Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Before the great apostasy, the Roman Catholic Church taught religious toleration, namely, that false sects may be tolerated in countries where Catholics are a minority, but the Catholic religion must be the State religion to the exclusion of all others wherever possible. The idea of religious liberty where all sects are given equal rights with the One True Church has ever been deemed "insanity" by the Church:
The Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX (1864)
77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. -- Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855.
78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.
79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.
80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861.
Pope Gregory XVI Mirari Vos (1832)
14. This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.
The wisdom of the True Church came to mind when it was reported this week that The Satanic Temple (TST) is suing to circumvent pro-life laws in view of a recent Supreme Court decision. (See my post of May 16, 2014 for more info on the Satanic Temple). As reported in the Huffington Post:
The Satanic Temple is a religious group that "believes that the body is inviolable subject to one’s own will alone" and encourages making personal health decisions "based on the best scientific understanding of the world, regardless of the religious or political beliefs of others.” The group launched a campaign Monday on behalf of a woman's right to accurate medical information and cited the Hobby Lobby ruling as bolstering this position.
Hobby Lobby, a Christian-owned arts and crafts store based in Oklahoma, filed a lawsuit in 2012 due to a stipulation in President Obama's Affordable Care Act which required employer-provided health insurance to cover contraceptives. Hobby Lobby disagreed with this on the basis that certain contraceptives could be abortive and argued the law violates religious freedom. In June, the Supreme Court ruled that some closely held, for-profit corporations could be exempt from providing contraception coverage to employees on the basis of religious beliefs.
In Hobby Lobby, "Any suggestion that for-profit corporations are incapable of exercising religion because their purpose is simply to make money flies in the face of modern corporate law," the court's ruling said. Requiring religious corporations to cover contraception "demands that they engage in conduct that seriously violates their religious beliefs," the ruling also stated.
On TST's website, the group provides a printable letter that women can give their health care providers to opt out of pro-life informed consent laws, stating that such a precondition is "based on politics and not science" and that it is against the Satanic religion.
The letter lists specific principles that allow TST's campaign to fall under the category of religious exemption:
• My body is inviolable and subject to my will alone.
• I make any decision regarding my health based on the best scientific understanding of the world, even if the science does not comport with the religious or political beliefs of others.
• My inviolable body includes any fetal or embryonic tissue I carry so long as that tissue is unable to survive outside my body as an independent human being.
• I, and I alone, decide whether my inviolable body remains pregnant and I may, in good conscience, disregard the current or future condition of any fetal or embryonic tissue I carry in making that decision.
The Hobby Lobby case was hailed by pro-lifers as a great victory in the name of "Freedom of Religion." What they fail to see is that the religious liberty ingrained in our Constitution is based on the Masonic principles of the French Revolution and their false slogan of "liberty, equality, fraternity." These same principles were taught at Vatican II in the document on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, paragraph #2 :
"The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person... This right to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right."
When truth and falsehood are given equal footing, this is the insane result. Pope Gregory could almost be said to have seen our age when he declared, "When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin." If religious liberty can be used to circumvent pro-abortion laws, then it can equally be used to circumvent pro-life laws, and nothing good is ultimately gained as a result.
Vatican II has dared to do what Lucifer always wanted; have himself placed on equal footing with God. The consequences will be the countless destruction of both bodies and souls.
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Few topics cause as much controversy in Traditionalist circles than that of "Baptism of Desire" (BOD) and "Baptism of Blood" (BOB). In reaction to the Modernists who had been trying to apply BOD to just about everyone (e.g. Fr. Karl Rahner and his ilk, calling pagans "anonymous Christians") and reducing the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus Est (Outside the Church There Is No Salvation) to a meaningless formula, Fr. Leonard Feeney denied BOD and BOB. He claimed that the Church had gotten it wrong, that BOD and BOB (even when properly understood) were heretical. Ultimately, Fr. Feeney was excommunicated in 1953 by Pope Pius XII. He was reconciled to the Vatican II sect in 1972 by Montini (Antipope Paul VI) without having to abjure his heresy.
