Soldiers Of Christ No More

 The news is increasingly more disturbing to read. Conflict after conflict is all we read and see. From the Mohammedan infidels attacking France, to Turkey shooting down a Russian plane, the world is in a constant state of struggle. However, we must not forget that the greatest battle we wage is the one for our immortal souls. "For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places." (Ephesians 6:12)

 In pointing out what was wrong with the Vatican II "sacraments," I thought I would dedicate a post to the sacrament of Confirmation. This great sacrament is defined in The Baltimore Catechism thus:

 "Q. 670. What is Confirmation?
A. Confirmation is a Sacrament through which we receive the Holy Ghost to make us strong and perfect Christians and soldiers of Jesus Christ."
"Q. 673. Why are we called soldiers of Jesus Christ?
A. We are called soldiers of Jesus Christ to indicate how we must resist the attacks of our spiritual enemies and secure our victory over them by following and obeying Our Lord."

According to the Vatican II sect's "Catechism of the Catholic (sic) Church" :
"ARTICLE 2
THE SACRAMENT OF CONFIRMATION

1285 Baptism, the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Confirmation together constitute the sacraments of Christian initiation, whose unity must be safeguarded. It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace. For by the sacrament of Confirmation, [the baptized] are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit. Hence they are, as true witnesses of Christ, more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith by word and deed."

The whole idea of being at a war against "the devil, the flesh, and the world," has been excised. It is now more "initiation" into the "People of God" (notice they always like to use the appellation "Christian" in place of "Catholic") which includes non-Catholics who are not "in full communion" with the "Church of Christ"--which is present in its fullness in the Catholic Church, but also present in false sects by different "degrees of participation" measured according to how many "elements of truth and sanctification" each sect possesses.  Also missing is the traditional emphasis on "resisting the attacks of our spiritual enemies" to be replaced by a call to "spread and defend the faith by word and deed." Although "Pope" Francis will remind you, "Proselytism is nonsense."

 What, therefore, is the True teaching on Confirmation, and how has the Vatican II sect invalidated it? I will answer in two parts.

THE TRADITIONALIST CATHOLIC TEACHING ON CONFIRMATION

The Holy and Ecumenical Council of Trent infallibly defined: "If any one saith, that the Confirmation of those who have been baptized is an idle ceremony, and not rather a true and proper sacrament; or that of old it was nothing more than a kind of catechism, whereby they who were near adolescence gave an account of their faith in the face of the Church; let him be anathema."

The Church has always taught that Confirmation is not necessary unto salvation, but it is an indispensable aid in helping a person fight for the Faith and the salvation of their soul; even to the point of sacrificing life itself to obtain eternal life in Heaven. The Apostles experienced miraculous gifts when the Holy Ghost descended upon them at Pentecost. While those miraculous gifts are not manifested today (healing others, speaking in tongues, etc.) the strength of character is manifested. Just as there have been reports of people performing extraordinary feats of strength under duress, likewise, the Gifts of the Holy Ghost will manifest to help us, provided we are in the State of Grace. 

St. Therese of Lisieux prepared diligently for this sacrament, and wrote, "On that day [she made her  Confirmation]I received the strength to suffer, a strength which I much needed, for the martyrdom of my soul was soon to begin." It is of Divine and Catholic Faith that Confirmation is one of three sacraments (the other two being Baptism and Holy Orders) which leaves an indelible mark, or 'character,' on the soul, and can therefore never be repeated without committing a grave sin of sacrilege. Pope Clement XIV approved a decree in 1774 which stated, "...this Sacrament cannot be refused or neglected without incurring the guilt of mortal sin, if there be an opportune occasion of receiving it."

CONFIRMATION VS. DEFORMATION (VATICAN II)

 The requirements for valid reception of Confirmation are not as clearly defined as the other sacraments, but the Vatican II sect has heaped so much doubt upon doubt as almost assuredly render it null and void. Let's examine the minister, the matter, the form, and the intention of the sacrament and what has happened to each.

The Minister of the Sacrament

The ordinary minister of the sacrament is the bishop, and the extraordinary minister is the priest.

 In 1968, the new Pauline rite of episcopal consecration and priestly ordination were introduced. They are null and void. Hence, unless the minister is (at least) validly ordained a priest prior to 1968, Confirmation is unquestionably invalid.

