Monday, February 27, 2017

A Magisterium Unto Themselves

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

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

Did Theologian Heribert Jone Teach Heresy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rejecting the Theologians = Rejecting The Universal and Ordinary Magisterium

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jerome rejects the dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church.

Jerome's Substitutes For The Theologians 

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

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

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

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


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

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

Monday, February 20, 2017

Monkey Business About Creation

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

Hollywood vs. Religion

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

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

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

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

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

What the Church Teaches on Creation

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

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

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

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

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

The Church and Evolution

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, February 13, 2017

Signs And Wonders

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

Meet The "Healers"

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

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

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

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

Mind Over Matter

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

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

What Does The Church Teach Concerning Miracles?

We must remember miracles:

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

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

Do any of the aforementioned healers seem especially holy?

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

Some Warning Signs Against False "Miraculous Healings"

 1. The "Healer" claims "you must have faith" and "If you don't believe strongly enough, God can't heal you." God is in control of the universe and faith is not some condition without which He cannot act. God can cure whomever He wishes, in His Divine Providence. Someone without faith may be cured because of others praying for them, or because of a greater spiritual good that will result for the one healed, or perhaps another. Of the thirty-seven (37) miracles Christ performed as recorded in the Bible, fifteen (15) were done with no faith on the part of the recipient (e.g., the healing of the ear of Malchus in St. Luke 22: 49-51). On the other hand, psychological healings (power of suggestion) does require belief--not in the true faith, but in the "healer" or even a placebo.

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

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


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

Monday, February 6, 2017

Is Mary Our Co-Redemptrix?

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

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

A Dimond Is Bad Theology's Best Friend

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

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

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

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

What Real Theologians Teach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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