Good people were unfortunately taken in by Feeney, including Fr. James Wathen, whose book The Great Sacrilege was one of the first and best refutations of the invalid Vatican II bread and wine service. (See my last post of 7/17/14 "An Even Greater Sacrilege"). My last post discussed the Feeneyite heresy, and I received a comment that those who uphold the Church's teaching (e.g. Fr. Cekada and Bishop Dolan) should debate the most prolific Feenyites today; the so-called "Dimond Brothers" of Most Holy Family Monastery in New York. They are self-proclaimed "Benedictines" whose major work is a book entitled Outside of the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation which anyone can view and download for free on their website.
I responded in the comments section of my last post that I would present the case that Fr. Feeney and his followers are heretics. As Fr. Cekada has pointed out, Feeneyites have, at the root of their error, the rejection of legitimate Church authority. I will make but one argument in this post to show how even the most rabid Feeneyites (Dimonds) got it all wrong.
Feeneyites are of the opinion that Catholics need only to accept ex cathedra pronouncements of the popes and Ecumenical Councils, while everything else is basically "up for grabs" and subject to error. If their private interpretation of an ex cathedra statement is alleged to "conflict" with any doctrine not so defined, then it is an error. Since BOD and BOB have not been the subjects of an ex cathedra pronouncement, and it (allegedly) conflicts with ex cathedra pronouncements on Baptism and the necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation, they argue that BOD and BOB are heretical.
I will now set out the case of how wrong they are in this matter.
I) What Catholics Must Believe
Catholics are BOUND to believe everything proposed by the extraordinary and ordinary Magisterium of the Church. The Feeneyites would like us to forget the latter and only accept the former. In what does the Ordinary Magisterium consist?
According to theologian Ott: The promulgation by the Church (of dogma)may be made either in an extraordinary manner through a solemn decision of faith made by the Pope or a General Council (Iudicium solemne) or through the ordinary and general teaching power of the Church (Magisterium ordinarium et universale). The latter may be found easily in the catechisms issued by the Bishops." (See Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, TAN reprint from 1955, pg. 4--Emphasis mine).
According to theologian Van Noort: "Clearly if a truth is capable of being declared an object of divine-catholic faith through the force of this ordinary and universal teaching, there is required such a proposal is unmistakably definitive........The major signs of such a proposal are these: that the truth be taught throughout the world in popular catechisms, or even more importantly, be taught by the universal and constant agreement of theologians as belonging to faith." (See Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, Newman Press, 3:222, 1960--first emphasis in original; emphasis after ellipsis mine).
According to theologian Tanquerey: "B. The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church......
I. The Morally Unanimous Preaching (Teaching) of the Bishops
Bishops teach the flock entrusted and subject to them by means of catechisms, by synodal directives, mandates , and in public sermons. If it is evident from these documents that some doctrine is being set forth universally as an object of faith, then nothing else is required for this doctrine to be accepted de fide. Bishops spread throughout the world, but with the Roman Pontiff forming one Corporate Body, are infallible when declaring a teaching on faith or morals." (See Tanquerey, Manual of Dogmatic Theology I:177, 1959--Emphasis in original).
Therefore, a truth declared in catechisms, is as certain as dogmas proclaimed ex cathedra. Since God is the Author of all Truths of Faith any alleged contradiction between Truths stems from ignorance (culpable or inculpable).
II) BOD AND BOB ARE CLEARLY TAUGHT IN ALL PRE-VATICAN II CATECHISMS
The popular Baltimore Catechism, the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, and the Catechism of the Council of Trent (approved by none less than Pope St. Pius V), all teach BOB and BOD. They are therefore to be accepted de fide (of Faith). But, wait! In Outside of the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation (hereinafter OCC), the Diamonds try to impeach the Catechism of the Council of Trent (CCT)!
On pgs. 135-139 of OCC, we read:
"The Catechism of the Council of Trent is not infallible. Fathers John A.McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P. wrote the introduction for a common English translation of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Their introduction contains the following interesting quote from Dr. John Hagan, Rector of the Irish College in Rome,about the Catechism’s authority.Catechism of the Council of Trent‐ Fifteenth printing, TAN Books,Introduction XXXVI: “Official documents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine,and is addressed to the whole Church. Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.”
