. 231-233). 

Volken reminds us that private revelations "cannot commit the Church or the Divine and Catholic Faith which has for its object the unaltered mysteries, revealed once for all time." (Ibid, pgs. 232-233). In other words, they are not part of the Deposit of Faith, and no private revelation, including those deemed "worthy of belief" by the Church, need to be accepted by Catholics. 

How Private Revelations are Abused

Volken hits the nail on the head, I believe, as to why Catholics become obsessive over private revelations. The more precious a good thing is, the more dangerous is its abuse. And revelations are a very precious things for they help us to conform our lives to the plan which God has for us in a particular situation. They are equally precious because of the way in which they act upon men. They come as a surprise and engage Man's feelings and his attention in such a way that they are effective in cases where other methods would not be. 

It is chiefly here that abuses creep in. Normally speaking, Man loves change (varietas delectat). He flees from the boredom that comes from the monotony of the actions of ordinary life. He feels the need for some new experience, some event, some sensation. In the spiritual life especially, in those periods of dryness when it becomes necessary to live by pure faith, the danger of abusing revelations is great. There are Christians who have an irresistible need to feel, to see, if possible, something staggering.  (Ibid, pgs. 257-258; Emphasis in original). This love of change and drive to experience something unique often will cause people to believe anyone who claims to have a private revelation, and it makes it equally interesting for them to try and "discern the true meanings" of approved private revelations, e.g., what did the Blessed Mother really mean when she said Portugal will always keep the Faith during her appearance at Fatima, etc. 

Another lure of private revelations is the idea of "get holy fast" spirituality that is wrongly attributed to devotions that emanate from such revelations.  As I stated above, I believe in the apparitions at Fatima. I wear the Five-Fold Scapular, have devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray the Rosary daily (adding the Fatima prayer at the end of each decade), and attend the First Saturday Mass whenever I can. These devotions are meant to be things that will bring us closer to God and His Mother, and I recommend them all to Traditionalists. However, there are those who treat these devotions incorrectly and in a superstitious manner. Some think that as long as they wear the Scapular and go to the Five First Saturdays, they can live like heathens, commit mortal sin with impunity, and they will go to Heaven because they have turned the devotion into some "license to sin." 

Principles Applied to False Private Revelations

Garabandal. An alleged apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary to four young girls from 1961-1965. The girls were Mari Loli Mazon (b. 1949 – d. 2009), Jacinta Gonzalez (b.1949), Mari Cruz Gonzalez (b.1950) and Maria "Conchita" Concepción Gonzalez (b.1949). 

The main message from "Mary" was this:

We must make many sacrifices, perform much penance, and visit the Blessed Sacrament frequently. But first, we must lead good lives. If we do not, a chastisement will befall us. The cup is already filling up, and if we do not change, a very great chastisement will come upon us.

There are predicted three great events that will befall humanity:

• The Great Warning, when all living people will see their sins, as if reflected in a mirror, and will understand what they must do to repent
• The Great Miracle, which will take place within one year of the Great Warning. It will leave a permanent sign in Garabandal, which can be seen and photographed, but not touched or explained by science
• The Great Chastisement, which is something horrible that will befall the world if humanity does not properly respond to the Warning and Miracle.

Nothing overtly heretical, but upon examination, much is wrong with both the events that surrounded said messages, and the so-called "seers" themselves.

Disturbing Events:

• When they went into "ecstasy" and had visions, they were bent over backwards and walked that way so quickly, many of the villagers had a hard time keeping up by running forwards.

• The “Virgin” asked that the girls not bring blessed sacramentals [rosaries, crucifixes, etc.], because she wanted to bless these objects herself. The vision is reported to have blessed and kissed hundreds of objects, such as pebbles, which were treated as "sacramentals." This is troubling for two reasons: first, because only blessed sacramentals affect the devil and fallen angels; second, the Blessed Virgin Mary is not a priest and therefore she cannot confer a priestly blessing--especially upon mundane objects like pebbles.

• At the death of Roncalli (John XXIII), many people wished the Council to end. Conchita said that she knew that the next "pope" would continue the Council, and she was happy about it.

• Conchita reportedly said the Blessed Mother "played hide and seek" with her.

• All four children signed a document with the Vatican II bishop agreeing with the findings of the Vatican II sect and promising never to promote the apparitions again. Does that sound like something real seers would do? The children at Fatima refused to retract what they had seen and heard even when an evil man threatened to kill them unless they did so. The girls at Garabandal later retracted their retraction. 

• Two of the seers, Mari-Loli and Jacinta went into the woods on the edge of town. They went into ecstasy on their knees and they shouted to "Mary," --"Don't tell us these things!" They then screamed all night in such a terrifying manner that the whole village was up and afraid to approach them. The other two seers remained in the village. This went on the following night. Consider this: What could be more frightening than seeing Hell? Yet when the three children at Fatima were shown Hell by the Blessed Mother, there was no screaming. And why would the Blessed Mother inflict such fear for two whole nights? I can only imagine how frightening seeing little girls bent backwards in the woods at night screaming at the sky with unearthly sounds for hours must be.

• The Garabandal messages acknowledge the validity of Vatican II, the false religion it created, and its false popes.

Serious Problems with the "Seers:"

• The apparitions began when the girls were committing mortal sin by stealing apples

• The children would often open their mouths and stick out their tongues while St. Michael the Archangel would give them "invisible Holy Communion." To end the incredulity of some, Conchita claimed God would prove this was true. On July 18, 1962, during a nighttime ecstasy, there is film footage of what appears to be a Communion Host appearing on Conchita's tongue which she then consumes. Conchita reportedly admitted to Father J. Pelletier that she herself had stolen the Host from the tabernacle of the Church and placed It on the roof of her mouth, letting It drop down on her tongue for the so-called "mystical Communion." 

•  In 1966 Conchita wanted to enter the Carmelite Convent in Pamplona. "Jesus" told her to go back to the world (!) 

• Two of the "seers" admitted to hiding a statue of the Blessed Mother in the woods so they could claim Mary told them where to go and find it. They did this (allegedly) because they were jealous that "Mary" talked to Conchita the most.

• Where are the seers today? Mari Loli Mazon came to the United States and lived in New Hampshire until her death in 2009, just before turning 60 years old. Jacinta González became Jacinta Moynihan and lives with her husband and daughter in California. Mari Cruz González lives in Aviles, Spain with her husband and four children. Conchita made a museum of her house in Garabandal. She has since sold that house and owns a house in New York with her husband and a flat in Fatima as well. Compare that with St. Bernadette in Lourdes. Conchita (like the others) all attend the Vatican II sect. Sadly, Conchita lives within an hour of the SSPV, SSPX, and Fr. DePauw's Ave Maria Chapel, none of which she will attend, because she fully accepts Vatican II.

Medjugorje.  The alleged apparitions began on June 24, 1981 in the small town of Medjugorje in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The "seers" were four boys and two girls; to wit: Mirjana Dragicevic, Marija Pavlovic, Vicka Ivankovic, Ivan Dragicevic, Ivanka Ivankovic and Jakov Colo. Three were born in 1965, one in 1964, one in 1966, and one in 1971. According to the official website medjugorje.org: The BVM has come there "In Her own words She tells us, 'I have come to tell the world that God exists. He is the fullness of life, and to enjoy this fullness and peace, you must return to God'"

Problems with the "Gospa" ("Our Lady") and the Messages

• Ivan claimed that the hands of the Gospa "trembled." This is clearly out of character for the serene Queen of Heaven, and she was not making a point about something; e.g., how people will tremble with horror for their sins, etc. That was simply how he perceived her.

