Monday, March 20, 2017

Defending The Indefensible


  Leave it to the "recognize and resistors" (R&R) of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) to try and exculpate "Pope" Francis of heresy by inventing new theological principles. In Amoris Laetitia, Frankie's "Apostolic Exhortation" on the "Joy of Love," he opens the door to "communion" for open and notorious adulterers (i.e., those divorced and "remarried"). It was so bad, even four of his "cardinals" sent him five dubia (i.e., "doubts" or queries) regarding its orthodoxy (or rather, the lack thereof). Frankie has not responded. When the Modernists start to question your orthodoxy, there are no words to adequately express the situation.

 According to the Catholic (sic) News Service, "The first dubium asks whether following Amoris laetitia “it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person 'more uxorio' (in a marital way) without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris consortio n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia n. 34 and Sacramentum Caritatis n. 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation Amoris laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live 'more uxorio'?" 

In a series of articles called "The Question of Papal Heresy," SSPX priest Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, attempts to exonerate Frankie on this (and the other four dubia) with the following:
First, are the five truths demolished by these five doubts so many dogmas? Secondly, does Amoris laetitia negate these dogmas, or at least call them into question formally and explicitly enough? The answer to these two questions is far from obvious and certain. For this new theology of Francis, which extends that of Vatican II, avoids this sort of formal opposition with regard to truths already proposed infallibly by the Magisterium before Vatican II. It sins most often by omission or by ambivalence. It is therefore dubious, in its very substance. And it is dubious exactly insofar as it is modernist, or more precisely: neo-modernist.

His contention is that in order to be a formal heretic, Frankie has to negate one or more dogmas and/or call them into question formally and explicitly enough. Let's cut to the chase, what does the Church have to say?

The Church and Loss of Papal Authority

As St. Alphonsus Liguori, the great Doctor of the Church teaches:  "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10). However, at this point, we can ask "Could Jorge Bergoglio ever even attain the papacy in the first place? Accoring to canonist Wernz-Vidal, "Those capable of being validly elected are all who are not prohibited by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law… Those who are barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics, schismatics…"(Jus Canonicum 1:415; Emphasis mine). Again according to Badius, "c) The law now in force for the election of the Roman Pontiff is reduced to these points… Barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics and schismatics…" (Institutiones, 160)

Divine Law prohibits heretics from attaining to the papacy. Was Bergoglio a heretic prior to his alleged "election" four years ago? First, we need to define heresy.  Heresy is defined as "A teaching which is directly contradictory to a truth revealed by God and proposed to the faithful as such by the Church." (See theologian Parente, Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Bruce Publishing Company, [1951], pg. 123). Let's see what Begoglio did as "bishop" and "cardinal." 

Juan Pablo Bongarrá, president of the Argentine Bible Society, recounts that Bergoglio not only met with Evangelicals, and prayed with them—but he also asked them to pray for him. Bongarrá notes that Bergoglio would frequently end a conversation with the request, "Pastor, pray for me."

Additionally, Bongarrá tells the story of a weekly worship meeting of charismatic pastors in Buenos Aires, which Bergoglio attended: "He mounted the platform and called for pastors to pray for him. He knelt in front of nearly 6,000 people, and [the Protestant leaders there] laid hands and prayed."

Religious leaders in Buenos Aires have stated that it was Bergoglio who "opened up the Cathedral in Buenos Aires for interfaith ceremonies". For example, in November 2012 he brought "leaders of the Jewish, Muslim, evangelical, and other Christian faiths" together in the Cathedral to pray for peace in the Middle East. Leaders quoted in a 2013 Associated Press article said that Bergoglio has a "very deep capacity for dialogue with other religions", and considers "healing divisions between religions a major part of the Catholic Church's mission". (See http://www.religionfacts.com/pope-francis).  In addition, Bergoglio celebrated Hanukkah with the Jews in 2012.

According to theologians McHugh and Callan, "It is unlawful for Catholics in anyway to assist actively at or take part in the worship of non-Catholics (Canon 1258)." (See Moral Theology, 1: 376).  Canonists Abbo and Hannon explain the meaning of the Canon, "Thus is forbidden what is technically known as communicatio in sacris. The reason for this prohibition are founded in the natural and divine positive law. Among them is the following: the Catholic Church is the only Church in which, by divine ordinance, worship may be rendered to God..." (See The Sacred Canons, 2: 512).

 For this reason the Holy Office said that by participating [in schismatic and heretical worship], Catholics give exterior signs of segregation from and disapproval of the Catholic Church  by unifying themselves with those who disapprove or segregate themselves from the Catholic Church, since participation in liturgical actions constitutes a sign of unity.  By coming together with them in unity of prayer, in unity of cult, in unity of veneration and worship, one does so with perverse schismatic and heretical ministers.  In effect, the Holy Office was saying that it is by the very coming together with those who reject the Faith and joining one's prayer and worship to them that one is participating in worship which is done by those who reject the Catholic Church.  To participate with those who reject the faith is therefore forbidden. (See Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fidei seu Decreta Instructiones Rescripta pro Apostolicis Missionibus (Ex Typographia Polyglotta, Roma, 1907); Emphasis mine).

How is heresy made manifest? According to theologian MacKenzie, "Words are the ordinary, but not the only means of communication. Complete externalization of thought may exist in signs, acts, or omissions." (The Delict of Heresy in its Commission, Penalization, Absolution, pg.35).

Bergoglio could never even attain to the office, let alone fall from it! This explains how he can say, "There is no Catholic God," "Proselytism is nonsense," etc. As a matter of fact, "Cardinal" Bergoglio co-authored a book with Rabbi Abraham Skorka entitled On Heaven and Earth. It's loaded with error and heresy.

1. Atheists don't need conversion and need not be condemned. On pgs. 12-13:  "I do not approach the relationship in order to proselytize, or convert the atheist; I respect him and I show myself as I am…nor would I say that his life is condemned, because I am convinced that I do not have the right to make a judgement about the honesty of that person; even less, if he shows me those human virtues that exalt others and do me good." (Emphasis mine)

The First Vatican Council infallibly declared: "If anyone shall say that the One True God, our Creator and Lord, cannot be certainly known by the natural light of human reason through created things; let him be anathema."

2. Agnosticism as to the nature of God. On pg. 14, "We can say what God is not, we can speak of His attributes, but we cannot say what He is.” Isn't God a Trinity? Isn't He all-Perfect?

3. Denial of Church teaching on suicide. On Pg. 93, "There was a time when they did not perform funerals for those that committed suicide because they had not continued toward the goal; they ended the path when they wanted to. But I still respect the one who commits suicide; he is a person who could not overcome the contradictions in his life." (Emphasis mine) You respect someone who was either (a) mentally unbalanced and needed help, or (b) committed the act of ultimate despair? According to theologian Prummer, "The direct killing of oneself on one's own authority is a most grievous sin against divine, natural, and ecclesiastical law." (Moral Theology, section 275).

Of course, the SSPX ends with the tired, worn out quotes from theologians Suarez and Cajetan to support the idea that a pope does not lose his office until the Church somehow issues a judgement. They disregard their minority status, and the fact that the theological developments since their time have relegated this opinion to the status of untenable. However, even more than this--they miss the point. It's irrelevant because Bergoglio was a heretic prior to his election, so he could not become the pope in the first place (ditto for every "successor" to Montini, "Pope" Paul VI). There is even papal legislation on this point. Pope Paul IV issued the Apostolic Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. The pontiff decreed that if  it should ever appear that someone who was elected Roman Pontiff had beforehand "deviated from the Catholic faith or fallen into any heresy," his election, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals, would be "null, legally invalid and void."

But What About Amoris Laetitia in Particular?

 Even if Bergoglio could have become the pope, does his teaching on "pastoral solutions" for adulterers getting the Novus Bogus "communion" constitute heresy? In a word, yes. Let's go by Fr. Gleize's criterion. 

(a) What dogmas are called into doubt or negated? There are two; the indissolubility of marriage and the necessity of sanctifying grace to receive Communion. According to theologian Ott, "From the sacramental contract of marriage emerges the Bond of Marriage, which binds both marriage partners to a lifelong indivisible community of life. (De Fide)." Also, "For the worthy reception of the Eucharist the state of grace...[is] necessary. (De Fide)." (See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pgs. 399, and 467). 

Giving "communion" to an open and notorious adulterer denies either the sin of adultery or the necessity of sanctifying grace in order to worthily receive the Eucharist. For Bergoglio to even consider such an abomination calls both dogmas into question. 

(b) The invented principle of calling dogma into question "formally and explicitly enough." Let's give Frankie a pass and say his exhortation was only "ambiguous." That's enough to condemn him.   The Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius VI, Auctorum Fidei (1794), teaches, "Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it...Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements that disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged." 

