Monday, June 29, 2015

The "Vatican II Feeneyites" Attempt To Defend The Indefensible

In my last post of June 22, 2015, I took to task those Feeneyites who not only deny Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB), but also affirm the validity of Vatican II and its "popes." I mentioned the blog of one such person, Mr. Lionel Andrades, who operates Eucharist and Mission (EAM). Mr. Andrades contacted me via Twitter, objecting to what I wrote. I challenged him to a debate which he graciously accepted. On June 25th, he put up several posts, all aimed at refuting my arguments. I will now reproduce what he wrote and provide answers. His writing, in my opinion, is hard to follow (as is his line of reasoning at many points). To make it easier for my readers, EAM reproduced what I wrote and then responded. To prevent you from bouncing back and forth between websites, I will reproduce anything which I originally wrote in blue. What he wrote will be normal color, and my counter-responses will be in red. I have answered all his major contentions. 

I apologize for the rather long post. However, exposing and refuting the attacks against the One True Faith is something we must do to the best of our ability in this age of near universal apostasy. At the bottom of the Feeneyite heresy stands a rejection to accept Church teaching unless it is dogmatically defined by the Extraordinary Magisterium. This contention was itself explicitly condemned by the Church as part of the great Syllabus of Errors in 1864. You will also see the poor reasoning, strange premises, and lack of understanding of the doctrines of BOD and BOB on the part of the Feenyites; especially those who also accept Vatican II and Mr. "Atheists Can Go To Heaven" Bergoglio. N.B. "EENS" refers to the dogma "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" ("Outside the Church There is No Salvation") Let's begin:

The blog's owner, one Lionel Andrades, is representative of a peculiar ideological opinion: he adheres to the Vatican II sect 

Yes to the mainline Catholic Church which accepts Pope Francis.

Herein lies the biggest problem, even bigger than Feeneyism, the acceptance of Vatican II and the post-Vatican II "popes."

Here are just two theologians:
St. Robert Bellarmine (1610) “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” De Romano Pontifice. II.30.
St. Alphonsus Liguori (†1787) “If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.” Oeuvres Complètes. 9:232
 For a complete list of pre-Vatican II theologians (as well as canon law citations) on loss of papal office, please see Traditionalists, Infallibility, and The Pope by Fr. Cekada at
Are the post-Vatican II "popes" guilty of heresy? Let's examine just two points on a list that seemingly expands daily.

  •  Justification: The October 31, 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification , approved by Ratzinger (later Benedict XVI) and Wotyla (John Paul II).

This overthrows the solemn dogmatic definitions of the Council of Trent concerning justification.

  • The Church: The Declaration on Communion, the Ecumenical Directory and the Declaration Dominus Jesus, written by Ratzinger (later Benedict) and approved by John Paul II.

These documents promote the “Subsistent Superchurch” heresy, which, among other things, denies an article of the Creed (“I believe in one Church”), as well as the proposition “outside the Church there is no salvation.” ("EENS" as explained above).

The former is “an article of the divine and Catholic faith,” the latter a “dogma of the faith.” (Salaverri 1:1095, 1153)--Thanks again to Fr. Cekada for resources available to all.

According to the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney they do not deny the baptism of desire or blood. They simply say that it will be followed with the baptism of water in the Catholic Church in a manner known only to God.

As for me, Lionel Andrades, I simply say that we do not know any case of BOD or BOB in the present times and so they are not exceptions to the dogma. Introibo Ad Altare Dei (IAAD) agrees with me on this point on Twitter.He has said BOB and BOD are not exceptions to EENS.
Wrong. The Feeneyites deny that BOD or BOB alone will suffice in extraordinary cases. They deny the teaching of the unanimous consent of the theologians as well as the 1917 Code of Canon Law on the subject making them heretics. There is no support for any novel claim that God will always supply water and an administer for the sacrament of Baptism. The next point is tricky. BOD and BOB are NOT exceptions to EENS. He is correct, and that is what the Church teaches. However, the whole point of "we do not know any case of BOD.." is confusing. Is he trying to insinuate that you can state a heresy, and if there's no proof of it happening, it's not a heresy?? For example, If I say "Christ COULD commit sin" that's not heresy because we know of no examples of Our Lord committing sin?
Just the assertion that the All-Perfect God-Man could hypothetically commit sin, is a grievous heresy as it is absolutely impossible for Christ to sin. God is All Good and cannot act against His Divine Nature. Likewise, to state that BOD and BOB are not exceptions-- because we don't know of anyone saved by them is both illogical and heretical. Should God tell us the name of someone in 2015 who died saved by BOD or BOB, we still would not have an "exception" to EENS because he died AS A CATHOLIC just prior to the moment of death!

Feeneyism (there are no known exceptions to the dogma, so there are no exceptions for us human beings) is compatible with Vatican Council II ( when it is not assumed that there are known exceptions to the dogma).Sedevacantists accept VC2 assuming there are known exceptions to EENs mentioned in VC 2.Then VC2 becomes incompatible.

Wrong again. Here are his repeated ramblings about known exceptions. (His emphasis). Well, would he like to know an "exception"? The Roman Breviary states: "Emerantiana, a Roman virgin, step-sister of the blessed Agnes, while she was still a catechumen, burning with faith and charity, when she vehemently rebuked idol-worshippers who were stealing from Christians, was stoned and struck down by the crowd which she had angered. Praying in her agony at the tomb of holy Agnes, baptized by her own blood which she poured forth unflinchingly for Christ, she gave up her soul to God."

