Monday, November 30, 2020

On The Subject Of Lawful Authority


IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO MY READERS: My blog has been in its current format of one well-researched post that is published every Monday since September of 2014. I have never missed a week in all that time; over six years. That includes July 2019 when I spent five days in the hospital from a medical procedure gone awry; during my recovery, I wrote my post and published it from my hospital bed. It should come as no surprise that there are great demands on my time. Working as a lawyer takes up about 90 hours per week. I'm married and have family duties in addition to responsibilities from the  eleemosynary organizations I assist, spending time with my friends, and certainly not least of all, my religious duties/obligations. Now, with more demands from work due to new deadlines from COVID, I feel that I'm getting burned out. 

I started this blog because I feel called by God to use the knowledge I obtained during my time with Fr. DePauw, and my many years as a Traditionalist (since 1981), to help others as we make our best Catholic way we can through this time of the Great Apostasy. I write to expose the Vatican II sect, as well as to educate and inform my readers about the Faith and warn of modern dangers. I have seen much good fruit that God has produced through my labors and I wish this to continue. I can research and put out a post quicker than most due to my large library of books, and my research/writing skills from being a lawyer and teaching. Nevertheless, it takes several hours of time, the one commodity that is becoming more and more scarce. I also make no money off my writing, it is a work of love, and it shall ever remain so.

I was seriously thinking of reducing the number of posts by skipping one Monday each month, but sometimes God steps in to show us a solution when we least expect it. For some time now, there's been a young man commenting here who goes by the moniker "A Simple Man." His comments were notable for the quality of writing and a concomitant erudition. He holds the Integral Catholic Faith and is convinced of the state of sedevacante in which we find ourselves. I posted a response to one of his comments in which I said he would make a good "fill-in" for me if I needed a break. To my surprise, he wrote back that he would be interested if I were serious. We began exchanging emails.

 A young man in his 30s, he is well-educated and has a sizable library. He offered to research and write posts at his leisure (so there is no pressure or deadlines on him), and send them to me for final review and publication when I need to take a break. I will still be writing the large majority of posts each year. However, about six to ten weeks per year, Simple Man will be my "guest poster." In this way, you, my readership, continue to get 52 posts per year, and I get the break I need to continue writing 42 to 46 of those posts. This week is his first guest post.

It was nice to enjoy Thanksgiving with extra time for my family, friends, and prayer. I hope you will enjoy the "from time to time guest posts" of Simple Man and feel free to comment and let him know what you think, just as you do with me. I will also continue to respond to comments and questions during those weeks, especially if specifically addressed to me. Of late, I have been responding to all comments and queries in the late afternoon or evening, because my work became more demanding than ever. So please don't think I won't answer if you don't get a response right away; I will always write back before I go to sleep for the night.

 I will always give attribution to my guest poster as A Simple Man when he writes. Otherwise, what is posted here comes from yours truly. Thank you, Simple Man! You are indeed a godsend!

God Bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo 

On the Subject of Lawful Authority

By A Simple Man

At the time of this writing [November 22, 2020], the United States of America is still consumed by the confusion and chaos related to the 2020 Presidential Election and its ongoing aftermath. Regardless of how it turns out, media coverage of the alleged improprieties has all but guaranteed a significant portion of the country will not accept the final result as legitimate. Ignoring the hypocrisy of those saying that the current “results” – namely, that Joe Biden is the President-Elect – should not be questioned (when the same often spent much of the past four years questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 election), a question that may be on the minds of many is with regards to political authority, and the extent of one’s obedience to it. This is all the more pertinent in light of the increasing arbitrariness with which civil and criminal law have been applied in these days.

In response to this line of thought, certain Christians may reply with the lessons of Romans 13, wherein St. Paul discusses the subjection that every soul owes to higher powers; or perhaps with the lessons of Matthew 22, wherein Our Lord refutes the Pharisees and Herodians with regards to the question of tribute to Caesar (“[…]Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s.” – Matthew 22:21). However, there was no question that Caesar (and the Roman Empire in general) was the lawful secular authority; would the lessons of St. Paul and Our Lord have been different if the secular authority’s identity were a matter of public dispute? What is the extent of a Christian’s obedience to political authority if the authority in question were in doubt, or if that authority had been seized by seditious and unlawful means?

This blog has already covered the subject of a Christian’s duty to the state, but it is worthwhile to delve into it with greater detail. Our first source will be St. Robert Bellarmine, canonized in 1930 by Pope Pius XI, and a most noteworthy Doctor of the Church; in particular, we shall cite numerous sections from On Temporal and Spiritual Liberty (sourced from the edition hosted by the Online Library of Liberty, edited and translated from the Latin by Stefania Tutino. All italics, punctuation, and spelling are as cited). Our second source will be St. Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor; in particular, we shall review a few citations from the Second Part of the Second Part of the Summa Theologiae.

Chapter 6: [Political authority] is defended with a reason drawn from the efficient cause [Author’s note: Philosophically, the efficient cause of any object is the agent which causes change and drives transient motion. For example, the efficient cause of a marble statue is the sculptor who acts on the marble.]

"…as it is certain that political authority comes from God, from Whom nothing proceeds but the good and lawful, which Augustine proves throughout books 4 and 5 of De civitate Dei. […] But here some things have to be noted. First, political authority considered in general…comes immediately from God alone, since it follows necessarily from the nature of man and therefore it comes from Him Who made the nature of man. Moreover, this authority is of the natural law, as it does not depend upon men’s consent. In fact, whether or not they want to, men must be ruled by somebody unless they want human-kind to perish, which is against the inclination of nature…

"...note that this authority immediately resides in the entire multitude as its subject because this authority is of divine law. But divine law did not give this authority to any particular man; therefore it gave it to all. Moreover, once we remove the positive law, there is no good reason why among many equals one rather than another should rule. Therefore this authority belongs to the entire multitude…

"…note that the individual kinds of government stem from the law of nations, not from the law of nature, for the appointment of kings, consuls, or other magistrates clearly depends on men’s consent. And, if there is a legitimate cause, the multitude can change a monarchy into aristocracy or a democracy, and vice versa, as we read was done in Rome.

"…note that from what we said it follows that while this particular authority certainly derives from God, it is by means of human deliberation and decision, like everything else that pertains to the law of nations. In fact, the law of nations is more or less a conclusion deduced from the law of nature through human elaboration. From this, two differences between political and ecclesiastical authority follow…namely that political authority resides in the multitude, while ecclesiastical authority is directly over one man as its subject; the other from the point of view of the efficient cause, namely that political authority considered in general comes from divine law, and political authority considered in particular cases comes from the law of nations, but ecclesiastical authority is in every respect of divine law and stems immediately from God.

"On this basis I reply to the fourth argument of the Anabaptists. [Author’s note: a Protestant sect founded in 1521, notable for denying the validity of infant baptism and professing a vision of society which bore many elements that would belong to Communism in subsequent centuries. It is their radical theories on authority which Bellarmine is disputing; in particular, their argument that political authority introduced by God has nonetheless been usurped by tyrannical men, and thus is not good or lawful for Christians.] First, this argument is proved only insofar as a specific government is concerned, not regarding general political authority itself. But here we want to establish political authority in general, not a specific form of government. Add, second, that very often kingdoms are just and unjust, from God and not from God. If we look at the people who occupy and invade kingdoms, we can get the impression that kingdoms are nothing but robber bands and unjust and therefore they do not come from God. If, by contrast, we consider that divine providence makes use of the evil intention of men and arranges it either to punish sins or to reward good works or to other good ends, then those same kingdoms are just and legitimate. In fact God sometimes by the wonderful reason of His providence takes away kingdoms from somebody and gives them to other people; and as a consequence in those cases, the one who falls from the kingdom falls most justly and the one who invades the kingdom does not possess it justly, and God Himself at the appropriate time will mete out the most just punishments for that invasion.