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928:


"The teaching authority of the Church in the divine wisdom was constituted on Earth in order that the revealed doctrines might remain forever in tact and might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men." (Emphasis mine)


Summary and Conclusion
  • Bergoglio is too Modernist for even some Modernists. He wants to give "communion" to adulterers. Some of his own so-called cardinals have asked him to clarify his Apostolic Exhortation.
  • The SSPX tries to exonerate Bergoglio from heresy.
  • The Church teaches that heretics cannot even attain the office of pope, and Bergoglio's ecumenism was heretical. He prays in public with heretics and Jews, the latter is a de facto denial of the Divinity of Christ. He wrote a book with a rabbi when he was a "cardinal." It is riddled with heresy and error.
  • Even if Bergoglio were pope, heretics fall from office by Divine Law, and his teaching in Amoris Laetitia alone qualifies as heresy because it calls into question the indissolubility of sacramental marriage and the necessity of sanctifying grace for the worthy reception of Holy Communion. 
  • The Church does not teach ambiguously. If She did, the Church would cease to be a teaching authority in any meaningful sense. 
  • Interestingly, the SSPX calls Amoris Laetitia "dubious in its substance" and "Neo-Modernist." Yet this does not qualify Bergoglio as a heretic and false pope because it is not "formal and explicit enough"? What a joke. Bottom line: The SSPX believes that a formal heretic, someone who is not a member of the Church, can be the Head of that Church. 
The dubia never cite to the teachings pre-Vatican II. Why would they? Their sect began in the 1960s. Yet Bergoglio makes John Paul the Great Apostate look orthodox in comparison. The SSPX tries to defend the indefensible. Even members of the Vatican II sect know the Church has always taught that marriage is indissoluble, that divorce and subsequent attempted remarriage is a sin, and that those living in the latter situation cannot receive the sacraments--end of story. Does the SSPX wish to forget that on Easter Monday of 2014, Frankie phoned an Argentine woman who had been refused communion by her parish "priest" for living in an invalid marriage? Mr. Bergoglio told her she could "safely receive Communion, because she is doing nothing wrong." What's ambiguous about that, SSPX? They blasphemously make the martyrdom of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More a useless and needless act on their part.  

Monday, March 13, 2017

Ghostbusters


 "Has your mother visited you?" asked my primary care physician, "Dr. A." A few years back, I was going to him for many stress induced symptoms relating to my job, and was seeking relief. Dr. A is a good man, and a great doctor. He grew up in a foreign (formerly Catholic) country, and was a general surgeon until an accident forced him to practice Internal Medicine only. He still works a full schedule at nearly 72 years old, and when my mother broke her leg some years back, he got out of bed at 3 am and drove himself to the hospital to meet me there and personally examine her at no charge. He is very pro-life and likes to know his patients, so it makes sense he would ask a personal question relating to one's family relationships. There was just one problem with the good doctor's question; my mother had died nearly two years prior and he knew it.

 Dr. A, like many members in the Vatican II sect (and other sects), believe that the souls of the departed will make "visits" to their loved ones on Earth. To see how far pagan/New Age ideas have infiltrated society, some will actually refer to these souls as "ghosts." A 2006 Gallup poll showed that fully 38% of Americans (over 100 million people) believe in such visitations from spirits of the dead, and 28% believe that you can "mentally communicate with them," at least during such times. The English word ghost comes from the German word geist which means "spirit."Many people today are influenced by the ubiquitous presence of so-called "psychics" on television, as well as by popular movies over the years, which give them false ideas concerning departed souls. No longer able to receive true doctrine from the Vatican II sect, this is what people rely upon. Consider how many highly successful movies (with big name stars) have come out concerning "ghosts":

  • The Shining (1980)
  • Ghost Story (1981)
  • Poltergeist (1982) 
  • Ghostbusters (original; 1984)
  • Ghost (1990)
  • The Sixth Sense (1999)
  • What Lies Beneath (2000)
  • The Others (2001)
  • Gothika (2003)
  • White Noise (2005)
  • Ghostbusters (remake; 2016)
 What is a Traditionalist to make of such claims? Does God permit souls of the dead to visit on Earth?  As always, let's see what the Church teaches and what the possibilities are when we investigate an issue.

Church Teaching On The Soul After Death

 According to theologian Pohle, there is the particular judgement, which happens immediately upon death, when the soul separates from the body. (See Dogmatic Theology, 12: 18). This precedes the General Judgement, when Christ comes again in glory to judge the living and the dead. The Apostolic Constitution Benedictus Deus (1336 A.D.) of Pope Benedict XII dogmatically defined, "that...the souls of those who depart this life in the state of mortal sin descend into Hell immediately after death and are there subject to infernal torments." Furthermore, those who depart this life in the state of sanctifying grace, "behold the divine essence intuitively and face to face" in Heaven.  Of course, those who need to expiate venial sin (and the debt of temporal punishment not fully expiated for their sins) must spend time in Purgatory prior to their entrance into Heaven.  (Ibid, 12:75-76).

 Does God permit souls (damned or blessed) to visit human beings still on Earth? There's no dogmatic teaching on this point. There have been many approved reports, in the lives of certain saints, where souls from Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory have been permitted to visit. For example, it was reported that St. Maria Goretti appeared to her murderer, Alessandro Serenelli, while he was serving 27 years in prison. She told him she had forgiven him on her death bed. Serenelli was converted as a result, and lived as a model prisoner; when he was finally released after serving his sentence, he became a lay brother at a Capuchin monastery. He begged forgiveness from St. Maria's mother and was present at her canonization by Pope Pius XII in 1950. He died in 1970.

It is therefore possible for souls of the departed to visit the living, but it must be stressed that such visitations are rare and extraordinary events to either prove a point of Catholic faith, or to accomplish a salutary act. In the aforementioned case of St. Maria, it seems she was allowed by God to appear to her murderer for two reasons: (a) to demonstrate God's will that she be numbered among the saints, and (b) to grant the heroic virgin's desire that her killer repent. To say that God allows such visitations on a regular basis would be to make the miraculous common, and detract from the extraordinary character.

 The Bible tells us that the saved are not on Earth, but are with the Lord in Heaven, where they keep intimate union (i.e., the Beatific Vision--see 1 Thessalonians 4:17). We also read where the damned go to Hell, and are not permitted to contact the living (See e.g., St. Luke 16:19-31). So it certainly seems the rule that human souls do not, as a matter of routine, contact the living except in the most extraordinary circumstances allowed by Almighty God.

The Occult Teaching On The Soul After Death

 To the occultists (so-called psychics and mediums), the soul of a dead person is a "ghost" who has not passed over to "the Other Side," but instead has remained on Earth after death.  Occultist Sylvia Brown claims in her book, Life On The Other Side(New York: Signet [2000]), that upon death, some souls "don't accept the reality of their demise," and refuse to "go through the tunnel of light to the "Other Side" (always capitalized).On the Other Side, souls "progress and evolve," but the souls who don't accept the reality of their death, refuse the tunnel and "get trapped" between our dimension and the Other Side. They exist thinking themselves to be still alive. This was the basis for the blockbuster movie The Sixth Sense (mentioned above) wherein Bruce Willis' character doesn't realize he is dead until the very end of the movie, shocking the audience. 

These ghosts walk around and appear as shadowy figures, and have a fog-like substance around them called "ectoplasm" (think of the movie Ghostbusters). They make their presence known by footsteps, moving objects, and flipping lights on and off. Sometimes they come back to "send a message" to a loved one in order to accept their fate and move on to the Other Side. (A woman I know told me she sometimes feels a breeze go past her in the kitchen, and she "knows" it's her deceased grandfather looking out for her). The more nuanced form of "ghosts" stresses that a deceased person needs to tell someone something, visit them, or look out for them, until they can "rest in peace" on the Other Side. They may make themselves known in various ways, like a breeze, or movement seen from the corner of the eye, much like the lady told me about her "grandfather." 

Possible Explanations

 Many of these alleged "ghost sightings" and experiences have rational explanations.

1. Peripheral vision. A person's peripheral vision is very sensitive to motion. When some people, who already believe in such visits from the dead, sense a random motion, they jump to the conclusion it was a "ghost."

2. Sleep-induced experience. Many reports of ghostly visits occur upon waking up from a dream. If the person was dreaming of their departed loved one, as they wake-up, sensory and cognitive abilities are impaired and they might mistake part of a dream for reality.

3. Night terrors. The universal feature of night terrors is the inability to be consoled from a sudden burst of fear and dread very similar to having a panic attack. During night terror bouts, people are usually described as "bolting upright" with their eyes wide open and a look of fear and panic on their faces. They will often scream. Superstitious people, or those with these false ideas about ghosts, will attribute the sensation to being "haunted."

4. Fraud and mental instability. Some reports are simply lies that people tell for the proverbial "fifteen minutes of fame," and some people have psychological problems (some may be induced by drug abuse and/or alcohol).

