Monday, February 18, 2019

Wojtyla And Marx

 "St." John Paul the Great (Apostate) is continually lauded by the so-called conservative members of the Vatican II sect for two reasons; his stance against abortion and his anti-Communism. It's true he towed the line regarding the Church's teaching on abortion. Wojtyla was an actor, and what a great act he put on for those who didn't understand the Faith, yet desperately wanted to believe "the essentials" hadn't changed after Vatican II. Unfortunately, no one stopped to realize that abortion reached catastrophic proportions precisely because Wojtyla simultaneously helped push for the removal of Catholicism as the State religion. Countries that never had legal abortion (Belgium, Ireland, Spain, etc) fell as part of the "culture of death" once the influence of Catholicism was gone. After all, the "Church of Christ" subsists in all sects as Vatican II teaches.

 As to Communism, Wojtyla is wrongfully regarded as its foe. There is much in his heretical teachings that went against true Church teaching on the evils of Marxism in all its forms. This post will expose the capitulation to Socialist and Marxists tenets by a  "saint" of the Vatican II sect.

Is The Social Doctrine of the Church "The Soul of Marxism"?

 In 1993, JPII made the following remarks:
The conditions that gave rise historically to this system [Marxism] were very real and serious. The system of exploitation, to which inhuman capitalism had submitted the proletariat since the beginning of the industrial revolution, represented a true iniquity that the social doctrine of the Church openly condemned. At depth, the latter [Church social doctrine] was the soul of truth of Marxism, thanks to which it can present itself in a fascinating way in Western societies themselves. (See L'Osservatore Romano, September 11, 1993; Emphasis mine) Here, "St." Wojtyla calls Church social teaching "the soul" of the demonic system of Karl Marx. What can you expect from a man who praises the Communist Manifesto in one of his "encyclicals"? Yes, you read that correctly. In 1981, JPII wrote Laborem Exercens, and in section #8 we read:

It was precisely one such wide-ranging anomaly that gave rise in the last century to what has been called "the worker question", sometimes described as "the proletariat question."  This question and the problems connected with it gave rise to a just social reaction and caused the impetuous emergence of a great burst of solidarity between workers, first and foremost industrial workers. The call to solidarity and common action addressed to the workers-especially to those engaged in narrowly specialized, monotonous and depersonalized work in industrial plants, when the machine tends to dominate man - was important and eloquent from the point of view of social ethics. It was the reaction against the degradation of man as the subject of work, and against the unheard-of accompanying exploitation in the field of wages, working conditions and social security for the worker. This reaction united the working world in a community marked by great solidarity...Following the lines laid dawn by the Encyclical Rerum must be frankly recognized that the reaction against the system of injustice and harm that cried to heaven for vengeance and that weighed heavily upon workers in that period of rapid industrialization was justified from the point of view of social morality.(Emphasis mine)

Without mentioning the Communist Manifesto, JPII clearly agrees with its cry, "Proletarians of the whole world unite." Wojtyla mentions the great Pope Leo XIII, in my opinion one of the holiest and most underrated popes of all time, as supporting this view by "following the lines" he laid down. Pope Leo XIII was a theological giant; did he lay the foundation for Wojtyla's teaching? Hardly. Here's what that great pontiff taught in Quod Apostolici Muneris:

You understand, venerable brethren, that We speak of that sect of men who, under various and almost barbarous names, are called socialists, communists, or nihilists, and who, spread over all the world, and bound together by the closest ties in a wicked confederacy, no longer seek the shelter of secret meetings, but, openly and boldly marching forth in the light of day, strive to bring to a head what they have long been planning - the overthrow of all civil society whatsoever.(#1)

Hence, by a new species of impiety, unheard of even among the heathen nations, states have been constituted without any count at all of God or of the order established by Him; it has been given out that public authority neither derives its principles, nor its majesty, nor its power of governing from God, but rather from the multitude, which, thinking itself absolved from all divine sanction, bows only to such laws as it shall have made at its own will. The supernatural truths of faith having been assailed and cast out as though hostile to reason, the very Author and Redeemer of the human race has been slowly and little by little banished from the universities, the lyceums and gymnasia-in a word, from every public institution. (#2)

For, indeed, although the socialists, stealing the very Gospel itself with a view to deceive more easily the unwary, have been accustomed to distort it so as to suit their own purposes, nevertheless so great is the difference between their depraved teachings and the most pure doctrine of Christ that none greater could exist: "for what participation hath justice with injustice or what fellowship hath light with darkness? (#5; Emphasis mine)

Wojtyla on Private Property

From Laborum Exercens, JPII teaches:

Christian tradition has never upheld this right [to private property] as absolute and untouchable...
As mentioned above, property is acquired first of all through work in order that it may serve work. This concerns in a special way ownership of the means of production. Isolating these means as a separate property in order to set it up in the form of "capital" in opposition to "labor"-and even to practice exploitation of labor-is contrary to the very nature of these means and their possession. They cannot be possessed against labor, they cannot even be possessed for possession's sake, because the only legitimate title to their possession- whether in the form of private ownership or in the form of public or collective ownership-is that they should serve labor, and thus, by serving labor, that they should make possible the achievement of the first principle of this order, namely, the universal destination of goods and the right to common use of them.  From this point of view, therefore, in consideration of human labor and of common access to the goods meant for man, one cannot exclude the socialization, in suitable conditions, of certain means of production. (#14)

Compare Pope Pius IX in Qui Pluribus:
To this goal also tends the unspeakable doctrine of Communism, as it is called, a doctrine most opposed to the very natural law. For if this doctrine were accepted, the complete destruction of everyone’s laws, government, property, and even of human society itself would follow. (Emphasis mine). 

Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum:
Hence, it is clear that the main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected, since it only injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit, is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind, and would introduce confusion and disorder into the commonweal. The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. (#15; Emphasis mine)

Furthermore, the social teaching of the Vatican II sect no longer held that work can be set in confrontation with capital or detached from it as an independent factor or aspect on the very level of production itself. Rerum Novarum  of Pope Leo had taught: "Neither capital can subsist without labor, nor labor without capital. (#14). Now we are taught instead:

This consistent image, in which the principle of the primacy of person over things is strictly preserved, was broken up in human thought. The break occurred in such a way that labor was separated from capital and set in opposition to it, and capital was set in opposition to labor, as though they were two impersonal forces, two production factors juxtaposed in the same "economistic perspective." (Laborem Exercens, 13].

In a 1993 interview with Jas Gawronski, JPII said, "If present day capitalism is improved, it is in great part because of the good things realized by communism: the fight against unemployment, concern for the poor. Capitalism, on the other hand, is individualistic." (See; Emphasis mine)

Although no one needs to accept private revelations, I do believe in the Church-approved apparition of Our Lady of Fatima. She warned us that "Russia would spread her errors." Wojtyla has done exactly that. Using the heretical Modernist ideology of the Robber Council Vatican II (at which Archbishop Wojtyla was a huge Modernist ideologue), he systematically pushed for the removal of Catholicism as the State religion. While posturing as anti-Communist, he reversed the social teachings of the true popes (especially Pope Leo XIII) in subtle ways so as to weaken opposition to socialism and Communism. To speak of "the good things realized by Communism" is insanity, no less than if it were said that having fewer people for whom to care is because of the "good things realized by genocide and abortion." 

Bergoglio has sold out to Beijing, and even "Cardinal" Zen of Hong Kong criticized the Modernist Vatican of forcing "bishops" to retire in favor of overt Communists picked by the Chinese Communist Party. We have a "Communist saint" in Oscar Romero. Pope Pius XI taught in his great Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, "No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist." Nor can a socialist-Communist pushing prelate from Poland be a pope or a saint. 