• The Gospa said nothing at the beginning of her appearances. Then she would merely answer questions from the visionaries. This is a complete departure from all approved apparitions whereby Mary had a mission and was never there for a "question and answer" session.

• The visionaries claimed to be able to "kiss and touch" the Gospa, while she "laughed." In approved apparitions, Mary has occasionally been said to smile, but not laugh, nor was she "kissed and touched." (reminiscent of  Garabandal above where the phony seers said Mary "played hide and go seek.") 

• It is asserted that one of the visionaries sprinkled the Gospa with Holy Water to make sure she wasn't a demon in disguise. Later, Vicka claimed it was only ordinary water but "contained some blessed salt."

• Unlike all approved apparitions, the Gospa of Medjugorje appeared only gradually out of some orbs of light (sometimes a "blue mist"), as if she were composed of it. By contrast, in approved apparitions, Mary appears immediately with any light being totally distinct from her. 

• The Gospa would "bless" the religious objects from pilgrims (as the visionaries collected donations), and impart to the six a "special grace" they could then give unto others. Only priests can bless religious objects, and Mary is not a priest. Imparting "special grace" (whatever that means) to have the six visionaries impose hands and pass it on sounds like an imitation sacrament from ersatz "priests" and "priestesses"

• The Gospa would "burst into spontaneous laughter"

• The Gospa would recite the Our Father with the visionaries. This is heretical and blasphemous to suggest. How could Mary ask God to "forgive us our trespasses" when she is without stain of sin?

• Why is it taking more than 40 years--with no end in sight--for the Gospa to reveal her message to the world? Mary always gave a message in a short time in all approved apparitions. Whereas Fatima had three secrets given in less than a year, the Gospa has sixty (60) to give, and most of the content is virtually unknown to this day. 

No Saintly Seers Here

• Unlike the seers of approved apparitions, the visions began with disobedient and sinful teenagers. Only one (Jakov Colo) was a true child at the time, being ten years of age. The average age of an approved seer is eleven, and those who were older led virtuous lives like St. Catherine Laboure, who was a holy nun of 24 when the Immaculate Virgin started appearing to her. These false "visionaries" (as they called themselves) were materialistic, disinterested in religion, and corrupted by the influences of the world in the 1980s

• The first vision was allegedly seen by Mirjana (age 16) and Ivanka (age 17) when they saw a light which Ivanka claimed to be the Gospa. What were these two young teenage girls doing prior to this event? They had each stolen cigarettes from their father and went to smoke and listen to evil rock music. (Similar to the false apparition of Garabandal where the seers had stolen apples prior to the first "vision") 

• It was claimed, on reliable testimony, that Mirjana both used drugs and gave them to others

• The visionaries were caught in numerous discrepancies ("lies") about various aspects of their experiences. They also claimed they were oblivious to anything when in "ecstasy" watching the Gospa

• When in an "ecstasy" staring at the ceiling of the church where the Gospa was present (1985), a pilgrim named Jean-Louis Martin, was able to get near and went close to Vicka's eye with his finger as if to poke her. She jerked her head back and ran out of the room. She came back to explain that it wasn't the finger of Martin that made her move her head and run away, it was the impression she got that the Gospa was about to drop the Infant Jesus she was holding. God can't "fall," and Mary can't "drop the Divine Child." The very idea is manifestly absurd. In addition, none of the other visionaries thought this was happening. The discrepancy was never explained. Their "spiritual director"  had the "apparition room" of the church closed to the public after that day

• Threats: Ivan said in a letter to the Vatican II sect "bishop" who was refusing to approve the apparitions, that the Gospa demanded his "immediate conversion" and that he should stop emphasizing the "negative side" of Medjugorje (how could a visitation of Mary have anything "negative"?), otherwise she and her Son would punish him.

• Vicka had frequent headaches and blackouts. In the opinion of the medical authorities who examined her, it was the result of an "hysterical stupor" and a psychologically unhealthy need of attention. Not only was she deemed psychologically unstable, she was ignorant of basic religious truths, such as the significance of the Annunciation. Yet we are to believe Mary appeared to her on a daily basis.

• When their "spiritual director," the invalidly ordained "Fr." Vlasic, wanted to start a "mixed-sex religious community" in 1987, Mirija said the Gospa approved of such an abomination. The V2 priest started it with a woman named Agnes Heupel. When the Vatican II sect "bishop" ordered it closed, Marija retracted her statement in a writing in which she stated, "My first statement (about approval from the Gospa)...does not correspond to the truth" (Letter of July 11, 1988; Emphasis mine). Her change of heart might be explained by the fact that Vlasic and Heupel shared a room together which was locked at night. It is rumored that Mirija caught the couple having sex and didn't want the Medjugorje events damaged by such a revelation. Hence, her prior and clearly articulated approval (which came from Mary) was somehow "misunderstood" and not a lie

• Unlike the seers of approved apparitions, none of the six visionaries became nuns, priests, or brothers. They were worldly and made huge sums of money off those with a dangerous desire for the miraculous. All kinds of "relics," religious articles, books, and even tours of Medjugorje made them opulent. The promoters of Medjugorje stated on the official website, "I know Marija, Vicka, and Ivan all seriously considered a religious vocation, but after much prayer, they discerned that their vocation was married life. We should not consider the decision to be parents and to bring life into the world a less important or holy vocation than a religious vocation."  (Emphasis mine) Compare the infallible decree of Trent: On Matrimony: CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema. It was also stated on the official website: "Ivanka was the first to decide that her calling was married life, and asked for Our Lady's blessing. Our Lady joyfully gave Ivanka her blessing, and added that she had chosen the harder path for her life." (Emphasis mine). 

• Today, the visionaries live in mansions with double garages and security gates, and one even has a private tennis court. They drive fancy cars (BMWs)  go on frequent and expensive foreign trips, and all have married. Ivan married a former Miss Massachusetts, Loreen Murphy, a beauty queen who dresses immodestly. He is obese (so much for frequent fasting); and this, by the way, is "the harder path for [their] life." 

Principles Applied to an Approved Private Revelation

Fatima. Lucia dos Santos, Jacinta and Francisco Marto were the three young Portuguese shepherds Our Lady of Fatima appeared to in 1917. Our Lady emphasized prayer, penance, the Rosary, Scapular, and the devotion of the First Five Saturdays. There was nothing contrary to Faith or Morals. 

There were no problems with the messages or seers, all three of whom gave evidence of great sanctity. Both Francisco and Jacinta predicted their early deaths. They accepted much suffering and an early death to make sacrifices for sinners and to appease God. Lucia became a very holy nun. 

You need not believe in Fatima, but there is great evidence that something supernatural happened, and it was given papal approval in 1940 by Pope Pius XII. There are those who attack it as "of the devil" which is blasphemous and impossible, since the Holy Ghost would protect the Holy Father from approving as "worthy of belief" anything that comes from Hell. To claim that Fatima is from Hell would be an indirect denial of the Indefectibility of the Church--i.e., the Church cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to Her members. If, ad arguendo, the apparition at Fatima didn't happen, it didn't produce anything contrary to Faith and Morals. Yet, it if came from Satan, there would have to be things contrary to Faith and/or morals, because the adversary of mankind does not do anything for our benefit. 

One of the most disturbing and reprehensible attacks I've heard was that occultists predicted the apparitions at Fatima. A commenter repeated that contention in a recent post (he claimed he heard about it, not that he claimed it was true). The source of the occult claim originates with a blasphemous article entitled  "Why Pay Any Attention To Fatima?" (See https://www.cogwriter.com/FatimaShock2Chapters.pdf). 