5. The Power of suggestion. So much occult garbage is seen on TV, in movies, books, and the Internet, people now "expect the unexpected," and the "paranormal" becomes the norm instead. So of course, if you feel a breeze in the kitchen, it can't possibly be a defective window that sometimes lets in air, it's "your grandfather looking out for you."  In addition, many people want to feel connected to someone who died, so they will interpret any data they can to console themselves. (e.g., "The refrigerator magnet moved, so it was my departed father telling me he's OK.")


The Doctrine of Demons

Although many of the explanations above solve the mystery, there are some cases that cannot be easily dismissed. Satan and his demons have the power to do harm in this world. What better way to do it than "proving correct" occult doctrine, which is an abomination to God. Getting people to think that a deceased relative or friend is trying to tell them something will very likely lead them to places they shouldn't go--to psychics and mediums who can "talk to the dead," to seances, to Tarot cards and Ouija boards. This opens up the person to demonic influence and even possession.  As I've written in prior posts, mediums are condemned by both the Bible and Church teaching. "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD; because of these same detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you." (See Deuteronomy 18:10-12; Emphasis mine.) According to theologian Jone, "Spiritism claims to be able to communicate with the spirit world and endeavors to establish such commerce with it. Although spiritism is for the most part fraud, still the intention alone to enter into communication with spirits is gravely sinful. Therefore, it is mortally sinful to conduct a spiritistic seance or to act as a medium." (See Moral Theology, pg. 100; Emphasis mine). 

Summary and Conclusion
  • The Church teaches the souls of the deceased are judged immediately upon death. This is called the particular judgement, which comes before the General Judgement when Christ returns in glory. 
  • The souls of those in sanctifying grace (the just) go immediately to Heaven, or to Purgatory, to be followed by Heaven. The souls of the wicked (who died without sanctifying grace) go immediately to Hell.
  • God only rarely allows the souls of the dead to make contact with the living. Such encounters will be forceful and in line with the teachings of the Church. 
  • The occult teaches there is the "Other Side" and some souls won't accept their death and go there. Others "need" to contact relatives or friends first so they can "move on to the Other Side." Occultists frequently refer to these souls as "ghosts."
  • The occult idea of life after death has been popularized in the media. The Vatican II sect does nothing to counter it. 
  • There are many rational explanations for most ghost experiences.
  • Some experiences are perpetrated by demonic forces trying to get people to buy into occult doctrine and practices, all of which are condemned by the Church
Neither my mother or my father "visited me" after they died. And why should they? As I tried to explain to Dr. A, I know such is not the case with good reason. It flies in the face of Church teaching. There's no extraordinary reason God should allow such a visit. Both my parents died as Traditionalists after receiving the Last Rites of the True Church. I have good reason to hope they are enjoying eternity with God, and someday I will (hopefully, please God) join them and we will then have contact. The pain of separation when a loved one dies is very great indeed. We should pray for our deceased family and friends and work on our salvation so as to hopefully be reunited one day. Don't let the pain and anguish drive you to go to people and do things that God has forbidden. The occult is for Satan. We don't need to "see ghosts, " when we have the True Faith of the One True Church. "Though you have not seen Him, you love Him; and even though you do not see Him now, you believe in Him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls." (1 Peter 1:8-9). 


Monday, March 6, 2017

Promises, Promises


 Joan Carroll Cruz was an author and "conservative" member of the Vatican II sect. Most of what she wrote is reverent and edifying. She writes about popular devotional topics, typically saints, relics, Eucharistic miracles and the like. She passed in 2012 at the age of 81. I have a copy of her popular little booklet entitled Prayers and Heavenly Promises (compiled from approved sources). The "approval" of some promises comes from the Vatican II sect, which is no approval at all. Traditionalists must be careful when it comes to belief in promises attached to some prayer or devotion. There is a three-fold danger: (1) promises which claim approval and are not, (2) promises which have been condemned or censured, and (3) misunderstandings of authentic promises which can lead to a loss of Faith, or even jeopardize one's soul. This post will examine true and false promises from Heaven as well as the Church's teaching on interpreting such promises.


Church Teaching on Devotions 

 On May 26, 1937, The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office published the following decree with full approval of His Holiness Pope Pius XI:

  "Long ago the Sacred Council of Trent, after declaring that the worship of the saints and the use of their images to obtain favors from God is legitimate, solemnly warned the Bishops that, if they found that any abuses were creeping in or had crept into these holy and salutary practices, they must take great care to eradicate them, so that no images that are theologically false and might be an occasion of dangerous error to the unlearned be set up; that all superstition in the invocation of saints and in the use of sacred images be removed; that all profit seeking be eliminated; and finally that nothing inordinate, nothing distorted or hasty, nothing profane, nothing unworthy be observed.

Faithful to these prescriptions, the Roman Pontiffs have been diligent in calling them to mind upon various occasions and in demanding that they be fully observed. In particular, Pius IX of holy memory, through a decree of the Holy Office dated January 13, 1875, by his supreme authority decreed: “that writers who exercise their talents upon subjects savoring of novelty, and who under the guise of piety try to promote unaccustomed forms of devotion even through papers and magazines, be warned to cease from these activities and to consider the danger which they incur of drawing the faithful into error even regarding the dogmas of the Faith, and of giving to those who hate religion the opportunity to disparage the purity of Catholic doctrine and of true devotion.” These same provisions have lately been confirmed by being introduced, almost in the same words, into the Code of Canon Law, especially in canons 1259, 1261, and 1279.

Unfortunately, however, so many grave warnings and injunctions of the Supreme ecclesiastical Authority have thus far failed to obtain full obedience. In fact, as everyone knows, these new forms of worship and devotion, often enough ridiculous, usually useless imitations or corruptions of similar ones which are already legitimately established, are in many places, especially in these recent days, being daily multiplied and propagated among the faithful, giving occasion to great astonishment and to bitter aspersion on the part of non-Catholics.

Again and again therefore, this Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, which is charged with the guardianship of the purity and integrity of faith and morals, by express mandate of His Holiness, by Divine Providence Pope, Pius XI, earnestly appeals to the zeal and pastoral solicitude of the Bishops who have the care of souls throughout the Catholic world, and charges them in conscience to urge at last the strictest observance of the aforesaid admonitions and injunctions, by firmly abolishing abuses which have already arisen, and taking the most diligent precautions lest any new ones come into vogue.

Approved and confirmed in every respect, and ordered to be published, by His Holiness, in the audience of May 20, 1937. Given at Rome, from the Palace of the Holy Office, May 26, 1937." 

One must also keep in mind what the Church dogmatically teaches regarding salvation. In the Decree on  Justification,  The Council of Trent teaches:

"No one, moreover, so long as he is in this mortal life, ought so far to presume as regards the secret mystery of divine predestination, as to determine for certain that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; as if it were true, that he that is justified, either cannot sin any more, or, if he do sin, that he ought to promise himself an assured repentance; for except by special revelation, it cannot be known whom God hath chosen unto Himself."

"So also as regards the gift of perseverance, of which it is written, He that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved: which gift cannot be derived from any other but Him, who is able to establish him who standeth that he stand perseveringly, and to restore him who falleth: let no one herein promise himself any thing as certain with an absolute certainty; though all ought to place and repose a most firm hope in God's help."

"For even as no pious person ought to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merit of Christ, and of the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, even so each one, when he regards himself, and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension touching his own grace; seeing that no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God."

From Trent we learn that it is of Faith that: (1) no one can know for certain he will be saved except by special revelation from God, such as in the case of the Good Thief. "Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation." (See Philippians 2: 12); (2) The greatest gift of Final Perseverance comes from God and we should pray and  do good works for it unceasingly. This gift cannot be merited so as God "must save us," however, if you continue with prayer and good works until your last breath, you can place firm hope that God will save you. (3) No one can have absolute certainty they are in the state of grace at any given moment. Only moral certainty is possible.

Hence, any promise which gives you a "guarantee of salvation" for saying certain prayers, doing certain pious acts cannot be true. For God can neither deceive nor be deceived. He cannot contradict the dogmatic teachings of His One True Church.

Unapproved and Censured Promises

The Two Divine Promises. In Mrs. Cruz' booklet, on pg. 12. Briefly stated, the "Two Divine Promises" ensure the salvation of any priest (and one person selected by that priest) who offers Mass for 30 consecutive days and prays the Stations of the Cross daily during that time.  In addition, anyone who worthily receives Holy Communion for 30 consecutive days and prays one Pater and one Ave for the welfare of the Catholic Church will be saved along with one other person of his choosing. This promise was allegedly made to a"Polish soul" by Our Lord. Who could "approve" something directly opposed to divine and Catholic Faith? To my knowledge, these promises were never approved (at least prior to Vatican II).