The Diamonds omitted this line from Dr. Hagan: “At the very least it has the same authority as a dogmatic Encyclical.” Catholics MUST accept this because as Pope Pius XII stated: “It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in these the popes do not exercise the supreme powers of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent ‘He who heareth you, heareth me.’; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine.” Humani Generis (1950), D 2313. Emphasis mine.
This leads us right back to what the theologians have taught about catechisms and the Ordinary Magisterium! In the next few sections, Dimond attempts to show where and why he thinks the Roman Catechism is in conflict with the Council of Trent and other papal documents. His purpose is to demonstrate that if the Catechism is erroneous on other points of doctrine, he can logically argue against the pertinent phrase -- the one that clearly teaches BOD for adults--- to the absolute necessity of Baptism under all conditions. His argument, then, will be that the Roman Catechism is outright heretical through implication.
He continues:“The fact that the Catechism of Trent is not infallible is proven by the fact that small errors can be detected within its text. For example:
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Tan Books, p. 243: “For the Eucharist is the end of all the Sacraments, and the symbol of unity and brotherhood in the Church, outside of which none can attain grace.”
Here the Catechism teaches that outside the Church none can attain grace. This is not true. Predisposing or prevenient graces are given to those outside the Church so that they can turn to God, change their lives and enter the Church. Without these graces no one would ever convert. Pope Clement XI in the dogmatic constitution Unigenitus (Sept. 8, 1713) condemned the proposition that, “Outside the Church, no grace is granted.” Thus, what we have here is an error in the Catechism of Trent. The Catechism probably intended to teach that outside the Church no sinner can attain sanctifying grace, which is true, since outside the Catholic Church there is no remission of sins (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, 1302, ex cathedra). Nevertheless, God allowed the Catechism to err in this manner because it is not infallible in everything it teaches.”
Dimond omits the context of the Catechism that implied sanctifying grace. Dimond is going out of his way in an attempt to find an error that’s not really there. He needs to find that error to demonstrate that the Catechism is faulty which he thinks gives him the right to question those paragraphs that clearly teach Baptism of Desire.
Notice also that Pope Clement XI didn't specify what grace he was speaking about either. He didn't say “actual”, “predisposing or prevenient” grace. Dimond would have to conclude that Pope Clement XI erred too, since outside the Church no sanctifying grace is granted. He claims the CCT to be heretical on this point while clearly taking sources out of context and ascribing error where none exists.
Next he states:
“Furthermore, in the entire Catechism of the Council of Trent there is no mention at all of the so‐called “three baptisms,” nor is there any mention of “baptism of desire” or “baptism of blood,” nor is there any clear statement that one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism. What we find, rather, is one ambiguous paragraph which seems to teach that one can achieve grace and righteousness without baptism."
The Catechism says baptism for infants should not be delayed “Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism…”
This statement clearly implies that there is another means of salvation besides Baptism for those above the age of reason. Then the Catechism concludes what it is:
“The delay is not attended the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any foreseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.”---In other words, BOD!!
Now come two "whoppers":
“Even though the Catechism of Trent is not infallible in every sentence, as just proven, taken as a whole it is an excellent catechism which expresses the Catholic Faith accurately and effectively.”
So a catechism that teaches rank heresy can nevertheless express the Catholic Faith "accurately and effectively?"
"But most importantly, the Catechism of Trent makes statement after statement clearly and unambiguously teaching that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for all for salvation with no exceptions, thereby repeatedly excluding any idea of salvation without water baptism.”
So the CCT contradicts itself! Why attack it if the CCT supposedly proves your interpretation of BOD and BOB? Didn't he say there was one "ambiguous paragraph," yet the CCT " makes statement after statement clearly and unambiguously" against BOD. Which is it? Completely unambiguous or ambiguous in part? It teaches heresy concerning grace, yet that's ok as long as it's good "taken as a whole."
I could go on but I feel no need to belabor the obvious. BOD and BOB by inclusion in catechisms as well as being taught by all pre-Vatican II theologians is infallibly certain through the teaching of the universal and ordinary Magisterium. I'd put the Dimonds publication OCC right in the trash can with their DVD on UFOs.