"But God gave Palestine to the sons of Israel for a very different reason than that for which He later gave it to Salmanzar or Nebuchadnezzar. On the one hand, the sons of Israel, led by Joshua, fought against the people of Palestine with commendable obedience and, having killed them, claimed their lands for themselves. Salmanzar and Nebuchadnezzar, on the other hand, led the people of God into captivity by an execrable sacrilege, and they did not want to yield to the command of God but to their evil greed; nevertheless God used them toward that outcome which He wanted most rightly to be attained even if they did not know it.

"St. Augustine in his work De gratia et libero arbitrio, chapters 20 and 21, and Hugh of St. Victor in book 1 of De sacramentis, section 1, chapter 29, explain this issue accurately, and testimonies from the Scriptures are not lacking, as in Isaiah 10 we read: “O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation. I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets. Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few, etc.” There it speaks of Salmanzar and Sennacherib, who with evil intent occupied the lands of Israel; nevertheless God without their knowledge used their work to punish the Israelites.

"Likewise in Isaiah 45: “Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut; I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron: And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the Lord, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel. For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.” From this passage it is clear that Cyrus acquired for himself the monarchy out of lust for domination, not in service of God, and yet God helped him and gave him the monarchy that he wanted, so that he might free the people of Israel from the Babylonian captivity.

"In Jeremiah 27: “And now have I given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant; and the beasts of the field have I given him also to serve him. And all nations shall serve him, and his son, and his son’s son, until the very time of his land come: and then many nations and great kings shall serve themselves of him. And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the Lord, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand.” And yet who doubts that Nebuchadnezzar submitted to himself so many kingdoms with evil intent?

"[…]Likewise the Romans wanted to enlarge their empire not for God, but for lust of glory, as blessed Augustine shows extensively in De civitate Dei, book 5, chapter 12. Nevertheless God allowed them to enlarge their empire, both to reward them for their good morals, as St. Augustine teaches in book 5, chapter 15, of De civitate Dei, and to prepare the path for preaching the Gospel through the union of all peoples under one government, as blessed Leo says in his first sermon on Peter and Paul.

"Add also that even if at the beginning those who established kingdoms were for the most part invaders, in the course of time they or their successors become legitimate princes, since the peoples little by little give their consent. In this way the kingdom of the Franks, by everybody’s consent, is now legitimate, even though at the beginning the Franks occupied Gaul unjustly. And the same can be said of the Hispanic kingdom, which began with the invasion of the Goths, and of the English kingdom, which began with the unjust occupation of the Anglo-Saxons, and of the Roman Empire itself, which was established by Julius Caesar, oppressor of his country, but which nevertheless later began to be legitimate to the point that the Lord said in Matthew 22: “Render therefore unto Caesar, etc.” "

To summarize, St. Robert Bellarmine fully acknowledges the historical existence of unjust rulers; however, rather than refusing the prerogatives of political authority as is their due from the natural and divine law, he brings to mind the supernatural perspective with which we must view the affairs of this world: in all matters where lawful obedience to political authority is due, regardless of the just or unjust means by which that authority gained its power, we are still called to follow the example of Christ and the saints (even to the point of martyrdom, should that political authority give unlawful or sinful commands that we must thereafter refuse). The rest of On Temporal and Spiritual Liberty is well worth reading in its entirety.

What of tyrannical governments? Some may retort that a political authority which obtains governmental power contrary to the ordinary means particular to that society (especially if the methods were by force of fraud or chicanery) is per se tyrannical, at which point it becomes lawful to resist. St. Thomas Aquinas, with regards to the subject of sedition, seems to support this viewpoint: "A tyrannical government is not just, because it is directed, not to the common good, but to the private good of the ruler, as the Philosopher states (Polit. iii, 5; Ethic. viii, 10). Consequently there is no sedition in disturbing a government of this kind, unless indeed the tyrant's rule be disturbed so inordinately, that his subjects suffer greater harm from the consequent disturbance than from the tyrant's government. Indeed it is the tyrant rather that is guilty of sedition, since he encourages discord and sedition among his subjects, that he may lord over them more securely; for this is tyranny, being conducive to the private good of the ruler, and to the injury of the multitude. " - ST II-II, q. 42, a. 2, ad 3.

This view seems to have additional support from St. Thomas’s overview of the subject of Obedience (bold is emphasis mine): "Man is bound to obey secular princes in so far as this is required by order of justice. Wherefore if the prince's authority is not just but usurped, or if he commands what is unjust, his subjects are not bound to obey him, except perhaps accidentally, in order to avoid scandal or danger." – ST II-II, q. 104, a. 6, ad 3.

However, the threshold of tyranny is an extremely high bar to clear. Consider the rulers of the Roman Empire: starting with Caligula in 41 A.D., over twenty claimants to the imperial seat (be they emperor or co-emperor) were murdered over the next few centuries prior to Christianity’s legalization by Constantine I. Quite a few more of Constantine’s successors would also be murdered. However, despite the constant usurpation of power by unjust force, Christian obedience to the civil authority remained (even in the face of persecution, torture, and death). Has the situation facing traditional Catholics within modern America reached that point of political turmoil, wherein extraordinary disturbance of the government would not be seditious as a result? I would argue that it clearly has not.

Likewise, when it comes to determining whether the current electoral results in America are the result of usurpation (in the sense that a re-election victory for Trump was “stolen” by allies and supporters of Joe Biden, as is alleged by many within conservative circles, and there is currently a case to be made for this allegation), that is a matter currently undergoing legal proceedings. (I do acknowledge that there are legitimate concerns regarding improprieties by lesser authorities with respect to certain states and municipalities as of the time of writing; however, the subject of this post is with regards to the general morality of obedience to political authority, in light of the teaching of two of the Church’s greatest approved theologians.) As St. Thomas argues in ST II-II, q. 60, a. 3, forming a judgment on nothing more than suspicion (which, in context, is defined as thinking evil of another on nothing more than a slight indication) is a sin (though he does elaborate on degrees of suspicion and their corresponding levels of sinfulness).

As such, I would argue that the following observations from St. Thomas still hold for our current circumstances: "Sedition is a special sin, having something in common with war and strife, and differing somewhat from them. It has something in common with them, in so far as it implies a certain antagonism, and it differs from them in two points. First, because war and strife denote actual aggression on either side, whereas sedition may be said to denote either actual aggression, or the preparation for such aggression. Hence a gloss on 2 Corinthians 12:20 says that "seditions are tumults tending to fight," when, to wit, a number of people make preparations with the intention of fighting. Secondly, they differ in that war is, properly speaking, carried on against external foes, being as it were between one people and another, whereas strife is between one individual and another, or between few people on one side and few on the other side, while sedition, in its proper sense, is between mutually dissentient parts of one people, as when one part of the state rises in tumult against another part. Wherefore, since sedition is opposed to a special kind of good, namely the unity and peace of a people, it is a special kind of sin. " – ST II-II, q. 42, a. 1

"As stated above (II-II, q. 42, a. 1, ad 2), sedition is contrary to the unity of the multitude, viz. the people of a city or kingdom. Now Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ii, 21) that "wise men understand the word people to designate not any crowd of persons, but the assembly of those who are united together in fellowship recognized by law and for the common good." Wherefore it is evident that the unity to which sedition is opposed is the unity of law and common good: whence it follows manifestly that sedition is opposed to justice and the common good. Therefore by reason of its genus it is a mortal sin, and its gravity will be all the greater according as the common good which it assails surpasses the private good which is assailed by strife. Accordingly the sin of sedition is first and chiefly in its authors, who sin most grievously; and secondly it is in those who are led by them to disturb the common good. Those, however, who defend the common good, and withstand the seditious party, are not themselves seditious, even as neither is a man to be called quarrelsome because he defends himself, as stated above (II-II, q. 41, a. 1). " – ST II-II, q. 42, a. 2

To summarize, St. Thomas Aquinas acknowledges that sedition is a grievous sin, and that there are scenarios wherein force may be lawfully used to defend the common good against such nefarious actors who would instigate it. However, as seen from history, the Catholic view of submission to political authority runs far beyond our natural inclinations, for the Church’s primary concern is with the salvation of our souls. As seen throughout the Old Testament, unjust and power-hungry rulers were often used as instruments of God’s righteous Justice against the disobedient Israelites. It would not be beyond the pale for similar governments to be used against the faithful in these days, as a means to increase our faith in God, reduce our trust in manmade solutions, and to restore our reliance on Divine Providence.