The Magnificent Promises. St. Bridget of Sweden allegedly received these fifteen (15) promises from Christ for any person who recites the fifteen (15) prayers in honor of the (alleged) 5,480 blows He received during His Holy Passion. The prayers are not heretical, and are edifying, but the promises stand censured. The second promise purports to have "Fifteen souls of his (the person who says the prayers) lineage... confirmed and preserved in grace." This means assurance of salvation for him and fifteen (15) people in his lineage. In 1954 the Holy Office decreed:

 "In certain places a booklet has appeared with the title 'The Secret of Happiness: Fifteen Prayers Revealed by Our Lord to Saint Brigid in the Church of Saint Paul in Rome,' published in various languages at Nice (and elsewhere).Since it is asserted in this booklet that certain promises were made by God to Saint Brigid, and it is by no means certain that these promises were of supernatural origin, Ordinaries of places [bishops of dioceses] must avoid giving permission to publish or to reprint works or writings which contain the aforesaid promises. Given at Rome, from the Holy Office, 28 January, 1954" 

 Prayer of St. Gertrude, Drops of Blood Prayer, Shoulder Wound Prayer. These three prayers were ascribed as releasing a certain number of souls from Purgatory whenever recited. It was alleged that 1,000 souls would be released from Purgatory each time the St. Gertrude Prayer was recited. On May 26, 1898, the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences and Holy Relics under Pope Leo XIII decreed, "The leaflets and booklets which promise the faithful that they will free one or more souls from Purgatory by the recitation of some prayer or another are to be rejected : and the Indulgences which are wont to be attached to the said promise are to be held as apocryphal."

Divine Mercy. Now celebrated in the Vatican II sect with much fanfare the Sunday after Easter (Low Sunday on the Traditionalist Calendar), the works of "St." Faustina Kowalska were placed on the Index of Prohibited Books by His Holiness Pope Pius XII. The Holy Office in 1959, under Cardinal Ottaviani, (Roncalli was only "pope" a very short time, and the Cardinals of the Congregation all enjoyed true jurisdiction) forbade "images and writings that promote devotion to Divine Mercy in the forms proposed by Sister Faustina." The image is a pallid imitation of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the devotion is to be recited on the Rosary--supplanting the greatest devotion in the Church! There is no evidence of supernatural character, but all was "rehabilitated" under John Paul the Great Apostate. 

Don't Some True Devotions Promise Salvation?

 Some people mistakenly think that true devotions and promises such as the Nine First Fridays in honor of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, the Five First Saturdays in honor of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and the Brown Scapular promise us salvation. This is simply false. The 12th Promise of those devoted to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus states, "I promise you in the excessive mercy of my Heart that my all-powerful love will grant to all those who receive Holy Communion on the First Fridays in nine consecutive months the grace of final perseverance; they shall not die in my disgrace, nor without receiving their sacraments. My divine Heart shall be their safe refuge in this last moment." How is this different from the Two Divine Promises, or the other unapproved promises? 

First, the supernatural origin is beyond doubt. Second, no one can have absolute certainty they carried out the request with the correct disposition--remember that no one can know if they are in the state of grace, so you have only moral certainty. Third, to persevere in the love of Christ's Heart so long is thereby engaging in prayers and works to obtain salvation. Fourth, anyone who performs the Nine First Fridays with the intention that they will sin with impunity thereafter, or not need to worry about getting to Heaven, does not have the proper disposition to gain the promise in the first place! Likewise, the scapular promise, "Whosoever dies clothed in this Scapular shall not suffer eternal fire" was always understood by the Church as meaning Mary will help to salvation those devoted to her and who work out their salvation battling the devil, the flesh and the world. It is not a license to wear the Scapular, live like a heathen committing mortal sins, and you can die entering Heaven because you're wearing a Scapular. 

Conclusion
Avoid any new devotions and the promises connected to them. We have no one to authorize anything in this time of near universal apostasy. Remain true to those devotions propagated time and again by Holy Mother Church, and remember that the promises are not guarantees.  They can help us get to Heaven, but they are not "golden tickets" nor a free pass to sin. Be careful, too, that prayers that promise to grant you some favor are always conditioned on what God knows is best for us. He will not grant something we want if He knows it will end up damning us. People often forget that and, when some petition is not granted, they lose faith. 

 God has given us some wonderful promises. However, in order to obtain them, we must promise to always work out our salvation in fear and trembling, and remember that God will not grant anything He knows will hurt us. 

Monday, February 27, 2017

A Magisterium Unto Themselves


 The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), Bishop Williamson's "St. Marcel Initiative" and other "recognize and resisters" (R&R) wind up becoming an "uber-Magisterium." They acknowledge Francis as pope, yet they decide what they will and won't accept. Their "pope" makes a declaration (Amoris Laetitiae), or "canonizes" someone (John Paul the Great Apostate) and they decide if they will obey or accept them. This is not Catholicism, as I've demonstrated many times before. However, there is a far worse idea out there, namely, "we acknowledge Francis is not the pope, and we will decide what Church teaching is according to our own private interpretations of various Church documents." Rather than being guided by the approved pre-Vatican II theologians, which the Magisterium uses to expound Her teachings, they reject--and even condemn!--them. They are not an "uber-Magisterium;" they become their own teaching authority and you better follow them or stand "condemned." I'm thinking of Fred and Bobby Dimond, the fraudulent "Benedictine" Feeneyites  as a prime example.

 Last week, I was issued a challenge via the comments section of one of my prior posts. It came from "Jerome," the owner of a blog entitled "Against All Heresies And Errors." Rather than publish the comments and answer them there, I chose to dedicate a post to it. Why, you may ask? He takes the "self-appointed Magisterium" idea to new lows I didn't think possible. My readers know I try to be charitable to all, but Jerome might want to seriously consider re-naming his blog "Against All Reason And Logic." He exemplifies the craziness that takes place when you jettison the approved theologians of the Church for your own private interpretations. Jerome, your challenge is accepted below. WARNING! Jerome brings up moral topics of a sensitive nature that need to be addressed. Some graphic language/descriptions will be used. His blog post can be read at https://against-all-heresies-and-errors.blogspot.com/2017/02/are-pre-vatican-ii-approved-theologians-free-from-error.html. Jerome, while attacking me, did not have the courtesy to cite my web address.


Did Theologian Heribert Jone Teach Heresy?

 After an initial attack against the Traditional Catholic principle that the approved pre-Vatican II theologians must be followed, he quotes my response to one of my kind, intelligent, and regular readers in the comments section on one of my posts. This person had asked me who are the "good theologians" I recommend to study and what books to get. One of the theologians I cited was Fr. Heribert Jone and his one volume manual, Moral Theology

Jerome attacks theologian Jone as a "pervert" citing his teaching, "I. Imperfect Sodomy, i.e., rectal intercourse, is a grave sin when the seminal fluid is wasted: Excluding the sodomitical intention it is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if intercourse is begun in a rectal manner with the intention of consummating it naturally or if some sodomitical action is posited without danger of pollution…" (3. The Sins of Married People, Section 757)" 

Jerome comments: "Here we can see the pervert Fr. Jone say that rectal intercourse between a husband and wife is not a grave sin as long as the husband does not spill his seed when sodomizing his wife. And according to the pervert Fr. Jone, this is not even sodomy! One must ask, then, “What is it?” and “What is the purpose of this filthy and perverted act?” It is sodomy, plain and simple! And the purpose is to mock God and to degrade and disgrace the wife. Not only is this sodomitical act by the spouses contrary to nature and cries out to God for vengeance, but it is also physically destructive to the health of both spouses."

I have never claimed to be a theologian, and have therefore urged others to follow those experts approved by the Church. Here, an unknown blogger, with an (obvious) lack of any theological training opines that Fr. Jone, an erudite theological giant approved by the Church, is a "heretic" and a "pervert." Jone teaches that a married couple may begin intercourse in a rectal manner if and only if (a) there is no sodomitical intention (i.e., it is a means of foreplay), (b) the intention is to consummate intercourse the natural way and open to procreation, and (c) the act must not be placed in any danger of pollution (i.e., ejaculation). 

Why is this not considered sodomy? Because it is part of foreplay, with the intention to procreate naturally, and avoiding danger of pollution. There is no unanimous consent of the theologians in this matter. Being a Franciscan, Jone takes a stance that is more open to human liberty of action than would a Dominican like theologian Prummer.  I agree that since the time of Jone (1962) medical and scientific knowledge has progressed where we realize that using the rectum as foreplay is almost always unhealthy, and for such reason Jone (or the Church) most probably would have reversed that teaching. However, we have no magisterial authority, so it remains simply an opinion one may follow. There is absolutely no heresy. Jone does not deny openness to procreation, avoidance of pollution, and correct marital intention.

Jerome accuses Jone of contradicting himself. He again quotes Jone: "230. – II. Sodomy. 1. Definition. Sodomy is unnatural carnal copulation either with a person of the same sex (perfect sodomy) or of the opposite sex; the latter of heterosexual sodomy consists in rectal intercourse (imperfect sodomy). Either kind of sodomy will be consummated or non-consummated according as semination takes place or not."