Monday, February 11, 2019


"Fr." John Hunwicke operates a blog called "Mutual Enrichment" ( An Anglican heretic, Hunwicke joined the Vatican II sect and was "ordained" a "priest" in 2012.  A reader brought my attention to his post entitled "Invalidists" which may be read at: Mr. Hunwicke informs his readers that he will not enable comments which claim "that PF ["Pope" Francis] is not (or might not be) the true Bishop of Rome." Translation: Sedevacantism, the Catholic teaching that a heretic can neither attain to (or remain) pope, is forbidden. Not satisfied with trashing authentic Catholic teaching, he goes on to state,"For similar reasons, I do not enable comments which say, suggest or imply that the Orders of the post-Conciliar Latin Church are not (or might not be) valid." Considering he was "ordained" in the post-V2 rite, such a comment would (correctly) impugn his own alleged priesthood.

Hunwicke tells us, "But I have an additional personal reason for not enabling 'invalidist' comments. Only three or four weeks ago, I published a series "Are they really bishops?" in which I discussed this subject in case such discussion might be helpful to people who had been unsettled by Invalidists. I deployed a lot of facts. On the basis of these facts, I asked lots of questions. I have never received, from these lofty and omniscient individuals, any suggested answers to any of my questions." His series of posts (three) are from 12/31/18, 1/3/19, and 1/4/19. This post will respond to Mr. Hunwicke's challenge, with the proviso that I'm neither lofty nor omniscient, just down-to-earth and logical.

Hunwicke's Preliminary Argument to Sedevacantists
Hunwicke writes:

The preliminary logical question to be put to those who find themselves tempted by Sedevacantism is: "You claim to hold the basic Catholic dogmas that the Church is indefectible; and that the Bishop of Rome holds a unique and God-given place within the life of that Church. How many more decades does the Roman See have to be vacant before these combined doctrines become impossible for sedevacantists to hold?

Answer: According to theologian Dorsch, "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine)

 Second, according to theologian Salaverri, instead of being a "primary foundation… without which the Church could not exist," the pope is a "secondary foundation," "ministerial," who exercises his power as someone else’s (Christ’s) representative. (See De Ecclesia 1:448).

According to theologian O'Reilly who discussed the Great Western Schism, "There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance... nor ever with such a following...
The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree." (See The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays pg. 287; Emphasis mine).

Therefore, Indefectibility and a very long interregnum are by no means incompatible as Hunwicke thinks. The teaching of the theologians clearly shows a vacancy of the Holy See lasting for an extended period of time. Such a vacancy cannot be pronounced to be incompatible with the promises of Christ as to the Indefectibility of the Church. It is also taught by the theologians that it would be exceedingly rash to set any prejudged limits as to what God will be prepared to allow to happen to the Holy See, except for that which would be contrary to Divine Law (such as an "heretical pope"--an oxymoron). 

Hunwicke's First Attempted Defense of the Post-Conciliar (New) Rite of Episcopal Consecration
 It is suggested that the 'form' used in the post-Vatican II rites for the consecration of a Bishop (which is what I am going to concentrate upon) is insufficiently precise. But any language, and any specialised (sic) subform of any language, has its own internal logic. If the Church, in the new rites, in effect says "We decree that the words spiritus principalis or pneuma hegemonikon hereafter and herein are to have the meaning of episkope", then that is the meaning those words do have, even if they didn't have it beforehand. Just as legislatures enacting legislation, or solicitors composing legal agreements, commonly begin by defining terms ("within this Act/Agreement, the term The Society shall be deemed to mean the United Society of Water Diviners and Weak Beer Drinkers of the Parish of Little Snottingham in the Parliamentary Constituency of West Barsetshire").

Reply: A quick background is in order. The precise matter (material or sensible things used) and form (the necessary words which are used) of the Sacrament of Holy Orders was not definitively settled until November 29, 1947 when Pope Pius XII issued the Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis. The Pontiff decreed, "As to the matter and form in the conferring of each Order, We of Our same supreme Apostolic Authority decree and provide as the Episcopal Ordination or Consecration, the matter is the imposition of hands which is done by the Bishop consecrator. The form consists of the words of the “Preface,” of which the following are essential and therefore required for validity:

“Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam, et ornamentis totius glorificationis instructum coelestis unguenti rore santifica.”

[English: "Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy ministry and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing."] 

Pope Pius also decreed in that same Constitution: "...that the matter, and the only matter, of the Sacred Orders of the Diaconate, the Priesthood, and the Episcopacy is the imposition of hands; and that the form, and the only form, is the words which determine the application of this matter, which univocally signify the sacramental effects – namely the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Ghost – and which are accepted and used by the Church in that sense."

Therefore, to be valid, the form (necessary words) of Holy Orders must (a) invoke the grace of the Holy Ghost, and  unambiguously determine (b) the rank of order conferred (deacon, priest, or bishop). In the Traditional Rite this is done. "The fullness of Thy ministry" when spoken to a priest being consecrated can only mean the order of bishop. The "Heavenly anointing" signifies the grace of the Holy Ghost. 

The new Rite changes the form to "Et nunc effunde super hunc Electum eam virtutem, quae a te est, Spiritum principalem, quem dedisti dilecto Filio Tuo Jesu Christo, quem Ipse donavit sanctis Apostolis, qui constituerunt Ecclesiam per singula loca, ut sanctuarium tuum, in gloriam et laudem indeficientem nominis tui." In English this translates as, "So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which is from Thee, the governing Spirit whom Thou gave to Thy beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to be Thy temple for the unceasing glory and praise of Thy name." Where is the order of bishop univocally signified? The term "governing Spirit" is subject to many different meanings, and therefore it is ambiguous. (For an excellent synopsis of this problem see the work of Fr. Anthony Cekada, "Why The New Bishops Are Not True Bishops" at 

There are two problems with Hunwicke's defense. There was no official decree (assuming, ad arguendo, Montini was a valid pope) declaring that the "governing Spirit" means the office of bishop. Second, his analogy to legal documents fails. He seems to think that civil law, or in this case the Church, can make any words mean whatever She wants them to mean. Imagine if in my legal practice I refer to the plaintiff not as "the plaintiff" but "the idiot who annoys me." While the latter may be more accurate in certain cases, it is unprofessional, insulting, and a lack of proper nomenclature. But can't the Church determine Her nomenclature? If She could disregard millennia of accepted usage, the "Hail Mary" could be rendered as "Glorify Satan." If this makes you uncomfortable, it should. Third, if I once more concede, ad arguendo, that "governing Spirit" means the order of bishop, where is the grace of the Holy Ghost mentioned? The fact that "Spirit" is capitalized could mean that "governing Spirit" is a reference to the Holy Ghost, but then it couldn't mean the office of bishop as well. One phrase meaning two distinct things is hardly "univocal" or "unambiguous." 

It is this ridiculous idea that "words don't matter" that lead to the debacle of Ratzinger and Wojtyla declaring as valid a "mass" that contains no Words of Consecration. In 2001, the Modernist Vatican issued Guidelines For Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East (2001).  It allows for "intercommunion" between members of an Eastern Rite of Vatican II sect and Nestorian heretics. The heretics have no Words of Consecration (or "Institution Narrative" as the Vatican II sect calls it). Yet it is a valid "mass" without any mention of "Body" and "Blood" of Christ because "...the words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora (Canon) of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession." So without mentioning the Body and Blood of Christ, transubstantiation takes place because they are somehow "integrated" through prayers of thanksgiving, praise, and intercession. This nonsense is unheard of in all of Catholic theology prior to Vatican II. 

