Monday, December 27, 2021

Equally Supreme? Vatican II Collegiality And The Destruction Of Papal Authority


My Dear Readers: The honor of the last post in the Year of Our Lord 2021 goes to Joanna From Poland as my guest poster. This week, Joanna tackles the heresy most overlooked in the Vatican II sect; collegiality. Thanks to Joanna, I am able to spend time with family and friends at Christmas. Please feel free to comment as always, and I'll be checking in if anyone requests an opinion or answer specifically from me this week. I pray the new year brings great graces to your families and you, my readers, wherever you may reside!  God Bless you all---Introibo

Equally Supreme? Vatican II Collegiality And The Destruction Of Papal Authority

By Joanna From Poland

Among the four heretical doctrines taught by Vatican II, the false notion of collegiality tends to be the one that is discussed least. The other three, namely the new ecclesiology (the Roman Catholic Church is not identical to but merely subsists in the Church of Christ), false ecumenism, and religious liberty have been discussed extensively in the post-Vatican II era by Catholic Traditionalists, both laymen and clerics. However, the issues concerning Church governance, technical though they might seem, are no less perilous to the minds of Catholics, infested with a false understanding of the divine constitution of the Church.

In his article “Vatican II, the Pope and the Mass”, Bp. Donald Sanborn answers the following question:

6. What false doctrine does it [Vatican II] teach concerning collegiality? 

The teaching of Vatican II concerning collegiality alters the monarchical constitution of the Catholic Church, with which she was endowed by the Divine Savior. The doctrine of Vatican II, confirmed by the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which states that the subject (the possessor) of the supreme authority of the Church is the college of bishops together with the pope, is contrary to the defined doctrine of the Council of Florence and of Vatican I.

Chapter III (On the hierarchical structure of the Church and in particular on the episcopate) of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium, promulgated by Paul VI on November 21, 1964, states:

#22 The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church [emphasis mine], provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.

The 1983 Code of Canon Law reiterates this erroneous teaching in can. 336:

The college of bishops, whose head is the Supreme Pontiff and whose members are bishops by virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college and in which the apostolic body continues, together with its head and never without this head, is also the subject of supreme and full power [emphasis mine] over the universal Church.

One might think that heresy is too big a word for these, seemingly innocent, passages. After all, both Lumen Gentium and the 1983 Code of Canon Law declare explicitly that bishops exercise their power only with the Supreme Pontiff as their head. Orthodox though it may sound, this is just a cunning stratagem, employed by the Modernists to divert one’s attention from that single yet crucial word, which is falsely applied to the power of the episcopate. The word in question is “supreme." 

It doesn’t take a theologian to explain the basic meaning of that word. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines supreme as being “highest in rank or authority,” “highest in degree or quality," “ultimate, final." Therefore, can supreme, that is highest, or ultimate, authority belong at the same time to two separate entities, that is to the Pope as the Supreme Pontiff, and to the bishops under the auspices of the Pope?

Let us consider the infallible teaching of the Vatican Council in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ Pastor aeternus, promulgated on July 18, 1870. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911) splendidly expounds the traditional Catholic teaching regarding the power and authority in the Church, infallibly promulgated by Vatican I:

In the Constitution “Pastor Aeternus," cap. 3, the pope is declared to possess ordinary, immediate, and episcopal jurisdiction over all the faithful: 

We teach, moreover, and declare that, by the disposition of God, the Roman Church possesses supreme ordinary authority over all Churches, and that the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is true episcopal jurisdiction is immediate in its character (Enchir., n. 1827).

It is further added that this authority extends to all alike, both pastors and faithful [emphasis mine], whether singly or collectively. An ordinary jurisdiction is one which is exercised by the holder, not by reason of any delegation, but in virtue of the office which he himself holds. All who acknowledge in the pope any primacy of jurisdiction acknowledge that jurisdiction to be ordinary. This point, therefore, does not call for discussion. That the papal authority is likewise immediate has, however, been called in question. Jurisdiction is immediate when its possessor stands in direct relation to those with whose oversight he is charged. If, on the other hand, the supreme authority can only deal directly with the proximate superiors, and not with the subjects save through their intervention, his power is not immediate but mediate. That the pope's jurisdiction is not thus restricted appears from the analysis already given of Christ's words to St. Peter. It has been shown that He conferred on him a primacy over the Church, which is universal in its scope, extending to all the Church's members, and which needs the support of no other power. [emphasis mine] A primacy such as this manifestly gives to him and to his successors a direct authority over all the faithful. This is also implied in the words of the pastoral commission, "Feed my sheep". The shepherd exercises immediate authority over all the sheep of his flock. Every member of the Church has been thus committed to Peter and those who follow him. 


That the pope's power is truly episcopal needs no proof. It follows from the fact that he enjoys an ordinary pastoral authority, both legislative and judicial, and immediate in relation to its subjects. Moreover, since this power regards the pastors as well as the faithful [emphasis mine], the pope is rightly termed Pastor pastorum, and Episcopus episcoporum. 

It is frequently objected by writers of the Anglican school that, by declaring the pope to possess an immediate episcopal jurisdiction over all the faithful, the Vatican Council destroyed the authority of the diocesan episcopate. It is further pointed out that St. Gregory the Great expressly repudiated this title (Epistle 7:27 and Epistle 8:30). To this it is replied that no difficulty is involved in the exercise of immediate jurisdiction over the same subjects by two rulers, provided only that these rulers stand in subordination, the one to the other. [emphasis mine] We constantly see the system at work. In an army the regimental officer and the general both possess immediate authority over the soldiers; yet no one maintains that the inferior authority is thereby annulled. The objection lacks all weight. The Vatican Council says most justly (cap. iii): 

This power of the supreme pontiff in no way derogates from the ordinary immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, in virtue of which the bishops, who, appointed by the Holy Spirit [Acts 20:28], have succeeded to the place of the Apostles as true pastors, feed and rule their several flocks, each the one which has been assigned to him: that power is rather maintained, confirmed and defended by the supreme pastor (Enchir., n. 1828).

The following paragraphs from chapter III (On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff) of Pastor aeternus reinforce the Catholic doctrine on the delegation of power in the Church, whereby the bishops are subordinate to the Roman Pontiff in their exercise of authority:

6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation. [emphasis mine]. 

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) [emphasis mine] is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon.