The only thing Most Holy Family Monastery produces are flawed Dimonds teaching 24 carat heresy.
Thursday, July 17, 2014
Fr. James Wathen was a pioneer of the Traditionalist Movement. Ordained in 1958, the good Father wrote a book entitled The Great Sacrilege in 1970, denouncing the "Novus Bogus" Vatican II service that poses as a "Mass." Father had done much good, but unfortunately, he failed to embrace sedevacantism, and did succumb to the error of the Feenyites (denying Baptism of Blood --BOB, and Baptism of Desire--BOD).
I have every hope that the good Father is in Heaven despite his mistakes (he died in 2006). He wanted to be Catholic, and one can hope God would enlighten such a man before his final passage out of this life. I bring this point up, because we Traditionalists must be vigilant against the errors that can plague even the people with best intentions. Recently, a two-volume, hard-bound collection of his later writings has been published under the title I Know Mine and Mine Know Me. (available at Amazon.com).
While there is much laudable material contained therein, his recognition of the false Vatican II sect "popes" and Feeneyite heresy must be shown false. The serious problem with his final writings is that they contain no citations to any relevant theologians or authoritative pre-Vatican II Papal decrees; and when they do, it is seriously misunderstood.
1. On Sedevacantism. Fr. Wathen writes, "Canon 1556....which means that none of the pope's subjects are allowed to judge the status of him who sits on the Throne of St. Peter.
Wrong. Here is an explanation from a standard canon law manual:
“Immunity of the Roman Pontiff. ‘The First See is judged by no one.’ (Canon 1556). This concerns the Apostolic See or the Roman Pontiff who by the divine law itself enjoys full and absolute immunity.” (Cappello, Summa Juris Canonici 3:19.)
The judicial immunity of the pope was disputed in church history by partisans of Gallicanism and Conciliarism, who also maintained that a pope’s decisions could be appealed to a general council.
The maxim “the First See is judged by no one” is a procedural norm, then.
Sources: One of canonical sources for the maxim, the Decree of Gratian (ca. 1150), reads as follows: “Whose sins [the pope’s] no mortal man presumes to rebuke, for he shall judge all and is to be judged by no one, unless he is suddenly caught deviating from the faith [nisi deprehendatur a fide devius].” (Decree, I, dist. 60, ch. 6.)
If anything, one can conclude from this the very opposite of what Fr. Wathen maintains: defection from the faith is the one sin of a pope we are permitted to judge.
Papal Teaching: In two of his coronation sermons, Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) — considered one of the greatest canonists of his time — explained how a pope who falls into the sin of heresy is “judged.”
“’Without faith it is impossible to please God.’… And so the faith of the Apostolic See never failed, even in the most trying circumstances [turbatione], but always continued intact and undiminished, so that the privilege of Peter remained constant and unshaken.
“To this end faith is so necessary for me that, though I have for other sins God alone as my judge, it is alone for a sin committed against faith that I may be judged by the Church. [propter solum peccatum quod in fide commititur possem ab Ecclesia judicari.] For ‘he who does not believe is already judged’.”(Sermo 2: In Consecratione, PL 218:656)
“You are the salt of the earth… Still less can the Roman Pontiff boast, for he can be judged by men — or rather he can be shown to be judged, if he manifestly ‘loses his savor’ in heresy. [quia potest ab hominibus judicari, vel potius judicatus ostendi, si videlicet evanescit in haeresim.] For he who does not believe is already judged.” (Sermo 4: In Consecratione, PL 218:670)
A pope who commits the sin of heresy, then, can indeed be “shown to be judged.”
Fr. Wathen, " The main argument of the sedevacantists is that the pope is excommunicated....As a non-Catholic, it is impossible for him to be be the Head of the Catholic Church....excommunication does not mean expulsion...it is impossible for anyone for any reason to be expelled from the Church."
Very wrong. Pope Pius XII taught, "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican.  It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit." Mystici Corporis Christi June 29, 1943. (Emphasis mine)
It is clearly taught that to be a member of Christ's Mystical Body, the One True Church, you must (a) be validly baptized, (b) profess the True Faith (not a heretic), (c) Not separated from the unity of the Body (not a schismatic), and (d) not been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults (not excommunicated).