Is it any wonder Hunwicke thinks that any words can be sufficient for any sacrament? Anyone who believes (as Hunwicke must if he adheres to Bergoglio and his sect) that the Words of Consecration can be "integrated" in prayers where the words "body" and "blood" don't exist, will have no problem accepting any form for any sacrament.

The Church teaches: "It is clear, if any substantial part of the sacramental form is suppressed, that the essential sense of the words is destroyed, and consequently the Sacrament is invalid." (See Aquinas, Summa III, Q. 60, Art. 8). 

"It is well known that to the church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything on the substance of the Sacraments." (See Pope St. Pius X, Ex Quo Nono, 1910).

"It [the Council] furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the Sacraments, their substance remaining untouched, it might ordain, or change, what things soever it might judge most expedient for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said Sacraments, according to the variety of circumstances, times, and places." (See Council of Trent, Session 21, Chapter 2; Emphasis mine).

Furthermore, as the theologians teach, the form of a sacrament is that by which the matter receives its proximate sacramental determination. Hence, in the Eucharist, the bread and wine are the matter and the Words of Consecration signify the change into the Body and Blood of Christ. By consecrating the bread first and the wine second, the separation of the Precious Blood from Christ's Body is mystically re-presented in an unbloody manner perpetuating the one Sacrifice of Christ. (See, e.g., theologian Jone, Moral Theology, [1962], pg. 307).  The Church has been around almost 2,000 years, and has long since determined the essential components of the Sacraments; almost certainly within the lifetime of the Apostles. These essentials are part of Tradition and cannot be changed at will--not by any ecclesiastical authority including the pope or an Ecumenical Council--as the teaching above makes clear. The Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist were determined minutely ("in specie"), not simply in a general way ("in genere") to be more precisely determined by the Church as in the case with the other five Sacraments..

There is no one instance where any pope, theologian, canonist, or council of the Church has taught that the words "body" and "blood" were not part of the form. It was universally accepted and taught that any such form that omitted those words would be null and void. Ratzinger and Wojtyla dared to change that teaching in 2001. How can there be a problem of words being ambiguous when the men you recognize as "popes" teach that specific words set down by Christ Himself for the form of a Sacrament need not even be present?

 Hunwicke's Straw Man 

Mr. Hunwicke writes, It is argued that the phrase spiritus principalis is insufficiently precise because it is used in some dissident communities in the prayer which is said over a man who is already a bishop but is now being constituted a Patriarch. So ... are you, O ye sedevacantists, saying: "Originally this prayer, used for centuries to consecrate bishops, was adequate; but now, since some dissident communities began to use it for a different purpose, it has become insufficient, even in those communities where it is not used for blessing Patriarchs?" If so, I would regard this argument as absurdly and unconvincingly rococo.

That's not the argument at all. The new Rite was several times defended by an appeal to forms in the Eastern Rites. However, those Rites use the term for the installation of a bishop as Patriarch, not as a sacramental form of Holy Orders. The same would hold for the Eastern Schismatics.
(See Fr. Cekada,

Does He or Doesn't He?
Hunwicke writes:

Pius XII (1947) laid down that the Form in the (then) Roman Pontifical for consecrating a Bishop was Comple in sacerdote tuo ministerii tui summam etc..

(1) Are you quite sure, O thou sedevacantist, that this is explicit enough? If I have up my sleeve (I'm not saying I do) an example of a medieval pope who, already being a bishop, had this read over him when he was promoted to the See of Peter, would you conclude that it automatically became too vague to signify the Episcopate? If not, why not?

(2) And if I have up my sleeve early manuscripts of this prayer (I'm not saying I do) which read mysterii rather than ministerii, will this variant still be explicit enough for you? If not, will you admit that very many medieval bishops, consecrated with the use of this form, were not validly consecrated, including almost certainly many popes? If not, why not?

(3) And if I have up my sleeve (I'm not saying I do) a medieval rite of presbyteral ordination in which that same formula was used to ordain a mere priest, would you still be consistent enough to advance the argument that the words, since they were used in a context other than episcopal consecration, manifestly do not univocally signify the episcopate? And that therefore most, if not all, medieval and later Western bishops were not validly ordained? If not, why not?

I know I'm showing my age, but I couldn't help but think of that 1970s men's hair dye commercial, "Does he or doesn't he? Only his barber knows!" Does Mr. Hunwicke actually have such documents "up his sleeve"? Even if he does, the full text would have to be known to properly respond. So on lack of citation alone, his contentions could be easily dismissed. Nevertheless, as to..

(1) Was the same form used for installation of the pope as for consecration of a bishop? He got the Eastern Rite wrong, so no reason to think he got this correct either.

(2) If It reads, "The fullness of Thy Mystery" instead of "ministry" it may very well be sufficient as it would read "Perfect in Thy priest the fullness of thy mystery and, clothing him in all the ornaments of spiritual glorification, sanctify him with the Heavenly anointing." It would be a case for the pope to decide, but it could refer to the fullness of the priesthood and the "mysteries" they confect--"the mystery of Faith"--and the ability to impart that power to new priests. The term "governing Spirit"in the new Rite could mean the grace of the Holy Ghost, but if so, where is the order of bishop? If it refers to the order of bishop, where is the grace of the Holy Ghost? The new form lacks at least one of the essential elements to be valid.

(3) How could a priestly ordination read "Perfect in Thy priest..."if the man is not already a priest? Hunwicke makes no sense with his "possibly existing documents" up his proverbial sleeve.

Look! Nothing Up My Sleeve

Whereas Mr. Hunwicke has all of his hypothetical documents up his sleeve, I have nothing to hide. According to theologian Tixeront, the oldest of episcopal consecration forms did use the very similar term "guiding Spirit." The term was employed to mean the grace of the Holy Ghost, not the office of bishop which is clearly signified later in the form! Although much longer than the new form of Vatican II, it is incredibly similar in words and tone, but it also adds that which is conspicuously absent in the Vatican II invalid form.

Here is the entire form used, according to Tixeront:

"O God and father of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Father of mercies and God of all consolation, who dwellest in the heavens and considerest what lies below, who knowest all things before they happen: Thou, Who art the Author of ordinances of the Church by the word of Thy grace; who hast from the beginning predestined the just family of Abraham, appointing masters and priests, not permitting Thy sanctuary to be without a ministry; Who, since the creation of the world, delightest to be glorified in those whom Thou hast chosen; bestow now the power---which cometh from Thee---of the guiding Spirit Whom Thou didst give give to Thy beloved Son Jesus Christ, which He in turn communicated to the holy Apostles, who established the Church  to take the place of Thy sanctuary, for the glory and unending praise of Thy Name. Thou Who knowest all hearts, give to this Thy servant, whom Thou hast chosen for the episcopate, to feed Thy holy flock, and to fulfill for Thee the offices of High Priest without reproach, serving Thee day and night; unceasingly to appear before Thee as an intercessor, and to offer Thee the gifts of Holy Church; and by the spirit of the sovereign priesthood, to have the power to forgive sins, according to Thy commandment, to bestow the ecclesiastical functions according to Thy order, to release from all bonds, according to the power which Thou hast given to the Apostles, and to please Thee in meekness and purity of heart, while offering to Thee an odor of sweetness; by Thy Son, Our Savior Jesus Christ, to Whom with Thee and the Holy Ghost be glory, power, and honor world without end. Amen." ( See Holy Orders and Ordination, B. Herder Book Co., [1928], pgs. 151-152 and note 31 incorporated; Emphasis mine). 

Notice that the "guiding Spirit" refers to the grace of the Holy Ghost and the order of bishop is clearly expressed in the phrases "chosen for the episcopate" and "offices of High Priest." Theologian Tixeront places this form as originating in the third century! So much for hidden documents from antiquity whose very existence (let alone authenticity) and complete context is unknown. 