Although Pastor aeternus is mostly credited for defining the dogma of papal infallibility, the scope of the entire dogmatic document is, as the title says, the constitution of the Church. In no paragraph is the supreme authority in the Church attributed to both the Pope and the bishops. On the contrary, in the above-quoted paragraph #6 we find a clear refutation of the heretical doctrine of “supreme” authority of the college of bishops in union with the Pope, since it is not only the faithful (“flocks”) but also the episcopate (“pastors”) that are “taught and guided” by the Supreme Pontiff unto salvation. 

This Catholic doctrine, however, has no place in the Vatican II sect. One of the most prominent Novus Ordo heresiarchs in America, “Cardinal” Donald Wuerl in his keynote address at the annual convention of the Canon Law Society of America, October 10, 2016, had this to say about the role of the bishops in relation to the Pope [source:]: 

Bishops are not agents of the Pope or servants of the Curia; the Curia is at the service of the Pope as head of the College of Bishops. And while the Pope is the head of the College, he does not govern apart from the bishops but with them. [emphasis mine] In the classic formula, the Church is governed by the bishops cum et sub Petro — “with and under Peter.” The governance of the universal Catholic Church includes both the authority of the College of Bishops and the special authority of the Pope.

The former “archbishop” of Washington continues:

Consequently, there are two loci of supreme authority in the Catholic Church. [emphasis mine] First, there is the supreme authority of the Pope. The College of Bishops, however, is also the ‘bearer of full and supreme power over the universal Church."

I can’t help but wonder whether any of the participants asked Wuerl a simple question: Which of these two centers of power is “more” supreme, and under what circumstances? The answer to that query might probably make for a dozen doctoral theses in the fuzzy Novus Ordo canon law. 


Both Pastor aeternus and Lumen gentium bear the name of a dogmatic constitution; both are concerned with the nature of authority in the Church. However, it is the former that reiterates and strengthens the true Catholic teaching on the supreme power in the Church, while the latter perniciously bestows that same supreme authority (which belongs to the Pope alone) over the bishops who are subject to the successor of Peter, in the name of “collegiality," thus ridiculing the divinely-instituted monarchic constitution of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. 

After all, it was “St.” Montini who paraded in the late 1960s in a wicker tiara, thus mocking the centuries-old Catholic symbol of the three-fold papal power to teach, rule, and sanctify, after having got rid of that reactionary item by donating it to “the poor of the world” a few years earlier [see:]. 

Interestingly, his abandonment of the papal tiara came just nine days before the promulgation of the heretical Lumen Gentium. Granted, Montini could not renounce what he already did not possess. Nonetheless, his perfidious act of recanting the alleged “human glory and power," done “in the new spirit of the Church purified”[source:], was a mockery of true papal authority exercised by legitimate Roman Pontiffs who find the immediate source of their papal power in Jesus Christ. Judas, who hypocritically scolded St. Mary Magdalene for having anointed Christ in anticipation of his burial with mightily expensive oil and thus not helping “the poor,” would indeed be proud of Montinian “charity."

Monday, December 20, 2021

The "Woke Jesus" Of Vatican II


 A new expression has entered the modern lexicon: "woke." It ostensibly means "to be sensitive to social issues." What it really means is "following an intolerant and inherently anti-Christian ideology." The sad and wicked times in which we live are the result of the Vatican II sect. The truth and grace of God, removed from the vast majority of the world as a result of authentic Catholicism being "driven underground," so to speak, has given rise to a multitude of evils. Being "woke" is one such evil.

The Vatican II sect worships a false Christ; the "Woke Jesus." This pseudo-savior teaches a doctrine far different from the authentic Jesus Christ. Listen to any Vatican II sect member you know and you will hear them speak in the new theology of the Woke Jesus. It is inevitable that they will do so as it comes from the top (Bergoglio; "Pope" Francis) on down to the local invalidly ordained clergy. It is spoken about in their "homilies" at the Novus Bogus bread and wine service. It is in their catechisms, "RCIA" initiation programs, and in all official pronouncements of the Modernist Vatican and "bishops." 

This post will explore the teachings of the Woke Jesus of the Vatican II sect and contrast them with the teachings of Christ and His One True Church. 

The Five Woke Commandments
1. Thou shalt not worship Christ but encounter Him.

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.  

The upshot is this: Christ is not the direct object of worship because He is present everywhere in different degrees of "encounter." This is the logical corollary to the Vatican II sect ecclesiology whereby the Church "subsists" to the fullest in the Catholic Church but also subsists elsewhere according to how many "elements" of the Catholic Church are also in the false sect.  As Vatican II teaches: For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [false sects] as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. (See Unitatis Redintegratio # 3). 

All the Vatican II sect wants 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 As Bergoglio said, "May the Lord help us to journey along the path of the commandments but looking toward the love of Christ, with the encounter with Christ, knowing that the encounter with Jesus is more important than all of the commandments."
(See; Emphasis mine). 

 All will encounter Christ to one degree or another so there is no "One True Church" to whom all must belong with Commandments that must be followed and tenets that must be believed.

2. Thou Shalt Drone On About Mercy and Refrain From Judgements.

Bergoglio proclaimed the "Jubilee Year of Mercy" ending in November of 2015. According to one source:

“We have to put mercy before judgment, and in any event God’s judgment will always be in the light of his mercy”; he insisted in a strong reminder to pastors and people alike that God is above all else a God of Mercy.

“In passing through the Holy Door then,” he said, “may we feel that we ourselves are part of this mystery of love. Let us set aside all fear and dread, for these do not befit men and women who are loved. Instead, let us experience the joy of encountering that grace which transforms all things.”

Pope Francis deliberately chose to open this Jubilee Year of Mercy on the 50th anniversary of the closing of the Second Vatican Council. He sees this Jubilee as directly linked to that historic assembly of the world’s bishops that was opened by John XXII in 1962 and closed by Paul VI, exactly 50 years ago, on Dec. 8, 1965. He spoke explicitly about this link in his homily."
(See; Emphasis mine). 

In 2013, Begoglio stated, Do not be afraid of the final judgment of God, when the good will be separated from the bad, because Jesus will always be at our side, because we can rely on the intercession and the benevolence of the saints and because God “did not send his Son to condemn, but to save” and “he who believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is already condemned,” and in this sense “the judgment has already begun (See,-because-Christ-will-always-be-at-our-side-29782.html; Emphasis mine). 