SAINT Emerantiana was baptized in her own blood (BOB). To say BOB is heretical is to say the Church teaches error since the liturgy proclaims it. However, we know that the Church is infallible in such matters. It would mean the Church proclaimed as a saint someone who, according to the Feeneyites, shouldn't be there because she did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism. I really don't know why else he would harp on "we don't know anyone" in Heaven as a result of BOD and BOB, unless trying to claim that BOD and BOB are "exceptions" to EENS if we know of someone who has gone to Heaven as a result of either extraordinary way. Since BOD and BOB are NOT exceptions to the dogma EENS, it doesn't matter if we know someone who is in Heaven as a result of this miracle of Grace.

The new and heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II found in Lumen Gentium teaches that the Church of Christ "subsists in" (not "is") the Roman Catholic Church

It does not for me. Pope Benedict XVI clarified this.So it is IAAD' personal view here.
For me Ad Gentes 7 is clear. It supports EENS.

Wrong yet again! (Do you notice a certain pattern beginning to appear?).
As to Ratzinger's Dominus Iesus of 2000, which allegedly "clarified" Lumen Gentium (What Ecumenical Council Document ever needed "clarification" over 30 years after the fact? Modernists speak in ambiguities!!) Bp. Sanborn writes:

"Dominus Iesus:"Therefore there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united with her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches." (no. 17)
Qualification: HERETICAL.
This statement is the logical conclusion of the previous statement. It merely says that the schismatics and heretics who have broken off from the Roman Catholic Church form parts of the Church of Christ. They are other branches. It is heretical for the same reason that the "subsistit in" is heretical. It completely alters the nature of the Church of Christ, and places a distinction between the Church of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church.
 It should also be pointed out here that the schismatics and heretics who have left the true Church of Christ, the Roman Catholic Church, are not "Churches" at all. As "Churches." they do not even exist. For who gave them existence? God? Of course not. Human beings? Yes, schismatics and/or heretics. But human beings cannot beget "Churches" any more than they can make gold out of iron. All that they can come up with are phony substitutes for the real Church.
 The true term for these so-called "Churches" would be bands of heretics or groupings of schismatics, for that is all they are. They do not have any legitimate ecclesiastical life, charter, or structure. They are nothing. They are cadavers.

Dominus Iesus:"Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church." (no. 17)


 This text more explicitly draws the conclusion of the original error of Lumen Gentium. It extends the Church of Christ beyond the borders of the Roman Catholic Church, and gives legitimacy to non-Catholic sects. It also makes submission to the Roman Pontiff, as well as belief in the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, accidental to being a part of the Church of Christ.

 This is explicit heresy. The Church of Christ is present and operative in these "Churches" even though they reject the authority of the Roman Pontiff. But this is contrary to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. The Church teaches that Christ and the Pope constitute a single hierarchical authority. Pope Pius XII states in Mystici Corporis (no. 40):

"That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same."

It follows, then, that those who are cut off from the Pope are also cut off from Christ. For this reason Pope Pius XII, also in Mystici Corporis (no. 22) said:
"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."
Ratzinger's new document Dominus Iesus is merely a dull rehash of previous documents. There is no condemnation of religious indifferentism, but rather there are explicit declarations of principles which themselves constitute religious indifferentism. For if the Church of Christ is present with all of its essential elements in heretical and schismatic sects, and if they are used by the Spirit of Christ as a means of salvation, then what else do you need? The only thing left is degree or perfection of being the Church of Christ and a means of salvation. This is precisely what Wojtyla and Ratzinger assert: that the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth and of the means of salvation, whereas the others have only a partial serving of these things. Their lack does not prevent them, however, from being members of the Church of Christ.
So with demonic cunning, Wojtyla and Ratzinger are able to say, "All religions are not equal," because the Catholic Church has the fullness, and the others only have parts. No, not all are equal, but they are all more or less good, and beyond that, in the schismatic sects one finds the Church of Christ, and a means of salvation. Furthermore the Protestants are members of the Church of Christ. This is asserted about these sects, even though they all adhere to schism and heresy.
But that all religions are more or less good is the very error condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos:
"Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgement of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion." [Emphasis added].
St. Pius X condemned the same doctrine in his encyclical Pascendi,  which condemned the Modernists:
"In the conflict between different religions, the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic has more truth because it is more vivid, and that it deserves with more reason the name of Christian because it corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity. No one will find it unreasonable that these consequences flow from the premises."
Thus the two old deceivers have done it again. Wojtyla and Ratzinger have published bold-faced heresy under the headlines of "conservatism" and "defending the Faith." The Novus Ordo conservatives eat it up. It is just one more spoonful of the spoon-fed heresy and apostasy which we have been receiving since the 1960's.
Ratzinger's doctrine is novelty. It is heresy. It leads to apostasy. It is given to us as a preparation for a World Church. By this document Wojtyla and Ratzinger have dispensed with the necessity both to assent to all Catholic dogmas and to be submitted to the Pope as essential conditions for being members of the Church of Christ."
I couldn't have said it any better! Thank you Bp. Sanborn!!