The phrase, "Once Catholic, Always Catholic" means the indelible mark of Baptism remains, and if you happily return, no repetition of baptism is necessary as you have been so marked. Fr. Wathen's interpretation turns into Wotyla's heresy that all the baptized are united in the Church (See Ut Unam Sint #42)
2. On Baptism of Desire
Fr. Wathen: While he explicitly acknowledges that BOD has been taught in catechisms for centuries, many saints taught/held it, and it was the universal consensus of the theologians, he rejects BOD for six (6) reasons:
"1. Several de fide definitions of the Church condemn it"
False. The theologians approved by the Church pre-Vatican II, knew the definitions (such as Unam Sanctum--he supplies no citations) AND accepted BOD. These theologians had their manuals approved for the use in seminaries by the highest Magisterial authority for orthodoxy. Father also fails to mention the teachings of Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII affirming BOD. If what Father THINKS those definitions say is true, then Pius IX and XII were heretics!
"2. Two Canons of the Council of Trent contradict and censure it"
An old canard. St. Alphonsus Ligori after specifically naming those two canons, goes on to teach BOD!
St. Alphonsus Liguori defines baptism of desire (flaminis) as: “Perfect conversion to God through contrition or love of God above all things, with the explicit or implicit desire [voto] for true Baptism of water, in whose place it may supply, according to the Council of Trent.” He cites Session 14, on Penance, ch. 4.
St. Alphonsus further states: “It is de fide that men may be also be saved through baptism of desire — from the chapter Apostolicam, de presb. non bapt. and from the Council of Trent, where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the washing of regeneration or the desire for it’.” (Theologia Moralis, ed. nova. [Rome: Vatican 1909] 3:96-7.)
The first citation is to an Epistle of Pope Innocent II (1130–43), who stated that a priest who “had died without the water of baptism, because he had persevered in the faith of Holy Mother the Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joy of the heavenly fatherland.” (Dz 388)
Other theologians also cite Trent and Innocent II for these definitions. They also cite Pope Innocent III’s decree in 1206 concerning a Jew who desired baptism but was not able to be validly baptized: “If, however, such a man had died immediately, he would have flown to his heavenly home at once, because of the faith of the sacrament, although not because of the sacrament of faith.” (Dz 413)
Some add Pope St. Pius V’s condemnation of the following proposition of Baius: “Perfect and sincere charity… can exist both in catechumens and in penitents without the remission of sins.” This is cited because: “The contradictory of this proposition is true. Therefore, charity cannot exist in unbaptized catechumens without the remission of their sins.” (McAuliffe, Sacramental Theology, 84.)
"3. There is no foundation in Scripture for the idea of "baptism of desire"
On Fr. Wathen's private interpretation perhaps. Revelation comes from Sacred Tradition as well as Scripture. And let us not forget the Good Thief who was promised Heaven by Christ on his desire and belief to follow Him.(St. Luke 23:43).
"4. "None of those that promote the idea (of BOD)....can explain how it can have the same effect in the soul as the sacrament has; that is, how it can dispose one for Heaven."
Answered easily enough:
Here is an explanation of baptism of desire from the pre-Vatican II theologian, Father Felix Cappello:
“The term baptism of the spirit or of desire [flaminis seu desiderii] means an act of perfect charity or contrition, with at least an implicit wish for the sacrament. ‘For the heart of a man,’ says St. Thomas, ‘is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe and love God, and repent of its sins.’
“Thus, baptism of desire serves to justify a man in place of baptism properly speaking, for (as our treatise On Penance says) outside of the sacrament actually received, perfect contrition is in itself [per se] an immediate disposition for justification…
“… baptism of desire [in voto] takes place when at least the implicit intention to receive it [the sacrament of baptism] is present; this intention is contained in the act of charity or contrition, insofar as it is a general will to fulfill all divine commandments and to employ all means divinely instituted as necessary for salvation.” (Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis, 4th ed. [Rome: 1945] 1:110, 112.)
"5.There is no solid evidence that anyone has been saved by "baptism of desire."
See Dz 388, quoted above under his point # 2
"6. If one can baptize oneself with water, why can not one baptize oneself with water?"