What Did Cardinal Gasparri Really Say?

With no citation (again), Hunwicke claims Cardinal Gasparri (the great theologian behind the 1917 Code of Canon Law) taught that the words "Accipe Spiritum Sanctum" ["Receive the Holy Ghost"] was sufficient to confer the episcopacy. He also writes:

In any case, before 1947, the communis sententia [common teaching] among approved manualists (this is summed up by Cardinal Gasparri, 1852-1934, Secretary of State under Benedict XV and Pius XI) saw the Form for episcopal Consecration as being three quite different words: Accipe Spiritum Sanctum. Bishops, when consecrating a new bishop before 1947, intended to consecrate him when they opened their mouths and said these words, not when they uttered the words which Pius XII subsequently selected and declared to be the Form. 

I doubt it. Pope Leo XIII in declaring his heretical Anglican sect's orders invalid stated:
"But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination namely, 'Receive the Holy Ghost,' certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Order of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power “of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord” (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord. , Canon 1) in that sacrifice which is no “bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross” (Ibid, Sess XXII., de Sacrif. Missae, Canon 3)." (See Apostolicae Curae, 1896, para. #25; Emphasis mine). If "Receive the Holy Ghost" was insufficient to bestow the priesthood, are we to believe it is nevertheless valid in consecrating a bishop; one who receives the "fullness of the priesthood"? 

Mr. Hunwicke writes as if Traditionalists decide things on their own, when it is painfully apparent that while we use approved pre-Vatican II theology, he simply shows that he fails to understand many basics of that theology. Indefectibility and sedevacantism are not incompatible with each other. The Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments instituted by Christ. The form of a Sacrament cannot be made by using any words whatsoever. His defense of the new form for Episcopal Consecration is without merit; the form does not both signify the grace of the Holy Ghost and the specific order conferred-- as Pope Pius XII decreed it must. Indeed, one of the oldest forms clearly shows that "guiding Spirit"--used like "governing Spirit"--refers to the Holy Ghost and His grace. Later in that form the office of bishop is clearly and unambiguously expressed. When all things are examined, Hunwicke has proven only one thing: that his blog and Catholic theology are "Mutually Exclusive."

Monday, February 4, 2019

Singing For Satan---Part 19

This week I continue my once-per-month series of posts regarding an informal study I undertook in the early 1990s regarding rock and pop music. The purpose of my study (and the background to it) can be read in the first installment of August 7, 2017. If you have not read that post, I strongly encourage you to do so before reading this installment. I will only repeat here the seven (7) evil elements that pervade today's music:

1. Violence/Murder/Suicide
2. Nihilism/Despair
3. Drug and alcohol glorification
4. Adultery/ Fornication and sexual perversion
5. The occult
6. Rebellion against lawful superiors
7. Blasphemy against God, Jesus Christ in particular, and the Church

 The exposing of the bands/artists continues.

Beyonce and Jay Z
Beyonce Giselle Knowles (b. 1981) rose to fame in the 1990s as lead singer of the R&B all girl group Destiny's Child. While not playing as a Christian band, they self-identified as a "band of Christians." Like the late Elvis Presley, Beyonce is known by her first name alone. Beginning in 2003, she started an extremely successful solo career as a pop music artist. Her first solo album entitled Dangerously In Love, garnered an incredible five Grammy Awards. During this time she also established herself as an actress, landing big parts in several movies, the most notable being the faithful wife in Obsessed (2009). Beyonce has won twenty-two (22) Grammy Awards and is the most nominated woman in the award's history. In 2014, she became the highest-paid African-American musician in history and was placed among Time magazine's list of the "100 Most Influential People in the World." 

In 2008, Beyonce married Shawn Corey Carter (b. 1969), known by his stage name Jay Z. Carter is one of the most successful rap artists of all time, having begun his career in the mid-1990s. Jay-Z is one of the world's best-selling musicians. He has received twenty-one (21) Grammy Awards, tied with Kanye West for the most by a rapper. Rolling Stone magazine lists him as one of the 100 Greatest Artists of All Time. He has his own clothing line (Rocawear) and an estimated net worth of 900 million dollars as of 2018. Beyonce now hyphenates her last name as "Knowles-Carter" and is worth approximately 260 million dollars. At 1.16 billion dollars, Beyonce and Jay Z are one of the richest and best known couples in the world. 

Beyonce's Phony Christianity
Beyonce alleges to be Christian, and often points out her involvement with Destiny's Child as "proof" of her beliefs. Her lifestyle, lyrics, and other public actions/statements give the lie to that contention. Raised in a Methodist home, she has stated:

I am about faith and spirituality more so than religion. Doing right by others and not judging. The thing that keeps me grounded is knowing that I’m always protected and that God is in control of things. Even the name of our group, Destiny's Child, we got out of the Bible. . . For me it is about the way I carry myself and the way I treat other people. My relationship and how I feel about God and what he (sic) does for me is something deeply personal. It’s where I came from. I was brought up in a religious household and that’s very important to me. (See; Emphasis mine). Like Modernists, Knowles-Carter considers "Christianity" as "doing right by others" (whatever that nebulous statement is supposed to mean) and "not judging." (Sounds like the guy who said, "Who am I to judge?").  It's all about how one "feels about God." 

Obviously, she cannot adhere to the Ten Commandments and objective moral values when you consider her lifestyle. A very attractive woman, Beyonce prances around half-naked engendering lust. Isn't that incompatible with Christianity? Of course not! Beyonce says, "I honestly believe He [God] wants people to celebrate their bodies so long as you don’t compromise your Christianity in the process." (Ibid). You mean dressing and acting like a whore is "celebrating your body" and doesn't "compromise your Christianity in the process"?  

In the song Denial, the pervert discusses using pages from the Bible as a tampon:

And was baptized in a river
Got on my knees and said, "Amen"
And said, "I mean"
I whipped my own back
And asked for dominion at your feet
I threw myself into a volcano
I drank the blood and drank the wine
I sat alone in begged and bent at the waist for God
I crossed myself in thought
I saw the devil
I grew thickened skin on my feet
I bathed in bleach
And plugged my menses with the pages from the holy book
But still inside me coiled deep was the need to know
Are you cheating?
Are you cheating on me? (Emphasis mine)

No one could discuss the Bible in such disgusting terms and claim to know Christ or follow Him. During the 2013 Super Bowl half-time, Beyonce was flashing occult and Satanic images. Her husband, Jay Z, is alleged to be a member of "Prince Hall Freemasonry" which is that part of Masonry for black men. Jay-Z refers to himself as "Jay-Hova," which is short for Jehovah, a name given to God alone in the Bible. In concerts, Jay-Z raps as his fans scream to him "Hova! Hova! Hova!" while they are holding up the Satanic "Eye of Horus" symbol above their heads.

This is the "Eye of Horus." The Egyptian Book of the Dead states that, "The Eye of Horus created men and things. When the eye in his celestial face saw the universe, it came into being... this universal soul is the Eye of Horus."(pgs. 70-71). Horus was the Egyptian Sky "god" and his eye represents sacrifice to idols and restoration. It is "all-seeing" and has been used by Freemasons and Satanists. The symbol is made at concerts by someone placing their two hands together to form a pyramid shape with the middle fingers touching at the top and the two thumbs touching at the bottom.

Beyonce posted a very controversial Instagram photo of herself after the 2013 Super Bowl, in which she sits half-naked in front of a painting of the Last Supper, and she blocks out Christ, thereby blasphemously putting herself  in the place of God.