That's not what the True Church teaches. According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori:
It is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment (Heb. ix. 27.). It is of faith that we shall die, and that after death a judgment shall be passed on all the actions of our life. Now, what shall be the terror of each of us when we shall be at the point of death, and shall have before our eyes the judgment which must take place the very moment the soul departs from the body? Then shall be decided our doom to eternal life, or to eternal death. At the time of the passage of their souls from this life to eternity, the sight of their past sins, the rigor of God's judgment, and the uncertainty of their eternal salvation, have made the saints tremble. St. Mary Magdalene de Pazzi trembled in her sickness, through the fear of judgment; and to her confessor, when he endeavored to give her courage, she said: "Ah! Father, it is a terrible thing to appear before Christ in judgment." After spending so many years in penance in the desert St. Agatha trembled at the hour of death, and said: "What shall become of me when I shall be judged? The venerable Father Louis da Fonte was seized with such a fit of trembling at the thought of the account which he should render to God, that he shook the room in which he lay. The thought of judgment inspired the venerable Juvenal Ancina, Priest of the Oratory, and afterwards Bishop of Saluzzo, with, the determination to leave the world. Hearing the Dies Irae sung, and considering the terror of the soul when presented before Jesus Christ, the Judge, he took, and afterwards executed, the resolution of giving himself entirely to God. 
(See; Emphasis mine). 

From Scripture: 
Proverbs 9:10, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is prudence."

Apocalypse 6:15-17, "And the kings of the earth, and the princes, and tribunes, and the rich, and the strong, and every bondman, and every freeman, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of mountains: And they say to the mountains and the rocks: Fall upon us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth upon the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of their wrath is come, and who shall be able to stand?" 

Yet Bergoglio says to have no fear! He even says of sodomites, "Who am I to judge?" Isn't he making a judgement that it's wrong to judge and therefore his statement is both illogical and hypocritical? He also replaced Low Sunday with "Divine Mercy Sunday "based on a false and evil apparition condemned by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. 

The Vatican II sect wants all to be complacent in sin, and forget that God is also infinitely just. Just mercy, mercy, and don't judge what's good from evil.

3.  Thou Shalt Be Nice and Beliefs Don't Matter.
Bergoglio wrote: You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith. I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience. Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience. (See

At this Pastoral Visit to the Roman Parish of San Paolo della Croce a Corviale, Pope Francis answered questions from children in their Catechism class. One child, Emanuele, at the moment to address his question, burst into tears at the microphone. Then the Pope invites him to get closer. As soon as the child is near the Pope he falls into his arms. Emanuele asks Pope Francis, if his father, an atheist but who had his four sons baptized (Emanuele, two other brothers and a sister), after his death went to Heaven. And not in hell. Here’s what Pope Francis answers (explaining that he asked Emanuele permission to publicly report the question, which the child has whispered in his ear):

“Maybe we could cry like Emanuele when we have pain in our heart. He cries for his father who died and has had the courage to do it in front of us because there is love in his heart – he underlines – his father was an atheist but he had his four children baptized, he was a good man. It’s nice that a son says his dad was “good.” If that man was able to make children like that he was a good man, God is proud of your father. God has a father’s heart, your dad was a good man, he’s in heaven with him, I’m sure. God has a father’s heart and before an unbelieving father who was able to baptize his children, would God be able to abandon him? God surely was proud of your father, because it is easier to be a believer and to have children baptized than to be a believer [sic — should say: an unbeliever] and to have their children baptized. Pray for your dad, talk to your dad. This is the answer." (See

Bottom line: Be nice and beliefs don't matter; not even the most basic belief of the existence of God. 

Reality Check: 
But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him. (Hebrews 11:6).

Council of Trent: On Justification
If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

4. Thou Shalt Give No Importance to Sins of the Flesh.

The sins of the flesh are not necessarily (always) the gravest. Because the flesh is weak. The most dangerous sins are those of the mind. I have talked about angelism: pride and vanity are sins of angelism. I understood your question. The Church is the Church. Priests have been tempted — not all of them, but many of them — to focus on the sins of sexuality. That’s what I’ve already talked to you about: what I call “below-the-waist” morality. The more serious sins are elsewhere.
(Bergoglio with Dominique Wolton, A Future of Faith: The Path of Change in Politics and Society [2018], pp. 173-174; Emphasis mine). 

Bergoglio told a practicing sodomite:
A survivor of clerical sexual abuse has said Pope Francis told him that God had made him gay and loved him, in arguably the most strikingly accepting comments about homosexuality to be uttered by the leader of the Roman Catholic church.(sic)

Juan Carlos Cruz, who spoke privately with the pope two weeks ago about the abuse he suffered at the hands of one of Chile’s most notorious paedophiles, said the issue of his sexuality had arisen because some of the Latin American country’s bishops had sought to depict him as a pervert as they accused him of lying about the abuse.

“He told me, ‘Juan Carlos, that you are gay does not matter. God made you like this and loves you like this and I don’t care. The pope loves you like this. You have to be happy with who you are,’” Cruz told Spanish newspaper El PaĆ­s. (See

There's a three step approach used to make mortal sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments appear benign:

(a) Discuss the moral virtues of those committing sexual sin.
 Example: The man and woman living together without being married are really nice and have a hard time making ends meet living separately. This arrangement allows them to pay the bills and make sure they are "right for each other" before bringing children into the world. If you object, you look callous to their situation of being strapped for money, and you are not being reasonable as they want to "make sure" things go well between them before having children. The underlying premise is "the ends justify the means." Not being able to meet your financial needs no more justifies fornication than it would justify robbing a bank. Every sex act must be open to procreation. You cannot fornicate and use contraception as an excuse to make judgements about suitability while both are wallowing in immorality.

(b)  Insist that God has "more important things to do" than care about sex acts.
Downplay the seriousness of sexual sin. "With war, COVID, and everything else going on, don't you think God would care more about that than with whom someone sleeps?" This is a blasphemy against the All-Holy God. Sins of the flesh defile Holy Matrimony and God's design for humanity. As theologian Prummer teaches, "Directly voluntary sexual pleasure outside marriage is grievously sinful and never admits of slight matter..." (See Handbook of Moral Theology, [1957], pg. 230; Emphasis mine). 

(c) Insist Woke Jesus is on your side.
Point out that Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery, and St. Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. What they conveniently leave out is that Christ told the woman caught in adultery: “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?” “No, Lord,” she said. And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.”(St. John 8:10-11; Emphasis mine). St. Mary Magdalene is a Penitent who amended her life and then became a great saint. 