The source of the article is the website cogwriter.com, by Dr. Bob Thiel. Thiel was originally part of the "Worldwide Church of God"(WCG) sect, run by Herbert W. Armstrong (d. 1986). "Armstrongism" was an eclectic mix  of mainline Protestantism and Seventh Day Adventist teachings, along with what Armstrong himself would say as the self-declared "Prophet of God on Earth." WCG teachings included the necessity of observing Mosaic dietary laws to be saved, denial of the Most Holy Trinity, avoidance of doctors and medicine, observing Saturday as the Sabbath, and denial of divorce (of course, when Armstrong wanted a divorce, that teaching changed, and he also went to doctors and took medicine while prohibiting his followers from doing it, living to the age of 93).  

After Armstrong's death, many new sects came from dissatisfaction among his high-ranking members, one such being the aforementioned Bob Thiel. Thiel founded the "Continuing Church of God" or "CCG." His sect rejects the Holy Ghost as God, and has many strange teachings similar to Armstrong.

(See ccog.org/statement-of-beliefs-of-the-continuing-church-of-god/). 

The article, Why Pay Any Attention To Fatima? (hereinafter WPATF), doesn't list an author. It appears to be a chapter of a book, but I could not locate it. The fact that it appears on a website run by Thiel means either (a) he is the author, or (b) he approves the content as it is on his site. He appears to be the author since you will find a short bio and picture of him on the last page. There is no mention of his religious affiliation.  I knew something was off prior to finding out this information. For example, the article claims that the apparition could not be "the Mary of the Bible." Also used to describe her are the phrases "Mother of Jesus," and once "Mother of Christ" but never the Mother of GOD, Our Blessed Mother, and other distinct Catholic titles. The article informs us:

Learning the truth about the shocking messages of Fatima could save you and your loved ones from making horrible mistakes.

What, exactly, would those "mistakes" be? Praying the Rosary? Wearing the Scapular? Making reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary? It never tells us, but wants us to believe Our Lady of Fatima was a demonic deception. 

WPATF states:

A group of occult psychics in Portu, Portugal claimed that “something transcendental” would occur on May 13,1917. And this was published in the Portuguese newspaper Jornal de Notícias. There was another prediction claimed to have been written on February 7, 1917 in Furtado de Mendonça, Portugal by way of “automatic writing” that moved the psychic’s hand and wrote the following backwards (and in Portuguese):

The day of May 13th will be one of great happiness for the good souls of the world…Always at your side shall ye have your friends, who will guide your steps and who will assist ye in your

work…The brilliant light of the Morning Star will illuminate the path.

~ Stella Matutina

So the above occult prophecy claimed that a lightbringer would illuminate a path on May 13, 1917. Stella is Latin for star. Matutina is associated with the morning. It may be relevant to note that the name Lucifer means lightbringer, and he is associated in sacred scripture with both the morning and stars (Isaiah 14:12-13), as well as becoming known as Satan the devil (Revelation 12:9). Although Jesus is also called the “Morning Star” (Revelation 22:16), using the type of automatic backward writing to reveal His mother does not seem to be biblically appropriate (cf. Isaiah 8:19-20), hence it should not be concluded that this Stella Matutina was Jesus. (See WPATF, pg. 33).

What is the source of this information? I referenced the book in the endnotes, Celestial Secrets: The Hidden History of the Fatima Incident (2007) by Joaquim Fernandes and Fina D'Armada. The authors believe that Our Lady was actually an alien sent by a UFO. There is a trio of books (this one and two others) attempting to prove this whacky thesis. Moreover, the books are promoted by  Andrew D. Basiago, a "UFOlogist." Besides an attempted run for President of the U.S. in 2016, Basiago claims he:

• Can teleport himself through time and space
• Has made contact with Bigfoot
• Went to Mars in 1981 and converses with Martians who live there 

(See, e.g.,https://www.inverse.com/article/14577-confessed-time-traveler-andrew-basiago-is-running-for-president-knows-he-ll-win)

These are the people we are supposed to believe over Church authority regarding Fatima. The trilogy is itself occult (talking to "beings from other worlds"--more than likely demons if not delusions of mental illness) and used by Thiel to make Fatima look "demonic." Moreover, occultists will often use the superior knowledge of demons to make something true appear false and vice-versa--if such an occult prediction even happened. No less than 20 of Thiel's 96 endnotes reference this occult book.  

The only thing "occult" about Fatima is that occultists have attacked it. 

Conclusion

The scandals that can come from distorting the importance of private revelations should be manifest. First are those who exalt private revelations/apparitions whether approved by the Church (such as Our Lady of Fatima and Our Lady of Lourdes) or not (such as Our Lady of the Roses or Garabandal) over the teaching of the Church. It should be painfully apparent how placing these apparitions over doctrine will inevitably lead people into error (usually by being trapped in the falsehood of the Vatican II sect).  People also fail to learn the Faith because they want to know the "true meaning" of the "Third Secret," or how some alleged saying of the Blessed Mother squares with the Bible.

Second, there are those claiming that approved revelations/apparitions are the work of the devil. If there is a true pope, when he approves an apparition as "worthy of belief," we cannot declare it the work of Satan. You can choose not to believe at all, but that's foolish. The pope is protected by the Holy Ghost from giving error and evil to the Church. Error and evil is all the devil works for, so that nothing that comes from the devil can ever have papal approval; the Holy Ghost would prohibit it.

In my opinion, private revelations should be seen as helps to get to Heaven. Take away the good general message, e.g., praying the Rosary, wearing the Scapular, making reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary through the first Five Saturdays devotion, etc. Don't worry about "the true meaning" of such and such that the Blessed Mother was supposed to have said. On the other hand, don't give scandal by declaring an approved apparition as "evil" or "of the devil" and tacitly deny the Indefectibility of the Church. Spend your time on Earth wisely by learning and practicing the Faith. In this time of Great Apostasy, with no pope to guide us, private revelations can be very dangerous.

Old Errors And Old Catholics

 

An old error is enjoying a resurgence of sorts. The R&R is attempting to "prove" that a pope can be a heretic. Having been frustrated that their position is refuted over and over by Catholic theology, some former R&R now take a new tack. They claim Traditional Catholic teaching regarding the papacy is itself heretical. Pope Pius IX was allegedly a Freemason and false pope. The teaching of the Vatican Council of 1870 was heretical, imposed by "Ultramontanists." This enabled the Masons to orchestrate Vatican II and no one could call the pope a heretic. Here is a recent comment I received on my post of 1/12/26, "Recognizing And Resisting The Errors of R&R:"

You're all ridiculous. Old Catholicism is the only thing that actually makes sense. Pius IX was a Freemason, on the books as such in their ledgers, and could not be Pope. The robber council of Vatican I forced things in such a way that Pastor Aeternus could never be denied by the gathering of bishops. Pius IX is even recorded as saying that if the Council didn't agree to the "dogma" that he would "clarify" it himself as he did the Immaculate Conception!

The first rupture was Vatican I. Holding the council in a place where the older, more infirm bishops could not stay or participate for the entire length of the event was a calculated move to make sure only Ultramontanists could get in, then they with their Masonic collaborators could create the chimeric abomination that is the Vatican II pseudo-church we see today.

Taking the statements and actions of the Pian Popes in-line, it's obvious to see that they were all for the reform, and establishing an ever firmer Papal power structure that nobody could resist and still call themselves Catholic. Pius X taught very clearly that if you are not in complete agreement with the rites and teachings of the Pope, you are no longer Catholic.

Pius XII, in Mediator Dei, Paragraph 58:

"It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification. Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship. Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, which involve the religious life of Christian society, the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; nor may they be allowed to set up customs that may lead to the introduction of theological errors, or a tendency to a separate sect, or any other deviation highly harmful to the faith."

Pope Leo XIII says as much, in his Sapientiae Christianae:

"In settling how far the limits of obedience extend, let no one imagine that the belief that the teachings of the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops must be obeyed only in those matters which the Church has decreed by solemn definition...