1. BOD and BOB are nothing more than the extraordinary application of the dogma EENS in extraordinary circumstances. They are not exceptions to EENS, and it matters not one iota whether we know of anyone today who was saved by such miraculous means. 
2. The Catholic Faith and Sacramental Baptism are the normal way to enter the Church, Outside of Which There is No Salvation 
3. In extraordinary circumstances BOD and BOB are used by God to save souls apart from baptism by water.
4. BOD is a miracle performed by God on adults who live open to God's grace, follow their consciences, have perfect contrition, and are infused with the True Faith and Sanctifying Grace just prior to death.
5. BOB is the doctrine that someone who sheds his blood for Christ wanting to be united to the Roman Catholic Church will likewise be saved.
6. There are known Catholic saints who were saved by BOB.
7. BOD and BOB are taught by the universal and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church and must be believed. If you reject them, you are a heretic!
8. Vatican II taught heresy regarding the nature of the Church (ecclesiology). It teaches that groups of heretics can be "churches" that may be used by Christ as a "means of salvation." The fact that the Vatican II sect doesn't claim to know a specific individual who was saved in this manner is theologically irrelevant. They will never know a case because it is false! However, the mere assertion that it can happen is heresy because it is untrue and teaches error about the very nature of the Church.
9. The post-Vatican II popes lost their office by heresy, as the Church teaches. As a matter of fact, Jorge Bergoglio never even attained to the papacy. Not only is he an invalidly ordained priest and invalidly consecrated bishop (i.e. a layman who cannot be Bishop of Rome), he was a professed heretic which is a DIVINE impediment to being pope.
10. Vatican II will allow for the heresy of Feeney and for universal salvation. The only thing they won't tolerate is the Integral Catholic Faith.

Monday, June 22, 2015

Strange Bedfellows: Vatican II And Fr. Feeney

One of my readers has a blog of his own entitled "Eucharist and Mission" (See and sent me tweets to some of his posts. The blog's owner, one Lionel Andrades, is representative of a peculiar ideological opinion: he adheres to the Vatican II sect and claims that Feeneyism (denial of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood) and the documents of Vatican II are compatible. Fr. Feeney was a Jesuit from Boston excommunicated by Pope Pius XII for his denial of Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB), hence the heresy's name.  Actually, there are most probably more Feenyites in the Vatican II sect than there are sedevacantists, which seems counter-intuitive. After all, doesn't "Pope" Francis tell us "proselytism is nonsense" and "atheists can get to Heaven"?  Before I delve into it any further, some initial principles and definitions need to be considered first.

I) The Absolute Necessity of Church Membership For Salvation

Pope Eugene IV infallibly proclaimed in Cantate Domino (1441):

[The Catholic Church]"...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

Pope Boniface VIII infallibly proclaimed in Unam Sanctam (1302):

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

II) The Church Teaches That The Sacrament of Baptism Is Absolutely Necessary for Salvation Under Ordinary and Usual Conditions

 The Gospel of St. John 3:5--"Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

The Council of Trent infallibly teaches:
 "CANON II.-If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for Baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema."

III) The Church Recognizes Two Extraordinary Means Of Attaining Church Membership and Salvation: Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB)

In the case where someone has (a) explicit Catholic Faith and Desire for the sacrament but no opportunity for Baptism, or (b) implicit Catholic Faith where explicit Faith is impossible, or (c) if someone sheds his Blood for Christ's One True Church yet has been prevented from getting baptized, God can  perform a miracle of Grace whereby He infuses Faith and Sanctifying Grace into the soul immediately prior to death. The person dies Catholic and in God's friendship, thereby being saved apart from the sacrament of Baptism in extraordinary conditions.

The proof is in the very sources cited by the heretical followers of the late Fr. Leonard Feeney. Many of the popes, saints, catechisms, and Biblical verses refer to the absolute necessity of sacramental Baptism (by water) and they also include exceptions in extraordinary cases. BOD and BOB are therefore taught by the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium of Christ's One True Church.

IV) Vatican II Teaches Salvation Outside The Church

The new and heretical ecclesiology of Vatican II found in Lumen Gentium teaches that the Church of Christ "subsists in" (not "is") the Roman Catholic Church. This means there is an entity known as the Church of Christ which is distinct from the Roman Catholic Church and it subsists in its fullness in the Catholic Church, but it subsists in other sects according to how many "elements" they possess. To have all the elements is best, but to have just some is equally good and leads to salvation.

The Vatican II document Unitatis Redintegratio states in paragraph #3:
"It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church." (Emphasis mine)

BOD and BOB means that individuals are brought into the Church and die as Catholics. It does not deny the dogma of "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" (EENS) or "Outside The Church There Is No Salvation." See principle I above. Vatican II states that people in sects can be saved as members of those sects.  That's a world of difference.

 Now let's get back to the blog "Eucharist and Mission" (hereinafter EAM). According to Mr. Andrades (his writing in red), "When a Catholic says not every one needs to enter the Church he is expressing theology. How does an average Catholic know theology? He has probably heard it.He repeats it. For him this is the teaching of the Church.Usually the theology he repeats without knowing what it is- is Cushingism. He condemns Feeneyism.He is told it is condemned.He can only choose between Feeneyism and Cushingism and generally he does not know the difference.

Cushingism is a popular theology.It is accepted by the Magisterium. So the average Catholic repeats it.He  assumes it is de fide. Instead it is something foreign to the Faith.It is heresy.It has come into the  Church in the 1940's.It is not part of the Deposit of the Faith. It is an irrational theology, a compromised theology.It denies the basic teachings of the Church on salvation and the proclamation of the Good News.

Feeneyism says every one needs to be a formal member of the Church, with faith and baptism, for salvation and there are no exceptions.

Cushingism says everyone needs to enter the Church with faith and baptism for salvation but there are exceptions; there are known exceptions, so really every one does not need to enter the Church.