In conclusion, it can be very easy to get swept up in the furor regarding the political fate of our country, and to despair at the seeming sight of fraud being used to subvert electoral outcomes. However, we are still called to obedience in all things which are lawfully due to the state (even if we may have honest and well-founded concerns with the means by which they seized power), while still championing the rights of God and rendering to Him all that is His due. The temporal struggles we endure are but a blink in the eyes of eternity; take comfort and work out your salvation with righteous fear, knowing that everyone will one day get their due as well. After all, “…he that taketh authority to himself unjustly shall be hated.” – Ecclesiasticus 20:8

There will be more to come on this subject (perhaps on civil disobedience, and the extent to which such actions are permissible?), for the Church of Christ has answers in the face of every problem facing mankind throughout the ages. The problems of political authority, as they have manifested throughout the centuries, are no different.

Monday, November 23, 2020

Dead Serious


It was September 1981. I was 16 years old and had just met Father DePauw one month earlier. On November 1st, I would forever disavow the Vatican II sect, and become a Traditionalist. Unfortunately, I was beginning my junior year in a Vatican II sect high school. I had received a scholarship to attend after graduating "intermediate school" (as New York City called its middle schools at that time) with honors. As there were great racial tensions and gang violence here in the late 70s/early 80s, my parents wanted me to take the scholarship, avoid the dangers, and concentrate on my grades. 

It was only by the Grace of God that I didn't become an avowed atheist, and found the One True Church instead. This school was run by the most "Modernist of Modernists." Bergoglio himself would have approved this place. Most of the teachers were ex-nuns and ex-brothers who hated anything that was even remotely Catholic. Having abandoned their vocations after Vatican II, they sought to overthrow in the minds of the young both the true Faith and morals. 

None of them prayed before class or spoke of God outside of religion class. It was more hostile to Christ than any public school. There were only two nuns (one Modernist and one traditional-minded who was shunned and made to teach typing). There was one priest (validly ordained in 1964), who "offered mass" on a broken, wooden table and "offered up" sports equipment along with the host and drinking mug (which replaced the Chalice) so that our sports teams could have a winning season.

"Brother Francis" (not his real or religious name---Introibo) taught junior year religion. He was a member of the Society of Mary, having taken his final vows in 1954. He told "jokes" that were so vulgar to a captive audience of 16 year-old boys and girls I cannot and will not reproduce them here. One such "joke" involved the sexual assault of a woman (what's "funny" about that, I'll never understand). I actually repeated that so-called joke to my father. I saw this World War II active combat veteran blush. "He said that to teenagers??" I asked my father if he would complain. He knew it was wrong, but after a long pause he said, "Well...he is a brother..." My father grew up in the pre-Vatican II era when clergy/religious got a pass on things that no one else would. The Modernist clergy used the misplaced and excessive respect to perpetrate their evils, as the molestation scandals clearly show. 

Brother Francis once read a vile and blasphemous poem in which it was implied the Virgin Mary and St Joseph had marital relations. All this coming from a man belonging to a religious order dedicated the the Most Immaculate Virgin. Our Lady of Fatima said, "More souls go to Hell for sins of the flesh [sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments] than for any other reason." Even though it is a private revelation, I believe this to be true; especially when you consider approximately 35% of all websites on the Internet are pornographic. 

The title of the junior year religion course was "Meeting the Living God." We were told it was meant to show us the reality of God. Naively, I thought we would learn about the Five Proofs of God's Existence by Aquinas, or something apologetic along those lines. Instead, what happened next was a form of emotional child abuse from which I still carry some scars--as do many of my classmates. On the first day, we were told to get our chairs in a circle. Brother Francis joined in the circle. We were told that we had to tell of when we first realized God was real--and it had to be when someone in our immediate family died.  I was in shock. What does the death of a family member have to do with knowing God exists? Many people get angry at God or actually question His existence when losing a family member.

I was caught between a rock and a hard place. Br. Francis had quite the temper when he wasn't telling ribald "jokes." I was an only child (as was my mother). Both my parents were alive at the time and my one uncle and aunt were alive. Everyone complied, mostly by describing the death of a grandparent. When it was my turn, I tried to explain my situation, and he snapped at me, "You MUST answer! You CANNOT pass!" Scared and flustered, I lied about seeing my grandfather's death (all my grandparents died before I was born). "Excellent! Excellent!" he responded to my made up story.

In the weeks that followed until the end of the school year, we would listen every class to tapes of a woman who sounded like she just arrived off the boat from Germany. Her name was Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross (she is pictured at the top of this post with "saint" Mother Teresa). Kubler-Ross (1926-2004) would tell us, each school day, in her thick German accent, all about terminal patients she visited and what death would be like. Welcome to "Death Education." Introduced into both the Vatican II sect schools, and public schools, it is now well ingrained in our culture---to the detriment of all. This post will focus on Kubler-Ross, Death Education, and the evil consequences it brings.

The "Death-spert"

Kubler-Ross was born in Switzerland, and raised Protestant. She immigrated to the United States and became a psychiatrist. At first she studied and lived in New York City beginning in 1958. Kübler-Ross completed her training in psychiatry in 1963, and then moved to Chicago in 1965. Circa 1962, she began interviewing terminally ill patients of all ages, so that doctors could better understand what they were going through and be more compassionate. What began as a noble and worthwhile goal, soon degenerated into something very different.

The doctor became obsessed with death, and dedicated all her time to interviewing dying patients. The result was the publication of her ground-breaking book On Death and Dying in 1969. It outlined the "Five Stages of Dying" (aka "5 Stages of Grief;" or just "The 5 Stages"), which details the five stages a person allegedly goes through when they are told they have a terminal disease and will die; Denial, Anger, Bargaining (with the "higher power"), Depression, and Acceptance of Death.

 Although her foundation, "The Elisabeth Kubler-Ross Foundation" (or EKR Foundation), denies that these stages were meant to be strictly interpreted as happening to everyone, it was (and still is) certainly taught that way by most. Br. Francis brought in as a guest speaker a man who nearly died from a heart attack. The speaker denied going through any period of anger (at God or in general). When the man left, one of my classmates told Br. Francis that obviously all stages are not necessarily experienced. By his response, you think she had denied a defined dogma. "Yes he did! He doesn't remember, or he went through it very fast. Don't ever say that!!" (There is now even something called the "Kubler-Ross Change Curve"--See

Kubler-Ross convinced her husband to buy forty acres of land in Escondido, California, near San Diego, where she founded "Shanti Nilaya" ("Home of Peace" hospice). It was there she started getting involved with the occult. Then, by the early 1980s, she was the "Queen of Death and Dying." Her book (and others that followed), workshops, speaking tours, etc., made her quite wealthy. Her foundation does more than a bit of sanitizing her life. The "Five Stages" became like the "Twelve Steps" of AA, and it was the only "moral way" to die. You were to find the "Higher Power" in interacting with the dying. She claimed to have encountered the spirits of the dead. She held seances, and came to the conclusion that death itself is the "sixth stage," where you enter into bliss. Death was "beautiful" and to be welcomed, because death doesn't really exist; it's the next chapter of life where everyone is happy.