"For, in the making of a Christian, after the necessity of believing, there comes next the obligation of being in complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself.

"...Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself. This obedience should, however, be perfect... and must be such as no one can even call in question."

As does Pius XII, in Humani Generis:

"Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: 'He who heareth you, heareth me'; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine.

"But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question free for discussion among theologians."

Since the "Popes" defined these matters as to leave zero room for calling them heretics, and those who proclaim their Catholicism in light of Vatican I agree to all the above at least tacitly — if not explicitly, as shown in your article — all Sedevacantists are Protestants by their own judgment.

Therefore, Old Catholicism "makes sense" and sedevacantists are "Protestants." 

In this post, I will refute the contentions as expressed by the commenter. (N.B. The material herein was taken from many sources, both online and in print. I take no credit for the information. All I did was condense it into a terse and readable post. I also wish to credit Mr. Mario Derksen of the amazing Traditionalist website Novus Ordo Watch for having done top-notch research on the topic of Pope Pius IX and his alleged Masonic membership. I was able to find and use some of the excellent works he cited.---Introibo). 

Was Pope Pius IX a Freemason?

In a word: NO! This calumny has been around way before certain people decided to revive the evil accusations against a good and holy pope.  I will examine three aspects: (a) the cause of the accusation; (b) who started the accusations; (c) the demonstrated falsity of the accusations.

(a) Why was Pope Pius IX accused of Freemasonry?

Pope Pius IX was frequently called a "liberal," and the following incident earned him that appellation by some, as cited in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia:

In 1831 when 4000 Italian revolutionists fled before the Austrian army and threatened to throw themselves upon Spoleto, the archbishop [Mastai-Ferretti] persuaded them to lay down their arms and disband, induced the Austrian commander to pardon them for their treason, and gave them sufficient money to reach their homes…. His great charity and amiability had made him beloved by the people, while his friendship with some of the revolutionists had gained for him the name of liberal. (See entry "Pope Pius IX"). 

According to journalist and historian Yves Chiron:

[There were] three different currents of thought. 1) The ‘Austrian’ party, which favored the extension of Austrian rule over all the Legations. 2) The ‘papal’ or ‘sanfedist’ party (which defended the pope and the ‘holy faith’), which not only sought to preserve the pope’s temporal authority in these territories, but also favored the domination of the clergy in social and political areas. 3) The ‘liberal’ party, which wanted to see the end of the pope’s temporal power or, at least, wide reforms in all areas. At that time the term ‘liberal’ included a great diversity of political doctrines and programs…. Msgr. Mastai did not support any of these three parties, in spite of what has been said by some of his contemporaries who, when he was elected to the Sovereign Pontificate, presented him as a "liberal." Some months after he arrived in Imola, in a letter to his friend and neighbor Cardinal Falconieri, Archbishop of Ravenna, he gave a very description of his ‘golden mean’ approach: ‘I detest and abominate, in the very marrow of my bones, the liberals’ ideas and actions; but I have no sympathy, either, for the fanaticism of the so-called ‘papalist’ party. The golden mean, the Christian golden mean — and not the diabolical golden mean which is fashionable today — is the path I would like to follow, with the Lord’s help. But shall I succeed in this?’ [Letter of June 3, 1833]” (See Pope Pius IX: The Man and the Myth, [2005], pgs. 558-59; Emphasis mine). 

The accusation is clearly inaccurate and false. "Liberal" did not signify "Freemason." Rather, it was a calumny leveled at him by his enemies.

(b) Freemasons started the accusations:

Pius IX had given an allocution on September 25, 1865, entitled Multiplices Inter Machinationes, in which he severely condemned Masonry and the Masons’ wicked secret scheming. It reads in part:

In this situation, fearing that imprudent men, and especially the youth, allow themselves to be misled, and that Our silence occasion anyone to protect error, We have resolved, Venerable Brethren, to raise Our apostolic voice; and, confirming here, before you, the constitutions of Our predecessors, by Our apostolic authority, We reprove and condemn this Masonic society and the others of the same kind, which, while differing in appearance, gather every day for the same goal, and conspire either openly or clandestinely against the Church and the legitimate authorities; and We order under the same penalties as those specified in the preceding constitutions of Our predecessors all Christians of every condition, every rank, every dignity, and every country, to regard these same societies as proscribed and condemned by Us. Now there only remains for Us, in order to satisfy the desires and solicitude of Our paternal heart, to warn and exhort the faithful who would associate themselves with sects of this kind of the necessity to obey wiser inspirations and to abandon these baneful secret meetings, so that they not be led into the abyss of eternal ruin. 

The Freemasons were enraged:

In the months that followed this public condemnation of Freemasonry, several Masonic publications in France and Italy, intent on revenge, propagated the story that Pius IX himself, in his youth, had been a Freemason. Apparently it was the Lodge of Palermo that first put out the accusation… In France, the journal Le Monde Maçonnique immediately went into print with this information (See Chiron, Ibid, pgs. 217-218). 

(c) Falsity of the Masonic claims against His Holiness Pope Pius IX:

From the book A Study in American Freemasonry, edited by Arthur Preuss, [1908], pgs. 267-272, it describes in detail how the enemies of the pope began the calumny against him:

“It started in Germany,” says John Gilmary Shea, in his Life of Pope Pius IX, pp. 291, 292, “and they thought that by putting the scene in America, they would escape detection. They declared positively that Pius IX had been received into a Masonic lodge in Philadelphia, cited his discourses, and declared that a number of his autographs were preserved in the lodge. Unfortunately for the story, Philadelphia is in the civilized world. People there could read and write. They examined and found that there was no Masonic lodge in that city by the name given; they found that no lodge in Philadelphia had ever received John Mary Mastai [Pius IX’s baptismal name]; they could find no trace of his ever having been there, as he never was; no lodge had any of his autograph letters; Masons themselves attested that the whole was a pure invention. The slander thus refuted has been revived from time to time, but in later versions, care is taken not to specify the lodge or city too distinctly.”

Did the 1870 Vatican Council Teach Heresy?

Once more, the answer is a resounding NO! The "Ultramontanists" (i.e., those who believed in the supremacy of the pope on matters of faith, morals, and governance. The term originates from "beyond the mountains" [referring to the Alps], as Rome was viewed from northern Europe) were just Catholics while the Gallicans (who denigrated papal authority) were heretics. 

 The idea that the definition of papal supremacy and infallibility were "invented," or not the dogmatic view of the Church, is simply wrong. It was taught from the beginning of the Church. The commenter is a Vacancy Pusher, claiming that all popes since at least Pope Pius IX were false popes. So what of these pontiffs below? 

1302 Pope Boniface VIII: Unam Sanctam (ex cathedra):

Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

If submission to the pope is necessary for salvation, then the pope must be the standard of faith whereby we can be safely guided to Heaven. If he could teach heresy, there's no difference between a sect (e.g., Lutherans) that lead people to Hell, and the Catholic Church with a "heretical pope." 