Cushingism is irrational.It says all need to enter the Church but those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire do not need to enter the Church.It assumes that we can know these cases in real life.So all do not need to be Catholic in the present times for salvation, since there are exceptions.People in Heaven are exceptions on earth!" (post of 4/8/15)

 Wow. So the dogma of EENS has two "theologies": that of Feeney and that of "Cushingism" --so named by the blog's author after Richard Cardinal Cushing of Boston who condemned Feeney and upheld BOD and BOB. The idea of BOD and BOB go way back to times Apostolic, not to the 1940s. The other errors are manifest. If the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium teaches "Cushingism" then it must be accepted. The Church rejects the idea that only de fide pronouncements must be believed. Feeneyism is the heresy. BOD and BOB (or "Cushingism" according to EAM--as if the Cardinal invented the Catholic teaching!) does NOT teach "all need to enter the Church but those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire do not need to enter the Church." As explained above, those who receive BOD are infused with both Faith and Sanctifying Grace, this precludes ignorance at that point and they are members of the Church! There are no people in Heaven who were "exceptions" (i.e. non-Catholic) on Earth. He either completely misrepresents or doesn't understand the principles involved.

It may strike many as strange, that a sect which proclaims universal (or near universal) salvation outside itself, would be home to those who hold the heretical views of Fr. Feeney where almost no one gets to Heaven. The Vatican II sect will tolerate anything except the Truth! The false popes and their teachings are a bundle of contradictions. Many who follow Francis and Vatican II refer to the Feeneyite heresy as "the restrictive interpretation" as opposed to the "liberal interpretation" (universal salvation where everyone becomes an "anonymous Christian" as per the heretic Fr. Karl Rahner). Notice the CORRECT interpretation is jettisoned. One of the biggest apologists for the Vatican II sect, Pete Vere, employed by them as a "canon lawyer,"  has defended the Feeneyite position as acceptable to be held by "Catholics"(!)

According to Vere (his writing will be in red):

"What of those, like the spiritual descendants of Fr. Feeney, who hold to a more restrictive understanding on these issues? Are they Catholics in good standing with the Church? The answer is yes for a number of reasons:

1) There is no question Fr. Feeney died in full communion with the Catholic Church. Pope Paul VI lifted Father’s excommunication while Father was still alive, and there is no evidence that Father recanted his understanding of EENS, BOB, or BOD. The actual lifting of Father’s excommunication was executed by Fr. Richard Shmaruk, a priest of the Boston Archdiocese, on behalf of Bishop Bernard Flanagan of Worcester. While visiting Boston about ten years ago, I spoke with Fr. Shmaruk and he personally corroborated the events that led to him reconciling Fr. Feeney with the Church.On pages 259 to 262 of his book They Fought the Good Fight, Brother Thomas Mary Sennott diligently chronicles the reconciliation of Fr. Feeney, as well as the subsequent reconciliation of several of Father’s spiritual descendants. Brother Sennott quotes from two respectable Catholic news sources (The Advocate and the Catholic Free Press). I have independently confirmed the quotations and context of the primary sources.

Brother Sennottt also notes that Father’s memorial mass was celebrated by Bishop Bernard Flanagan in the Cathedral of St. Paul, Worcester. This would have given rise to scandal had Father not been fully reconciled with the Church. Br. Sennott’s book received an imprimi potest from Bishop Timothy Harrington of the Diocese of Worcester, meaning the book is free from doctrinal or moral error. Thus unless one is willing to declare oneself sedevacantist or sedeprivationist, the evidence is overwhelming that Fr. Feeney died in full communion with the Church without recanting his position. (Emphasis mine)

2) Most of Fr. Feeney’s spiritual descendants have been reconciled with the Church without having to renounce or recant their interpretation of BOB, BOD, or EENS. This was the case with those who reconciled in 1974 and would go on to found St. Benedict Abbey in Still River, as well as the sisters of St. Anne’s House in Still River who reconciled in 1988, and most recently with St. Benedict Centre in Still River who reconciled under Br. Thomas Augustine, MICM. Regarding the last group, I should note they had achieved a sacramental reconciliation long before their juridical reconciliation. This was the subject of the first paper I ever wrote as a young licentiate student in canon law. While researching this paper in 1997, I visited the various communities descended from Fr. Feeney and the Harvard student movement, noting with interest how despite no formal reconciliation at the time, Br. Thomas’s community had an in-residence chaplain appointed by the Bishop of Worcester. I also noted with interest that the Bishop visited the community regularly, and that he also confirmed the community’s children. In reading canon 844, sacraments should only be shared with non-Catholics under the most strict and extenuating of circumstances. It is clear, that in keeping with canon 213, the Diocese of Worcester was ensuring for the pastoral and sacramental care of Brother Thomas’s community as if they were Catholics.

It was similarly clear from talking to Br. Thomas Augustine, as it was from talking to Mother Theresa next door at St. Anne’s House, that each of these communities still held the same interpretation of BOB, BOD and EENS as Fr. Feeney. With regards to the 1988 reconciliation of Mother Theresa, MICM and the sisters of St. Anne’s House in Still River, Fr. Lawrence A. Deery, JCL, at the time the Diocese of Worcester’s Judicial Vicar and Vicar for Canonical Affairs and acting in his official capacity, wrote the following: “1) The Sisters were asked to ‘understand’ the letter of the then Holy Office dated 8 August 1949. They were not asked to ‘accept’ its contents. 2) The Sisters were asked to make to make a Profession of Faith. Nothing else was required [...] In our discussions with the Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] it seemed rather clear that proponents of a strict interpretation of the doctrine should be given the same latitude for teaching and discussion as those who would hold more liberal views. Summarily, Mother Theresa and her community in no manner abandoned Father Feeney’s teachings.” Need I remind you that the man who was Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith at the time of this consultation is now Pope Benedict XVI, the Church’s Supreme Pontiff? (Emphasis mine)

3) In 1988, Mr. John Loughnan, a layman from Australia who happens to be a friend of mine, wrote the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED) requesting clarification on several controversies surrounding the SSPX. Mr. Loughnan also inquired as to the status within the Church of Fr. Feeney’s followers.