The Matter of the Sacrament

The remote matter is Holy Chrism which is made from olive oil and balsam which is then consecrated by a bishop on Maundy Thursday.

The Vatican II sect's Congregation of Divine Worship issued a decree in 1971 permitting the use of of other oils from other plants and seeds (e.g., coconut or vegetable oil) in the place of olive oil for Confirmation. This novelty has no basis in Church teaching and/or practice. (See Documents on the Liturgy, no. 3864)

The proximate matter is considered by most theologians to be both the anointing with Holy Chrism and the individual imposition of the hands by the bishop. (See theologian Pohle, Dogmatic Theology, B. Herder Book Co., 1923, 12:292-293)

The imposition of hands for each individual has been suppressed. Montini ("Pope" Paul VI) issued his "Apostolic Constitution" Divinae Consortium Naturae promulgated August 15, 1971, making the new rite mandatory effective January 1, 1973. He responded to a query (See Documents on the Liturgy, no. 306) stating that the anointing with chrism without the imposition of hands "sufficiently expresses the laying on of hands." Hence, most "bishops" do not impose the hands on the individual.

The use of other oils than olive oil in the Chrism, the lack (in almost all cases) of a valid bishop (or authorized priest as in the Eastern Rites) to consecrate it, and the suppression of the individual imposition of hands, renders the sacrament highly doubtful on these grounds alone.

The Form of the Sacrament

The traditional form in the Latin Rite is: "I sign thee with the sign of the cross, and I confirm thee with the Chrism of salvation. In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost." The traditional form (pre-Vatican II) in the Eastern Rites was: "The sign of the Gift of the Holy Ghost."  

The new rite of Paul VI states: "Be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit" shall be the new form of the Sacrament. Montini lies in Divinae Consortium Naturae, claiming, "The Sacrament of Confirmation is conferred through the anointing with chrism on the forehead, which is done by the laying on of the hand, and through the words: 'Accipe Signaculum Doni Spiritus Sancti.'" Just a few paragraphs before he had written (correctly): "In the East, in the fourth and fifth centuries there appear in the rite of anointing the first indications of the words 'signaculum doni Spiritus Sancti'" This is translated as "The sign of the Gift of the Holy Ghost." However, Montini renders it: "Accept the sign of the Gift of the Holy Ghost" and incorrectly translated in English to "Be sealed with the gift of the Holy Spirit" as I wrote above. It has been changed from the active giving of the character and gifts of the Holy Ghost to some passive request for the person to accept something. This ties in nicely with ecumenism, so as not to offend our "separated brethren" who detest the idea of an ordained clergy with powers to effectuate a sacrament "ex opere operato" (i.e., by the very performance of the sacramental sign).

Changing the sense of the words of the form renders Confirmation highly doubtful on this point alone.

The Intention

The bishop imparts the Character on the soul of the candidate to receive the Holy Ghost and His Seven Gifts to make the recipient a "soldier of Christ."

The faulty form gives the idea that instead of getting an indelible mark on the soul, you are merely passively receiving something. Montini stated, " in a certain way [Confirmation] perpetuates the grace of Pentecost in the Church." (See  Divinae Consortium Naturae). It is ambiguous at best. The Church once again bestows the grace of Pentecost, really and actively, not "in a certain (passive) way" of recalling an event in the past and accepting a gift from God. Any minister who would positively intend to do that, may have a defective intention invalidating the sacrament.

Once more, the Modernists of the Vatican II sect have destroyed something sacred. If you have not been confirmed by a Traditionalist Bishop in the traditional rite of the Church, please try and do so as soon as practicable. In these tough times, we need to be soldiers for Christ, not cowardly Modernists who have raised the white flag of surrender to the devil, the flesh, and the world.  

"Partial Communion" = Intercommunion

 Recently, Francis, the apostate Argentinian who falsely claims the title "pope," appeared at a prayer service in a Lutheran sect church and is opening the door to "intercommunion." At a question and answer session after the false worship service, a Lutheran woman asked Frankie, "My name is Anke de Bernardinis and, like many people in our community, I'm married to an Italian, who is a Roman Catholic Christian. We’ve lived happily together for many years, sharing joys and sorrows. And so we greatly regret being divided in faith and not being able to participate in the Lord's Supper together. What can we do to achieve, finally, communion on this point?" To a Catholic, the answer would be simple: "Leave your false religion and become a member of Christ's One True Church, then you can receive a valid Eucharist together at the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass."