Sins of the flesh are nothing about which you can afford to be complacent.

5. Thou Shalt Hold the Things of This World As More Important Than The Afterlife. 

Independent Catholic News, 1 October, 2013 -[Bergoglio said] The most serious evils currently afflicting the world are unemployment among young and the solitude in which the elderly are left. The elderly need care and companionship; the young need work and hope. However, they have neither the one nor the other, and the trouble is that they no longer looking for them. They have been enslaved by the present. (Emphasis mine).

At the end of his "encyclical" Laudato Si ("On Care of Our Common Home") 2015, Bergoglio sets forth two prayers:

At the conclusion of this lengthy reflection which has been both joyful and troubling, I propose that we offer two prayers. The first we can share with all who believe in a God who is the all-powerful Creator, while in the other we Christians ask for inspiration to take up the commitment to creation set before us by the Gospel of Jesus. This shows his desire to have all religions, all beliefs, all opinions unite and mobilize against the "ecological threat" and engage in ecumenical prayer. (Emphasis mine).

Bergoglio has  done away with the First Commandment, the worship due to the true God. It started with Paul VI's heretical ecclesiology, embodied in Vatican II. It continued with "Saint" John Paul the Great Apostate and his ecumenical abomination at Assisi, visiting Lutheran churches, praying in synagogues, and kissing the Koran. It progressed with "retired pope" Ratzinger's statement that the papacy (which he never held anyway) was the greatest hindrance to "ecumenical progress." It goes even further with Bergoglio wanting all false sects to unite as one ecumenical denomination behind a one-world police state enforcing global ecological sanctions. Remember: Saving the environment, not your soul, is what really matters.

Laudato Si also tells us "our common home" is the Earth. Catholicism, on the other hand, teaches that our true home is Heaven, and while we must be good stewards of this planet, we must strive to get to humanity's ultimate purpose--the Beatific Vision. The only way to do this is by being good members of the One True Church, and making as many converts as possible so they can hopefully join us there. 

Summarizing The Teachings of Woke Jesus
  • You encounter God everywhere. We are all beloved of God because we encounter Him to one degree or another. The Eucharist is just one of many ways to have an encounter. There is no need to belong to the Church
  • Mercy is given without repentance, because sin doesn't really exist. It is only said to exist in those who make judgements that sin is real and people should stop sinning
  • Be good to others ("good" is defined as gracious behavior, not following the Ten Commandments). If you are good, then beliefs don't matter--salvation (however you define it) is for all good people, and almost everyone is good
  • Sins of impurity are not serious sins, or even sins at all, as long as there is "love," because "love wins." God has more important things to worry about, so what you do in regards to sexuality is of no real importance. Be good to others and trust in God's mercy because sin is no big deal, if it even exists. Don't judge others especially for sexual sins--who are you to judge sodomites?
  • Worry about your time on Earth, and don't fear the Judgement of God. Saving your soul is not nearly important as saving the environment, youth unemployment, and the loneliness of the elderly. Feel good about yourself, but hate your "white privilege" if you are unfortunate enough to be Caucasian. Fight racism, and promote the redistribution of wealth. Don't worry about abortion and other such "small minded rules." Everyone gets saved anyway, so concentrate on the here and now
Is Woke Jesus of the Vatican II sect the true Jesus? The answer should be obvious. The true Christ wants to save souls because human souls are eternal, the Earth is not. Hell is real and you may go there if you do not belong to the Church and die in the state of grace. Hell is also eternal, oil spills are not. Our Lady of Fatima told us that more souls go to Hell for sins of the flesh than for any other reason.

Mercy is for those who sincerely repent and amend their lives. You worship Christ in His One True Church, and do not "encounter Him." 

Those poor members of the Vatican II sect had better really "get woke" to the fact that Bergoglio's sect has them worshipping a false Jesus. As the real Christ said of the likes of the Argentinian apostate, "Thou art of thy father the devil, and the desires of thy father thou wilt do." (St. John 8:44). 

Monday, December 13, 2021

Four Degrees Of Feeney


On February 13, 1953, His Holiness Pope Pius XII solemnly excommunicated the former Jesuit priest, Leonard Feeney, for heresy (Feeney had been expelled from the Jesuits on October 10, 1949 for grave disobedience). Feeney denied the Church's infallible teaching on Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB).Yes, he was excommunicated for heresy, not disobedience as his cult followers would like you to think. The decree of excommunication against Feeney reads:

Since Father Leonard Feeney remained in Boston (St. Benedict Center) and since he has been suspended from performing his priestly duties for a long time because of his grave disobedience to the Authority of the Church, in no way moved by repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, and has still failed to submit, the most Eminent and Reverend Fathers(of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office), charged with the responsibility of safeguarding faith and morals, during a plenary session held on February 4, 1953, have declared him excommunicated with all the effects that this has in law.

On Thursday, February 12, 1953, Our Most Holy Father Pius XII, Pope by Divine Providence, has approved and confirmed the decree of these Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that this be made a matter of public record.

Given in Rome in the general quarters of the Holy Office, February 13, 1953. 

Marius Crovini, notary (Emphasis mine).

Note well two facts:
1. The Holy Office is charged with safeguarding faith and morals, not enforcing discipline.
2. The decree of excommunication was approved and confirmed by Pope Pius XII and ordered to be published.

Proof of #1 above: According to canonists Abbo and Hannon, "The Sacred Congregation for Religious is exclusively competent in matters affecting the government, the discipline, the studies, the property, and the privileges of religious of the Latin Rite, including religious of both sexes, those of both solemn and simple vows, and members of societies living in common without vows, as well as members of secular Third Orders." (See The Sacred Canons, [1952], 1:308; Emphasis mine). Hence, if Feeney's problem was merely and exclusively one of disobedience, it would be a disciplinary matter to be handled by The Sacred Congregation for Religious. The Holy Office would not (and could not) involve itself in a purely disciplinary matter.

Proof of #2 above: "In one respect, the Holy Office differs from all the other Congregations in that it exercises both judicial and administrative power, or, at least, may only use judicial power at the request of the parties interested. Thus, the Holy Office in dealing with all matters which directly or indirectly concern faith or morals, will not judge only heresy, but, where it pronounces an adverse judgement, will also apply the canonical punishments incurred by heretics and schismatics." (See theologian Williams, The Catholic Church in Action, [1958], pg. 92). The Holy Office has the authority to excommunicate any person. The Prefect is the pope himself, a "Pro-Prefect" heads the Congregation on a daily basis, but the pope must personally approve all decisions and order them published. Pope Pius XII personally approved the decree of excommunication emanating from the Holy Office and ordered it published.