Concerning this last question, Msgr. Camille Perl, secretary of the PCED, replied to Mr. Loughnan as follows in N. 343/98 dated 27 October 1998: “The question of the doctrine held by the late Father Leonard Feeney is a complex one. He died in full communion with the Church and many of his former disciples are also now in full communion while some are not. We do not judge it opportune to enter into this question.”

While not wishing to engage in this controversy, Msgr. Perl clearly confirms that Fr. Feeney died in full communion with the Church, and that several of his spiritual descendants who hold his same doctrinal interpretations are in full communion with the Church. Such a statement is clearly within the mission of the PCED as this commission was established by Pope John Paul II to oversee the reconciliation and well-being of Traditionalists within the Church. [N.B. Vere seems to equate Feeney's heresy with Traditionalists when the major Traditionalist groups--SSPV, SSPX, SSPX-SO, CMRI--as well as most independent Traditionalist Bishops and Priests REJECT the heresy of Feney.---Introibo] On that note, the evidence is clear: while the position held by Fr. Feeney and his spiritual descendants may be controversial, holding these positions does not, in itself, place one outside of the Catholic Church. In short, it is clear from the Church’s current pastoral and canonical practice that the Church considers this an internal controversy, and that she acknowledges the good standing of most of those who uphold a restrictive interpretation of EENS, BOB and BOD. (Emphasis mine)
Pax Christi,
Pete Vere"

(This was a letter dated 5/29/07 having been mailed to the Feeneyite "St Benedict Center" in New Hampshire and addressed to Brother Andre Marie. Vere wrote, "...given that I do not hold office with a tribunal or ecclesiastical entity that has been asked to investigate this question -what follows is my professional opinion as a canon lawyer.

To recap our last exchange, you wrote: 'I'm wondering if you are able to put in writing something testifying to the lawfulness of holding Father Feeney's position as a Catholic in good standing with the Church. Back in January, you agreed to do this. Again, I'm not asking you to vouch for our canonical situation here in the Manchester Diocese; I'm simply asking for the expert opinion of a canon lawyer on the larger question.'" See

Let's get one thing straight: the goal of Vatican II is, and always has been, the creation of an ecumenical One World "Church" where everything is accepted but the Truth. They will have a "Gay mass" with practicing sodomites in one place and they'll give you a "Latin Motu Mass" condemning unnatural practices in another. "Sister Mary Marxist" will tell you everyone goes to Heaven regardless of belief, and "Brother Feeney" will tell you almost no one gets there unless the person is enrolled on a parish register, and probably not even then. You can have any view you wish and do anything you like, as long as you submit to Francis and the ecumenical heresies of Vatican II.  The Feeneyites are constrained to hold communion with a man who is a total apostate preaching salvation for atheists while giving their own warped view on EENS. To spin an old aphorism: The bedfellows heretics make are never strange. It just seems that way to those who have not watched and understood the courtship. 

Monday, June 15, 2015

Mutilating The Body

 Former Olympic athlete Bruce Jenner has been all over the media, having declared himself a "woman inside a man's body." After breast implants and hormone treatments, he has not undergone "genital reassignment surgery" (read: total bodily mutilation), but has not ruled it out either. He said during an interview in April with Diane Sawyer that life as a woman is primarily "a matter of mental state and lifestyle." Jenner claims he's never been attracted to men and had exclusively been attracted to women before his transition, but now identifies as "asexual" while using female pronouns to refer to himself. The sixty-five year old is now known as "Caitlyn." There are plans for him to get his own "reality show" or TV talk show that could make him hundreds of millions. 

 You might be thinking,"What do I care about what some messed up, aging former athlete does with his body?" The unfortunate reality is that Jenner will affect the "body politic" (government/society) in more negative ways than you could imagine. In 2007, the TV news show 20/20 aired an episode entitled Born With the Wrong Body. It begins as follows:

  "This past Christmas, Riley Grant received a present that can be described as bittersweet -- a video game that allowed her to morph a digital body into anything she wanted. Almost immediately, Riley, a 10-year-old transgender girl who is biologically a boy, adopted a virtual female persona. If only life were so easy, that she could punch a button and turn into a girl.

'She has a birth defect, and we call it that. I can't think of a worse birth defect, as a woman to have, than to have a penis,' Riley's mother, Stephanie, told Barbara Walters. 'She talks about the day she'll have a baby. That's not in her future. But she sees herself as growing up to be a woman.'" (See; Emphasis mine)

 So having a penis is a "birth defect of the worst kind?"  You can be a female with a male organ? To refer to being born male as a "birth defect" when there is no congenital intersex condition is morally reprehensible. The effect of the mother's statements (and the show's slant) are very clear: become sympathetic to poor Riley (born Richard) and his "loving mom." The show continues:

"He said, 'Mom, I'm so mad at God, because God made a mistake. He made me a boy, and I'm not a boy, I'm a girl, Mom. Every night I pray that God gives me a girl body but when I wake up I'm still a boy. God won't take back his mistake, he won't make it right,' Stephanie recalled." The child was diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder. "So Richard, only seven years old, began to transition from a boy to a girl. He -- now she -- pierced her ears, grew her hair out, wore girls' clothing and took the name "Reggie." Her father, Neil, who once rejected her, took her shopping for dresses. He finally understood after seeing the look on his daughter's face. Reggie eventually changed her name legally to Riley."