There are numerous actions taken by the popes far prior to the 1800s that show the development of the doctrine:

• Therefore, we ask first: if you believed, do you believe, or are you prepared to believe with the Armenian Church that obeys you, that blessed Peter received the most complete power of jurisdiction over all faithful Christians from the Lord Jesus Christ, and that all the power of jurisdiction that Jude Thaddeus and the other Apostles had in certain lands and provinces and different parts of the world in a special and particular way was subject to the most complete authority and power that blessed Peter received from the Lord Jesus Christ himself over all believers in Christ in all parts of the world, and that no apostle or anyone else received the most complete power over all Christians except Peter alone? (Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, 1351)

• Secondly : if you have believed, have held, or are you prepared to believe and hold, with the Armenians subject to you, that all the Roman Pontiffs who have canonically entered and will canonically enter succeeding Blessed Peter, have succeeded and will succeed Blessed Peter the Roman Pontiff in the same fullness of jurisdiction and power that Blessed Peter himself received from the Lord Jesus Christ over the whole and entire body of the Church Militant? (Ibid)

• Third: if you and the Armenians subject to you believed and still believe that the Roman Pontiffs who were and We who are the Roman Pontiff and those who will be successively in the future, as legitimate and most powerful Vicars of Christ, received all the potentative jurisdiction that Christ as the conformed Head had in human life, immediately from Christ Himself over the whole and entire Body of the Church Militant? (Ibid)

• That blessed Peter the Apostle had no more authority than the other Apostles had nor was he the head of the other apostles. Likewise that God did not send forth any head of the Church, nor did He make anyone His vicar. (Pope John XXII condemning the errors of Marsilius of Padua, 1327)

• We likewise define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world; and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, and that he is the head of the entire Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church; just as is contained in the acts of the ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons. (Council of Florence, 1439)

For anyone interested in a complete refutation of the Gallican heretics at the Vatican Council of 1870, read Anti-Janus by theologian Hergenrother. It was a defense against a tract by the Gallicans entitled The Pope and the Council ---written by an apostate theologian Ignaz von Dollinger, under the pseudonym "Janus."  Those minority of prelates and theologians who were against Pastor Aeternus fell into two categories: those who thought the time was "inopportune" as it would agitate anti-Catholic bias, and those who claimed it "went too far" and was "not taught from the beginning of the Church" were heretics. St. Anthony Mary Claret, a Council Father, did not hesitate to call them such.  There's no way around the definition of Florence. Papal infallibility was so proximate to the Faith, there was no way to deny it without committing a mortal sin. 

Objection: If the Vatican Council of 1870 taught the truth, and its development subsequent to 1870 is true, then we have "zero room for calling them [V2 "popes"] heretics," as the commenter wrote, and sedevacantists are "Protestants" for picking and choosing which popes are heretics. 

Reply:

False. At the Vatican Council of 1870, Archbishop John B. Purcell related the following:

The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.

If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.

(See McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII, [1903], pg. 241). 

A famous R&R "boogeyman": Sedevacantism "judges" the pope. As a procedural matter the R&R is correct, "The First See is judged by no one" as Canon 1556 of the 1917 Code clearly states. As explained by canonist Cappello, "Immunity of the Roman Pontiff. 'The First See is judged by no one.' (Canon 1556). This concerns the Apostolic See or the Roman Pontiff who by the divine law itself enjoys full and absolute immunity." (See Summa Juris Canonici 3:19.) However, a pope who becomes a manifest heretic loses his office by DIVINE LAW, and an apostate, like Bergoglio, cannot attain the office. This is the teaching of all pre-Vatican II canonists and theologians. (To name but a few, Van Noort, Coronata, Dorsch, Iragui, Prümmer, Regatillo, Salaverri, and Zubizarreta).  Sedevacantists depose no one, we just recognize a fact that has already happened.

So a true pope cannot be a heretic. The converse is also true, a heretic cannot be a true pope. Even laymen  can and should recognize heresy. Theologian Sarda y Salvany clearly teaches this in his theological work entitled Liberalism is a Sin. The book was published in 1886. It was endorsed and praised by the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation of the Index under Pope Leo XIII. Here's what Chapter 32, "Liberalism and Authority in Particular Cases" has to say:

Yes, human reason, to speak after the manner of theologians, has a theological place in matters of religion. Faith dominates reason, which ought to be subordinated to faith in everything. But it is altogether false to pretend that reason can do nothing, that it has no function at all in matters of faith; it is false to pretend that the inferior light, illumined by God in the human understanding, cannot shine at all because it does not shine as powerfully or as clearly as the superior light. Yes, the faithful are permitted and even commanded to give a reason for their faith, to draw out its consequences, to make applications of it, to deduce parallels and analogies from it. It is thus by use of their reason that the faithful are enabled to suspect and measure the orthodoxy of any new doctrine presented to them, by comparing it with a doctrine already defined. If it be not in accord, they can combat it as bad, and justly stigmatize as bad the book or journal which sustains it. They cannot of course define it ex cathedra, but they can lawfully hold it as perverse and declare it such, warn others against it, raise the cry of alarm and strike the first blow against it. The faithful layman can do all this, and has done it at all times with the applause of the Church. Nor in so doing does he make himself the pastor of the flock, nor even its humblest attendant; he simply serves it as a watchdog who gives the alarm. Opportet allatrare canes "It behooves watchdogs to bark," very opportunely said a great Spanish Bishop in reference to such occasions. (Emphasis mine).

Who are "Old Catholics"

"Old Catholics" 

General name for various national churches that at different times separated from the Roman Catholic Church. Three main segments are distinguishable.

The Church of Utrecht in Holland, which separated from Rome in 1724. The immediate occasion for the break was the Jansenism of some of the Dutch Catholics, notably their archbishop, Petrus Codde (1648-1710).

The German, Austrian, and Swiss Old Catholics were organized after certain leaders in these countries rejected the two dogmas of papal infallibility and the universal ordinary magisterium, defined by the First Vatican Council in 1870. Their principal intellectual leader was John Joseph Ignatius Dollinger (1799-1890), Bavarian priest and Church historian. (N.B. Dollinger is pictured at the top of this post---Introibo). 

Slavic Old Catholic Churches, mainly Polish, Croat, and Yugoslav, came into existence in America and elsewhere because of alleged discrimination by Anglo-Saxon bishops, but also because of clerical celibacy.

The doctrinal basis of the Old Catholic Churches is the Declaration of Utrecht in 1889. Its main provisions are the rejection of the papal primacy and obligatory auricular confession; married clergy; and in general acceptance of the first seven ecumenical councils as adequate statements of the Christian faith.

In 1925 the Old Catholic communion formally recognized Anglican ordinations, and in 1932 entered into full communion with the Church of England, based on the Bonn Agreement of July 2, 1931.

(See Modern Catholic Dictionary by Hardon; a V2 sect source with the most terse and correct explanation).

Any examination of their beliefs and practices will show that they:

• Ordain women as "priests" and consecrate them as "bishops" 
• Accept sodomites as "normal" and not being sinful
• Have optional celibacy 
• All but eliminated Confession
• Are ecumenists 

Sounds like an even more advanced Vatican II sect. Yet the commenter praises the Old Catholics while denouncing the Vatican II sect; not too coherent. The Vatican II sect and Old Catholic sect are exactly what you get without a "ultramontane" pope. 

Pope Pius IX and Pope Leo XIII condemned Masonry and worked against it tirelessly thus preventing Vatican II and the Modernist takeover. No Mason would ever condemn the Lodge as Pope Pius IX did in his amazing Syllabus of Errors. 

Conclusion

The idea that Pope Pius IX was a Mason and pushed for stronger papal authority so that Vatican II could transpire 84 years after his death, can now be seen for what it is---nonsense on stilts. To think that this is how far (low?) people will go to avoid the inescapable conclusion of sedevacantism since the death of Pope Pius XII. Pray for them. 

Recognizing And Resisting The Errors Of R&R

 

Every now and again, it becomes necessary to revisit certain obstinate errors that continue to arise. One such error is the idea that you can recognize the Conciliar "popes" from Roncalli (John XXIII) to Prevost (Leo XIV) and yet decide what you will and won't obey/believe when he teaches. Recently, one of my readers was perturbed over this site: catholiccandle.org/2025/12/29/all-catholics-are-in-communion-with-the-pope/#sdfootnote19anc. 