The letter of solemn excommunication against Father Leonard Feeney was duly published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the official publication of the Holy See. Its reference number is 45-100. All laws promulgated through it have binding force with no other form of publication/promulgation being necessary.

The inescapable conclusion is that Leonard Feeney was properly and validly excommunicated for his false teachings. 

This should have ended the heresy, but his maniacal followers, like the proverbial bad penny, keep showing up in various forums hoping to lead others into their errors. Moreover, like a virus, Feeneyism mutates into different forms, but all give you the same sickness of soul. There are Vatican II sect Feeneyites who accept the Modernist-Universalist Vatican and Bergoglio, yet teach against BOD and BOB. They note that Montini (Paul VI) received Feeney into the sect without having to abjure his heresy--proof the Vatican II sect will tolerate anything except the truth. Then you have the sedevacantist Feeneyites like Fred and Bobby Dimond. 

Whether or not affiliated with the Vatican II sect, all Feeneyites can be placed into four categories; namely, those who teach:

1. BOD and BOB are heretical and to be completely rejected. (The teaching of Fred and Bobby Dimond). Leonard Feeney held nearly the same; he taught BOD and BOB could effectuate justification but not salvation. This is as illogical as it is heretical. If you are justified, you are in the state of sanctifying grace. Nevertheless, you would go to Hell justified unless you received water baptism. Fred and Bobby "improved" on Feeney's teaching and made it more logical by claiming BOD and BOB effectuate neither justification nor salvation; however it is just as heretical. 

2. BOD and BOB are not Church dogma; you may accept or reject it. (Heretical because BOD/BOB are dogma and must be accepted). 

3. BOD is to be rejected but not BOB. (This is not only heretical but illogical as the proponents admit that there is an exception to water baptism for salvation). 

4. Explicit faith is necessary for BOD and BOB; implicit faith (invincible ignorance) will not save. (These Feeneyites reject Church teaching, especially that of Pope Pius IX). 

I was upbraided on Twitter by a Feeneyite in category #4 above. He claimed my post on "Self-Approved Theologians" of 11/22/21 made me a "heretic" since I accept implicit BOD. When I called him a Feeneyite, he rejected the appellation. Feeneyites are all those heretics who reject in whole or in part Church dogma on BOD and BOB. Of course, when I challenged my Twitter adversary to a written debate on a neutral forum, he declined and "bravely ran away" like all Feeneyites I've ever known. 

This post will refute the "four degrees" of Feeneyism, especially those who deny BOD is available to those in invincible ignorance and have implicit faith (category #4 above). [Please note that this post will refer to Leonard Feeney without the title "Fr." Despite being a valid priest, he forfeits his right to his clerical title when solemnly excommunicated by the pope. Hence, we speak of Martin Luther, not "Fr. Luther." In addition to the works cited herein, I am indebted to my friend Steven Speray. His research and our conversations have been invaluable to me. He is a great friend and true warrior for the One True Church of Christ.  Long before I ever wrote my first post on Feeneyites, Steve had done a most laudable job of dismantling the heresy--especially as expounded by the Dimonds. I strongly recommend Steve's blog Catholicism in a Nutshell to all my readers.---Introibo]. 

Baptism of Desire and of Blood are an Infallible Teaching of the Magisterium

The Extraordinary Magisterium pronounces it dogma as does the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.

From the Council of Trent:

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema. (Emphasis mine).

From the Decree on Justification: 

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. 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. (Emphasis mine). 

How do we know what these passages mean? The unanimous consent of all approved theologians and the Catechism of the Council of Trent tell us so.

If you inform a Feeneyite that there was unanimous consent of the theologians and Fathers regarding the reception of the effects/grace of Baptism apart from the sacrament (BOD/BOB) making it also a teaching of the infallible Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, you will get two standard responses from Fred and Bobby's script: (1) Not ALL the Fathers agreed, and (2) theologians are not infallible. They usually throw in Aquinas not accepting the Immaculate Conception as further "proof" that theologians and Doctors of the Church can be wrong. 

First, they don't understand that it's not  NUMERICAL unanimity but MORAL unanimity that counts. 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.

According to theologian Scheeben, The Criteria, or means of knowing Catholic truth may be easily gathered from the principles...nearly all set forth in the Brief Tuas Libenter, addressed by Pius IX to the Archbishop of Munich. (See A Manual of Catholic Theology 1:89). Pope Pius IX wrote, 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).

So moral unanimity is the criteria for Fathers and theologians. As to the fact that theologians and even Doctors of the Church are not infallible, again, I turn to theologian Scheeben:

Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be lead astray. The consent of the theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine's dictum, "Not to resist an error is to approve of it---not to defend a truth is to reject it." (Scheeben, Ibid, pg. 83; Emphasis mine). As to Aquinas, the matter of the Immaculate Conception was not settled but open to debate among the theologians. His main problem was how to reconcile Mary's Immaculate Conception with the fact she (like all humans) needed to be redeemed. Pope Pius IX addressed this concern in his Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus when he defined that Mary was preserved free from Original Sin "in view of the merits of Jesus Christ." Hence, she was redeemed by Christ in a unique manner. BOD/BOB is infallible by means of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium as well as the extraordinary Magisterium. 

Feeneyites of the first three categories stand refuted. But what of those who claim that BOD and BOB can only be efficacious by having explicit faith, and invincible ignorance cannot save anyone? There is a lot of misunderstanding here which I will deal with next.

Implicit Faith and Invincible Ignorance

 One of the most misunderstood doctrines of the Church is that of invincible ignorance. It is most commonly (and wrongly) regarded as meaning that anyone who doesn't know about the One True Church gets a free ride to Heaven. This, of course, would make Church membership unnecessary for salvation, which is heresy. Since invincible ignorance is closely tied with Baptism of Desire, it is attacked by Feeneyites, as well as those who ask, "Why bother becoming a True Catholic with all of the 'working out salvation in fear and trembling' when it would be easier to be ignorant?" All of this comes from a basic lack of knowledge regarding the theology behind invincible ignorance and what it really means according to the Church. I will attempt to set out the teaching of the Church in this matter.