So let me get this straight, you have a child with a disorder, but rather than treat the disorder, you indulge in it and the public should be sympathetic? There are many cases of children who outgrew Gender Identity Disorder and live normal lives. However, the purpose of the show is to eventually remove the stigma of "disorder" and make the abnormal OK.

 The effect of  Richard/Riley and Jenner on the public will be a lesser respect for the body and an encouragement of self-mutilation.  According to theologian Zalba, mutilation of the body is defined as: "the destruction of some member or the suppression of some function of the body." (See Regatillo-Zalba, Theologiae moralis summa 2 [Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1953] n. 251). Fr. Zalba goes on to explain that this definition includes the amputation of a hand, the removal of an eye, vasectomy, etc.—in a word, anything that would destroy the radical integrity of the body. He excludes from the definition such things as blood transfusions and skin grafts because these do not permanently affect bodily integrity. Who wouldn't  think that a male getting breast implants and hormone treatments to look and act feminine is "the destruction of some function of the body" i.e., the ability of the body to be in accord with the shape and function God intended for those with an X and Y chromosome? Contrary to young Richard/Riley, God doesn't make mistakes.

 Now, it has been discovered that a prominent civil rights activist in Spokane, Washington, has been lying for years by portraying herself as black when she's really a white woman, according to her parents. Rachel Dolezal, 37, president of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP is really white, but in "Jenner-esque" fashion claims she's black. (I immediately thought of the 1979 movie The Jerk wherein Steve Martin claims to have been "born a poor black child" and doesn't know he's white until his adopted black parents tell him on his 18th birthday. That was meant to be comedy, now it's real).  Race and gender are no longer objective but subjective. If someone "feels" black, then she is black even if her parents are white. If a male "feels" female, then he is female even when he has XY chromosomes and a penis. If you disagree, then there is something wrong with YOU. You're insensitive, bigoted, and (horrors!) religious!

 Bruce Jenner's private acts will have very public effects--and none of them good. Likewise, we have a man in the Vatican who claims to be Catholic--and the pope. He's a total apostate who "feels" Catholic even though he does not believe and profess the Catholic Faith. Even one Vatican II sect blogger wrote:

  • From his very first day as Roman Pontiff,  Francis demonstrated that he is at great pains to avoid in any way offending the practitioners of the world’s many false religions, as if their version of “truth” is as of much dignity before the Lord as that which He entrusted to His Church.
  • In addressing Muslims, who worship a false god, plainly rejecting Our Lord Jesus Christ,  Francis encouraged them to persist in their erroneous practices, and even went so far as to suggest that such would be blessed by the Lord whom he represents as Vicar.
  •  Francis has made clear his belief that there is no need to call others to convert to the one true faith as it can be found in the Holy Catholic Church alone.
  •  Francis maintains that religious diversity, with all of its contradictory and irreconcilable doctrines, is a gift to be celebrated. Though he stopped short of explicitly proclaiming from whence such “gifts” are bestowed, one can only presume that he imagines that these false religions spring from God Himself! (See Harvesting The Fruit of Vatican II, 9/25/13; I removed the appellation "Pope" from before the name of Francis found in the original)
 Yes, Mr. Bergoglio  pretends to be Catholic (and pope) even as Bruce Jenner pretends to be female and Rachel Dolezal pretends to be black. And, in each case, if you don't accept them, then there's something wrong with you.

 Beware of Jorge Bergoglio's taking the Faith away from billions and leading them to Hell. He's attempting the ultimate mutilation; to remove and destroy members of the Mystical Body of Christ.

Monday, June 8, 2015

Who Are You To Judge The Neocatechumenal Way?

"Pope" Francis received into private audience members of the Vatican II sect "missionary movement," the Neocatechumenal Way. He thanked them for the "great benefit" they bring in to the "Church." When a group receives such praise from Bergoglio, you know there's something seriously wrong with them. Upon inspection, you'll find that the group is cut from the same heretical cloth as Frankie.

Francisco José Gómez de Argüello y Wirtz, aka "Kiko" Arguello, is a Spanish artist who founded the "Way" in 1964, the same year the Vatican II sect took hold. Arguello was an atheist, who admired existentialist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre. He found himself in a state of existential angst and despair to the point of considering suicide. When he read philosopher Henri Bergson, who taught that experience and intuition are more important than the intellect for understanding reality, Arguello felt atheism to be wrong and was drawn to the newly founded Vatican II sect.

 Arguello gave up his career as a painter and founded the Way. It's purported purpose is to bring the "ministry of Baptism" to the laity. Although not forming a religious Institution nor having Rules, the Neocatechumenals comprise particularly active "communities" which are part of the parishes in many dioceses of the Vatican II sect. 

 Their errors are both many and serious. My research led me to the same conclusions as Vatican II sect "priest" Enrico Zoffoli, a "conservative" member of their clergy, who nevertheless draws the correct conclusions about the heretical teachings of Kiko Arguello and his followers (my comments will be in red).