 However, we all know Frankie is not Catholic, but the leader of the Vatican II sect which has a strange faith, and morals more decadent than the Lutherans. Here's what he had to say:

"The question on sharing the Lord’s Supper (avoid that four letter word the Modernists hate--MASS--Introibo) isn’t easy for me to respond to, above all in front of a theologian like Cardinal Kasper! I’m scared!" (Calling Walter Kasper a Catholic "theologian" is akin to calling Stalin a "humanitarian"--Introibo) " ....It’s a problem each must answer, but a pastor-friend once told me: 'We believe that the Lord is present there, he is present. You all believe that the Lord is present. And so what's the difference?'— 'Eh, there are explanations, interpretations.' Life is bigger than explanations and interpretations. Always refer back to your baptism. 'One faith, one baptism, one Lord.' This is what Paul tells us, and then take the consequences from there. I wouldn’t ever dare to allow this, because it’s not my competence. One baptism, one Lord, one faith. Talk to the Lord and then go forward. I don’t dare to say anything more."

 "Talk to the Lord and then go forward." In other words, "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."  You believe Christ is present, we believe Christ is present, so who cares if such beliefs are grounded in Truth? Who cares about dogma? If you feel that you want to eat one of our invalid crackers we still jokingly refer to as "communion," please go right ahead. Ironically, neither sect has a valid Eucharist, so it really doesn't matter!

 The real crux of the matter lies in this telling phrase, "Always refer back to your baptism. 'One faith, one baptism, one Lord.' This is what Paul tells us, and then take the consequences from there." As I pointed out in a previous post (A "Laver Of Regeneration" No More--11/2/15) only some baptisms in the Vatican II sect are even valid. Lutheran baptisms are also dubious and need to be conditionally repeated. However, let's suppose they were valid. All validly baptized heretics and schismatics are considered members of the True Church until they begin to be taught the false doctrines of their sect at the age of reason (seven years of age).  After that, they have separated from the unity of Christ's Church and must return or be eternally lost. (See theologian Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology , The Neumann Press, 1961, 2:245).

 This makes perfect sense as there exists only one Church--the One established by Christ. All sects, Lutherans and Vatican II adherents included, belong to a man-made religion. If you are validly baptized, then by necessity you are baptized into the only Church; the traditional Roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, one validly baptized is no longer a member of the Mystical Body of Christ when he is separated in matters of Faith (heresy), governance (schism), or excommunicated. As Pope Pius XII taught in Mystici Corporis,para. # 22:"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."[17] 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.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] 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."


 Frankie clearly contradicts the teaching of Pope Pius XII. The reason is simple: Vatican II ecclesiology (i.e. the teaching on the nature of the Church) has changed into something totally different and completely heretical. Pope Pius XII was teaching the perennial dogma of the Traditional Roman Catholic Church. The Church of Christ is a perfect society, insofar as She contains all that is necessary for the attainment of Her Divine Mission. Only the Catholic Church is of Divine origin, and only those who die in the Church with Sanctifying Grace in their souls can attain salvation. Pope Pius IX condemned the following proposition in his Syllabus of Errors (1864):

19. The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free- nor is she endowed with proper and perpetual rights of her own, conferred upon her by her Divine Founder; but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church, and the limits within which she may exercise those rights

Also condemned:
18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church

Vatican II introduced a new ecclesiology, one wherein you can be "partially Catholic." In the damnable document Lumen Gentium, we read in paragraph #8:

"This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic (sic) unity." (Emphasis mine).

In other words, the Church of Christ is an entity distinct from the Roman Catholic Church. It subsists there in its fullness because it contains all the "elements of sanctification and truth" of the Church of Christ.  To be Catholic is best, but to be non-Catholic and have just some elements of truth and sanctification is good too, because Vatican II teaches in Unitatis Redintegratio # 3:

"For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [false sects] as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."