I have addressed the errors of this particular site before. It's more of the same, tired, rehashed and refuted arguments. Nevertheless, those new to the One True Faith, or those who have not had the time to look more deeply into the issues might be understandably upset. Therefore, I will present some of these arguments from "Catholic Candle" to show the "light" of this candle comes from the deceptive flames of Hell. I've written on these issues in the past, but it never hurts to refresh the reasons that the "R&R" is not the Catholic position.

Catholic Candle: A 67 Year Interregnum is Impossible 

Catholic Candle (CC): Sedevacantists generally hold that Pope Pius XII has had no successors during the last 67 years.  In an attempt to avoid the contradiction between Vatican I’s infallible teaching and their own (false) theory, the sedevacantists simply label the last 67 years as a “papal interregnum”.

But if a sedevacantist would examine his position objectively, he would see that the supposed “facts” he asserts would not constitute a real interregnum but rather would be in an interruption in papal (monarchical) succession.  The sedevacantists assert that there will be a pope in some future time.  But their theory (viz., no pope now, but there will be a future pope) really supposes there would be (what historians call) a restoration of the (papal) monarchy which had been interrupted.

Reply: According to theologian Dorsch: "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…

Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate. These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine).

The most probable way of restoring the papacy is an "imperfect General Council." Some pre-Vatican II theologians pondered such a Council in the absence of cardinals. Indeed, theologian Van Noort pondered it as late as 1956 (See Dogmatic Theology 2: 276).

 Theologian Cajetan wrote: "...by exception and by supplementary manner this power [electing a pope], corresponds to the Church and to the Council, either by absence of Cardinal Electors, or because they are doubtful, or the election itself is uncertain, as it happened at the time of the schism."  (See De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii)

Theologian Billot wrote: "When it would be necessary to  proceed with the election, if it is impossible to follow the regulations of papal law, as was the case during the Great Western Schism, one can accept, without difficulty, that the power of election could be transferred to a...Council...Because natural law prescribes that, in such cases, the power of a superior is passed to the immediate inferior because this is absolutely necessary for the survival of the society and to avoid the tribulations of extreme need." (See De Ecclesia Christi).

It has been established at the Vatican Council of 1870 that the papacy must last until the end but not that there must always be a living pontiff on the Throne of St. Peter.  Furthermore, having a long interregnum is not inconsistent with having perpetual successors. There is a possibility of an end of the papal interregnum before the end of the world. According to theologian O'Reilly, one of the most orthodox and erudite theologians of the 19th century, in his 1882 book (written a scant twelve years after the Vatican Council), entitled The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays, he brings home this important point. On page 287, he writes in reference to the Great Western Schism:

There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance... nor ever with such a following...

The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. 

Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. 

We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree. (Emphasis mine).

So an interregnum of a long duration does nothing to affect the monarchial constitution of the One True Church. 

CC: Sedevacantism Cannot Be True Because The Church Must be Visible and Have Unity

CC: Because the Church will always be visible, and because unity of government is an element of the Mark of Unity by which the Church can always be known, the Church will always have a visible government, so that the true Church can be recognized by this Mark of Unity of Government.  

Because the Church’s government is visible and monarchical, “the Church, being a visible body, must have a visible head and centre of unity.” This is obviously true.  For the Church is not one, with a visible government, if it is unknown “who is in charge”.  In fact, governing authority is the efficient cause giving unity as one body to any society of men. 

For there is not one visible society if it consists of men united only by ideas and not by a unified, visible government.  That is why even basic catechisms teach us that the Catholic Church is “under one visible head.”

Reply: According to theologian Van Noort, "[The Church] enjoys a three-fold unity...unity of doctrine and profession, unity of communion, and unity of government." (See Dogmatic Theology [1956] 2:126; Emphasis in original). 

1. Doctrine and Profession of Faith

"The unity of Faith which Christ decreed without qualification consists in this, that everyone accepts the doctrines presented for belief by the Church's teaching office." (Ibid:127; Emphasis in original). Furthermore, "Christ demanded faith not just in some doctrines, but in all those doctrines which authority set up by Him should teach. Consequently, any distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental articles of belief is contrary to the mind and will of Christ...Furthermore...it is impossible to determine a sure standard for distinguishing fundamental from non-fundamental articles" (Ibid:128). 

2. Communion

"Christ willed that His Church enjoy unity of communion or of (social) charity which consists in this, that all members of the Church, whether as individuals or as particular groups, mutually cohere like the finely articulated parts of one moral body, one family, one single society. It follows from this that they all share the same common benefits: sacrifice [Mass], sacraments, intercession." (Ibid:128)

3. Government

"Christ willed that His Church enjoy unity of rule (hierarchical unity) which consists in this, that all members of the Church obey one and the same visible authority." (Ibid:130)  

Anticipating the objections of  the R&R (as well as Vatican II apologists), who will claim that the Mark of Unity as expressed by the Church does not apply to the sedevacantists because (1) we have different groups (SSPV, CMRI, etc.) and (2) we don't have a visible authority to follow, a couple of responses are in order. 

In a prolonged state of sedevacante, you would expect that novel theological questions would cause rifts. Nevertheless, we profess the Integral Catholic Faith. As Van Noort teaches, "[During the Great Western Schism]...hierarchical unity was only materially, not formally, interrupted.  Although Catholics were split three ways in their allegiance because of the doubt as to which of the [papal] contenders had been legitimately elected, still all were agreed in believing that allegiance was owed to one legitimate successor of Peter, and they stood willing to give that allegiance." (Ibid:131; First Emphasis in original, second emphasis mine)

According to canonist Wernz-Vidal, "... [the] visibility of the Church consists in the fact that She possesses such signs and identifying marks that, when moral diligence is used, she can be recognized and discerned..." (See Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, pg. 454; Emphasis mine). The Church does not, strictly speaking, need an actual living pope to be a visible society, the Mystical Body of Christ. 

CC: The Pope Can Be Resisted Like a "Bad Dad"

CC: Pope Leo is a bad pope and a bad father. We must oppose the evil he does but must avoid the sedevacantists’ (objective) mortal sins of rashly judging his interior culpability and of denying that he is the pope or is even Catholic.

Here, it is alleged that just as a child can refuse to obey the evil command of his father, so too can Catholics refuse to obey "bad teachings" of the Conciliar "popes."

The pope cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to the whole Church. According to theologian Herrmann:

"The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…. If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible."
(Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258)

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, Para. #9:

"[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced."

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, Para. #66

"Certainly the loving Mother [the Church] is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors."

The pope's infallibility extends to universal disciplinary laws. The pope can give "opinionative" decisions, which by their very nature could be modified or abrogated. In that sense he could be "wrong," but not in promulgating universal disciplinary laws, or deciding upon doctrinal issues.

Extinguishing The R&R Candle: If Prevost is Pope You Must Obey

According to the eminent theologians McHugh and Callan these are the moral principles regarding the assent owed by Catholics:

760. Many tenets of the Church, indeed, have not the prerogative of infallibility—for example, decrees of the Popes not given ex cathedra, decisions of Congregations made with Papal approval, teachings of Bishops to particular members of the Church, doctrines commonly held by Catholics as theological truths or certain conclusions. These decrees, decisions, etc., receive not the assent of Catholic faith, but what is called religious assent, which includes two things, viz., external and internal assent.

(a) External assent should be given such teachings—that is, the homage of respectful silence due to public authority. This does not forbid the submission of difficulties to the teaching authority, or the scientific examination of objections that seem very strong.