Jerome comments, "Therefore, whether the seed is spilled during sodomy or not, it is still sodomy, but one is called consummated sodomy and the other is non-consummated sodomy. Hence in Section 230 he correctly teaches that a husband who sodomizes his wife but does not consummate the sodomy is still guilty of sodomy, which he correctly classifies as non-consummated sodomy. His teaching in this section contradicts what he teaches in Section 757 when he says that the husband’s non-consummated sodomy is not sodomy at all. Nature itself tells even a pagan that any form of rectal intercourse for any reason as well as any kind of sexual activity outside what is necessary for procreation is intrinsically evil and selfish."

To claim that a theologian as brilliant as Jone contradicted himself is laughable. Section 230, is the general definition of sodomy. The latter section (which Jerome places first in his post) qualifies the definition within the context of marriage open to procreation. Big difference. Before Jerome labels theologians "perverts" and "heretics," may I respectfully suggest that he learn to read texts in their proper context? Notice what he says at the end of the last sentence, "...any kind of sexual activity outside what is necessary for procreation is intrinsically evil and selfish." There will be plenty of wacky ideas Jerome and some others on a website he recommeds have that will be discussed later in this post. 

Rejecting the Theologians = Rejecting The Universal and Ordinary Magisterium

1.  Catholics are bound to believe the teachings of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church.
 Proof: "Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or IN HER ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL TEACHING POWER [magisterium], to be believed as divinely revealed." Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution on the Faith (1870), DZ 1792; Emphasis mine.

The Code of Canon Law (1917) imposes the same obligation. ( See Canon 1323.1)

2. The universal and constant agreement of the theologians that something belongs to the faith is not a case of some erudite priests or bishops who can be wrong, nor is it a fallacious appeal to authority. It is how the Church teaches us free from error. It is the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium at work.

Proof: "For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith." Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter (1863),DZ 1683 (Emphasis mine)

Jerome must reject the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium as a natural consequence of his position.

3. Jerome's pitiful objection
Jerome claims that the pope cannot read every book in the world (true enough) and cites to Pope St. Pius X's encyclical Pascendi. "Let no Bishop think that he fulfills this duty by denouncing to us one or two books, while a great many others of the same kind are being published and circulated. Nor are you to be deterred by the fact that a book has obtained the Imprimatur elsewhere, both because this may be merely simulated, and because it may have been granted through carelessness or easiness or excessive confidence in the author as may sometimes happen in religious Orders." (Emphasis Jerome's). 

Yes, Jerome. We are not talking about some simple priest who writes a book, or a lower level theologians. The theologians who have their works approved for use in the seminaries are indeed reviewed by the Holy See.At the very least, their works are used in the seminaries of the world with the approval of the bishops and without censure from the pontiff or a Roman Congregation. Those are the theologians whom we cite. Also included are those whose works are published as part of their doctoral dissertation and are reviewed in detail by the entire theological faculty and the bishop. The decisions of the Roman Congregations (especially the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office) must have their decisions approved by the Pontiff. So in no case here is there a danger of a simulated (false) Imprimatur, an approval granted through carelessness, or confidence in a particular author by his Order. 

4. Who are the adversaries of the theologians?
Theologian Salaverri, after having explained the important and unique role of the theologians, goes on to list their adversaries, to wit; Humanists, Protestants, Rationalists, Modernists, and Jansenists. (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa I B [1955], pg. 327-328). Jerome clearly places himself in their evil company.


5. A query answered
Jerome asks, "I would like to ask Introibo how he think the great apostasy even came into being if everything taught before Vatican II was safe and sound to follow? Is it not obvious that many teachings and practises (sic) before Vatican II must have been heretical, unsafe, and displeasing to God since He allowed the apostasy happen? Obviously. Why else would God allow the Vatican II apostasy to happen, unless, again, the majority of Catholics were displeasing to him?"

Answer: The Great Apostasy came about as the result of people (like Jerome) who don't know the Faith. The Modernists were driven underground, but not extirpated. People were "going through the motions" in the era just prior to Vatican II. The love of God had grown cold in many. Jerome wrongly assumes that "teachings and practices" of the Church were displeasing to God. This is impossible because the One True Church is the Mystical Body of Christ and is Indefectible. It is a dogma that the Church cannot teach error or give that which is evil. In addition, the proposition that the Church could err in Her universal disciplinary Laws was condemned by Pope Pius VI (Auctorum Fidei), Pope Gregory XVI (Mirari Vos and Quo Graviora), Pope St. Pius X (Pascendi Domenici Gregis), and Pope Pius XII (Mystici Corporis).  The Church cannot err in Her disciplinary Laws, much less Her dogmatic and moral teachings! To state otherwise is heresy.

Jerome rejects the dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church.

Jerome's Substitutes For The Theologians 

  • Jacinta "The Prophetess." Jerome states, "Indeed, we learn from Jacinta herself – the Prophetess of Fatima – that even before Vatican II, almost all people were in a state of damnation; and it is just a fact that the people of that time were many times more virtuous than the "Catholics" of our own time. "Jacinta, what are you thinking of?" Jacinta, the prophetess and seer of Fatima replied: "About the war which will come. So many people will die, and almost all of them will go to hell!" Consider that this statement by Jacinta was made before the Vatican II revolution." Which pope declared Jacinta of Fatima a "prophetess"? Private revelations need not be believed by anyone. Even Church approved private revelations may be denied without sin (as long as it is not done out of contempt for ecclesiastical authority). I can literally pile a stack of books on Fatima several feet high, each of which contains different words attributed to the seers. How can Jerome be sure he has the accurate words? There are so many contradictory statements claimed for "what was really said" as if our salvation depends on getting private revelations correct! I refuse to even go down that useless path. 

  • More private revelations--La Salette. Jerome writes, "Also consider our Lady’s prophecy in the Church approved apparition of La Salette“In the year 1864 Lucifer, together with a great number of devils, will be loosed from hell; little by little they will abolish the faith, and that even in persons consecrated to God; they will so blind them, that without a special grace, these persons will take on the spirit of these evil angels; a number of religious houses will lose the faith entirely and cause many souls to be damned. Bad books will abound over the earth, and the spirits of darkness will everywhere spread universal relaxation in everything concerning God’s service: they will have very great power over nature; there will be churches to serve these [evil doctrines or] spirits... and even priests, because they will not have lived by the good spirit of the gospel, which is a spirit of humility, charity and zeal for the glory of God.” (Prophecy of La Salette, 19th of September 1846)" Isn't it interesting that Jerome goes out of his way to emphasize that the apparition is church approved? Is he sure the pope himself looked over every word? Where did he get that quote? Did the book have a valid Imprimatur? As a matter of fact, on December 21, 1915, The Holy Office forbade anyone to discuss, disseminate, or investigate ".. the so-called Secret of La Salette, its diverse forms and its relevance to present and future times" Poor Jerome!

  • A Website of Wacky--and False-- Ideas. Jerome recommends trusaint.com for advice on sexual ethics. The site is run by three anonymous persons (I don't know if Jerome is one of them). They are Feeneyites (no surprise there), and condemn (literally) everyone, except themselves and maybe Jerome, to Hell. Just a partial list of those condemned: SSPX, SSPV, CMRI, Novus Ordo Watch.Org, etc. They are sedevacantists and would seem to have the Home Aloner position since everyone is Hell-bound. They remind me of cult leader Richard Ibranyi (who is also on the list of those whose errors are sending them straight to Hell as heretics). Trusaint condemns Natural Family Planning or "NFP" (approved by the Church), using the following principle, taken out of context:
"The first reason is that the Natural Law teaches that “the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children” (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, #54) and that the act of marriage exercised for pleasure onlyis condemned as a sin for both the married and unmarried people alike (Pope Innocent XI, Denz. 1159). Since even the normal, natural and procreative “act of marriage exercised for [the motive of] pleasure only” is condemned as a sin even though this act is directly procreative in itself, and the only intention and motive that excuses the marital sexual act from sin is the procreation of children, according to teachings of the Popes, Saints and Doctors of the Church, it is totally obvious that every single marital sexual act must be excused by an explicit act of the will of having children before one performs the marital sexual act."(Emphasis in original). The idea that the marital act is sinful unless "excused" is abhorrent, un-Catholic and results in patent absurdity.

Let's take the example of a couple married thirty (30) years, and had ten children. The wife reaches her late 40s and goes through menopause. She can no longer conceive. Under trusaint.com and Jerome's strange "principle" they must abstain from the marriage act for the rest of their lives because it can't result in procreation and would be done "for pleasure only." Why has the Church always permitted the infertile and elderly who are widows/widowers to marry knowing full well they cannot procreate? Procreation is in the nature of the union. Apples are by nature good to eat. That fact that a particular apple may be rotten, does not detract from the nature of the apple. In this sense, marriage is procreative even when circumstances render a particular marriage barren. Of course, no married couple may, without sinning, purposefully exclude begetting children permanently by using NFP when they are capable of having children. This, however, is not what they are saying. 