This directly contradicts the Syllabus of Errors above. Protestant sects are another form of the Church of Christ which possesses elements of truth and sanctification leading to salvation. The elements of truth and sanctification are only efficacious within the True Church. All others use them to no benefit. Taken to its logical conclusion, Satanism could be a "means of salvation." It has some "elements of truth" (e.g. the devil exists) and "elements of sanctification" (e.g. a validly ordained apostate priest confects the Blessed Sacrament to be profaned at a "black mass"). Does anyone really believe these "elements" lead the Satanist to Heaven?

 Francis is a product of Vatican II. Modernism wants a dogma-less, One World Religion. It was only a matter of time before sharing in the "one bread" of apostasy via "communion for all" would come to pass.

• Canon 843 of the Vatican II Code of Canon Law states: "§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed." Translation: A Catholic (sic) minister ("priest") can give the sacraments to non-Catholics, who are unable to obtain them from a minister of their own peculiar sect. How can you "manifest the Catholic faith" in these sacraments if you're not Catholic? What if they have the correct understanding of the sacrament, but they deny other truths of Faith? No problem. They have "partial communion" with the Church.  

• In 1992 Ratzinger, the future and now former, "Pope" Benedict XVI issued the Letter to the Bishops of The Catholic (sic) Church On Some Aspects Of The Church Understood As Communion. It states: "Indeed, 'through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature', for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present." Really? Compare Pope Pius IX, "He who leaves this [Roman] See cannot hope to remain within the Church; he who eats of the lamb outside of it has no part with God." (Amantissimus, 1862). A valid Mass is offered in persona Christi ("in the person of Christ), but an efficacious Mass must also be offered in persona Ecclesia ("In the person of the Church"). This the schismatics, such as the "Old Catholic" sect, cannot do.

• In 1993, John Paul the Great Apostate ordered to be published the DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM. Paragraph #129 states: "At the same time, the Catholic Church teaches that by baptism members of other Churches and ecclesial Communities are brought into a real, even if imperfect communion, with the Catholic Church  and that 'baptism, which constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn... is wholly directed toward the acquiring of fullness of life in Christ'. The Eucharist is, for the baptized, a spiritual food which enables them to overcome sin and to live the very life of Christ, to be incorporated more profoundly in Him and share more intensely in the whole economy of the Mystery of Christ." (Emphasis mine). A real and imperfect communion simply by baptism, not even valid orders, somehow makes the "Eucharist" a way to share in the 'whole economy of the Mystery of Christ." (Whatever that means)

• In 2015, the Vatican II "Bishops’ Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs"affirmed the 32 Agreed Statements and commended the document entitled the Declaration on the Way to Cardinal Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, for "further reflection and action." The Declaration states "Both traditional Catholic and traditional Lutheran approaches,then, different as they are in expression, affirm Christ’s real, substantial presence in the sacrament. In the faith of both churches, when one receives the Eucharistic elements or species, one truly receives the body and blood of Christ in a sacramental way, and so comes into communion with Christ, in order to be on a pilgrimage with him." Lutherans have no priesthood. They deny transubstantiation and replace it with the heresy of "consubstantiation." This heresy claims (a) the "assembly of believers" must be there for Christ to be present and (b) Christ is present "with the bread" and only for so long as the "Lord's Supper" is celebrated. They deny a sacrificial Mass offered by a priest (in public or private) and have no reservation of their "blessed sacrament." They render the meaning of Christ's words as "Here is My Body" rather than "This is My Body." The Lutheran "Communion" cracker, like the Vatican II sect cracker takes no one on a "pilgrimage with Christ." You can't travel with Someone you no longer follow. 

 The heretical ecclesiology of "partial communion" feeds into Frankie's intercommunion. The Vatican II sect has a service devoid of sacrifice, presided over by an invalid "minister of the Word." The "active participation" of people reading, responding, and passing out the bread is a must for the "priesthood of all believers." Lastly, all share in standing to receive the "host" in their hands, and must respond with faith "Amen." We can't let anyone think Christ would be present without the consent and belief of the assembly. This would give "cultic powers" to the so-called "priest."

A dogma-less, One World religion creeps closer by the day. I'm reminded of a line from George Orwell's   Animal Farm (slightly revised): "I looked from Lutherans to Vatican II, and from Vatican II to Lutherans, and I could no longer tell the difference."