She came to this epiphany by way of an "out of body experience" whereby she met "spirit entities." She wrote that “I saw myself lifted out of my physical body. … [I]t was as if a whole lot of loving beings were taking all the tired parts out of me, similar to car mechanics in a car repair shop. … I had an incredible sense that once all the parts were replaced I would be a young and fresh and energetic as I had been prior to the rather exhausting, draining workshop. "After several trips to the auto repair shop and a lot of heart to hearts with the heavenly mechanics, she began to speak about death as the fountain of youth: “People after death become complete again. The blind can see, the deaf can hear, cripples are no longer crippled after all their vital signs have ceased to exist.” The emphasis had shifted from a spiritual renewal while still alive, albeit dying, to the physical renewal awaiting one after death. It made death seem all too sweetly attractive (especially at a time when there were deep-rooted problems in the medical establishment’s handling of dying patients). Some might say it made suicide seductive to the physically and mentally troubled. Death, in her new view, was a kind of Lourdes-cum-plastic-surgery spa. (See; Emphasis mine).

A scandal erupted when it was revealed that she was conducting a workshop for grieving widows. She invited a "spirit-channeler,"Jay Barham, a former sharecropper and aircraft worker, who founded the Church of the Facet of Divinity to contact the deceased husbands. They were in the dark, and Barham encouraged the women to engage in sex with the spirits of their husbands. “How is it,” one asked, “that an entity, a pure spirit, has cigarette breath?” Once, when the lights were snapped on, they claim to have seen him clearly, naked except for a turban...Kübler-Ross has been unshakable in her support of Barham. “He has so much integrity,” she says. “The truth does not need to be defended.” (See This is the founder of "Death Education."

Death Education = Deadly Consequences

At Columbine High School, the site of the infamous school shooting of April 20, 1999, Death Education was implemented in the 1980s. What Kubler-Ross initiated with her book and which took off in the 1970s, was in most public and Vatican II sect schools to one degree or another. In 1990, nine years before Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris would begin shooting the school up, a former Columbine student, Tara Becker, gave a speech at a pro-life conference warning about the dangers of Death Education. 

Tara explained that the subject of death was integrated into many of her courses in high school. She said that death was made to look glamourous, that living was hard, and that reincarnation would solve their problems. Students were told that they would always return to the "oversoul" and become like God. After one of the students at her school committed suicide, a "suicide talking day" was held and every class was to talk about death. Class assignments were for students to write their own obituaries and suicide notes. They were told to trust their own judgement in choosing whether to live or die. (See Tom Rose, "Hidden Faces of the Littleton Tragedy," Christian Statesman, September-October 1999).  Tara considered suicide, but Deo gratias, decided against it. It was only after graduation that she realized how her emotions and ideas had been manipulated. 

Death Education has become so big, there's even the Association for Death and Education Counseling, that offers certification in Thanatology (i.e., the study of death, so named after Thanatos, the Greek god of death; See The EKR Foundation gives citations to dozens of references to the "5 stages" in popular culture, ranging from TV, to movies, to music, and plays. (See

Hopefully the dangers of Death Education are apparent. The correct view on death, as the Church teaches, is that death is a consequence of sin. We should remember death so as to never lose sight of our destination of Heaven. However, we must not morbidly dwell on it so as not to live our life as God wants us to do. Death is to be feared insofar as we must do all we can to take reasonable good care of our bodies and live our lives well so we can avoid Hell. 

Death Education destroys this teaching:

  • It portrays death as "beautiful" and not to be feared because everyone goes to a "happy place" or is reincarnated. In the Vatican II sect version there is universal salvation. Thus it implicitly promotes suicide as a way out of life's problems
  • It causes depression to dwell on the topic, which in turn promotes unhealthy anxiety about death. (I became depressed, and if not for Fr. DePauw, I don't know how I would have handled it)
  • It promotes ecumenism and universalism (which explains, in part, why Kubler-Ross admired Mother Teresa)
  • It is connected with pagan ideas, such as reincarnation, and can lead to occult practices, such as trying to contact the dead (necromancy)
  • It leads people to believe the truth about God's existence is to be found in studying those who die around them. God is to be discovered based on emotions, not reason, and subjective experiences, like Modernists teach (according to vital immanence, religion arises purely from within man himself, deriving all its credibility and force from man's own personal experience as its source)
  • It makes people feel like there's something "wrong" with them, if they don't agree with all that it teaches; especially if they don't see death as "beautiful," but still naturally fear it


Br. Francis went to Judgement a few years back. I hate to think of his experience now, which is most likely anything but beautiful.  The depression from Death Education turned to anxiety for me, and affected many in my high school. Someone I know from those days became a hypochondriac, becoming worried that every cold he had, or pain he felt, might be something serious that could kill him. I still get slightly anxious when the subject of death comes up. My mind races back to Kubler-Ross giving us talks about watching terminally ill patients slowly dying--and subjected to it for 40 minutes every school day for a whole year. I remember talking about our deceased relatives, and how this all allegedly brings us (ironically) to "Meeting the Living God." No faith or morals required, it's all going to be happy, happy, joy, joy. 

In this time of COVID be especially vigilant as to what your children are being told about death in school. Information to stay safe is fine, but Death Education is dead wrong. 

Monday, November 16, 2020

Encountering Error


In the days before the Great Apostasy, Catholics could go to Mass nearby. They would go there to do the greatest act possible; attend the Unbloody Sacrifice of the Cross, the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, offering it subordinately united to the priest to adore God, atone for their sins, give thanks to God for His innumerable blessings, and to petition Him for physical/spiritual needs. They received Him Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in Holy Communion. The Catholics then go into the world to convert others by the example of their life, and explaining the faith to those lost souls who have either left the Church, or never belonged. Then came Vatican II. 

The Vatican II sect replaced the Mass with an invalid "Celebration of the You-charist" presided over by the "president of the assembly," and it gives people an encounter with God. If you want to invite someone to "come into full communion" with the sect (you never proselytize because "proselytism is solemn nonsense"), or to turn from a life of acts unworthy of a Christian (sin no longer exists), you don't tell them they are wrong, they need an encounter with Christ. If you think I'm exaggerating, here are two concrete examples:

1. Elton John is one of the most prolific rock musicians of all time. He is a sodomite who flaunts it, and advocates for sexual deviancy every chance he gets. He married Renate Blauel in 1984, but she was seen as merely his "beard" (term for a woman who pretends to be with a man to disguise his homosexuality). John is noted for his outlandish costumes on stage, most of which portray him as feminine or androgynous. John divorced Blauel and declared himself a bisexual. Later, he said he had enthusiastically embraced homosexuality. John "married" his lover since 1993, David Furnish, in 2014. They have custody of two children, both boys, born of the same surrogate mother; one in 2010, the other in 2013. John declared, "I'm going to fight for them [sodomite "rights"], whether I do it silently behind the scenes or so vocally that I get locked up." (See BBC News of November 12th, 2006).