Conclusion

 Jerome, by abandoning the teachings of the theologians has rejected the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. As a result, he becomes a magisterium unto himself.  On what does Jerome rely? Private revelations that no one must believe and no one can be sure what was said in many cases anyway. Websites that condemn everyone as heretics going to Hell and come up with strange and false ideas about marriage that will cause needless concern for good yet uninformed people thinking everything is a "sin," including the marital act, "unless excused"!

Pray for Jerome's conversion. Let him be a reminder why we must hold on to the teachings of the Church as explained by Her approved theologians. Otherwise you reject the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church to the detriment of your soul--and your sanity. 
          


Monday, February 20, 2017

Monkey Business About Creation


 Few topics invite so much misinformation and disinformation as the origin of the universe and the human race. Protestant fundamentalists will say that the universe was created about 6,000 years ago in six (6) twenty-four (24) hour time periods, while Modernists will assert that the biblical account of Genesis is largely a myth and humans evolved in a strict Neo-Darwinian fashion. Then we have the atheists who love to portray theists (and Christians in particular) as anti-science and superstitious dolts. Whenever a Traditionalist is presented with such a topic, we must put aside our feelings and prejudices to ask, "What does the Church teach on this matter?" In the absence of a true pope, it is vital not to seek our answers from our private interpretations of Scripture, or private revelations (alleged messages from apparitions, or even the mystic writings of certain saints) but from the authoritative teachings of the popes, and the approved pre-Vatican II theologians. In this post, I will seek to dispel some popular myths, and then present Church teaching.


Hollywood vs. Religion

 The atheists and other enemies of the Church who run most of the media, have been doing their best to denigrate Traditional Catholicism, and even any form of belief in Christ from Protestant sects.It didn't just start in recent years either. The 1955 play and 1960 film Inherit the Wind is an excellent example of anti-God propaganda. The movie (starring Spencer Tracy, Frederic March, and Gene Kelly) purports to accurately dramatize the events surrounding the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, which transpired in Dayton, Tennessee. The movie has the same relationship to reality as the "fake news" of today.

 According to the movie, John T. Scopes (1900-1970) is a high school biology teacher who loves science and passionately introduces his students to the evolutionary ideas of Charles Darwin (1809-1882), only to be violently denounced by the ill-educated, unenlightened, and bigoted town leaders--all of whom are fundamentalist Protestants. Scopes is thrown in prison for violating the law forbidding the teaching of evolution. Scopes' girlfriend is the daughter of the town preacher, and begs him to renounce his belief in Darwinism. Scopes bravely refuses to "deny the truth."

 Then comes lawyer Clarence Darrow (1857-1938), the champion of truth, science, reason and humanity. He will defend Scopes pro bono (free of charge). The prosecuting attorney is William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925), an ignorant, ill-mannered Protestant fundamentalist who says in the movie, "...the Lord began the creation on the twenty-third of October in the year 4004 B.C. at--uh, at 9 a.m.!" I hate to tell you how many people I know who believe this rubbish to be an accurate account of what actually happened (highly educated people among them). They have been brainwashed into buying the whole "science vs. religion" canard. God is the author of all truths meaning that the True Faith, and the truths of science, cannot contradict each other.

In his 1998 Pulitzer Prize winning book, Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion, historian, lawyer, and author Edward J. Larson does a splendid job of setting the record straight.



  • The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) placed an ad in the Chattanooga Times, offering free legal services to any teacher prepared to stand trial for teaching evolution, prohibited by the "Butler Act" passed that same year by the Tennessee legislature. 
  • Local business leaders in Dayton, lead by George Rappleyea and drugstore owner Frank Robinson, thought that if a trial like this could be held in Dayton, it would give major publicity to the town and boost the economy.
  • They recruited Scopes, who was not a biology teacher. He taught physics and math, and coached football. He did substitute on occasion for the biology teacher, and mentioned evolution so he could be the "test case."
  • The conspirators contacted the ACLU. Scopes was arrested and charged with one count of violating the Butler Act. He was immediately released on bail. He never spent a single minute in jail.
  • The textbook from which Scopes taught, A Civic Biology, by George Hunter, had a chapter on evolution. Hunter was an advocate of eugenics and held a low opinion of the mentally disabled, the mentally ill, and epileptics, all of whom he put in the same category with habitual criminals. He stated that, "If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading...we do have the remedy...preventing intermarriage and the possibility of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race." (See A Civic Biology Presented in Problems, NY: American Book Company, [1914], pg. 263; Emphasis mine).
  • William Jennings Bryan, a three time Democratic nominee for US President, a US Congressman, and US Secretary of State, opposed evolution because of the eugenics it engenders. By 1925, 24 states had laws permitting forced sterilizations on the "mentally feeble" and approximately 12,000 such sterilizations had occurred. He believed in a universe that was very old, and that the days in Genesis were not literal.
  • Clarence Darrow was everything that decent lawyers (such as myself), abhor in the profession. Scopes was his first and only pro bono case, because he had an avowed hatred for Christianity. Just months before the Scopes trial, he defended Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, the sons of two very wealthy families in Chicago, when they murdered fourteen (14) year old Bobby Franks just to see if they could (literally) get away with the murder of someone they didn't like. Darrow argued that they were "psychologically determined" from birth to do what they did, and both killers escaped the death penalty. 




What the Church Teaches on Creation

Moses, who wrote the Book of Genesis, used the Hebrew word "yom"--which means a time period of unspecified length as it was used at the time. It was translated as "day." The following question was proposed to the Pontifical Biblical Commission:

"Whether in the designation and distinction of six days with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word 'DAY' can be assumed either in its proper sense of a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among the exegetes?"

On June 30, 1909, the Commission (with full approval from His Holiness Pope St. Pius X) responded:

"IN THE AFFIRMATIVE." This means that the "days" of creation need not be actual periods of twenty-four hours each. This also comports with the Commission's decision of June 23, 1905 (also approved by Pope St. Pius X) that Scripture gives historical accounts except "...where without opposing the sense of the Church and preserving its judgement, it is proved with strong arguments that the sacred writer did not wish to put down true history, and history properly so-called, but to set forth, under the appearance and form of history a parable, an allegory, or some meaning removed from the properly literal or historical significance of the words."

In my opinion (and consistent with the decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission approved by Pope St. Pius X), Moses meant to convey that man was God's special creation, so the Earth (our planet) takes place of pride over the other celestial bodies.That's why it is created first.  The creation of Man comes last to show Him as God's crowning achievement. There ARE strong arguments from modern science which would validate this interpretation. As a matter of fact, the Big Bang Theory was formulated by a Roman Catholic priest, Fr. Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (1894-1966). The Communists forbade the Big Bang to be taught, because they taught the "Steady State Theory" (the universe always existed), and it did not imply the need for a Creator!  I stand, as ever, to be corrected should Holy Mother Church be restored and teach otherwise.



The Church and Evolution

  What of Adam and Eve? Did they evolve or were they created exactly as stated in Genesis? 

Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Humani Generis of August 12, 1950 states:

"For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith. Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question."

As theologian Sagues explains, "With these words therefore it is supposed or asserted that evolutionism, and indeed only regarding the human body, is not a fact that has really been demonstrated, but a "hypothesis," and one that touches on doctrine contained in Scripture and Tradition. It is assumed that the hypothesis is not certainly directly or indirectly opposed to revelation, since otherwise it would be totally rejected; it is assumed it can, since the Church does not forbid it, be freely discussed in the present-day context of theology and natural science (this does not include everyone), but only by experts in both camps, and also in gravity and moderation in advancing reasons for or against transformism [evolution--Introibo], provided that all are ready to submit to the judgement of the Church." (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa, II B [1955], pgs. 236-237; Emphasis mine).   



Summary and Conclusion
  • There is much misinformation and disinformation regarding the origin of the universe and humanity.
  • The atheists, Masons, and other enemies of the Church do everything in their power to make it appear that science and theology are at war, when in fact God is the author of both the True Religion and true science so no contradiction is even possible.
  • Inherit the Wind is but one example of propaganda that mixes truth, half-truths, and outright lies under the guise of "history" to demonize those who believe in God and make them seem "unscientific."
  • Traditionalists must follow the teaching of the Church in this and all matters. Look to actual Church teaching and the approved pre-Vatican II theologians for guidance in an age of near universal apostasy without a pope to lead us. 
  • We are permitted by the Church to believe Creation was not in a literal six days, and that Genesis might not convey the exact order of Creation. Rather, it may have been told to make a point.
  • Evolution of the human body only, is open to discussion among experts under the guidance of the Church. This theory cannot be directly or indirectly opposed to the Faith, or Pope Pius XII would not have authoritatively allowed it to be the subject of open discussion; rather, it would have been condemned outright.
 The relationship between science and the True Religion, when properly understood, presents no difficulties. Just be sure to look for your guidance to actual Church teaching in the decrees of the popes, Roman Congregations, and the approved pre-Vatican II theologians. There are many questions (such as evolution of the body and the time involved in creation) that are open to differing opinions, and cannot be solved until the Church is restored. We have no business condemning those whom the Church Herself does not condemn in areas open to theological differences, unless/until the Church is restored and decrees a definitive answer. I believe in an old universe that God began with a Big Bang and that the human body may have developed over time before God's special intervention. You might deny both. However, we both remain loyal sons and daughters of Holy Mother Church. Let's focus on our common enemy, the Vatican II sect, and not busy ourselves in condemning fellow Traditionalists in matters left unresolved.  