Terrorized By Ecumenism

 As I write this post, at least 153 people have been killed in France by Moslem terrorists. The fact they were Islamic was hardly mentioned by the left-wing media for fear of being labeled "Islamophobic" (i.e. you have a mental disorder if you despise the teachings of Islam, just as opposition to sins against nature itself will get you labeled "homophobic"). France, the erstwhile "Eldest Daughter of the Catholic Church" and home to my patron saint, King St. Louis IX, has reaped the "rewards" of ecumenism. I pray for those poor people who have gone to meet their Maker in Judgement; were they in the State of Grace, or did they even care about religion at all after the Vatican II sect destroyed the Faith?

 "Pope" "Saint" John XXIII removed the words asking for the conversion of those "in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism" from the text of the prayer for the Consecration of the World to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. 

"Pope" "Blessed" Paul VI signed the heretical document Nostra Aetate in 1965, which proclaims in paragraph #3, "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God." (Emphasis mine)

"Pope" "Saint" John Paul II kissed the Koran and prayed, "May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam." Maybe he should be given the title "John Paul the Great Mohammedan."

"Pope" Benedict XVI  called for Christians "to open their arms and hearts" to Moslem immigrants and "to dialogue" with them on religious issues. Ratzinger told participants that the Catholic (sic) Church is "increasingly aware" that "inter-religious dialogue is a part of its commitment to the service of humanity in the modern world."

"Pope" Francis prayed towards Mecca and said, "Islam is a religion of peace, one which is compatible with respect for human rights and peaceful coexistence."

WAKE-UP CALL: THE TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM

1. The True Church does NOT regard Mohammedans as "worshiping the same God." Traditionalist Catholicism and Islam have competing theologies which are mutually exclusive. "Allah" is the name of a false moon "god" exalted by the false prophet Mohammed.  The psalmist tells us that  "All the Gods of the Gentiles are Devils" (Psalm 96:5) and hence to whom do they render their worship? The Scriptures tell us clearly " They provoked him by strange gods, and stirred him up to anger, with their abominations.  They sacrificed to devils and not to God: to gods whom they knew not: that were newly come up, whom their fathers worshiped not. "  (Deut 32:16- 17)

They "sacrificed to devils and not to God" - regardless of whether or not they might have believed they were rendering homage to the True God, the reality is quite the contrary! It is an erroneous proposition to qualify a prayer addressed to the devil as authentic prayer. Islam is a false religion. It does not come from God, and those who follow it lose their soul.

2. The Koran is an evil book written under demonic inspiration. Strong words? I own a copy. Here's what it teaches:

"O ye who believe!  Fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you; and know that Allah is with those who fear Him."  (Sura IX 123) Islam spread by means of violence. Catholicism spread by being persecuted and loving Her enemies along the way.

"They do blaspheme who say: 'Allah is Christ the son of Mary.'  But said Christ: 'O Children of Israel!  Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.'  Whoever joins other gods with Allah, Allah will forbid him the Garden, and the Fire will be his abode.  There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help."  (Sura V 75) Islam says Christians go to Hell, and Christ is not Divine; He allegedly told others to worship the false moon "god" Allah.

"O ye who believe!  Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors:  They are but friends and protectors to each other.  And he amongst you that turns to them (For friendship) is of them.  Verily Allah guided not a people unjust."  (Sura V 54) Mohammedans are told not to have Christians or Jews as friends.

Also taught:
Women are inferior to men (Sura IV 34)
Men can, and even should, ‘beat’ their wives in some circumstances (Sura IV 34)
Allah does not love the unbelievers (Sura III 32)

3. The Koran Cannot Be Interpreted Peacefully

 "So set thou thy face steadily and truly to the Faith: (Establish) Allah's handiwork according to the pattern on which He has made mankind: No change (let there be) in the work (wrought) by Allah: that is the standard Religion: but most among mankind understand not."  (Sura XXX 30)  Traditionalists who commit violent acts do so in spite of  Church teaching to the contrary. Mohammedans who commit violent acts do so because of their false religion. It's history is one of violence.