As to his sick lifestyle, John sees nothing wrong except perhaps bestiality (sex with animals). He said, "There’s nothing wrong with going to bed with someone of your own sex. I just think people should be very free with sex…They should draw the line at goats." (Rolling Stone, October 7, 1976, p. 17). He has admitted to having numerous lovers and hook-ups with both men and women, but exclusively men after he declared himself a sodomite. In 2014, John stated Christ would've backed "gay marriage." He said, "If Jesus Christ was alive today, I can not see him, as the Christian person that he was and the great person that he was, saying this could not happen." His cited authority for this comment was..."Pope" Francis! According to Elton John, Bergoglio has"... stripped (the Vatican II sect) down to the bare bones and said it's all basically about love..and inclusiveness." (See The Telegraph, 6/30/14, article entitled "Elton John says Jesus would've backed gay marriage. Millions will presume he's right" by Tim Stanley). 

John has declared that Bergoglio is staunchly in the camp of the sexual deviants, and an ally of sodomites. According to The Catholic (sic) Herald:

On BBC Radio 4’s flagship Today programme the musician said he considered Pope Francis an "ally" against conservative bishops in Africa in his views on same-sex relationships.“My sly bet is yes he is. He’s just had the [synod] in Rome and I think he’s fighting an uphill battle against the African cardinals and bishops.” Elton John said his message to the Pope was: “Keep going, keep pushing it. Change is very hard, especially in the Catholic Church, you don’t get things done immediately, you’re not going to persuade people, just keep going and keep going and eventually the wall will fall. I think he's on our side.”

The singer, who is in a same-sex marriage, added: “I would love to meet him. I’m not a Catholic but from the first day he was elected he tried to bring a new message and change the Church and bring it into the 21st century. To be an inclusive Church. He has brought hope and change." (See 

 Elton John has said Bergoglio is a "saint" and should be "canonized" now. (With all the requirements of canonization trashed, why limit it to those who have died, right?)  Keep in mind that John has no intention of amending his life, rather he likes the fact that Bergoglio is joining him in the quest to completely eradicate true Faith and Morals. Francis wants Christ to conform to the world and not have the world conform to Christ.

 Mr. Mark Shea, a Vatican II sect apologist, sees John's praise of Bergoglio as something wonderful (of course). According to Shea, the false pope is causing John to "revisit what the Gospel has to say." Furthermore, John doesn't need a set of moral precepts, but an "encounter with a person."  (See

This is Modernist drivel, pure and simple. Mark Shea wants us to believe Elton John has revisited the Gospel. No, Mark, he's revising it to justify his perversity---even citing to Francis himself-----in order to make people believe the unnatural is acceptable. Does Francis condemn any of this, you ask? Has he told Elton John he will not and cannot change God's Moral Law against sodomy? Has he told him that he must repent, convert, or go to Hell? Why no! Elton is having an "encounter," don't you see? Raised an Anglican, John is a God-hating pervert on his way to perdition, and Bergoglio does nothing to correct him. Why? Because Francis isn't the pope.  

2. The Vatican II sect's "liturgy" denigrates the Real Presence (which they don't have anyway), and it is replaced by various encounters with Christ. According to one V2 sect blogger, citing Vatican II's Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium) and drawing out the logical conclusions, had this to say:

"We all know that we encounter Christ in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. But the Church teaches us we really encounter Jesus in three other ways as well. In Sacrosanctum Concilium—The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy [CSL], four  such encounters are articulated:

Christ is always present in His Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the sacrifice of the Mass, not only in the person of His minister, “the same now offering, through the ministry of priests, who formerly offered himself on the cross," but especially under the Eucharistic species. By His power He is present in the sacraments, so that when a man baptizes it is really Christ Himself who baptizes. He is present in His word, since it is He Himself who speaks when the holy scriptures are read in the Church. He is present, lastly, when the Church prays and sings, for He promised: “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them”. [CSL 7]

To summarize, Christ is truly present in the Mass in four ways:

1. in the celebrant during the Eucharistic prayer. He is then in the person of Christ.

2. especially in the Eucharist.

3. in his Word—the Scriptures. It is Christ who speaks when the Word is proclaimed.

4. in the gathered assembly—the Body of the Risen Lord." (See; Emphasis and font color change in original). 

As the Council of Trent declared in the Decree on The Most Holy Eucharist, Chapter 1:

In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. 

The Vatican II sect now adds three additional "truly present" means by which you can encounter Christ. The Real Presence is not uniquely Christ, He is there in the "fullest" or "best" way---"especially" present.  

So where did all this idea of having an "encounter" originate? It comes from a false philosophy known as existentialism, and was pushed during the Council by arch-heretic Fr. Karl Rahner, S.J. 


(For this section, I have condensed some material on existentialism from Phillip Trower's work, The Church Learned And The Revolt Of The Scholars, [1979], pgs. 29-40---Introibo). 

It is almost impossible to exaggerate the importance of this philosophy, which has transformed religious thinking everywhere — inside and outside the Catholic Church. In existentialism, reason is not just downplayed it is, in effect, abolished. To use it for thinking in the normal way by distinguishing object from object (cat from dog, and cat's tail from cat's body), or objects in the outside world from the thoughts in one's mind (object from subject) is considered wrong. This kind of normal thinking, though plainly designed for us by God, was supposedly introduced by wicked "Greek intellectualism," and is said to falsify reality, which does not consist of separate creatures with distinct natures, but is envisaged as a liquid continuum--like soup. For example, making statements about the nature of God, such as He exists as a Trinity, should be forbidden because they turn God into an "object," and God cannot be considered as an object among a variety of other objects (even if we are unquestionably objects to God).

The fallacy at the root of all existentialist thought is the idea that "experience" can be a path to knowledge on its own, separate from and, in some sense, in rivalry with the use of the mind. In reality, experience is merely the stuff out of which knowledge is derived. Unless we analyze or think about what we have experienced (which necessarily involves the use of abstract ideas and propositions) our experiences will tell us nothing or deceive us. Existentialism also assumes that we all experience reality differently; each has his own version of the "truth." This is why each must be allowed to "do his own thing"; whatever he finds "meaningful" or "relevant." The word meaningful in existentialist talk does not mean true, right, or intelligible, but what gives the individual satisfaction. 

The way we can know something is by experiencing it subjectively, in an encounter, with "the other." Most existentialist philosophers were atheists, as there was no God they encountered. Life was simply absurd and meaningless to these existentialists (Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and Friedrich Nietzsche to name three of the most famous and influential). There were some who believed in "The Other" (God) who could be encountered through our experiences with each other and in Whom we sometimes need a "leap of [blind] faith." The most famous of these philosophers were Karl Jaspers (Protestant), Soren Kierkegaard (Protestant), Martin Buber (Jewish), and Gabriel Marcel ("Catholic").  Marcel (1889-1973) was an atheist son of a French agnostic. He converted to Catholicism in 1929, at age 40. He followed the Vatican II sect happily.  Marcel was friends with Jacques Maritain, whose philosophical writings were going to be censured by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII. Marcel likely would have been next, but both he and Maritain escaped censure with the death of Pope Pius XII and subsequent usurpation of Roncalli.  Marcel's philosophy influenced a Polish bishop; Karol Wojtyla. (See Derek Jeffreys, The Legacy of John Paul II: An Evangelical Assessment,[2007]). 

Enter Karl Rahner

 Karl Rahner was born on March 5, 1904, in Freiberg, Germany. He was ordained a Jesuit on July 26, 1932. In the twentieth century (beginning in the late 1930s), Rahner, along with theologians  Henri de Lubac, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Yves Congar, Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Louis Bouyer, Jean Daniélou, Jean Mouroux and Joseph Ratzinger (later "Pope" Benedict XVI) began a Neo-Modernist movement that despised the Neo-Scholasticism which had served the Church so well. The movement was called "Nouvelle Theologie" (French for "New Theology") by the great anti-Modernist theologian Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, often pejoratively called "the sacred monster of Thomism" by his enemies because of his love of the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas and his hatred of Modernism.