Answer: Baptism by water is a sacrament, BOD is not. One can not be both the recipient and administer of any of the sacraments except the Holy Eucharist which the priest confects and then self-Communicates. Likewise, does Fr. Wathen wish to deny he can have his sins remitted by an Act of Perfect Contrition with the desire for confession, even if he can't pronounce himself absolved sacramentally?
Fr. Wathen laments that those who oppose him are not properly trained. Tell that to Fr. Cekada, from whose works I often cite and refer to often --including this post! (Thanks for much info Fr. C!) Fr. Wathen also claims that Quo Primum allows him to offer the True Mass because no pope has the authority to rescind it.
As Quo Primum was a disciplinary constitution, another pope can change it. If it was infallible, some theologian would have said so, yet not one pre-Vatican II canonist or theologian does so. The language was simply a standard formula in church legislation that referred to one of the qualities a law is supposed to have: stability.
Frequent changes in laws harm the common good because people do not know how to act — hence, laws are supposed to be relatively stable. But a human legislator (unlike God) cannot foresee all future circumstances, so his successor has the power to change existing laws if he decides the circumstances warrant it.
This reflects a general principle in law: An equal does not have power over another equal. No pope who used “perpetuity” in his disciplinary decrees understood the term to mean that no future pope could ever amend or replace his legislation.
And popes did in fact change some of the provisions of Quo Primum, even before Vatican II. In 1604, for instance, Pope Clement VIII issued new regulations for the Blessing at Mass, and in 1634 Pope Urban VIII changed the wording of the Missal’s rubrics and hymn texts.Traditionalists should stop using the Quo primum argument to reject the Novus Bogus.
It's my hope that the very desire to be Catholic, saved Fr. Wathen--which desire he claimed had no power to save! Traditionalists must truly KNOW their Faith. Fr. Wathen recognized the Novus Bogus as the "great sacrilege," but ironically failed to perceive the greatest sacrilege which foisted it upon us---Vatican II and its false "popes."
Thursday, July 10, 2014
"Jesus drove a Cadillac, I'm sure it was pure gold,
Its dash made of leather, its seats tucked and rolled!
Why else would God's children need such fancy things
Like big old fancy houses and massive diamond rings?"
---Lyrics from "Jesus Drove A Cadillac" a satirical song by the Christian rock group Unveiled
Antipope Francis had a meeting with some popular "tele-evangelists." Most notably, Joel Osteen, Kenneth Copeland, and James Robison. Osteen and Copeland are known for what has been called the "prosperity Gospel," i.e., preaching that if you really love God, He will reward you with wealth and material goods in this world. Mr. False Humility himself, Jorge Bergoglio, gave what the papers have dubbed as the first ever "papal high five" with Robison. Of course, Bergoglio has never condemned their errors, nor has he exhorted them to convert. In Vatican II ecclesiology, all is well as long as you're not in the Truth (i.e. a Traditionalist).
These false preachers are quite a bunch. Here are some pertinent facts about those who achieve the "Frankie High Five."--with an emphasis on the one I believe is worst:
Joel Osteen According to the Christian Post, Osteen (b. March 5, 1963), leads one of the largest Protestant "mega-church's" in America. He stopped taking a salary in 2005, because his book deals are so lucrative. His last book yielded a reported 13 million dollars. Here are some excerpts from an interview Osteen did on Larry King about the "prosperity Gospel":
KING: How about issues that the church has feelings about? Abortion? Same-sex marriages?
OSTEEN: Yeah. You know what, Larry? I don't go there. I just ...
KING: You have thoughts, though.
OSTEEN: I have thoughts. I just, you know, I don't think that a same-sex marriage is the way God intended it to be. I don't think abortion is the best. I think there are other, you know, a better way to live your life. But I'm not going to condemn those people. I tell them all the time our church is open for everybody.
KING: You don't call them sinners?
OSTEEN: I don't.
KING: Is that a word you don't use?
OSTEEN: I don't use it. I never thought about it. But I probably don't. But most people already know what they're doing wrong. When I get them to church I want to tell them that you can change. There can be a difference in your life. So I don't go down the road of condemning.