 4. The Vatican II Sect Has Allowed Islam To Flourish

 Gone are the days when St Francis of Assisi met Sultan Al Malik Al Kamil. The Saint told him, "If you wish to convert to Christ, and your people with you, I will most gladly remain among you out of love for Him. If you are hesitant about abandoning the law of Mohammed for the faith of Christ, order an immense fire to be lit; I will enter into it with your priests and you will see which is the surer and holier of the two creeds, and which one you must follow."  There was no "esteem" for the false religion shown, and peace was by conversion.

Gone are the days of King St. Louis IX and Pope St. Pius V who fought to keep the infidels out of Catholic Europe. Vatican II welcomed them in with "open arms," rejected Catholicism as the State religion, and NOW France decides to close its boarders when the blood of her citizens runs red in the streets from Islamic terrorists.

Gone are the days when artificial contraception, abortion, and euthanasia were banned and large families flourished. "Christian" Europe is shrinking while the Moslem hordes breed us out of existence.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

• Islam is a false religion inspired by Satan. We do not worship the "same God " as Moslems do. Mohammedans worship the devil and must be converted.

• The Koran is an evil book of hate and violence. It leads to violence and cannot be interpreted "peacefully." Those who are not violent do so against the teachings of their false faith.

• Islam was born in violence and perpetuates it.

• The Vatican II sect has allowed God's enemies to prosper by its heretical faith and decadent morals.

 We must call upon God to help us as never before. If the errors of Vatican II are not stopped soon, the bodies will pile up as Islam seeks to eradicate us, and we may see it all happen "Nostra Aetate" ("In Our Time").

 King St. Louis IX, Victor over the Saracens, Pray for us!   

Never Forget The Cross

 Anyone who has had the misfortune of attending the Novus Bogus "mass" of the Vatican II sect will immediately get the idea that the service is about them, not God. It's about "the assembly" getting together and having a good time to commemorate the Lord's Supper. The emphasis is upon enjoying a meal, not renewing the unbloody sacrifice of the Cross. Much emphasis is given to the Resurrection and the sacrificial death of Christ is downplayed in what has been referred to as Vatican II's "Paschal Theology."

 I got a good insight into this new Soteriology (that branch of theology which deals with the Redemption of the human race) when I came across an early writing from the Vatican II sect:

 "It would be excessive to think that it might have been necessary to wait for Vatican II because, again, the term and the theology of the Paschal mystery was very much alive in the Church and was a part of the Church. However, it has to be recognized that such a rediscovery did not take too long to occur. The last and most important liturgical document prior to Vatican II, Pius XII's 1947 encyclical, Mediator Dei, did not as yet employ the term. It speaks of redemption and does not insist at all on Our Lord Jesus Christ's resurrection. It keeps to the viewpoint that posits the death of Jesus Christ-- the central salvific event, and still does not emphasize that His Resurrection is as much, and in an essential way, the event of the world's salvation." (See Dictionary of the Second Vatican Council (Corpus Books, Washington, D.C., first edition, 1968) "Paschal Mystery," Fr. Adrien Nocent, O.S.B., and Jacques Deretz eds.--Emphasis mine)

 The Modernist heretics who produced this book lie, as all Modernism is a lie. Pope Pius XII's great encyclical Mediator Dei did not employ the term for a very good reason; it wasn't orthodox, it is heretical. The Modernists, driven underground by Pope St. Pius X, kept the false teaching that Christ's Resurrection was equal to His death in effectuating our redemption. Modernism sees all dogmas as in continual "evolution," from one meaning to another. The great Pontiff condemned such errors in this encyclical as:
"... one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table-form; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See." (para. # 62)

 All the things condemned by Pope Pius XII have been implemented and lauded by the Vatican II hierarchy. Altars were ripped out and replaced by tables; black was removed as a liturgical color and replaced by white (Yea! He's dead! Must be in Heaven so let's celebrate!); and the traditional crucifix was replaced in many of the sects churches with the crosses showing the resurrected Christ and not His wounded, suffering Corpus. Yet they claim Mediator Dei was a step in the direction of Vatican II!!