According to moral theologians McHugh and Callan, "Ignorance is invincible when it cannot be removed, even by the use of all the care that ordinarily prudent and conscientious persons would use in the circumstances." (See Moral Theology, [1930] 1:12).

Although invincible ignorance is tied to Baptism of Desire it is NOT identical to it. Hence, ignorance (vincible or invincible) does NOT save anyone. It cannot save. Invincible ignorance was set forth authoritatively by Pope Pius IX in the encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore of August 10, 1863. In paragraph # 7, the pontiff first restates the the necessity of the Church for salvation:

Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching.

Immediately after this, Pope Pius IX also teaches about invincible ignorance:

There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

Of course, this teaching is abused by heretics who would extend this ignorance to most or all people, thereby making the Church superfluous. On the other hand, the Feeneyites, will deny any possibility of salvation for men and women of good will in invincible ignorance unless they are baptized with water. Neither is the case.

Necessity of Precept and Necessity of Means.

 For all of this to make sense, a person must first understand some basic theological concepts. 

Necessity of  precept, means that something is necessary from a moral obligation as the result of a commandment. It applies only to adults who have the use of reason and ceases to apply if there is an excusing cause.  It is a necessity of precept to abstain from meat on Friday. It is a commandment of the Church which does not bind those outside the Church, and those within can be excused by proper ecclesiastical authority for cause and commit no sin.

Necessity of means, signifies something without which the ends cannot be attained. For example, a validly ordained priest is necessary to consecrate the Eucharist. There is no exception. 

The One True Church is necessary, not only by precept, but by a necessity of means--extra Ecclesiam nulla salus ("Outside the Church, no salvation"). This entails that salvation does not come automatically assured to someone because he is invincibly ignorant and guiltless in failing to use the requisite means of salvation. In the natural order, for example, if a ship sinks and you were invincibly ignorant of needing a lifeboat and/or life-jacket on board (and therefore you were without one), your ignorance and freedom of malice will not prevent you from drowning. 

Necessity of means is further divided into necessity of means by nature or by positive ordinance of God. By positive ordinance of God there results an extrinsic bond established between two things according to God's Will. Such holds for the sacrament of Baptism. Such a means can have a substitute, or the means can be applied in some other way than its actual use. The means can be employed either actually or in desire (in re or in voto). They are not two distinct means, but one and the same--either perfectly (the sacrament of baptism with water) or imperfectly (Baptism by Desire or by Blood).

So, for example, a pagan who loved God with his whole heart and was invincibly ignorant of the truth of the Catholic Church and how to enter would implicitly desire baptism if he willed, "I want to use all the means God has proscribed for salvation." God could thereby save him at the moment of death by the infusion of the true faith and sanctifying Grace (Baptism of Desire).

(All of the above in this section was condensed from theologian Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, [1961], 2: 256-258).

Summary of Church Teaching

  • It is a very serious error to hold that people who live apart from the True Faith and Catholic Unity can attain eternal life if they die in this condition
  • The person who is invincibly ignorant of the True Religion, and who meticulously obeys the Natural Law, lives an honest and upright life, and is prepared to obey God, can be saved through the workings of Divine light and grace
  • Such a person has already chosen God as his ultimate End. He has done this in an act of charity. This person has his sins remitted within the One True Church of Christ. God can infuse faith and grace, and dying in this state, he receives the reward of Heaven by Baptism of Desire 
  • Traditionalists have a duty to fulfill the Great Commission, converting as many people as possible because you cannot depend on extraordinary means, like BOD, to save them
(The above was condensed from theologian Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation In the Light of Recent Pronouncements of the Holy See, 1958).

Objection Answered.

Objection: Pope Pius IX was not teaching invincible ignorance saves, he meant that the ignorant, if they cooperate with His grace, will be brought to the sacrament of Baptism. 

Reply: Pope Pius IX does not teach that invincible ignorance saves, nor does he teach that the invincibly ignorant can only be saved through baptism with water. The staunchest supporter of the absolute necessity of belonging to the Church (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus) was theologian Michael Muller (1825-1899), a contemporary of Pope Pius IX. He wrote a catechism entitled, Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine. It sets forth perfectly the teaching of the Church:

Q. What are we to think of the salvation of those who are out of the pale of the Church without any fault of theirs, and who never had any opportunity of knowing better?

A. Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite Mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic Faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable (invincible) ignorance.

Q. Is it then right for us to say that one who was not received into the Church before his death, is damned?

A. No.

Q. Why not?

A. Because we cannot know for certain what takes place between God and the soul at the awful moment of death.

Q. What do you mean by this?

A. I mean that God, in His infinite Mercy, may enlighten, at the hour of death, one who is not yet a Catholic, so that he may see the Truth of the Catholic Faith, be truly sorry for his sins, and sincerely desire to die a good Catholic.

Q. What do we say of those who receive such an extraordinary grace, and die in this manner?

A. We say of them that they die united, at least, to the soul of the Catholic Church, and are saved.

Q. What, then, awaits all those who are out of the Catholic Church, and die without having received such an extraordinary grace at the hour of death?

A. Eternal damnation.  (Emphasis mine). 

 As can be plainly seen, there really is no implicit faith--there is explicit faith in the internal forum known but to God. Does this in any way detract from our duty to convert everyone to the One True Church? Hardly. If anything, it should make us work harder for the salvation of souls. In the natural order, if you knew someone was poor and starving, would you bring them food or rely on God to miraculously feed them?

Finally, Whose Kidding Whom?

Here is a partial list of some absurdities Feeneyites believe to maintain their heresy. Number 6 below applies to those Feeneyites who admit explicit Faith is efficacious for BOD/BOB, but reject implicit desire and invincible ignorance as taught by Pope Pius IX.

1. The Catholic Church has been promulgating heresy by catechisms for centuries. The Catechism of the Council of Trent has been the official catechism of the Church, teaching heresy, unnoticed or uncorrected by all the popes, from the 16th century until 1958.

2. The Catholic Church has been promulgating heresy by Canon Law for over 100 years.

3. The Catholic Church allows heresy to be taught throughout the whole Church for hundreds of years, and no pope stopped it.

4. Protestant and Eastern Schismatic sects are false religions because they teach heresy, but the Catholic Church remains the True Religion when it teaches heresy by law and catechism.

5. All the popes and approved theologians that taught Baptism of Desire/Blood after Trent were ignorant of that same Council's "dogma" that there is only baptism by water.