In other words, "Who am I to judge?"
KING: I want to get to the seven steps. But when the people call you cotton candy theology. Someone said you're very good but there's no spiritual nourishment. I don't know what that means ...
OSTEEN: I think, I hear it meaning a lot of different things. One I think a lot of it is that I'm not condemning people. And I don't know, but Larry I talk, I mean every week in our church we're dealing with people that are fighting cancer, that have their lost loved ones. That are going through a divorce. I mean, I talk about those issues, and to me I don't see how it can get any more, you know, real than that. So I don't know what the criticism is.
How about Salvation, repenting of your sins, how about accepting Jesus? Sure, Protestantism is a false sect, but Osteen just wants to be a glorified social worker and motivational speaker. It's "Protestantism Lite"--feel good and shout "Amen" to receive money and health and forget all that "negative talk" about sin, repentance,etc. Sound familiar?
Here's what Osteen said about Frankie in an interview with the Huffington Post :
“I think the pope is fantastic, his tone, his humility,” he said.
“We may not agree 100 percent on doctrine and theology, but the Catholic (sic) Church, our church, it’s open for everybody. I like his tone, not pushing people away.”
So why is the "Prosperity Gospel" wrong? It's because it has nothing to do with the real Gospel and is even more heretical than traditional Protestantism:
1. Materialism keeps people out of heaven.
The Osteen/Copeland group tout the Gospel as a way to live "the good life” and claim wealth is a sign of spiritual maturity. Such a message appeals only to our sinful, selfish nature. True Christians are not to love the world or anything in the world (1 John 2:15). Jesus repeatedly warned that wealth can be dangerous to our souls (Luke 8:14; 12:15) and even keep us out of heaven (Matthew 19:21-24; Ephesians 5:5). Rather than indulging ourselves with material "blessings", the true Christian message is to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Christ, for “you cannot serve both God and money” (Matthew 6:24).
2. Unnecessary fear.
Anything negative, especially doubt, will supposedly cancel out your faith and short-circuit God's blessing in your life. As a result, when hardships come the believer puts pressure on himself to do the impossible: to never have a negative thought. The result is bondage to a constant, superstitious fear of anything negative.
Actually, faith grows stronger if we ask questions and wrestle honestly with our doubts. The Bereans were commended for their healthy skepticism (Acts 17:11). We are to search for wisdom as for hidden treasure (Prov. 2:3-5) and test everything (1 Thess. 5:21).
Fear of anything negative shows how weak and fragile a person's faith really is, and keeps it from growing stronger.
3. It jives with Phony Frankie
How they LIKE him. He doesn't condemn. He doesn't focus on small-minded rules. They like the Modernist Vatican II sect, a spiritual cousin. According to the National Catholic (sic) Reporter:
"Copeland was unavailable for comment about his meeting with the pope, but in an address to his congregation, he played a recording from earlier this year where Francis spoke on a smartphone camera and called on Christians to set aside their differences. Copeland led his congregation in prayer where many spoke in tongues, a common Pentecostal practice." (Emphasis mine)
There you have it. A "humble pope" proud of his humility who wants "unity" at the price of sacrificing the Truth. "Prosperity preachers" who tell us that God is the Big ATM and Health Care Provider in the Sky, so buy our books, don't worry, and fill the collection plate. Feel good and come together! But the real question is, "Will you be feeling good and giving high-fives, when you don't have the True Faith and end up in Hell?"
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
The Vatican II sect sees nothing wrong with anything, so it's no surprise that there was no denunciation of a planned movie to be based on William Paul Young's blockbuster "Christian" novel The Shack. The Christian Post has reported that shooting will begin on The Shack film this summer by Lionsgate Films. The headline read: "Oprah, Forrest Whitaker, Idris Elba to Star in Controversial 'Shack' Movie." I suggest that Traditionalists prepare to give answers to Shack movie viewers concerning the Trinity and the nature of God, since the Vatican II sect members will be clueless (at best), or supportive (at worst).
For those who haven't heard of the book, here is the synopsis given by Amazon.com:
""Mackenzie Allen Philips' youngest daughter, Missy, has been abducted during a family vacation, and evidence that she may have been brutally murdered is found in an abandoned shack deep in the Oregon wilderness.