 The Second Vatican Robber Council's heretical document Sancrosanctum Concilium (On the Liturgy) says in paragraph # 106:

"....the Church celebrates the Paschal mystery every seventh day, which day is appropriately called the Lord's day or Sunday. For on this day Christ's faithful are bound to come together into one place. They should listen to the word of God and take part in the Eucharist, thus calling to mind the passion, resurrection, and glory of the Lord Jesus, and giving thanks to God who "has begotten them again, through the resurrection of Christ from the dead, unto a living hope" (I Pet. 1:3)."

 Notice that there is no mention of the Mass as a True propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and the dead, and the resurrection is put on par with Christ's Passion and death on the cross. So what does the True Church teach about redemption? Is the Resurrection really " as much, and in an essential way, the event of the world's salvation" ?

 According to theologian Pohle: "Considered from the distinctive viewpoint of Soteriology, the Resurrection of Christ was not, strictly speaking, the chief, nor even a contributing cause of our redemption; but it was an essential compliment thereof, and constituted its triumphant consummation. (a) The Catholic Church regards the Resurrection as an integral, though not an essential, element of the atonement." (See Dogmatic Theology,  B. Herder Book, Co. (1935), 5:102).

 The "Paschal Mystery Theology" compliments the Modernism of Vatican II. "Pope" Francis hides his cross from the Jews. Let's forget what Our Savior did for us. We all have a glorious Resurrection awaiting us, so let's try and eliminate all human suffering and see it as useless. There is no subjective redemptive value in suffering or making sacrifices; strive to feel good and forget sin and the price that He paid. Don't get caught up in "small-minded rules" and "who am I to judge?"  What they fail to realize is that we must follow a suffering Savior. There is no Crown of Glory without going through a Crown of Thorns in this "valley of tears." Francis is ashamed of the cross and wants everyone to forget about it. However, it is Christ Himself that tells us that in order to achieve a glorious Resurrection, a person must first "...deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Me." (St. Matthew 16:24).

A "Laver of Regeneration" No More

 Many times I have posted regarding Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB) as extraordinary means of obtaining both Church membership and salvation at the moment of death. The Feenyites (both sedevacantist and Vatican II sect) are always ready to pounce on any exposition regarding this matter of established Church doctrine which must be believed in order for someone to be a Catholic. Instead, they should be more worried about the revised baptisms produced by the Second Vatican Robber Council and in use since at least 1972.  I have always maintained that all the sacraments of the Vatican II sect are invalid except for most baptisms and marriages, since there is no need for a priest to validly confer either sacrament and the basic matter and form remain. I have been doing some research on this subject and I would like to revise my prior statement based on my findings: Some baptisms and marriages may be valid in the Vatican II sect not most.

 I've changed my conviction based on some very serious considerations I'd like to share with you. First, I will set out Traditional Church teaching, followed by the revisions made to baptism in the Vatican II sect.

THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH ON BAPTISM

According to theologian Prummer, baptism is "the sacrament of regeneration through water in words" (quoting the Catechism of the Council of Trent). The effects of baptism by Divine Law are six: 1. The bestowal of the Baptismal character (even if the sacrament is unlawfully administered or received); 2. the remission of all sin; 3. the remission of all punishment; 4. the bestowal of Grace, virtues, and the gifts; 5. the bestowal of sacramental grace; 6. incorporation in the Church. (See Handbook of Moral Theology, 1957; pgs. 252 and 254)

 The proper minister for lawful reception is a priest, and for valid reception, any person who has attained the use of reason. The remote matter of the sacrament is pure, natural water. The form of the sacrament, to be employed while the water (proximate matter) is flowing over the face or forehead is, "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (See Prummer, Ibid, pgs. 252-256). The intention of the minister is to remit Original Sin, infuse Grace, and make the person a member of the Catholic Church.

The sacrament is so necessary to salvation, Christ made it very hard to invalidate it.

VATICAN II AND CHANGES TO BAPTISM

 Most Protestant sects acknowledge Baptism as a sacrament, so why all the changes by Vatican II in the rite? The Modernists wanted to bring it in alignment with the new and heretical ecclesiology, whereby one is more or less part of the Church according to "degrees of participation." Hence, the inversion of the primary and secondary effects of the sacrament (the usual ploy of the Modernist heretics), so that Original Sin is hardly mentioned, and emphasis is on "full participation in the Christian community." 