 1. SIN: man cannot avoid committing it, in the same way as he can neither accomplish good nor acquire merits for himself; (there is no free will and the idea that humanity is corrupted, with all acts being evil, is a decidedly Protestant idea infallibly condemned at the Council of Trent--See Canon 7 on Justification).
conversion is possible only as recognition, by everyone, of their own moral poverty, not as a determined wish to correct one's faults which sanctity tends to realize;
- sin cannot offend God, and man does not incur the duty to expiate it by satisfying the requirements of His justice.

2. REDEMPTION: Jesus has not brought this about by liberating man from his faults and reconciling him with God;( the idea of a true propitiatory sacrifice is denied, with horrible consequences for Soteriology in general and the Mass in particular).
- the passion and death of Christ has not been a true sacrifice offered to the Father in order to remedy sin and to redeem man;
- Jesus saved the world by virtue of His Resurrection: in order to enjoy the fruits of His work it is enough to confess to be sinners and to believe in the power of the risen Christ.

3. THE CHURCH was not founded by Christ as his only Sheepfold: it is also possible to save oneself by following other religions; (here we find ecumenism a la Vatican II combined with the Protestant notion of the "priesthood of all believers")
Church is not a juridical and hierarchical society, but a spiritual, charismatic one;
- in it there is not found a priesthood derived from the sacrament of Holy Orders - as it is sufficient to have the Baptism which, incorporating all the believers in Christ, makes them participants of His priestly dignity.

4. THE MASS is not a "sacrifice": the Church, at the altar, does not offer to God any Victim; (once more the errors of Protestantism and Modernism from Vatican II come to fore. Denial of the Real Presence, and the exaltation of the "assembly" over the ordained priesthood result in a feel-good, party atmosphere. Many "liturgies" resemble a Jewish Seder to "recapture the way it used to be" [!]).
- in place of the altar, there is nothing but the table, which in the Eucharist allows a festive party to be celebrated among brothers united by the same faith in the Resurrection;(this very error of turning the altar into a table and having a cross showing the Resurrected Christ instead of a crucified, suffering Christ was CONDEMNED by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei, 1947).
- the consecrated bread and wine are only the symbol of the presence of the risen Christ which unites the fellow-guests by communicating their own spirit, thus making them participants in his triumph over death;- the Mass, thus conceived, is not celebrated by the priest, but by the Assembly, from which "springs the Eucharist."

5. EUCHARISTIC WORSHIP does not have any meaning, it negates the true, real and substantial presence of Christ under the sacramental species. Acts of faith such as genuflections before the Tabernacle, frequent Communions, hours of adoration, benedictions, processions, congresses, etc. are not therefore justified. (It is fortunate they don't have a valid "mass" in the Vatican II sect so as to spare Our Lord such sacrilege).

6. CONFESSION is reduced to the sacrament of Baptism: their distinction does not go back to the primitive Church:
- the Church "gestates and leads to the conversion." "The important thing is not the absolution" of the priest, because the value of the confession is essentially its community and ecclesial nature; (As sin doesn't offend God, confession is simply the recognition of wrongs before the community, and the hope God will make you righteous. This also makes God, de facto, the Author of sin, an idea repugnant and blasphemous to the True Catholic mind).

7THE CHRISTIAN LIFE, as a voluntary effort of self-discipline, and therefore an exercise and progress in virtue, is an illusion;(give up your worldly goods just to aquire new ones-- what a perversion of evangelical poverty!)
- everyone remains intrinsically a sinner, incapable of obtaining true justice as a perfection of the love of God and of one's fellow creatures;
- on the other hand, Jesus has not been presented to anyone as a "model"to be imitated; He has commanded that we should actually hate our parents, brothers, relatives etc, not just, if necessary, to be prepared to prefer Him to them, but in order to follow Christ, we need to sell our own goods However, once this renunciation has been accomplished, it is permissible to acquire other goods once again and to enjoy all the pleasures of life. "Poverty" as understood by St. Francis, is inspired by the "natural religion," and was also practiced by the pagans: it is not a Christian virtue. Jesus, having suffered for us, has made our sufferings superfluous, therefore the austerities of the ascetics, the slow martyrdom of the Saints and the religious life itself, involving the effective practice of the evangelical counsels, are not justifiable. Eternal salvation is offered freely to all by the mercy of God, who forgives everything. Hell should not exist, nor should one speak of Purgatory, of prayers and of indulgences for the dead.

8THE HISTORY of the true Church founded by Christ comes to an end with the Pax Constantinia and does not resume its course until the 20th century with the Second Vatican Council, having remained frozen for about 1,600 years ... ;(Ah, yes, every Modernist's delusion; the Church was somehow in error, or not perfected until Vatican II)

 In addition to all these heresies, Kiko Arguello has been accused of founding a cult within the Vatican II sect. In his Neocatechumenal Catechetical Directory (the "Bible" of the Way) he teaches on page 367, "This new man loves the enemy and doesn't resist evil, he doesn't judge..." Really? Don't resist evil? Don't judge? In St. Matthew 7:15, Christ tells us to beware the evil of false prophets, but how can we do so unless we judge them to be both evil and false?

Now you can see why Frankie loves this sect within his sect. Their message is clear; do what we say and don't judge--- please ignore the false prophet on St. Peter's throne.