Hell's Favorite Couple
It has been said that Jay Z is openly Satanic and Beyonce joins him. Some claim that their behavior is so "over the top" they just do it for publicity. Even if, ad arguendo, it was an on-going publicity stunt, is the promotion of Freemasonry and occult/Satanic symbolism and ideas something that should be linked to a person's music? It's evil even if untrue. However, I believe that it is true. The time has passed when Satan needs to hide. Like a good Freemason, Jay Z claims that he believes in "God" but rejects religion.

For the record, I of course believe in God, but I believe in one God. If people must know my religious beliefs, I believe in one God. I don’t believe in religion. I don’t believe in Christians or Muslims. I think all that separates people. I think it’s one God. I think it’s all the same God, and I don’t believe in Hell. (See; Emphasis mine).

Despite his claims of not believing in Hell, Jay-Z’s clothing line "Rocawear" has incorporated obvious Freemasonic, and therefore Satanic, symbols in its designs. Some are so blatantly Masonic that he probably couldn’t get away with it if he wasn't effectively implicated with them. In interviews, Jay-Z has said to be actively involved in the choices of designs of his clothing line. Rocawear clothing line features phrases "Do What Thou Wilt," which is the key tenet in Satanism from the teachings of Aleister Crowley and picked up by Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan. They also consistently use symbolism related to Luciferianism, Egyptian mysticism, and other occult influences. People have been happy to play it off as a marketing ploy, and Jay Z has been eager to discredit claims that he's a Freemason despite the pictures online proving otherwise. 

Soon, Beyonce began wearing jewelry featuring "Baphomet's head," (a Satanic symbol), wearing outfits that alluded to Baphomet, and dressing as the "Whore of Babylon" robot from the 1927 movie Metropolis that made overt references to Satanism. Yet, Jay Z "doesn't believe in Hell" and Beyonce is "Christian." 

Meet the Demon of Lust...Sasha Fierce
In 2008, Beyonce released her third studio album entitled I Am...Sasha Fierce. According to the Daily Mail:
In true diva-style, and in a concerted bid to build upon her iconic status, Beyoncé has now insisted to be known as Sasha Fierce when she performs. In one image, in which Beyonce is depicted as Sasha Fierce, she shows off her flexibility as she pulls her patent super-high heeled stiletto boots towards her head.

After her involvement with the occult and Jay Z, Knowles-Carter went further into evil, to the point where she has probably channeled a demon called "Sasha Fierce." Beyonce goes on to state:

In a recent interview with V Magazine, the 27-year-old explained that she has long felt like a totally different person on stage, hence the name change.She said: 'When I'm onstage I'm aggressive and strong and not afraid of my sexuality. The tone of my voice gets different, and I'm fearless. I'm just a different person.
(See; Emphasis mine).

Beyonce had been a pervert way before, but now more than ever. Her songs show her lustful obsession.

In the song Blow, she sings of receiving oral sex:

Can you eat my Skittles
It's the sweetest in the middle
Pink is the flavor
Solve the riddle

The song Kitty Kat is about her vagina and withholding sex from her boyfriend:

I'm taking back the things I got from you (you)
And that includes my sweet little nooky too (too)
Let's go
Let's go, let's go little Kitty Kat
(Kitty Kat) He don't want you anymore

The song Work It Out is about two people so lustful, they can't make it to the bedroom before dropping to the floor to have sex:

How you doing honey baby
You know I don't ask for much but
For a girl spending time alone can be
pretty rough
But I hear a knock on my door
You know it's yours for sure
We can't wait for the bedroom
So we just hit the floor

In September 2018, just five months ago, Beyonce's ex-drummer Kimberly Thompson had filed a restraining order against the singer over allegations of "extreme witchcraft" and even the death of her kitten on tour. In court documents she was accused of theft, illegal surveillance of employees, financial manipulation, the killing of Thompson's pet kitten, "magic spells of sexual molestation," and sabotaging of relationships. (See e.g., Beyonce's sister, Solange Knowles is an alleged practitioner of voodoo. As of this writing, I do not know the disposition of the case.

Conclusion and Message To My Readers
Beyonce and Jay Z are bringing Hell's music into the homes of those who listen. Jay Z is a Freemason, and his wife is so into the occult, she has channeled a demonic force (perhaps even a demon itself) called Sasha Fierce. Her sexually charged songs are perverted and blasphemous. Both set themselves up to take the place of God, as they lead mindless fans into using and wearing Masonic symbols. They even go so far as to use the name "Jay-Hova" and pose as "Christ" at the Last Supper. Unless they convert and repent, these two will never wear a Halo. 

I wish to thank all who kindly responded to my inquiry last month as to whether or not this "Singing For Satan"series should continue. I took to heart every comment, both published and those who requested their reply not to be published. It was unanimous that the series should continue; no one said it should end. Therefore, it shall continue until my notes from my prior research are finished. I will keep the series going on the first Monday of each month. It seems that I will probably finish up with this series of posts late this year (2019) or early next year (2020). There were good arguments regarding redacting the explicit lyrics and good arguments for keeping them. I have decided to tone down the lyrics (at least the sexually explicit ones). You will notice I only quote a small portion of the lyrics from a few Beyonce songs that are very sexual. It shows how bad they are, yet hopefully are brief enough to prevent any unhealthy fixation on them. I will also refrain from posting sexually charged photos. You will notice that there are none of Beyonce. Other than that, I shall continue as usual until my notes are done. Thank you, my readers, for your most helpful feedback and insights!---Introibo

Monday, January 28, 2019

Miracles And The Modern Mind

 Nothing will generate more smiles and snickering among the educated people of today than expressing belief in miracles. The Modernists of the Vatican II sect, having subscribed to naturalism, reject the supernatural. Atheism and agnosticism alike breed contempt for any notion of the supernatural as well. Modernist Bible scholars consider the miracles of Sacred Scripture to be mere myths that can be explained away. Christ didn't really feed five thousand people with five loaves of bread and two fish. This is merely a myth to show that God provides (so they assure us).

It's no wonder that the modern world rejects miracles as superstitious fables. Not helping the situation are expressions which misuse the word miracle, e.g., "It's a miracle I made it to work today;" "Life is a miracle." There are also people who, while well meaning, ascribe miracles when none exist seeing them in any fortuitous set of circumstances. This post will set forth Church teaching on miracles, as well as responses to the modern minds who reject them.

The Church's Teaching On Miracles
1. Miracles are an effect wrought in nature by the direct intervention of God. They are proofs of the truth of the Catholic religion.

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

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

From the Vatican Council (1870):

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

2. While we must believe in miracles (especially those contained in the Holy Bible), we are not bound to believe in every specific event claimed to be miraculous. We should only give credence to those events considered miracles by the authority of the Church. 

Proof: Many events thought to be miraculous were denied as such by the Magisterium of the Church prior to the defection of the hierarchy at Vatican II.

  • Many people claimed that they saw the statue of Our Lady of Assisi move and smile. (1948) The Church later declared there was no apparition of Our Lady in Assisi, and no miraculous events.
  • There are people hundreds of years into the canonization process as of  1958 (death of Pope Pius XII) whose alleged miracles were never confirmed despite large numbers of witnesses.
  • Theresa Neumann (d. 1962) was alleged to have survived only on the Eucharist for 30 years, and claimed the stigmata. The Church has never confirmed nor denied these miraculous claims which were investigated beginning in 1928.

 3. Miracles cannot be used to help give credibility to that which is false. Any "miracle" that does so is either (a) naturally explained, and therefore not a miracle, or (b) of demonic origin.