 In 1946, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange wrote a scathing criticism of the movement (which liked to call itself  ressourcement ---"return to the sources"), because they claimed they were "returning to patristic thought." Garrigou-Lagrange demonstrated that the theologians of the movement did not "return to the sources" but deviated from the long-standing theological tradition of the Catholic Church, thus creating a "new theology" all their own, and a disguised resurgence of Modernism. In 1950, Pope Pius XII responded with his great encyclical Humani Generis which condemned many of their errors, such as rejecting the traditional dogmatic formulations that emerged throughout Church history as a result of scholastic theology, re-interpreting Catholic dogma in a way that was inconsistent with tradition, falling into the error of dogmatic relativism and criticizing biblical texts in a way that deviated from the principles of biblical hermeneutics outlined by his predecessors (principally Pope Leo XIII).

 Almost all the theologians of the "new theology" were under suspicion of Modernism by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office under Cardinal Ottavianni. Rahner was no exception. Before the death of Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Ottaviani tried unsuccessfully three times to convince the ailing Pontiff to have him excommunicated. In November 1962, "Pope" John XXIII appointed Rahner as a peritus ("theological expert") at Vatican II. The heretic Rahner thus had complete access to the Council and numerous opportunities to share his heresy with the bishops.  Rahner's influence at Vatican II was widespread, and he was subsequently chosen as one of seven theologians who would develop Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, which created the Vatican II sect with its damnable new ecclesiology. The Church of Christ is not identical to the Roman Catholic Church, but it is a separate entity which "subsists in" the Catholic Church, as well as in false sects. 

Rahner's works discuss his idea of the supernatural existential. This term meant that every human being, since Creation, has a supernatural element within him which inclines him, like a magnet, to encounter the "Supreme Divine Other." The supernatural existential takes the place of Divine Grace. Radically different experiences of God lead to different interpretations and theological positions, but all come from and lead to God. According to Herbert Vorgimler, Rahner stated, "I have experienced God directly. I have experienced God, the nameless and unfathomable One, the one who is silent, yet near...I have experienced God Himself, not human words about Him."  (See Understanding Karl Rahner, [1986], pg. 11). Rahner teaches that every human being is an "anonymous Christian." The supernatural existential links all humans to Christ through their encounters, even if their religion is a different perception, and even if they are atheists who don't realize they have encountered Him.  

Close Encounters of the Worst Kind
As a result of Rahner's philosophically warped worldview, and the false theology driven by it, he was led into serious errors that resulted in apostasy from the One True Faith:
  • The supernatural existential is an implicit denial of Original Sin and the whole doctrine on Grace
  • The Incarnation and Redemption by Christ are mythological, but are useful narratives
  • All Marian Dogmas are myths
  • There is no "One True Church" because all religions lead to God
  • All humanity will be saved
Lumen Gentium, the Vatican II document Rahner helped draft, teaches the heresy that there is a Church of Christ separate from the Roman Catholic Church. False sects have "elements" of the Church of Christ. To have all the elements, like the Roman Catholic Church, is best. However, having just some elements is good too, and leads to salvation. You can begin to see the connection to Rahner's idea that the more vivid, or the more close your encounter with God, the better it is, but we all encounter Him to one degree or another. 

It reminds me of the classic 1977 movie about UFOs, Close Encounters of the Third Kind. The title is based on a scale devised by Dr. Hynek, who worked for the U.S. government, regarding alleged sightings of unidentified flying objects.  A "Close Encounter of the First Kind" is a sighting of a UFO. The Second Kind is some physical "evidence" of a UFO, and the Third Kind is actual contact with "aliens." People may have a First Kind encounter and dismiss it, or be skeptical, but the aliens are (allegedly) real nonetheless. This is analogous to agnostics and atheists. The Second Kind encounter may have people realizing something happened, but not correctly identifying the source. This is analogous to false religions. The Third Kind encounters let you know that aliens are real. This is analogous to being "Catholic." In all kinds of encounters, the aliens are real, watching over us, and care about our development. Welcome to the "theology of encounters" and Vatican II. 

Now, these statements can be better understood:

"All the baptized are in Christ's Church."--Wojtyla, Ut Unam Sint, para. #42 

"Proselytism is solemn nonsense."--Bergoglio

"The way to achieve Christian unity, in fact, is not proselytism, but fraternal dialogue..." Wojtyla, "Homily" of 1/25/93

"The Second Vatican Council did immense work to form that full and universal awareness by the Church of which Pope Paul VI wrote in his first Encyclical. This awareness-or rather self-awareness-by the Church is formed a "in dialogue"; and before this dialogue becomes a conversation, attention must be directed to "the other", that is to say: the person with whom we wish to speak."---Wojtyla, Redemptor Homines; Emphasis mine

" the Council teaches, 'by his Incarnation, he, the Son of God, in a certain way united himself with each man'"---Wojtyla, Redemptor Homines; Emphasis mine; See also Gaudium et Spes, para. #22)

The feel good encounters of the Vatican II sect come from existential, Modernist heresy. All they want is to feel good, and "dialogue" so as to have "an encounter" with the "other." There's "Worldwide Marriage Encounter" where "The experience allows you to create a dialogue with each other and with God, to create a higher and broader understanding of what it means to be married." Oh, and, of course, "Married couples of any denomination, mixed-faith, or without religious affiliation are welcome!" Who needs a stupid set of beliefs and morals when you can have an encounter? (See

There's Lifeteen, which wants to offer Vatican II sect teenagers in a world of COVID a "virtual retreat." Will it be based on the traditional Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius? NO! "Realizing the limits of many social and safety guidelines, we know one area that might be affected is retreat ministry. Though the typical retreat experience might not be possible, we still believe it’s worth the effort to create an opportunity for teens to encounter Jesus. We want to partner with you to create a moment of encounter for your teens through this virtual retreat." (See

We must understand where the Great Apostasy originated, so as to guard against the evils that caused it. 1964 was not a "magic year" when everyone in the hierarchy suddenly went crazy. The heretics were there years prior, and only the true popes prevented them from taking over. Once a false pope came in (Roncalli), the floodgates opened. As I've written before, my spiritual father, the late, great Fr. Gommar DePauw, JCD was a peritus at Vatican II fighting against the Modernists alongside Bishop Kurz and Cardinal Ottaviani. When I had once inquired of him as to how the vast majority of prelates could have apostatized at Vatican II, his answer was clear and to the point: "They didn't become bums overnight." Truer words were never spoken. I can't help but think that many of those bums, like Rahner (d.1984), are having an eternal encounter with flames. 

Monday, November 9, 2020

Defining Desire


The year was 1849. His Holiness Pope Pius IX, like all true popes, was interested in the truths of Faith and in making those truths better known and loved. He had a deep devotion to the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, and was considering defining the Immaculate Conception as a dogma of Divine and Catholic Faith. To this end, he appointed a special commission of the best theologians at that time to investigate the question more profoundly than had previously been done. The first meeting of the Commission took place on May 8, 1852. At the second meeting (May 19th) and third meeting (June 8th) the Commission concerned itself to expressing the principles involved governing the definability of any doctrine as Catholic dogma. They put forth what is not necessary, and then what is necessary for an ex cathedra definition.  

Recently, I've been reading a collection of  essays written by theologian Fenton from 1944 to 1959, entitled The Church of Christ. Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton (1906-1969) was an outstanding theologian. He was professor of Dogmatic Theology at the Catholic University of America, and from 1944-1963, he was the editor of the professional theological journal, The American Ecclesiastical Review.  He produced no less than six theology books and numerous articles. Ordained in 1930, Fenton received his doctorate degree in Sacred Theology from the Angelicum in Rome the following year. His dissertation was written under the direction of the staunchly anti-Modernist Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. (d. 1964). 