Monday, June 1, 2015

Satan Goes Prime Time

"When television is good, nothing — not the theater, not the magazines or newspapers — nothing is better. But when television is bad, nothing is worse. I invite each of you to sit down in front of your television set when your station goes on the air and stay there for a day without a book, without a magazine, without a newspaper, without a profit and loss sheet or a rating book to distract you. Keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that what you will observe is a vast wasteland."--Newton N. Minow, FCC Chairman, Speech given May 9, 1961

  Mr. Minow's observation 54 years ago that TV was a "vast wasteland" seems like an understatement in retrospect. "Trash TV" is about all that is aired these days, and we're paying the price as a society. I don't sleep well at night thinking that a generation of Maury Povich-watching idiots are sitting on juries, teaching children, and getting elected to public office. I can't help but wince when I hear the vapid nonsense spoken by most young girls these days, but what can we expect when their role models are "The Housewives of (Fill-In-The-Blank)?" Whether it's Atlanta, New York, Beverly Hills, or wherever, these "reality shows" are all the same---self-centered, narcissistic, irreligious women obsess over their looks, money, and next sexual exploit. The only time you hear the name of Jesus Christ is when they use it in vain.

 Now, this may actually start looking benevolent compared to what's coming. Fox Television is getting ready to air a new television show called Lucifer, which actually portrays Satan as a good and helpful being. We are told “the TV series centers on Lucifer who, bored and unhappy as the Lord of Hell, resigns his throne and abandons his kingdom for the gorgeous, shimmering insanity of Los Angeles, where he gets his kicks helping the LAPD punish criminals.” (See 

First, it is a blatant deception to portray Satan as “the Lord of Hell.” That is a lie which is actually taught by some Satanists whom have been misled to believe that they will somehow rule and reign with Satan in Hell. However, while Jesus did say that Hell was created for Satan and his angels, it was not created as a place for him to rule, but as a place of eternal punishment:
“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels’.” –St. Matthew 24:41

Second, Satan is not in the business of helping the police. He is one of the three enemies of the soul: the devil, the flesh, and the world. What exactly does Satan do? According to theologian Ott:

  • The Devil possesses a certain dominion over mankind by reason of Adam's sin. The Council of Trent names, as a consequence of Original Sin, humanity's subjection to the power of Satan. The Church's belief finds liturgical expression in the ceremonies of Baptism. Christ calls Satan, "the prince of this world" (St. John 12:31), and St. Paul calls him "the god of this world." (2 Cor. 4:4). In the General Judgement the dominion of the Devil will be completely and finally broken. (2 St. Peter 2:4). 
  • Satan and the fallen angels (demons) seek to do moral injury to people through temptation to sin. "Be sober and watch because your adversary, the Devil, goes about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour." (1 Peter 5: 8).
  • The evil spirits also seek to hurt mankind physically also, through the causing of physical evil (e.g., Tob. 3:8, Job 1:12, 1 Cor. 5: 5).
  •  In some cases people are possessed, in which case the demon takes forcible possession of the human body, so that the bodily organs and the lower powers of the soul, but not the higher powers of the soul, are controlled by him. The possibility and reality of possession is firmly established by the express testimony of Christ, Who Himself drove out evil spirits and Who bestowed power over the evil spirits on His disciples (Church's power of exorcism---St. Mark 1:23; St. Luke 10: 17 et seq)        (See Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma , The Mercier Press, 1955, pgs. 121-122).
 Doesn't seem to leave much time for helping out the LAPD, does it? Jesus said,  “He (Satan) was a murderer from the beginning,” (See St. John 8:44) and comes “to steal and kill and destroy” (See St. John 10:10). It is Satan who inspires people to do all manner of evil from torture, rape, and child molestation to murder. Now, Fox wants us to think he is a handsome crime fighter in Los Angeles? (No doubt LA was picked over NYC because the name "Los Angeles" translates as "the City of Angels.") Will the Vatican II sect clergy warn people about all this glorification of evil? No, not unless it relates to climate change--the really important stuff.

 Over the last several years, Hollywood has given us such "heros" as a chemistry teacher turned meth dealer ("Breaking Bad"), a sociopath that kills other killers ("Dexter"), and now the "father of lies" himself; Satan. I shudder when I think of the number of people who will watch this as I recall the aphorism, "What goes into a mind comes out in a life."

Addendum: Book Review: They Must Pay For One By One by Terence Lee

 One of my readers has published a book last year entitled They Must Pay For One By One. It's available on Amazon and is composed of sixty (60) short chapters of two or three pages each. The topic? Hell, in all its eternal misery. It chronicles the lives of sixty people bound to enter perdition and the reasons why. Although only first names are used, he places some infamous people among the damned. The author is also careful not to claim anything definitive about their fate.

 His purpose is pretty straight forward: Hell is real and many there are who go that way. It is a place of great and everlasting torment, and contrary to Fox TV, Satan is definitely not a "good guy." In this age of near universal apostasy, 99% of the Vatican II sect clergy never preach on this point (as they don't believe in it themselves). It is well-written and I found it unsettling-- in a good way. It reminded me not to be complacent with my life but to "work out thy salvation in fear and trembling" (Phil. 2: 12) all the more.

 Mr. Lee is to be commended for his strong pro-life stance which comes out quite clearly. The one major disagreement I have with the author is his belief that Vatican II was not Modernist and heretical, but was "Modernist driven." He thinks the problem lies in the interpretation of the texts of Vatican II, rather than in the documents themselves. This is only mentioned in a few chapters, however I urge Mr. Lee to rethink his position and cut all ties with the Vatican II sect.

 With that one caveat in mind, I can recommend his book to my readers as good Lenten reading. Its easy to read one or two chapters a day and reflect on the Four Last Things: Death, Judgement, Heaven, and HELL. Then if we continue in the True Faith with good works we can hope for the greatest gift of God--Final Perseverance.