Proof: A miracle is a deed that is sensible, extraordinary, and of divine origin. Hence, since transubstantiation is not sensible, it cannot be considered a miracle in the strict sense. Miracles can only be used to support that which is true and good. It is impossible for God to deceive. Moreover, God would equivalently be producing falsehood if He were performing some miracles in order to demonstrate that some false doctrines or a doctrine that is altogether human has been revealed by Himself. We should recognize that God allows extraordinary things to be performed by the devil. (See theologian Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology,Desclee Company, [1959], 1:40-45; Emphasis mine)

In Exodus 7: 8-13, we read:

The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "When Pharaoh says to you, 'Perform a miracle,' then say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and throw it down before Pharaoh,' and it will become a snake." So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the Lord commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs. Yet Pharaoh’s heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the Lord had said." (Emphasis mine).

Modern Objections to Miracles and Responses

 The three main objections to miracles are a denial that:
  • miracles are possible
  • we can know that a miracle has happened
  • we could ever recognize a specific event as a miracle
Since those who deny miracles do not heed the teaching of the Church, my replies will be based on reason. In brief, I would reply:
  • Given an omnipotent God, miracles are certainly possible
  • We can know that miracles have occurred if we have experienced one, or have been provided credible testimony of them
  • We can recognize a miracle if the circumstances are sufficiently unusual and it makes sense to infer God as the Agent
Let me be clear that I'm not positing the existence of God to prove miracles, and then using miracles to prove God (fallacious and circular reasoning). If someone believes in the existence of the traditional concept of God, the possibility of miracles, and the ability to ascertain them logically follow. What of those who don't believe in God or the Christian (True) God? The Vatican Council says miracles can be used to prove the divine origin of Christianity. Let's define the term first.

The definition of a miracle. According to theologian Parente, the word miracle comes from the Latin word miror---I wonder. In the broad sense, it is an extraordinary event which calls attention and excites wonder. Theologians explain it is: (a) done by God as principle cause; (b) done in the world; (c) in a way superior to all forces of nature; and outside or above, but not in violation of the laws of nature, but by an exceptional happening brought about by a divine power that intervenes in created things, producing an effect superior to their natural power. The possibility of the miracle rests chiefly on the absolute dominion of God as the First and Free Cause of the Universe, Whose laws are subordinate to Him and cannot limit either His freedom of action or His power. Only the logically impossible and that which violates His Nature (sin) are impossible to Him. (See Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, The Bruce Publishing Company, [1951], pg. 188).  

Those of your unbelieving family members, co-workers, neighbors, friends, etc, are really saying one of three things when they deny the miraculous.

1. They claim to know with certainty that miracles cannot happen. 
How do they know miracles are impossible? They must assume the non-existence of God first, or that God would not/has not performed a miracle. If they expressly or implicitly deny the existence of God, that shifts the ground of the debate. Their problem is not about miracles. If they claim God has not or would not perform a miracle, how do they know the Mind of God? What is their source of this alleged knowledge?

2. Science disproves the existence of miracles. 
Science is confined to the observation of natural phenomena. You cannot replicate something that is unique, like a miracle. Scientists believe in the Big Bang, yet that can't be replicated. I believe my mother loved me, but I have no scientific proof, nor is any possible. Must I conclude she didn't love me? Science is but one way to knowledge. Ask them, "Do you believe that water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius at sea level?"  They will respond "yes" because it can be proven. Not so fast. All you can prove is that all water that you have seen in the past or at present has frozen (or is freezing) at 0 degrees Celsius at sea level. You assume that the future will be a constant repetition of the past--that it will always continue to do so. But how do they know this? Ironically, they take it on belief! 

3. Miracles were just ways superstitious people explained things they didn't understand.
Similar to #2, they accuse Christians of making a "god-of-the gaps" to explain gaps in knowledge. When we don't understand something, we ascribe it to the action of God. However, they assume that everything has a natural explanation which cannot entail the supernatural; a "science-of the gaps." They do not follow the evidence where it leads, only seeing where they want to go, and not really looking for the truth.

Miracles can and do happen. The Modernists, atheists, and agnostics have denied any possibility of the supernatural based on assumptions, not evidence. A short post can never do justice to the great and many proofs for, e.g., the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. However, it is shown that miracles can happen, and they can prove the truth of Christ's Church. If God exists, He can perform miracles. These miracles can be proofs of faith, such as the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima witnessed by over 100,000 people. The greatest miracle is the Resurrection of Our Lord, proving He was God and He founded the One True Church.  

The modern minds claim to know everything, but as the Bible tells us, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,..." (Romans 1:22). 

Monday, January 21, 2019

Can Unbaptized Infants Achieve Salvation?

Baptism is necessary for salvation. Every Traditionalist Catholic believes this as it has been defined by the Church.  However, what of the fate of unbaptized infants and those unborn who die in the womb? What of the severely retarded and habitually insane (born that way)? The Church teaches that these people go to Limbo,  a state of natural happiness, yet deprived from all eternity of the Beatific Vision of God. They suffer poena damni (pain of separation), but not poena sensus (pain of sense). In this post, I wish to explore the possibility, taught by some theologians, that the unbaptized in these cases (I'll refer to them all as "unbaptized infants"--if not in age, "infant-like" as they have no use of reason) might be able to achieve salvation (at least in some cases) instead of Limbo.  The study of this subject is fascinating, and the overview of the question comes from theologian Dyer's work, Limbo: Unsettled Question. It was written in 1962-63, just prior to the Great Apostasy.

I want to make it clear, yet again, that I have no Magisterial authority, and I'm neither a theologian or canonist (nor have I ever claimed such). I was really intrigued by the theological theory, and hold it as plausible. As every Traditionalist must, I stand willing to submit to Holy Mother Church in all things. Should a pope be restored, I shall adhere to his decisions in this, and all other matters of Catholic Faith and morals without reservation.

St. Augustine's View and Those of Modern Theologians (pre-Vatican II)

 St. Augustine took a harsher view of the effects of Original Sin than did the modern theologians. (I define a "modern theologian" as an approved theologian from the end of the Vatican Council [1870] until the beginning of Vatican II [1962]). Under St. Augustine's teaching, unbaptized infants are damned to Hell. Most modern theologians agree, but have reservations about "damned" meaning consignment to Hell in the usual and ordinary theological use of the word. Essentially, damnation for the unbaptized infant consists exclusively in banishment from the presence of God. As a corollary, the modern theologians can imagine the soul of an infant under the sentence of damnation who would not suffer the torments of Hell (poena sensus) nor grieve the loss over the Beatific Vision, to the point of having a degree of purely natural happiness. 

St. Augustine could not conceive of damnation apart from suffering. He was willing to concede that even if unbaptized infants spent eternity apart from Hell, they could not be free from the pain of the loss of the Beatific Vision (poena damni). When St. Augustine lived (354-430 AD), he was fighting against the Pelagian heresy. Simply put, Pelagius denied Original Sin and taught that the human will, as created with its abilities by God, was sufficient to live a sinless life. The bishops gathered in a non-ecumenical Council of Carthage, which drew up nine canons against the Pelagians.

The Third Canon states, "If any man says that in the kingdom of heaven or elsewhere there is a certain middle place, where children who die unbaptized live in bliss--- (beate vivant), whereas without baptism they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, that is, into eternal life, let him be anathema."

These canons were approved by Pope Zosimus, albeit non-infallibly. This would seem to rule out the existence of Limbo. The historical context shows it to be no problem at all. True, Limbo is a place or state between Heaven and Hell, yet it is a place of damnation insofar as you are deprived of the vision of God. The "eternal life" of the Pelagians was a state of innocence that implied a denial of Original Sin. It was this denial Carthage condemned. 