(b) Internal assent should be given such teaching—that is, the submission of the judgment of the individual to the judgment of the teacher who has the authority from Christ and assistance from the Holy Spirit. This internal assent differs, however, from the assent of faith, inasmuch as it excludes fear of error, but not of the possibility of error, and it may later on be suspended, called into doubt, or even revoked. Pope Pius X in his Motu proprio, "Praestantia scripturae Sacrae" (Nov. 18, 1907), indicated the binding force of the decrees both of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and of all doctrinal decrees:

 All are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees which appertain to doctrine, issued by the Sacred Congregations and approved by the Supreme Pontiff; nor can they escape the stigma both of disobedience and temerity, nor be free from grave guilt as often as they impugn their decisions either in word or writing; and this over and above the scandal which they give and the sins of which they may be the cause before God by making other statements on these matters which are very frequently both rash and false. (Reaffirmed by the Biblical Commission on Feb. 27, 1934.)

761. The objects, therefore, which formally or reductively pertain to the virtue of faith, are as follows:

(a) Divine faith has for its object all the truths revealed by God as contained in the Canonical scriptures approved by the Church, and in the teachings received by the Apostles from Christ or the Holy Spirit and handed down to the Church as Tradition. Private revelations in exceptional cases may also be the object of divine faith.

(b) Catholic faith has for its object all the truths formally revealed in scripture and Tradition that have been defined as such by the Church. The definitions of the Church are either solemn (e.g., those given in the Creeds, ex cathedra definitions of the Popes, decisions of Ecumenical Councils) or ordinary (e.g., those contained in the universal preaching, practice or belief of the Church, encyclical letters [see Humani Generis, n.20]). Equivalent to definitions are the condemnations of error opposed to revealed truths.

(c) According to some theologians ecclesiastical faith has for its object all infallible decisions of the Church about matters not revealed, but connected with revelation, or necessary for the exercise of the teaching office of the Church. Such are: (i) definitions, that is, definitive declarations of theological conclusions or of dogmatic facts, disciplinary laws made for the entire Church, canonization of the saints, solemn approbation of religious Orders, express or special recognition of Doctors of the Church, declaration of the relation of private revelations to the public revelation; and (ii) censures, that is, condemnations of teachings, on account of falsity, as heretical, near to heresy, savoring of heresy, erroneous, rash, etc.; on account of their expression, as equivocal, ambiguous, presumptuous, captious, suspected, ill-sounding, offensive to pious ears, etc.; on account of their tendency, as scandalous, schismatical, seditious, unsafe, etc. Examples: The definitions concerning the sense of the book Augustinus, the suitability of the terms "consubstantial" and "transubstantiation," the agreement of the Vulgate with the original scriptures, the lawfulness of the insertion of the Filioque.

(d) Religious assent has for its object all doctrinal pronouncements of the Church that are not infallible, but are yet official and authoritative. Examples are ordinary instructions and condemnations given by Pontifical Congregations and Commissions. The Syllabus of Modern Errors issued by Pius IX was most likely not an infallible or definitive document, although many of the errors it rejects are contrary to dogma, and hence, even apart from the Syllabus, they are to be rejected as opposed to Catholic faith. Likewise, many of its tenets are drawn from encyclical letters. Papal allocutions, radio addresses, and the doctrinal parts of Apostolic Constitutions, in themselves, are in this class.

(e) Respect is due to the judgment of the Church even in non-doctrinal matters and where no obligation is imposed by her, on account of her position and the careful examination given before decision. Example: It would be disrespectful to reject without good reason a pious belief which the Church after mature deliberation has permitted to be held.

762. Though the truths of faiths are many, the duty of believing imposes no great burden on the believer. Thus: (a) it is not required that explicit belief be given to all the teachings of faith; (b) it is not required that one distinguish the particular kind of assent in case of uncertainty, but it suffices to yield assent according to the mind and intention of the Church. Example: When a group of propositions is condemned under various censures, no indication being made of the censure that applies to particular propositions, it suffices to hold that all of them are false, and that to each of them applies one or more of the censures listed.

(Source: Fr. McHugh, John A. and Fr. Callan, Charles J. (May 24, 1958) “Part II. Special Moral Theology: Art. 1. The Virtue of Faith – The Object of Faith.” Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities. New York City: Joseph F. Wagner, Inc. para. 760-762. Italics in original).

CC repeats the Feeneyite/Dimondite error of "you only need to obey infallible teachings." They state: Popes can err in any other teachings, unless those teachings are themselves a faithful repetition of truth contained in infallible Catholic Tradition. No pope (or anyone else) can err when faithfully repeating the teachings of Catholic Tradition. The Church has condemned this very idea. 

• Condemned proposition #22 of the Syllabus of Errors, addressed to the whole Church teaches, "22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgement of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of the faith."

• Pope Pius XII condemns the idea popes need not be given assent in their teachings that are not ex cathedra: "It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in these the popes do not exercise the supreme powers of their Magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary Magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent ‘He who heareth you, heareth me.’; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine." (See Humani Generis [1950]).

Conclusion

Consider this post another one of my "refresher courses" on why the R&R position makes no sense and contradicts Church teaching on the papacy. I could go on and on with that false and misleading website, but I hope the point has been made. Join the Vatican II sect and follow Prevost as a Catholic should if you recognize his "papacy." Otherwise, embrace sedevacantism--true Catholicism--to have the hope of saving your soul. 

Scientific Confirmation Of Biblical Events

For Traditionalists, the miraculous events recorded in Scripture are true, proofs of the truth of the Catholic Faith, and are an effect wrought in nature by the direct intervention of God. There are those non-Christians, open to the claims of the Bible and the Church, but they seriously call into question the historicity of certain events/miracles. Finally, you have those unbelievers who use certain biblical accounts as "proof" that religion (in general) and the Bible (in particular) are "fairy tales" and openly mock said accounts incessantly. 

 One of the stories most ridiculed is that of Jonah. In the Old Testament, the Book of Jonah (chapters 1-4) tells us that Jonah was told by God to warn the people of Nineveh to turn from their evil ways. Jonah tried to flee from God in a ship. The prophet was thrown overboard where a big fish (sometimes called a whale) swallowed him. He remained alive inside the fish for three days, during which he prayed to God for deliverance. The fish vomits Jonah onto land, and he goes to Nineveh to preach, and the people repent. 

The Bible never expressly declares the story of Jonah to be miraculous, but people take it for such. A friend of mine recently pointed out to me some scientific literature which could be applied to Jonah and the big fish. To the consternation of non-believers, it actually makes an excellent case that, while directed by God, it may be scientifically possible to live inside a fish for three days.    

This post will demonstrate that what has been scoffed at for centuries actually has found scientific backing. That doesn't mean miracles aren't real or every event in the Bible can be explained scientifically, but rather that some events can be so explained and put the lie to the oft heard contention that science and the True Faith are incompatible. 

(N.B. The contents of this post were compiled from a multitude of sources both in print and online. I take no credit for any of it. All I did was condense the material into a terse and readable post.---Introibo). 

A Fishy Story?

For the atheist devoted to the belief that there is no God, one might search the depths of all the Earth’s oceans and find no empirical evidence of divine influence. Never mind that three-quarters of the global seafloor has not yet been mapped by high-resolution imaging technology. (See NOAA, “How Much of the Ocean Has Been Explored?,” oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/explored.html).  

The celebrity  atheist biologist Richard Dawkins pokes fun at the story of Jonah and other biblical miracles, calling them “nonsensical” or “just plain weird.” (See The God Delusion (2006), pg. 268). From the perspective of naturalism, which since Darwin has become the prevailing philosophy of science, the biblical text is implausible because it seems to defy what science teaches is possible. Naturalistic science supposedly has exposed the story of Jonah to the bright light of reason and rescued modern thought from "superstition and ignorance." 