At the Robber Council Vatican II (1962-65), Fenton was a peritus ("theological expert") for Cardinal Ottaviani, the Pro-Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. He fought the good fight against the Modernists, and afterwards, was shaken to the core. God mercifully called him to Judgement in 1969, as he was trying to grapple with what had taken place. In my opinion, he would have become a sedevacantist had he lived a bit longer. In his diaries written at the Council, he wrote, "If I did not believe God, I would be convinced that the Catholic Church was about to end." It is no surprise that he was a friend of Fr. Gommar DePauw, JCD, my spiritual father and founder of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement. 

This post was written after I read the aforementioned book of Fenton's, containing his theological essay Requisites for an Infallible Pontifical Definition According to the Commission of Pope Pius IX. Theologian Fenton defended the Faith against the detestable heretic, madman, and excommunicated Jesuit Leonard Feeney. Feeney "discovered" that the Church had been wrong in Her perennial teaching on Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB). He died a member of the Vatican II sect under Montini in 1978, a man-made religion that teaches universal salvation, thereby proving the sect will welcome all heresies--even contradictory ones---as long as you do not hold the Integral Catholic Faith. 

As I finished the article, I couldn't help but think that the principles of the Church, as articulated by the Commission, show that BOD and BOB could be dogmatically defined if we had a true pope. In this post, I will enumerate each of the principles of the Church as recorded by theologian Fenton, and show how it can apply to BOD/BOB. In so doing, I will once again give the lie to the heretical successors of Feeney (think: Fred and Bobby Dimond, the St. Benedict Center, etc.) who have the temerity to declare BOD and BOB "heresy." (If anyone thinks I'm being unfair or hyperbolic by calling Feeney a "madman," please see my post "A Sickness Of Soul"

Four Qualities NOT Needed For A Doctrine To Be Infallibly Defined

1. The fact that their have been conflicting teachings on this subject within the Catholic Church in the past, or the fact that all have not heretofore agreed on this teaching, does not render a doctrine incapable of definition. 

The Commission used the example of the rebaptism controversy as proof of this point. They also pointed out the fact that theologians on opposing sides of an issue habitually express their willingness to abide by a final decision of the Magisterium, thus in the eyes of the Church, expressing their belief that the Magisterium can pronounce and define even in a matter which had been freely debated among the theologians. 

Application to BOD and BOB: Feeneyites are always trying to "prove" BOD and BOB wrong by citing to someone who calls the doctrine into question. For example, Fr. William Jurgens is often cited as an opponent of BOD/BOB because of a text he wrote appearing to call them into question. Therefore, there is no "unanimous consent of theologians." The upshot of his contention is that to be unanimous, every single approved theologian must teach the same thing, and if only one theologian disagrees...well, goodbye to unanimity. Feeneyites have two major problems. First, Jurgens is not an approved theologian or canonist. His doctorate was not in Sacred Theology or Canon Law, but in Ecclesiastical History. Therefore any contention that Jurgens was against BOD or BOB (even if true), is the mere opinion of an historian and not the teaching of an approved theologian or canonist. Second, universal does not mean numerical unanimity, but moral unanimity

Unanimous refers to moral unanimity when we talk about the approved theologians and Fathers of the Church. According to the Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary (1957):

When the Fathers of the Church are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a part of revelation, or is received by the universal Church, or that the opposite of a doctrine is heretical, then their united testimony is a certain criterion of divine revelation. As the Fathers are not personally infallible, the counter testimony of one or two would not be destructive of the value of the collective testimony; so a moral unanimity only is required. 

2. The fact that even authoritative writers can be cited in opposition to a teaching does not render that teaching incapable of definition.
The members of the Commission claimed that this principle is shown to be valid through the examination of the history of almost any defined dogma. They pointed, in particular, to the example of the Council of Trent, which proclaimed the Church's belief in the absolute immunity of Our Lady from all actual sin and imperfection in the face of previous denial of this truth even on the part of some Fathers and Doctors of the Church. 

Application to BOD and BOB: Even those who are Fathers and Doctors of the Church who could possibly be cited in opposition does not render this doctrine incapable of being defined as dogma, let alone being "proven false."

3. In order that a doctrine be definable, it is not necessary that there should be explicit, or even implicit, testimony to this doctrine in Sacred Scripture, since it is certain and manifest that the scope of Revelation is wider than that of Scripture.
In support of this principle, the Commission appealed to several dogmas including infant baptism, and the Real (and complete) Presence of Our Lord under each of the Eucharistic Species. 

Application to BOD and BOB: Not being explicitly or implicitly mentioned in the Bible has no bearing on it being definable as a dogma. 

4. In order to show that the doctrine to be defined belongs to Sacred Tradition, it is not necessary to adduce a series of Fathers and other witnesses reaching back to Apostolic Times. 
The Commission took note of the fact that the early monuments of Tradition, among them the patristic writings are to be numbered, do not state the entire content of that Divine Teaching which was delivered to the Church by the apostles.

According to the Commission, to deny this fourth principle necessarily entails the denial of at least one of these known truths:

  • Not all of the doctrine entrusted to the Church as the content of Divine Public Revelation was immediately, at the very outset of the Church's life, set down in writing by the Fathers
  • Not all of the ancient monuments of Divine Apostolic Tradition (the writings and inscriptions of the early Christians) have survived until our time, even though Tradition itself has survived and is just as perfectly possessed, guarded, and taught by the infallible Church today as it was in Apostolic Times
  • Although the whole content of Divine Public Revelation has always been guarded and presented infallibly by the Church, it has not always been, in its entirety, distinctly conceived and formally expressed
  • A doctrine proposed as part of the Divine Apostolic Tradition by the One True Church of Jesus Christ at any one period in Her history cannot possibly be in opposition to what has been taught as Divinely Revealed by the Church at an earlier time
  • A doctrine proposed at any time within the Church as a part of Divine Public Revelation must, by reason of the Divine assistance promised and given to the Church, have been taught in the past at least in an implicit manner. Moreover, such a teaching could never have been denied by a majority of the teachers within the Church
Application to BOD and BOB:
Notice the fourth truth above: A doctrine proposed as part of the Divine Apostolic Tradition by the One True Church of Jesus Christ at any one period in Her history cannot possibly be in opposition to what has been taught as Divinely Revealed by the Church at an earlier time. All Feeneyites deny this truth of necessity. If water baptism was the exclusive means to be within the Church and achieve salvation, it was always true since the time the Church was founded. However, that means that the Church defected when BOD and BOB were taught in Her catechisms, by Her theologians, etc. That's why Feeneyites must either become "Vacancy Pushers" like, e.g.,  Richard Ibranyi, who puts the last pope as Honorius II in 1130 AD, or they implicitly deny the dogma that the Church is Indefectible. What good is a Magisterium that can't teach? 

The Feeneyites also talk about the necessity of the universal and constant consent of the Fathers as spoken of at the Vatican Council (1869-1870), yet they once more fail to comprehend its meaning. Here is an example from the Vatican Council: 

The universal and constant tradition of the Church, as seen both in facts and in the teaching of the Fathers, as well as in the manner of acting and speaking adopted by many Councils, some of which were Ecumenical, teaches us that the judgments of the Roman Pontiff in matters of faith and morals are irreformable. (See 

Protestants jumped all over this by trying to show at least one Father of the Church in disagreement with papal infallibility (therefore "not universal"), or it was not so from antiquity (therefore not constant chronologically). Both the Protestants and Feeneyites get their terms wrong.  According to the eminent theologian of the Vatican Council under Pope Pius IX, Cardinal Franzelin, universality means the consent of the Church at this present time. Only when the present universality (moral unanimity) cannot be confirmed is it necessary to appeal to antiquity, and that appeal is not to show it was always held, but rather if it was ever held by the Church as certain.  (See On Divine Tradition, reprint of 1875, [2016], pgs. 417-423). 