Four years later in the midst of what he refers to as 'The Great Sadness,' Mack receives a suspicious note, apparently from God, inviting him back to that shack for a weekend.
Against his better judgment he arrives at the shack on a wintry afternoon and walks back into his darkest nightmare. What he finds there will change Mack's world forever.
In a world where religion seems to grow increasingly irrelevant 'The Shack' wrestles with the timeless question, "Where is God in a world so filled with unspeakable pain?"
This self-published book has sold nearly twelve million copies since its May 2007 release. It debuted at #1 on The New York Times Bestseller List and remained at either #1 or #2 for an astounding 87 weeks. It has also held the #1 position on many other bestseller lists, including Amazon.com, USA Today's Top 150 Books, Barnes and Noble and Borders Books and was the #1 book of 2008 at ChristianBook.com. According to the author, in late 2008 the book was selling at a rate of 87,000 copies a week in the secular book stores alone. All of this has allowed Young and his two publishing partners the luxury of holding out for just the right major motion picture deal as well.
So, what's the big deal? Isn't it good that a "Christian" book is well-received? Don't be fooled. The underlying theme of the book is "universalism"--the heresy that everyone goes to Heaven. (You can be sure Mr. Jorge "Atheists can go to Heaven" Begoglio keeps a copy by his bedside).
The Most Holy Trinity is blasphemed by Young. God is portrayed in The Shack as a large African-American woman named "Papa," also called "Elousia." (perhaps a play for so-called "LGBT" perverts?). Jesus is a Jewish carpenter complete with a tool belt, and the Holy Ghost is depicted as an Asian woman named after "Sarayu," a mystical river in ancient India related to the Hindu deity Kali. Clearly, there is a "trinity" in The Shack but it is absolutely not the Most Holy Trinity.
Here's a short list of some pertinent problems:
- Young's "Papa" character insists that sin is its own punishment. This distorts the reality of Hell and discounts eternal retribution for sin.
- Readers of The Shack are told that Jesus is only the best way to know God – not the only way.
- The Shack teaches that, when Jesus went to the cross, God Almighty died there, too. This is a heresy known as patripassianism.
- The Shack states that there is no structure or hierarchy within the Trinity and that the three personages of God are all equally subject to one another and to humans as well.
If all the above weren't bad enough, the whole book reeks of universalism, the tenets of which are as follows:
1) God wills all his creatures, people and angels, to be saved and to acknowledge Jesus as Lord; and God’s will cannot be thwarted
2) God’s attribute of love limits his attribute of justice(!) It is unjust for a loving God to send people who have lived a short life to an eternal (everlasting) Hell.
3) God has already reconciled all creatures—all humanity and all angels—to himself by the atonement of Jesus Christ at the cross.
4) This reconciliation will be applied to all people either before death or after death, and to all the fallen angels, including Satan.
5) For those who do not accept salvation by faith in this life God will provide salvation by sight after they have died.
6) Faith is necessary to appropriate reconciliation in this life; God’s love delivers unbelievers (and fallen angels, including Satan) from Hell in the next life.
7) The sufferings of Hell are not punitive, penal, or eternal, but corrective, restorative, purifying, cleansing, and limited in duration.
8) Hell is not forever, but will cease to exist after all people and the fallen angels, including Satan, have been delivered and enter Heaven.
9) God has acted as the Judge of all at the cross; there is not a future judgment for anyone.
10) Universalism is the teaching of the Bible. It is the teaching of Jesus.
11) Universalism was the majority belief of the Church for the first five centuries.
12) The Church is an obstacle to universalism. All institutions including the Church and the government are systems of hierarchy that use power to control people. Young in The Shack has "Jesus" say that they are diabolical and that he never created any of them, i.e. there is no One True Church.
And isn't this in agreement with Bergoglio's sentiment that "proselytism is nonsense" and "There is no Catholic God?" Sadly, with once beautiful Catholic churches "wreck-o-vated" into looking like a shack, soon they may have some joker "deacon" reading from The Shack, too. (Gotta keep those "readings" at the Novus Bogus relevant, right?).