The Second Ecumenical Council of Lyon and The Ecumenical Council of Florence

 The Second Ecumenical Council of Lyon (1272-1274) defined the following, "However, the souls of those who die in mortal sin, or with Original Sin alone, shortly go down to Hell, to be punished with different punishments, however." The Council of Florence (1431-1449)  repeated these words almost verbatim. Doesn't that ratify what St. Augustine taught? Isn't Limbo rejected? No. The Church did not considered the matter closed and allowed theologians to hold the doctrine of Limbo. There were four interpretations of these definitions that were permitted:

1. There are those who die only in Original Sin

2. There is no teaching that anyone does actually die only in Original Sin alone; it defines only what would happen if someone did die in Original Sin alone

3. The Councils are actually defining the Limbo of St Thomas Aquinas

4. The Councils are defining the teaching of St. Augustine

Remember that the Angelic Doctor (Aquinas) ruled out the pain of sense for unbaptized infants. But is not the pain of the loss of God greater? The answer of Aquinas was ingenious. No one regrets not having something which he is totally unequipped to have. Hence, a person would regret the the loss of his house, or family, or good name, but not the fact he cannot fly naturally like a bird. Sanctifying Grace becomes "lumen gloriae" ("the light of glory") upon the soul's separation from the body and entrance into Heaven, thereby allowing the soul to enter the Beatific Vision of God for all eternity. (See theologian Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [1955], pg. 22).  Since they had not the knowledge of Faith, they have no idea of their possible supernatural destiny and will be happy contemplating God insofar as their nature permits. God need not allow them to know what they could have achieved (Beatific Vision) which they are unequipped to have by nature. No one dared to state (or even imply) that Aquinas (1224-1270), the greatest of all theologians and Doctors of the Church was meant to have his opinion condemned by Lyon and Florence. Hence, the Church did not condemn Limbo. The second interpretation above seems to imply the possibility of at least some unbaptized infants somehow saved, and that will be explored in the next section after one more development is explained. 

In 1794, Pope Pius VI issued the decree Auctorum Fidei condemning the teaching which rejected Limbo as a "Pelagian fable." The Jansenist heretics denied Limbo (along with some approved Catholic theologians), but unlike the approved theologians, libeled their opponents' idea as a "Pelagian fable." Pope Pius VI was condemning the characterization of Limbo as a Pelagian fable, and something heretical. He was not making it a dogma, or censuring theologians who held the Augustinian view.

An Interesting Development at the Council of Trent
On the discussion regarding Baptism, the great theologian Cardinal Cajetan, proposed that infants in the womb could be saved by the desire of their (Catholic) parents. He reasoned thus: "In [the womb] the infant is capable of receiving Baptism of Blood; if a child yet enclosed in the womb of his mother could receive death for Christ, he would be a martyr as are the Holy Innocents. It is then reasonable to admit that the faith of his parents could produce the same result..." (See Dyer, pg. 141). What a blow to Feenyites who claim Trent condemned all but Baptism by water! There was no condemnation of Cardinal Cajetan!

We know infants and those deprived of reason can receive Baptism of Blood (BOB). (See theologian Ott, Ibid, pg. 357). Cajetan held that a pregnant woman who dies by BOB would have her unborn child share in her glory. At Trent, theologian Andrew de Vega, proposed the following proposition to be condemned:
"Children who die without baptism may be saved." His suggestion was denied by the Council Fathers. Another theologian, Leoninus, suggested condemning the idea children can be baptized in the womb. His suggestion, too, was rejected at Trent. Interestingly, on August 21, 1901, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office under Pope Leo XIII declared baptism "in utero" performed by a needle inserted into the womb by doctors/nurses to be valid. There can be no doubt that the Holy Ghost was at work during the Council of Trent. 

 Some Council Fathers put forth the proposition that: "Children in the wombs of their mothers can be saved by blessing and the invocation of the Trinity" to be condemned. After thirteen days of deliberations, on February 22, 1547, the Secretary of the Council declared that the Fathers could not come to a decision. Therefore, the proposition was removed from the list of proposed condemnations because "it does not pertain to the teaching on baptism." It has been claimed Pope St. Pius V ordered this teaching removed from Cajetan's works, but the decision came from the editor of the book. There is no solid historical evidence Pope St. Pius V had any influence on the decision. So what did Trent mean by "it does not pertain to the teaching on baptism"?  Three things become clear from the deliberations:

1. When Trent defined the necessity of baptism for infants, it was speaking of a general, not absolute necessity, as BOB can substitute for the Sacrament
2. The definition was prompted by the Protestants who disputed the necessity of the sacrament to the extent of refusing to baptize their children
3. The infants who were the subject matter of Trent's decree were understood to be outside the womb, not in utero, as Cajetan suggested

The "Moment of Choice"?

 Is there a possibility that at least some unbaptized infants can be saved apart from BOB and the sacrament of baptism? Notable theologians have taught such without condemnation or censure. Such are theologians Klee and Schell. French theologian Glorieux seems to come up with a most interesting theory, that complements Klee. Does the moment of death belong to this life or the next? All human activity ends at death, and all possibility of merit and demerit. This is dogma. "Night is coming, when no one can work." (St. John 9:4). 

Death is the separation of the soul from the body. It is instantaneous, not something gradual over time. Hence, the moment of death is the same as the last moment of life. If that moment is considered part of your life, then it is possible that the soul, freed from the confines of the body, could be illuminated by God and given a test similar to the angels to either accept or reject God. If the former, they pass and go to Heaven, if the latter, they fail and go to Hell. Would this apply to all unbaptized infants? Just some? Why?

There is much to criticize. It seems close to Baptism of Desire (BOD), which Pope Pius XII taught cannot happen to infants. "In the present economy there is no other way of communicating this life to the child who has not yet the use of reason. But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of Baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly born, this way is not open..." (See Address to the Congress of the Italian Catholic Association of Midwives [Oct. 29, 1951] Emphasis mine). 

A disembodied soul is not a complete person, so it would seem that the final moment of life is more appropriately the first moment of death, therefore no merit is possible. It might open the door to abortion by thinking the child still has a chance to see God if I kill him/her. 

The doctrine of Limbo has developed over centuries and is not fully settled. Without a pope, it cannot be. What does seem likely is that at least some unbaptized infants might have a path to salvation. How they are chosen and how it happens is known but to God--if it is true. This discussion does bring home the tremendous love God has for every person, and how He will go to any length to save a soul who is willing to turn to Him, repent, and be part of His One True Church. Let that be the lesson for us and do all we can to merit the grace of Final Perseverance. If we do our part, God will do His because He died for us and desires our salvation.

As to the possible salvation theories, theologian Ott said it best, "[extra-sacramental means of salvation for unbaptized infants] are indeed, possible, but their actuality can not be proven from Revelation." (Ibid, pg. 114). 

Monday, January 14, 2019

The Science Of Life

 On January 22, 2019, it will be 46 years since seven members of the United States Supreme Court made murdering unborn babies legal in America with the decision in Roe v. Wade. Here in New York State (America's answer to Sodom and Gomorrah), our apostate, adulterous governor, Andrew Cuomo, has made one of his gubernatorial priorities enshrining abortion as a "right" in the NYS Constitution should Roe be overturned. Moreover, he is seeking to get a law passed in the meantime, the so-called "Reproductive Health Act" which will codify Roe, and make abortion legal by NY law during all nine months of pregnancy.

With the Democrats having taken control of the State Senate last November (and already having control over the State Assembly), it will surely pass.  If you think the Vatican II sect "bishops" have excommunicated Cuomo, or refused him "communion," guess again. Bergoglio has said and done nothing, just like when Ireland was trying to take its Constitutional protection away from the unborn last year. The formerly Catholic country declared war on unborn babies by passing a repeal of the Constitutional protection afforded pre-born children with 67% of the vote.