Five Qualities Sufficient For A Doctrine To Be Infallibly Defined
1.  There must be a number of solemn testimonies directly pertinent to the proposition in question.

Application to BOD and BOB:
There is a plethora of testimonies to the teaching of BOD and BOB. Here are but a few:

 St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Doctor of the Church (12th century): Letter No.77, Letter to Hugh of St. Victor, On Baptism: “If an adult...wish and seek to be baptized, but is unable to obtain it because death intervenes, then where there is no lack of right faith, devout hope, sincere charity, may God be gracious to me, because I cannot completely despair of salvation for such a one solely on account of water, if it be lacking, and cannot believe that faith will be rendered empty, hope confounded and charity lost, provided only that he is not contemptuous of the water, but as I said merely kept from it by lack of opportunity...

Pope Innocent II (12th Century): From his letter "Apostolicam Sedem" to the Bishop of Cremona, "We assert without hesitation (on the authority of the holy Fathers Augustine and Ambrose) that the 'priest' whom you indicated (in your letter) had died without the water of baptism, because he persevered in the Faith of Holy Mother Church and in the confession of the name of Christ, was freed from original sin and attained the joys of the heavenly fatherland. Read [brother] in the eighth book of Augustine's City of God where among other things it is written: 'Baptism is administered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion, but death excludes.' Read again the book also of the blessed Ambrose concerning the death of Valentinian where he says the same thing. Therefore, to questions concerning the dead, you should hold the opinions of the learned Fathers, and in your church you should join in prayers and you should have sacrifices offered to God for the 'priest' mentioned." (Denzinger 388)

The Council of Trent:
Decree on Justification, Session VI, Chapter 4: "And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

Session VII, Concerning the Sacraments in General, Canon 4 : "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them, through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."

St. Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church:
Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-97: "Baptism of blood is the shedding of one's blood, i.e. death, suffered for the faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato… Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view is at least temerarious."

Catechism of the Council of Trent
The Sacraments, Baptism: "...should any unforeseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness."

Pope St. Pius X,  Catechism of Christian Doctrine (aka Catechism of St. Pius X):
17 Q. Can the absence of Baptism be supplied in any other way? A. The absence of Baptism can be supplied by martyrdom, which is called Baptism of Blood, or by an act of perfect love of God, or of contrition, along with the desire, at least implicit, of Baptism, and this is called Baptism of Desire.
2. A proposition is capable of being defined if there can be found one or many revealed principles containing this proposition. 

The Commission used the example that from the revealed dogma Christ is True God and True Man, it follows He has two wills. 

Application to BOD and BOB:
It has been dogmatically defined at Trent that " "If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation, but are superfluous, and that, although all are not necessary for every individual, without them or without the desire of them, through faith alone men obtain from God the grace of justification; let him be anathema."

Trent also defined: "And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

From the truth that we cannot be saved without the sacraments or the desire of them, it follows that the desire of baptism can be efficacious unto salvation. Feeneyites will say that "or" should be read as "and." For example, "A car cannot run without gasoline or oil." Both are necessities. In adults, baptism must be received with the intention of being baptized ("desire"). 

This is wrong on three counts:
1. The theologians immediately post-Trent did not interpret "or" in that way; and they would know best.
2. The Canon on baptism would be defective because the adult recipient of baptism must also have attrition for his sins, not merely desire to receive the sacrament. Trent could not have been enumerating the conditions for a valid baptism of an adult. Most theologians teach that the basic truths of Faith must also be believed.
3. The Church has interpreted the meaning in Her 1917 Code of Canon Law: Canon 737 states, Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, actually or at least in desire, is necessary for all for salvation...

Trent therefore infallibly defined BOD within the Decree on Justification. It is thus the proper object of a more explicit papal definition. 

3. A proposition is capable of being defined if it shows a necessary connection with dogmas.

Application to BOD and BOB: 
It is of faith that the sacraments are necessary in actuality or the desire for them. Salvation can therefore be achieved by a desire for the sacraments when actual reception is made impossible. This would include Baptism; one of the seven sacraments. Notice also that while desiring Holy Orders does not make a man a priest, it is also (strictly speaking) not necessary for salvation. If the actual reception of Holy Orders were necessary for  salvation, all women would be damned. Of those sacraments necessary unto salvation, God (Who is not bound to give grace only through the sacraments), allows people to be saved by the desire of them. 

4. A proposition may be defined as Catholic dogma if it is preached as a part of Divine Public Revelation in the concordant teaching of the episcopate.

All catechisms and theological works have received the approbation of the episcopate worldwide. 

5. A proposition is capable of definition when it is shown to be a part of Divine Public Revelation by the practice of the Church.

 Canon 1239, section 2 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law states: 

Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as Baptized.
Canonists Abbo and Hannon comment, "The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of Desire." (See The Sacred Canons, [1951], pg. 493). It is established that the Church is infallible in Her universal disciplinary laws such as the 1917 Code of Canon Law. 

According to theologian Van Noort, "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living." (See Dogmatic Theology, 2: 114-115; Emphasis mine). 

According to theologian Herrmann:
"The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…. If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible."
(Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258). 

Feeneyites will make two objections: (1) The Code is not universal since it only applies to the Latin Rite and not the Eastern Rites, and (2) Canon 1 "proves" it's not universal.

In response to the first objection, it is sheer ignorance of Canon Law. According to the eminent canonist Buscaren: "A general [universal] law is one which is not limited to a particular territory; it is a universal law of the Church. This does not mean it is binding on all Catholics. It may be enacted for a special class of persons, or for certain particular circumstances." (See Canon Law: A Text and Commentary [1951], pg. 27). Therefore, "universality" means "pertaining to all members of a Rite throughout the world," and not just in a particular territory. The 1917 Code is therefore universal.

In response to the second objection, Canon 1 does state that the Code as a general rule does not affect the Oriental Church (i.e., Eastern Rites). However, as Buscaren explains, there are some matters in which it [the 1917 Code] affects also the Oriental Church and Oriental Catholics. He enumerates three categories that apply to all Rites: (1) Canons which express dogmatic truths; (2) Canons which declare Divine Law; and (3) Canons which expressly and explicitly mention the Oriental Rites. (See Ibid, pg. 16). Canon 1239 is an extension of Canon 737 (cited above) in declaring a dogmatic/Divine truth, therefore it applies to all Rites. In addition, all Eastern (Oriental) Rites have their own Canons which mirror both 737 and 1239, making the definitive case that it is a universal disciplinary law no matter how you approach it.

It should be clear that BOD and BOB are not only defined by Trent, but are capable of further explicit elaboration in an ex cathedra papal pronouncement. It is incredible how far away the truth is from the Feeneyite lie that BOD and BOB are "heresy." In order to be saved, one must (a) be within the One True Church and (b) die in the state of sanctifying grace. Leonard Feeney taught that BOD would effectuate justification (confer sanctifying grace) yet you would be damned without water baptism. If you are in the state of grace you are a friend of God and cannot be damned. To assert otherwise is both heretical and illogical.

Modern day Feeneyites teach that BOD confers neither justification or salvation. The only way to be within the Church and be in the state of grace is through water baptism. Yet this post has shown the teaching of the Church to be quite different. In my opinion, if we had a true pope, he would precisely define BOD/BOB putting an end to the madness of the Feeneyites once and for all. We can follow the Church, or those who think they know better than the Church