6. Pope Pius IX was ignorant of the Council of Trent's teaching on Baptism, and promulgated heresy about invincible ignorance. When approved theologians during his life explained what he meant, he did not stop them or censure them. [How could he promulgate heresy and still be a true pope? This would make it morally certain that he had fallen from office prior to that time by espousing heresy as a private theologian]. 

7. Pope St. Pius X allowed a heretical catechism to be promulgated in Italy bearing his name. He never knew it contained teaching on BOD/BOB--or else he knew it and didn't stop the heresy pushed in his name.

8. St. and Doctor of the Church Alphonsus Liguori didn’t understand the Council of Trent's teaching on Baptism and interpreted Trent to mean exactly opposite to its true meaning. In spite of that, Pope Pius IX in 1871 declared him a Doctor of the Church for his orthodoxy in teaching the faith.

9. Every layman that believes in Baptism of Desire/Blood is a heretic and a liar, but all the popes, saints, and Doctors of the Church that professed the same are not heretics or liars, but they simply "made a mistake."

10. Defenders of Baptism of Desire/Blood who use the teachings of popes, catechisms, Canon Law, and Doctors of the Church are bad-willed and cannot be sincere. 

(Credit for the above section to Mr. Steven Speray). 


Feeneyites continue to plague social media and websites by pushing their heresy. Church teaching on BOD/BOB must be accepted, as all dogma, whole and entire. To deny or willfully doubt such teaching in any degree, is to abandon the One True Church completely

Monday, December 6, 2021

When Strangers Come Knocking---Part 28


This is the next installment of my series to be published the first Monday of each month.

There are members of false sects, like Jehovah's Witnesses, that come knocking door-to-door hoping to convert you. Instead of ignoring them, it is we who should try and convert them. In 1 Peter 3:16, our first Pope writes, "But in thy hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks thee to give the reason for the hope that thou hast. But do this with gentleness and respect,..." Before the Great Apostasy, the Church would send missionaries to the ends of the Earth to make as many converts as possible. 

Those in false religions don't always come (literally) knocking at your door. It may be a Hindu at work who wants you to try yoga. It could be a "Christian Scientist" who lives next door and invites you to come to their reading room. Each month, I will present a false sect. Unlike the Vatican II sect, I do not see them as a "means of salvation" or possessing "elements of truth" that lead to salvation. That is heresy. They lead to damnation, and the adherents of the various sects must be converted so they may be saved.

In each month's post, I will present one false sect and give an overview of: 

  • The sect's history
  • Their theology
  • Tips on how to share the True Faith with them

Open Theism
His name is Richard Swinburne and he was born the day after Christmas 1934 in England. The only child of a music teacher and a secretary, Swinburne was a prodigy and received a full scholarship to college. His first love was God. He claims that from his earliest memories at age four, he never remembers a time when he didn't believe in God, the Trinity, and the Divinity of Jesus Christ. His parents were devout Anglicans. However, he did not want to be an Anglican "priest" (Anglican Orders were infallibly declared "absolutely null and utterly void" by Pope Leo XIII in his 1896  decree Apostolicae Curae). 

Instead, young Richard wanted to be a philosopher and defend the existence of God against unbelievers. He became a philosophy professor and published many books on God, most notably The Existence of God in 1979, which was hailed as a major breakthrough in apologetics for the Christian God. Claiming St. Thomas Aquinas as one of his major influences, Prof. Swinburne does not believe that there is any one definitive proof of God, rather his "cumulative approach" says that when all the arguments for and against the existence of the Christian God are examined "it is highly more probable than not that God exists." Since human beings always act on what they believe is more probable than not (e.g., if I don't show up for work repeatedly and without excuse, I'll be fired), people should be (and are justified in) believing the Christian God exists. 

From 1985 until his retirement in 2002 he was Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at the University of Oxford. He has published no less than nineteen major philosophy books from 1968 to 2019, and has authored hundreds of scholarly articles on philosophy and theology, all published in professional journals. In 1996, the Englishman was so upset at the continuing extreme Modernism in the Anglican sect, he was baptized a member of the Greek Orthodox sect. 

In 2009, I met Prof. Swinburne who was affable, extremely intelligent, and humble. I was about my business near where he was giving a lecture, and I decided to attend. I introduced myself afterwards, and we talked for quite some time. He must have enjoyed our conversation, as he gave me his personal email address (which he said he gives to few people) and we still keep in touch. I have read many of his important works over the years, dating back to my college days. 

At this point you may be wondering why I'm discussing an influential English philosopher. Did he start a sect worthy of mentioning in this "When Strangers Come Knocking" series? No. Rather, Swinburne--despite his seemingly good attempts to defend the existence of God in godless academia--holds a heretical belief about one of the very attributes of God. It is a pernicious error that infects many Eastern Schismatics, Protestants, and members of the Vatican II sect, leading them further into egregious errors. It is called Open Theism, and it denies (be redefining) the omniscience of Almighty God. The name "Open Theism" means a God to Whom the future of at least some actions is "open" or unknowable, exactly as it is to human beings.

This post will explain Open Theism, its disastrous consequences for Christianity, and expound the teaching of the One True Church on the omniscience of the True God of Christianity. 

An All-Knowing Yet Ignorant "God"

(For my information on Open Theism, I culled my data from several sources, most notably Boyd, Gregory A. God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God [2000], Sanders, John. The God Who Risks: A Theology of Providence [1998], and my correspondence with Prof. Richard Swinburne---Introibo). 

 Open Theists teach that God can know all true propositions, but future events aren’t knowable—even to an omniscient Being. Open Theist Greg Boyd writes:

In the Christian view God knows all reality—everything there is to know. But, to assume He knows ahead of time how every person is going to freely act assumes that each person’s free activity is already there to know—even before he freely does it! But it’s not. If we have been given freedom, we create the reality of our decisions by making them. And until we make them, they don’t exist. Thus, in my view at least, there simply isn’t anything to know until we make it there to know. So God can’t foreknow the good or bad decisions of the people He creates until He creates these people and they, in turn, create their decisions. 

For Open Theism, God must not know the future free acts of humans and angels. Some, like Boyd (a Protestant theologian), say that until a decision is made, there is nothing to know (if that decision was made as the result of free will it isn't knowable until made). Others, like Swinburne, claim God self-limits His knowledge to make free actions possible. Further, Open Theists claim that if God knows the future, He is responsible for evil and cannot be omnibenevolent.