According to the Vatican II sect's Christian Initiation, General Introduction, no. 4, 1973, "...baptism is the sacrament by which men and women are incorporated into the Church, built up together in the Spirit into a house where God lives, into a holy nation and a royal priesthood. It is a sacramental bond of unity linking all who have been signed by it." Really? "All who have been signed by it"? This would include validly baptized adults in heretical and schismatic sects--welcome to the new ecclesiology. 

As theologian Henry Davis teaches, "In conferring the sacraments, (as also in the consecration in Mass), it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and to abandon the safer course." (See Moral and Pastoral Theology,Sheed and Ward, 1935; 3:27). As previously stated, it is very hard to invalidate the sacrament of baptism, but where there's an evil will, the Modernists find an evil way. Yes, the matter is still water, and yes, the form is the substantially the same (substituting "you" for "thee" and "Holy Spirit" for "Holy Ghost" nevertheless retains the same meaning). 

 However, there are problems in many cases. With regard to the matter and form, many times the "priest" will 

• flick water over the hair so as to preclude contact with the skin

• dip his fingers in the water and touch the forehead, not signifying a true ablution (washing) from sin

• separate the recitation of the form (words) from the water flowing on the recipient (proximate matter), sometimes by a long interval

• change the form to be politically correct (as one "priest" in Boston did by baptizing, "In the name of God the Creator, and of Jesus the Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.")

 It will be protested that these are "abuses" and the integral rite retains the valid matter and form. However, there is a problem with the intention that could be inherent in the rite for those who use it. To begin with, the new rite calls itself, "The Rite of Christian Initiation" (one for adults, another for children). Absent are:

• The exorcisms

• The requirement a saint's name be used

• Godparents' playing an active role

• emphasis on remission of Original sin

It now seems a mere "welcoming ceremony" as in many Protestant sects that do not validly baptize. The Council of Trent infallibly decreed that the minister of the sacrament must have the intention of "at least doing what the Church does." According to theologian B. Leeming (Principles of Sacramental Theology [Westminster MD: Newman 1956)], 482)--- "This principle { A priest or bishop who confers a sacrament doesn't have to “prove” that he intends to do what the Church does. He is automatically presumed to intend what the rite means} is affirmed as certain theological doctrine, taught by the Church, to deny which would be theologically rash… the minister is presumed to intend what the rite means.." (Emphasis mine)

But the rite has been changed---it was changed after the principles of the most heretical Protestants when they tampered with the rite of baptism in the 1500s. These baptisms are considered invalid. We must distinguish between false ideas in the intellect, and the intention which is an act of the will. If a baby is dying and the child's mother asks a non-Catholic nurse to baptize him, as long as that nurse intends to perform the baptism as instituted by Christ (in accordance with the mother's wishes with proper matter and form applied), the sacrament is valid. Therefore, personally held views that are heretical and erroneous regarding the sacrament of baptism do not render it invalid, as long as the sect's "priests" think they are repeating and performing the rite established by Christ and doing what the Church does using correct matter and form.

 However, in his A Treatise on Baptism, theologian Kendrick writes, "The belief in [baptism's] efficacy to remit sin is not indeed necessary for its valid performance: but may we not fear that the prevailing errors concerning its being a mere form of association to the visible Church, utterly void of all spiritual efficacy, may so pervert the intention of the person who baptizes that he may propose to himself rather to comply with an established usage and form, than seriously to administer an institution of Christ Our Lord?" What Kendrick wrote about Protestant baptism in 1852 could easily apply to the Vatican II sect today. The revised rites, all in use since January 6, 1972, have a heretical concept driving them. They are now administered by invalidly ordained "priests" taught heresy in sodomite-filled seminaries where many may think baptism is just an empty rite, even as Original sin means "evil in the world" but is not an actual deprivation of grace. They do NOT intend to seriously administer an institution of Christ, in which case the baptism would be invalid!

 My conclusion: some Vatican II baptisms are valid, and some are not--even ones where matter and form are correctly applied. This opens another can of worms: Marriages in the sect between a member validly baptized and one invalidly so. The consequences of the new rite of baptism are staggering.

 Few receive the miracle of Baptism of Desire. Thanks to Vatican II and the false "popes," this venue might be the only hope for many of their followers.