I have been involved with the pro-life movement since my conversion to Traditionalism in 1981. I know the ins and outs of the issue. All pro-abortionists call themselves "pro-choice" because they don't want to be called "anti-life." Everyone knows it's wrong to take an innocent human life. No sane person would even try to defend the morality of torturing an innocent baby to death. The whole case for abortion collapses if the zygote, embryo, fetus are recognized as the names designating different stages in the development of a human being, just like an infant, teenager, and senior citizen are different names for human development on "the other side of the womb." If the unborn are human beings, abortion is murder--and even the infamous Justice Harry Blackmun, author of the Roe majority opinion, conceded the point. Those who advocate the "right to choose an abortion" must deny the humanity of the subject of their choice, just as the Confederates had to deny the humanity of African-Americans to justify their "right" to "choose owning a slave."

The abortionists began undermining the human status of the unborn by asking a simple question, "When do you think life begins?" It made it seem like the question was a subjective matter of opinion. You would receive numerous responses to that query, such as:

  • Life begins at conception
  • Life begins at viability
  • Life begins at birth
  • Life begins when there is social interaction
  • That is a matter of religious belief, no one knows the exact moment when life begins
All of these answers are wrong. Surprised? Thought the answer was "life begins at conception"? In this post, I will demonstrate that the question asked is ambiguous and improper, and that secular science proves beyond any reasonable doubt the humanity of the unborn. God's design, which can be known through the scientific method to which even atheists subscribe, compels one to acknowledge abortion as the taking of an innocent human life, i.e., murder.

A Trick Question and a Definitive Answer
"When do you think life begins?" is properly rephrased as "In human reproduction there is a point in time when life begins. When do you think that point occurs?" There is a false underlying assumption that no one knows the answer, but we can all agree that a newborn is human, so abortion on demand at any point in pregnancy should be allowed. If anyone believes life to begin at a certain point prior to birth, then that is just a religious belief, and we live in a pluralistic society. You can't impose your religious beliefs on others (thanks to Vatican II and the Masonic "separation of Church and State" God is effectively rendered irrelevant). 

Since Vatican II, and now with the advent of the Internet, we have a rise in ultracrepidarians,i.e.,those who express definitive statements and give opinions on topics clearly outside their scope of expertise. We see this in Traditionalists who think they can read Magisterial documents and fully comprehend them apart from the teaching of the Church's approved theologians. In daily life, we see people attempting to "diagnose themselves" on Web MD, and "give legal advice" based on something they read on a lawyer's website. We shouldn't have lawyers (judges) pontificating on matters of defining human life. The Church has been banned from the public forum in the United States, and virtually all other countries since Vatican II, so an appeal to theologians or Church authority gets you no place fast. 

Given this state of affairs, who is qualified to answer questions about human life? The study of life is known as biology (literally "the study of life"). Biologists are uniquely qualified to answer this question, and their findings are not based on theological teachings.  My sources in biology date from before the time of Roe, to just after, demonstrating that these facts were known back then and before. They are not recent developments in the field.

The answer to "when do you think life begins?" when analysed and properly rephrased as above is simple: In human reproduction, biological life does not begin---it is continuous. There is no period when life stops and then starts up again. Cells can only come from other living cells. If the ovum were not alive and mature, it could not be fertilized. If the sperm were not alive it couldn't reach the ovum, let alone fertilize it. According to biology professor Dr. Garrett Hardin, "But when does life really begin? The true answer is simple: Never. Life ends, often, but it never begins. It is just passed on from one cell to another. All biologists...are in agreement on that answer. (See Psychology Today 8: No. 6, 42, November 1974; Emphasis in original).

There is no point between fertilization to birth where the human offspring is not alive. All biologists accept this fact, and it holds true regardless of religious belief.

Another Trick Question and Another Definitive Answer

 Undaunted, the abortionist will now complain, "That's not what I'm talking about. OK, the cells are living, but when does it become human life?" 

The Answer: Human life, like cellular life, is transmitted. At fertilization, the zygote is a complete (though not completed) human being. It is a unique human organism having 46 human chromosomes with DNA different from every other human, including his/her own mother and father. It has an information content equivalent to 1,000 volumes of a hard copy encyclopedia. All the cells, tissues, and stages that arise from the zygote are human. None of them can ever be characterized as belonging to any other species. According to biologist Dr. Leo Schneider, "You are composed of trillions of cells now, but at one time in your life you were just a single cell." (See You and Your Cells, Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc. [1963], p. 205; Emphasis in original).  Even the notorious baby-killers, Planned Parenthood had this to say in 1963: "An abortion requires an operation. It kills the life of the baby after it has begun." (See Plan Your Children for Health and Happiness [pamphlet]).  These facts are not matters of religion, opinion, conjecture, or theory. They are expressions of reality as determined by scientific observation and analysis. A unique human individual is present from fertilization onward.

How do the abortionists respond? The only way they can: it's not enough to be a unique biological individual, you need to be a "person." In other words, they will add additional qualifications to be considered human, besides the biological necessities. You now need to acquire "personhood." There are myriad problems with that as we shall discover.

A Person is Simply a Biological Human

 The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution (adopted July 9, 1868) says the following:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

If the unborn are not "persons" then they can be deprived of life without due process of law. What, precisely, is meant by the term "person"? Under Federal law, corporations are considered "persons" but unborn babies are not! This "person" is a legal fiction, and it simply makes things more nebulous. Questions arise, such as: Do you have rights because you are a person, or are you a person because you are given rights? Is the term "person" one that corresponds with objective reality, or is it a term in search of a subjective definition? 

A "human person" is nothing more than a biological human individual. Does anyone really think (or have any evidence to support) that the Founding Fathers of the 18th century understood a "person" as being anything more? Personhood=Biological identity as a human. Anything else (like a corporation) is a legal fiction. While personhood may indeed have a theological or philosophical definition, the biological definition is the one upon which all must agree, and secures the right to life--even in a pluralistic society. 

Objections Answered
1. Death is the permanent cessation of all vital functions, such as a beating heart, brain waves, respiration, etc. even though cellular life continues. Why should cellular life without these functions be considered life? 
Answer: The absence of these functions at early stages of development is neither permanent, nor irreversible. All the cells are alive and functioning in their own way. The vital functions in the early stages of life are merely different, not absent. The vital functions of the zygote are metabolism and cleavage. You are no more justified in asserting the zygote isn't alive because it doesn't have a beating heart, than in asserting that an infant isn't alive because it can't chew, crawl, reason or procreate.

2. The zygote, embryo, fetus, are all dependent upon the mother for life. It's part of the mother's body to do with as she pleases.
Answer: Wrong. Unlike a tooth or an appendix, the zygote has its own unique DNA code, marking it different from all other humans, including his/her own parents. As far as dependency is concerned, are newborn babies not human because they also depend on the mother for sustenance? Does a man who needs an iron lung to live cease to be human, and now is "part of the machine" because he cannot live independently from it?   If a mother refuses to feed her baby, or the hospital turns off the iron lung, is that not murder? 

3. There is no person until the unborn has a soul. Religions differ on when this occurs. No one knows when life begins.
Answer: As stated before, human life is a continuum. In a pluralistic society, we are using biology, not theology to determine human life, and that can be accepted by all. Even if, ad arguendo, "no one can know" when life begins, this demands the same result as the biological definition. If someone goes hunting and isn't sure if what he sees moving in the bushes is a deer or a human, shouldn't you refrain from shooting because it could be human and you must err on the side of caution? 

As the fight against abortion continues, we must make the case that it is biology, not any other discipline, that compels us to protect the unborn. Biology and true theology are both from God and can't contradict each other. This is a perfect case in point. In the early 1980s there was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that we should all remember and work towards. It perfectly protects all human life from the twin evils of abortion and euthanasia. It stated, "The paramount right to life is vested in each and every human being from the first moment of biological fertilization until a natural death." May God hasten the day this becomes reality for all countries.