Monday, February 13, 2017

Signs And Wonders


 They can heal you; or so they claim. Fr. Ralph DiOrio, Fr. Francis Macnutt, "Fr" Richard McAlear, and "Fr" Fernando Suarez are just a few past or present members of the Vatican II sect clergy claiming to be able to heal people. Their services are always packed, unlike the typical Novus Bogus "mass" where the Church is near empty. As Christ said, "Unless you see signs and wonders, you believe not." (See St. John 4:48). God can and does heal people. Miracles can and do happen. However, one must discern what really comes from God, and what does not. Unfortunately, many people get trapped into staying in the Vatican II sect for this very reason. People will say that it must be the True Catholic Church because God would not permit such signs and wonders otherwise. This post will examine some well-known "healers,"  some arguments to help those who believe in them to see the truth, and give some signs of false healing miracles.

Meet The "Healers"

1. "Fr" Richard McAlear was "ordained" in 1970, and began his "healing ministry" in connection with involvement with the Catholic (sic) Charismatic Movement in 1976. He says a "healing mass" in which "After attending Father McAlear's healing mass, many individuals experience emotions that are sometimes too powerful to express in human language; all experience a deep peace." (See http://www.frmac.org/about-the-ministry.html)

2. "Fr" Fernando Suarez was "ordained" in 2002 and is currently 50 years old. He is Filipino and on January 26, 2008, two people died and seven were rushed to James Gordon Hospital, Olongapo City while waiting for Suarez' "healing mass." Juanito Eleazar, 69, was one of those who died. She had a heart attack amid more than 15,000 worshipers having lined-up 

3. Fr. Ralph DiOrio was ordained in 1957. He claims that "On Sunday, May 9th, 1976 (Mother’s Day), Father Ralph Anthony DiOrio, Jr. was openly blessed with the Holistic Charisma of Healings." (whatever that means). He claims that he knew he had the "gift of healing" his whole life. He is quoted in People magazine as saying, "Whether church officials of any denomination accept us or not, we’re here to stay. That’s God’s plan, not mine." His "healing ceremonies" resemble a Protestant revival. He retired January 2017. 

4. Fr. Francis MacNutt was ordained in 1956. He became involved in the Catholic (sic) Charismatic Movement during the late 1960s. In 1980, he broke his vows to "marry" a woman more than 20 years his junior and set up a "healing ministry." In 1993, the Vatican II sect granted him a "dispensation" from his vows and "Bishop" John Snyder performed their Church wedding in Florida. In 2007, the Modernist Vatican co-sponsored an international conference with his "Christian Healing Ministries" for 450 Catholic (sic) leaders from 42 countries. Now, turning 92, he turned the organization over to his concubine. 

Mind Over Matter

Most of those caught up in these "healing services" do not want to hear of demonic influence (which probably occurs in some of them). They are not open to hearing that Satan will gladly cure a malady (inflicted by him) in order to bring about the "cure" and keep a soul in a false religion leading to perdition. Many so-called healings are the result of the power of suggestion. Some ailments are caused by the power of suggestion (known as psychosomatic illness). So too, can the mind cure certain ailments. According to Dr. Paul Brand, who studied such cases and co-published an article in Christianity Today entitled, "A Surgeon's View of Divine Healing" ( issue of November 25, 1983), he cites the following documented examples:


  • In the placebo effect, faith in simple sugar pills stimulates the mind to control pain and even heal some disorders. In certain experiments, among those with terminal cancer, morphine was an effective pain killer in two-thirds of patients, but placebos were equally effective in half of those! The placebo tricks the mind into believing relief has come, and the body responds accordingly.
  • Through biofeedback, people can train themselves to direct bodily processes that previously were thought involuntary. They can control blood pressure, heart rate, brain waves, and even vary the temperature in their hands by as much as 14 degrees.
  • Under hypnosis, 20 percent of patients can be induced to lose consciousness of pain so completely that they can undergo surgery without anesthetics. Some patients have even cured warts under hypnosis. The hypnotist suggests the idea, and the body performs a remarkable feat of skin renovation and construction, involving the cooperation of thousands of cells in a mental-directed process otherwise unobtainable.
  • In a false pregnancy (known as pseudocyesis), a woman believes so strongly in her condition that her mind directs an extraordinary sequence of activities: it increases hormone flow, enlarges breasts, suspends menstruation, induces morning sickness, and even prompts labor contractions. All this occurs even though there is no physical cause, that is, no fertilization and growing fetus inside. (My primary care physician, now age 72, told me how as a young doctor in the South Pacific, he actually was caring for such a woman. He believed her to be in the 8th month of pregnancy. When he heard no heartbeat, he ordered an X-ray and some other diagnostic tests; the best that could be done at that time and in that area of the world. He cancelled all other tests when the X-ray revealed no baby! Confronted with this evidence, the woman's body returned to normal in a short time. My doctor told me he has not [and never will] forget this experience. He thought the entire idea of false pregnancy was nonsense kept as a footnote in most medical texts.---Introibo) 
Most of these "healing services or masses" are conducted like Protestant revivals, where the emotions of those present are worked up to the point of making them susceptible to induce certain cures. Point to be made: tell those involved with these "healing masses" that mental suggestion, charlatans who place false people in the audience to be "healed," and demonic activity to dupe people, can all be possible causes of "miraculous cures."

What Does The Church Teach Concerning Miracles?

We must remember miracles:

  • Are performed for the glory of God and the good of humanity, and are the primary or supreme ends of every miracle.
  • Are evidences attesting and confirming the truth of a Divine mission, or of a doctrine of faith or morals
  • Are wrought to attest to true sanctity. Thus, e.g., God defends Moses ( See Numbers 12)
  • Benefits either spiritual or temporal. The temporal favors are always subordinate to spiritual ends, for they are a reward or a pledge of virtue, e.g. the widow of Sarephta (1 Kings 17), the Three Children in the fiery furnace (Daniel 3), the preservation of Daniel (Daniel 5), the deliverance of St. Peter from prison (Acts 12), of St. Paul from shipwreck (Acts 27). Thus semeion, i.e., "sign", completes the meaning of dynamis, i.e., "[Divine] power". It reveals the miracle as an act of God's supernatural Providence over men. It gives a positive content to teras, i.e., "wonder", for, whereas the wonder shows the miracle as a deviation from the ordinary course of nature, the sign gives the purpose of the deviation. 
(Above taken from the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia)


Ask anyone who is caught up in these "healing masses":  To what doctrine of faith and/or morals do they attest? That false sects are a "means of salvation"? That "there is no Catholic God"?

Do any of the aforementioned healers seem especially holy?

What benefits are given? "Emotions and a feeling of deep peace"?

Some Warning Signs Against False "Miraculous Healings"

 1. The "Healer" claims "you must have faith" and "If you don't believe strongly enough, God can't heal you." God is in control of the universe and faith is not some condition without which He cannot act. God can cure whomever He wishes, in His Divine Providence. Someone without faith may be cured because of others praying for them, or because of a greater spiritual good that will result for the one healed, or perhaps another. Of the twenty-five (25) miracles Christ performed as recorded in the Bible, fifteen (15) were done with no faith on the part of the recipient (e.g., the healing of the ear of Malchus in St. Luke 22: 49-51). On the other hand, psychological healings (power of suggestion) does require belief--not in the true faith, but in the "healer" or even a placebo.

2. The "Healer" needs to touch you or have you place your hands on some object (blessed or not).
God does not need anyone to touch anything to heal. Consider how Christ brought Lazarus back from the dead without touching him, and He healed the centurion's servant from afar. Making contact with people (or objects--"put your hands on the TV and be healed" as those phony Protestant "televangelists" would declare back in the 1970s and 80s) is part of a psychological build up.

3. The "Healer" claims the cure is gradual. Miraculous cures are instantaneous and permanent. People who claim they "begin to feel better" and then go to doctors to complete the "miracle" shows a true case of psychological healing, not Divine Intervention. 


Conclusion

Don't let yourself or others get taken in by "healing masses" and "healing services" of Vatican II sect clergy. They are false miracles (many psychological cures) in the context of a false religion and a false "mass" (Novus Bogus). God will not ratify a false sects' teachings with His Power. Pray to the Divine Physician to be healed, but also remember His warning, recorded in St. Matthew 24:24, "For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect." (Emphasis mine). 

Monday, February 6, 2017

Is Mary Our Co-Redemptrix?