New Testament scholar, textual critic, and Protestant turned atheist, Dr. Bart Ehrman, argues that Jonah is a story, not a biography.(See “The Bible’s Best Known Short Story: Jonah,” blog post, January 1, 2022, ehrmanblog.org/the-bibles-best-known-shortstory-jonah).  

Although not a biologist himself, Ehrman considers it self-evident that “back then…zoological knowledge was…undeveloped.”(See "The Bible’s Best Known Short Story: Jonah,” blog post, December 30, 2021, ehrmanblog.org/the-bibles-best-known-shortstory-jonah). Thus, the writer of Jonah simply did not know that whales’ mouths and bellies are just too small to accommodate a grown man, even if whales had been known to the pastoral people inhabiting the Ancient Near East.

The Catholic exegetes have always (rightly) considered the story of Jonah to be literal history and not some allegory told to convey a moral truth, as Modernists teach. Jesus Himself refers to Jonah having been “three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (St. Matthew 12:40). If Jesus were speaking allegorically, that would call into question His own historical death and bodily Resurrection, which He foreshadows by referring to Jonah. To call into doubt Our Lord's Resurrection is heretical. 

Science Sheds Some Light

Miracles are exceptions to common human experience and incompatible with what we understand about the world through science. Obviously, we do not see large fish (whales) going around swallowing swimmers, let alone those swimmers later emerging from their bellies to tell about it. We do not think of huge fish as inhabiting the waters of the Ancient Near East. On the face of it, it seems unreasonable to believe that an ancient writer on land would have specific knowledge about sea creatures, or that a man could fit inside the mouth of a fish, escape its teeth, breathe air, and survive its digestive secretions.  However, is what Jonah experienced (and non-believers mock) something that could also happen without miraculous intervention?  To the chagrin of Dawkins and company, the answer is YES.

1. What type of fish could Jonah have encountered?

The first question to address is what species of sea creature swallowed Jonah. In the Masoretic Text, the Hebrew phrase for the creature is dag gadol, meaning simply “big fish,” as it is rendered in all major English translations (Jonah 1:17). The Greek Septuagint also translates the Hebrew as “big fish.” Similarly, in the Greek New Testament, Jesus says that Jonah was in the belly of the "big fish." (St. Matthew 12:40), which can refer to any large sea creature. 

However, Jonah could have been swallowed by an actual whale. The most probable species encountered by Jonah was the fin whale. This is the second-largest whale species on the planet, measuring up to 22 meters in length and weighing 40–50 tons 

(See education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/big-fish-history-whaling)

It happens to be the most common whale to inhabit the Mediterranean Sea. (See “Are There Any Whales in the Mediterranean," musee.oceano.org/en/resources/are-there-any-whales-in-the-mediterranean).

Historical evidence shows that ancient mariners in the North Atlantic and North Pacific were familiar with whales, which were hunted as early as 4,000 years ago, although it is doubtful that Ancient Near Eastern seafarers would have had contact with North Atlantic mariners in pre-Roman times.(See op. cit.)

Significantly, Jonah writes that “The waters closed in over me” and “weeds were wrapped about my head” (Jonah 2:5), but he mentions no lacerations or bleeding, which would be consistent with entering the mouth of a fin whale, as it lacks teeth.

2. Is it really possible for a fin whale to swallow an adult human being?

Whereas skeptics assume that a man would not fit within the mouth or belly of a whale, field measurements indicate otherwise. The cross-sectional area of a fin whale’s mouth is determined by the dimensions of its skull and jaw which, when open, reaches 8 meters squared, which compares gapingly to the 2.2 meters squared of a standard residential door. (See Jeremy A. Goldbogen, Nicholas D. Pyenson, and Robert E. Shadwick, “Big Gulps Require High Drag for Fin Whale Lunge Feeding,” Marine Ecology Progress Series 349 (2007): 289–301, doi.org/10.3354/meps07066).

Further, the pleated walls of its buccal cavity are highly distensible, so that when the whale lunges to feed, it takes in an enormous volume of sea water. This lunge-feeding behavior was not well-studied until the 1980s. (See Jeremy A. Goldbogen, “The Ultimate Mouthful: Lunge Feeding in Rorqual Whales,” American Scientist 98, no. 2 (March–April 2010): 124–131, doi.org/10.1511/2010.83.124). 

3. How could a person survive three days with the digestive juices in the stomach and with no oxygen?

Jonah could not get through the fin whale's esophagus.  Jonah would have been confined in the whale’s voluminous oropharynx. The oropharynx is the middle part of the throat.  During feeding its distension enlarges the whale’s underside, corresponding to the biblical word “belly” (Jonah 1:17, 2:1–2). Therefore, there would be no digestive juices.

By far the greatest threat to Jonah’s life would have been an inadequate air supply to sustain him for three days and three nights and avoid asphyxiation. An air pocket might provide enough oxygen to sustain Jonah for a few hours, but the buildup of exhaled carbon dioxide would have overtaken him before he ran out of oxygen. Notably, as the fin whale is an aquatic mammal, it also requires air and surfaces every 5 to 15 minutes to take air in through its blowhole. (See  A. W. Vogl, H. Petersen, K. N. Gil, R. L. Cieri, and R. E. Shadwick, “The Soft Palate Enables Extreme Feeding and Explosive Breathing in the Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus),” Integrative Organismal Biology 6, no. 1 (July 9, 2024): obae026, doi.org/10.1093/iob/obae026). 

As fin whales’ observed feeding behavior can include skimming at the surface, intake of air along with water could have periodically refreshed Jonah’s air supply. (See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Fin Whale,” last modified November 22, 2024, fisheries.noaa.gov/species/fin-whale).

The fascinating case of  Harrison Okene is instructive as to survival in pockets of air. Okene was the lone survivor of a tugboat that encountered a rogue wave off the coast of Nigeria in 2013. He was locked in a tiny bathroom the morning the boat capsized. The boat then sank, upside down, landing 30 meters below the surface on the sea floor. Okene found himself trapped in the four-foot room, where for nearly three days he survived by breathing from a pocket of air. (See Paula Cocozza, “I Survived Three Days in a Capsized Boat on the Ocean Floor — Praying in My Air Bubble,” The Guardian, September 26, 2023, theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/sep/26/i-survived-three-days-in-a-capsized-boat-on-the-ocean-floor-praying-in-my-air-bubble; “Divers Find Man Alive in Sunken Tugboat,” Associated Press, December 3, 2013, youtu.be/ArWGILmKCqE). 

A diving medicine expert estimated that the 13.5 meters cubed volume of Okene’s air bubble would have allowed him about 56 hours of life. 

(See “The Science Behind Man Surviving Underwater for Three Days,” National Geographic, December 5, 2013, nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/131204-nigerian-air-bubble-survival-shipwreck-viral-video-science). 

Summary: It is possible for a man to live inside a whale for three days.

Conclusion

I am not claiming that the story of Jonah wasn't a miracle. This information merely demonstrates the ignorance of those who deride this Biblical story as "nonsensical," and "just plain weird."  Not all divinely ordained events that appear to us to be miracles require the suspension or violation of natural laws. Jonah's watery adventure can (possibly but improbably) occur outside the miraculous as well.

As Traditionalists we must affirm miracles:

From the Oath Against Modernism promulgated by Pope St. Pius X for all clerics on September 1, 1910:

Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. (Emphasis mine)

From the Vatican Council (1870):

If anyone shall say that miracles are impossible, and therefore that all the accounts regarding them, even those contained in Holy Scripture, are to be dismissed as fables or myths; or that miracles can never be known with certainty, and that the divine origin of Christianity cannot be proved by them; let him be anathema.

It's nice to know that a Biblical event skeptics have laughed at for years, can be vindicated by the very science they claim disproves God. "For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." (Romans 1:22).