  The spurious "Benedictine brothers" of the "Most Holy Family Monastery," Fred and Bobby Dimond, are damning more people to Hell. If anyone should disagree with their ever changing opinions on any given subject, they don't hesitate to claim that person is on the road to perdition. The Dimonds suffer from a condition endemic among those who deny Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB), namely, the refusal to submit to the authority of the Magisterium. According to them, only infallible decrees are to be believed, and then only their twisted interpretation of them. The approved pre-Vatican II theologians are to be spurned, as are any decrees of Roman Congregations (and even of the popes themselves), if they don't agree with their novel interpretation of some infallible decree.

 The latest case in point, is an article on the Most Holy Family Monastery (MHFM) website that declares anyone who gives Our Blessed Mother the title Co-Redemptrix is a heretic. The title Co-Redemptrix has pre-Vatican II theologians divided. Some approve and advocate for the title, and others feel it should be a title denied to her as it is unbecoming Our Lady. Neither side declares the title to be a matter of heresy or worthy of some censure short of heresy. As the Dimonds set themselves up as the ultimate arbiters of truth, my post will (a) explain why they are wrong and (b) give the arguments of the pre-Vatican II theologians (pro and con) as to the title Co-Redemptrix. The Church has never decided the matter and, unlike Fred and Bob, I realize I have no authority to settle the issue. Traditionalists are free to adopt either position on giving Our Blessed Mother the title Co-Redemptrix.

A Dimond Is Bad Theology's Best Friend

 The Dimond brothers attack those who wish to honor Our Lady with the title Co-Redemptrix as heretics because it (allegedly) contradicts the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent. They write:

 Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 25, On Invocation, Veneration and Relics of Saints, and on Sacred Images, ex cathedra: “…the saints, who reign with Christ, offer up their prayers to God for me; and that it is good and useful to invoke them suppliantly and, in order to obtain favors from God through His Son JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, WHO ALONE IS OUR REDEEMER and Savior….But if anyone should teach or maintain anything contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema.” (Denz. 984-987) (Emphasis in original).

What the Diamonds, in their duplicity, choose to omit are the following words between the ellipsis, "and that they think impiously who deny that the saints who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven are to be invoked, or who assert that they do not pray for men, or that our invocation of them to pray for each of us individually is idolatry, or that it is opposed to the word of God and inconsistent with the honor of the one mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ...(Emphasis mine). It's clear that Trent was condemning the Protestants who think that because there is ONE MEDIATOR (not two or more--See 1 Timothy 2: 5-6), that saints are not to be invoked and cannot pray and intercede for us without derogating from the one Mediator, Jesus Christ. The Dimonds have no problem calling Our Lady Mediatrix, with no fear of minimizing Our Lord's unique role as the one Mediator. Likewise, Trent was not defining Christ to be the only Savior so as to exclude the possibility of Our Lady having a secondary and subordinate role in redemption. Just as Mary has a role in dispensing all grace (subordinate to and united with Her Divine Son) so as to merit the title Mediatrix without dishonoring or denying Her Son as the one and only Mediator, the title Co-Redemptrix would be given in the same manner.  So much for their contorting the meaning of Trent, just as they do in regards to its decrees on Baptism and the sacraments.

What about the theologians and popes who spoke of Mary as having a role with Her Divine Son in the redemption of humanity? According to MHFM, "There are a few non-infallible quotations that people bring forward to attempt to show that Mary is Co-Redemptrix.  The answer is that they are not infallible and they are simply wrong.  They cannot be defended." Well, that settles it! They were not infallible, and we only need to believe those statements that are infallibly defined (or so the Feeneyites contend). These theologians and popes were unaware that the Council of Trent infallibly defined that Christ alone redeemed us to the exclusion of any cooperative role of Our Blessed Mother. Wouldn't that make them notorious heretics who would thereby lose their ecclesiastical office (in the case of a pope)? What good is having a Teaching Authority which is unable to preserve Her members from the errors of errant theologians?  Don't expect logical answers anytime soon from our wannabe "Benedictines."


What Real Theologians Teach

  As I wrote above, the Church has not settled the question as to whether or not Mary is to be invoked under the title Co-Redemptrix. I will therefore put forward the teachings of two eminent pre-Vatican II theologians; Joseph Pohle who opposes the title, and Juniper Carol, who defends the title.

  1. The Case Against Mary Being Called Co-Redemptrix (Pohle)
(a) It obscures the fact that Mary herself was redeemed through the merits of Jesus Christ which theologians technically call pre-redemption as She was preserved free from Original Sin "in view of the merits of Jesus Christ" (See Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of Pope Pius IX defining the dogma of the Immaculate Conception on December 8, 1854). 

(b) The title never belonged to the Blessed Virgin before the 16th century and is the invention of recent theologians.

(c) Mary might be though of as acting in a priestly capacity. Any/all such titles attributed to Mary, such as "priestess," were solemnly condemned by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in 1916, and again in 1927. 

(d) The title Mediatrix most appropriately and comprehensively describes Our Lady's part in the Redemption, which title is sanctioned by primitive Christian usage and embodies all that can be said on the subject.
(See Mariology, [1916] pgs. 122-123) 

      2. The Case For Mary Being Called Co-Redemptrix (Carol)

(a) Redemption designates the sum total of meritorious and satisfactory acts performed by Christ while on Earth, offered to the Eternal Father in and through the Sacrifice of the Cross, in virtue of which the Eternal Father was moved (humanly speaking) to reinstate the human race into His former friendship. When we say Mary is Co-Redemptrix of humanity, we mean that together with Christ (although subordinately to Him and and in virtue of His power) She atoned or satisfied for our sins, merited every grace necessary for salvation, and offered Her Divine Son on Calvary to appease the wrath of God, and that as a result of this, God was pleased to cancel our debt and receive us into His former friendship. This co-redemptive role of Mary actually began when She accepted to become the Mother of God by her own free will. 

(b) Pope Benedict XV, in his Apostolic Letter Inter Sodalicia (March 22, 1918), wrote, "To such extent did she (Mary) suffer and almost die with her suffering and dying Son, and to such extent did she surrender her maternal rights over her Son for man's salvation, and immolated Him, insofar as she could, in order to appease the justice of God, that we may rightly say that she redeemed the human race together with Christ."

(c) Pope Pius XI called Our Lady Co-Redemptrix at least six (6) times. In the radio broadcast to the world at the solemn closing of the Jubilee Year which commemorated the Redemption of humanity (April 29, 1935) he prayed, "O Mother of piety and mercy who, when Thy most beloved Son was accomplishing the Redemption of the human race on the altar of the cross, didst stand there both suffering with Him and as a Co-Redemptrix; preserve us we beseech thee, and increase day by day, the precious fruit of His Redemption and of thy compassion."

(d) Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Ad Coeli Reginam (October 11, 1954) distinguishes Mary's role in the Redemption from her role as Mediatrix of All Grace. 

(e) On November 26, 1951, the entire Cuban hierarchy petitioned Pope Pius XII for a dogmatic definition of Mary as Co-Redemptrix. An entire nation of bishops felt that it could and should be defined.

(f) Just as Adam alone brought sin in the world, yet had the cooperation of Eve, Mary is the Second Eve. Christ alone brought redemption to the world with the cooperation of Mary.

(g)   When the Church teaches Christ alone is our Redeemer, they are referring to the primary, universal, and self-sufficient causality of Christ in the redemptive process which does not exclude Mary's secondary and totally subordinate cooperation which drew all its efficacy from the superabundant merits of her Divine Son. 

(h) Mary was redeemed by Christ, so how could she both receive the effect of redemption and be the cause of it? Because Mary cooperated to redeem all others not herself. Mary was redeemed by God preemptively in the Immaculate Conception, then together with Her Divine Son, she cooperated to redeem all others.

(i) Christ's merits have infinite value, so how can Mary's cooperation add anything to the Passion? Mary did not add (and could not add) anything to Christ's merits. However, God was pleased to accept her satisfaction together with Christ as a fitting way of making her the Second Eve, even as Christ was the Second Adam.
(See Mariology, [1956] pgs. 56-65)

Conclusion
 When the Church has not settled a question and leaves it open to discussion among the theologians, Traditionalists are free to accept any answer the theologians offer as long as it is not censured by the Magisterium. Such is the case on whether the title Co-Redemptrix properly belongs to Mary. Notice however, how the strongest (and most numerous) arguments come down on the side favoring Mary as Co-Redemptrix. Theologian Pohle's objections are more about the fear of misunderstandings that could derogate from Christ's unique salvific role, not a condemnation of the correct understanding of Mary's role in redemption. Personally, I believe Mary is our Co-Redemptrix. However, that's all it is--one layman's opinion based on the teachings of the popes and theologians. I will not arrogate unto myself alleged Magisterial authority and issue false condemnations of people who disagree. I will leave all that up to Fred and Bobby Dimond, the self-anointed "Benedictine brothers" at Most Holy Family Monastery.