Here, then, are the arguments advanced by Open Theists to "prove" a God with limited (or self-limited) knowledge:

1. If God knew future free acts and doesn't stop them He is the cause of evil.

Boyd gives the example of God creating Hitler. If God knew Hitler's future free choices and created Him anyway, God is responsible for what He did. As Boyd writes:

The only response I could offer then, and the only response I continue to offer now, is that this was not foreknown as a certainty at the time God created Hitler… If you claim that God foreknew exactly what Hitler would do and created him anyway, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the world must somehow be better with Hitler than without him. Think about it. If God is all good and thus always does what is best, and if God knew exactly what Hitler would do when He created him, we must conclude that God believed that allowing Hitler’s massacre of the Jews (and many others) was preferable to His not allowing it. If you accept the premises that God is all good and that he possesses exhaustively settled foreknowledge, the conclusion is difficult to avoid.

Since the world cannot be better with people like Hitler, God would be complicit in evil if He knew in advance what Hitler would do and created him anyway.

2. God knows some future events but not all.

Boyd writes:

Hence, while Scripture certainly depicts aspects of the future as predestined and foreknown, Open Theists argue that a comprehensive assessment of Scripture suggests that some aspects of the future remain open.

Hence, in Acts 2:23, we read, "This Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death." This was known by God beforehand.

Yet, consider the following:

Genesis 3:9, But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?” God didn't know Adam's whereabouts.  

Genesis 6:6, The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. How can God regret something He already knew would happen?

Genesis 22:1, Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!” “Here I am,” he replied. Why is God "testing" someone whom He already knows what he will do?

Exodus 32:14, Then the Lord relented and did not bring on His people the disaster He had threatened. How can God change His mind, if He already knew all the facts?

Jeremiah 3:7, I thought that after she had done all this she would return to Me but she did not, and her unfaithful sister Judah saw it. God is admitting He did not know what would happen.

3. God's attributes have always been limited to an extent, but still considered to exist in the highest degree.

God is all-powerful (omnipotent). Yet, even the great Aquinas admits that God cannot do evil; He cannot tell a lie--and it's a good inability. God cannot do the logically impossible such as making a "square circle," or a "married bachelor." Finally, God self-limits His omnipotence by making promises He cannot break. He promised never to destroy the world again by a flood, so this is a self-imposed limitation He cannot break. Why can't He do the same with His omniscience? Christ admitted He didn't know the day or hour of His Return. (St. Matthew 24:36). 

Open Theism's Heretical Consequences

Besides being a heresy in and of itself, Open Theism carries with it the following heretical tenets:

  • God can't know who will be saved or damned
  • We can't be sure the book of the Apocalypse is true or conditional (God's "best guess"), making Bible exegesis impossible; maybe Satan isn't ultimately defeated
  • God can't really answer prayer because He can't know if the grace sought after would ultimately work to the salvation of the one who prays
  • Unless the Bible or Sacred Tradition state specifically that God knows a future event, are we to assume He doesn't know?

The Teaching of the One True Church on God's Omnipotence

(All material from this section is taken from theologian Pohle, Dogmatic Theology, 1:327-391, [1930]---Introibo). 

God's knowledge is both infinite and infallible. The Vatican Council of 1870 decreed:

Everything that God has brought into being he protects and governs by his providence, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All things are open and laid bare to his eyes, even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures. (Emphasis mine).

It is therefore a dogma that God knows the free future actions of His intelligent creatures. One would deny this dogma should he assert that God's foreknowledge is only morally certain, or purely presumptive. Pope Sixtus IV condemned the proposition of Peter of Rivo that "God does not know for certain free future actions (e.g., Peter denying Christ three times)" Holy Scripture not only ascribes to God a general foreknowledge of future things, but it expressly declares that His prescience extends to the free acts of the future. Psalm 138:1-6:

Lord, thou hast proved me, and known me: Thou hast know my sitting down, and my rising up. Thou hast understood my thoughts afar off: my path and my line thou hast searched out. And thou hast foreseen all my ways: for there is no speech in my tongue.  Behold, O Lord, thou hast known all things, the last and those of old: thou hast formed me, and hast laid thy hand upon me. Thy knowledge is become wonderful to me: it is high, and I cannot reach to it. (Emphasis mine). 

Firmly convinced of this truth, the chaste Susanna, asserting her innocence against the two wicked elders cried out, "O eternal God, Who knowest hidden things, Who knowest all things before they come to pass, Thou knowest that they have borne false witness against me." (Daniel 13:42-43; Emphasis mine). St. John 6:65 reads, "For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him." (Emphasis mine).

God's foreknowledge and free will.

That intelligent creatures are endowed with free will is as much a dogma as God's foreknowledge of those free actions. How do we reconcile the two? Future events must occur as God foreknows them, or else it would not be infallible knowledge. Does not God's infallible foreknowledge destroy free will? Not at all. God's foreknowledge no more exercises a compulsory influence on the free acts of the future, than does the contemporaneous knowledge of any observer on an act happening here and now. The future act is not the effect of the foreknowledge, only its object. The foreknowledge of a future act is future to us, but God is outside time and sees all as the present. Hence, God's knowledge of the future does not determine it, any more than human recollection of past acts destroys the freedom of what happened then, or human knowledge of the present is making it happen now. 

Proselytizing Open Theists

If someone tells you God doesn't know the future, or God made Himself ignorant of certain facts--the only way to open their eyes is to present the teaching of the Church while tearing down their arguments.

  • God's foreknowledge of future free acts does not make Him the cause of evil
Knowing something is not the same as causing something. If I'm on top of a tall building and witness two cars speeding towards each other at an intersection, I know a couple of seconds beforehand that the cars will crash given their velocity; however, was it me who caused it, or the free will of the drivers who broke the law by speeding? 

Can't God create a world devoid of evil people? Not unless we want to take away free will. There is a reason why things will work out for the best even if we can't see it like the all-knowing God. Boyd assumes that Hitler's murders can't be justified as permitted by God, yet Boyd knows For My thoughts are not thy thoughts: nor thy ways My ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are My ways exalted above thy ways, and My thoughts above your thoughts.(Isaiah 55:8-9). More horrible than murder is Hell, and perhaps more souls were saved in ways we don't understand than if those events of WWII had not happened. Boyd thinks he understands better than God. 

Having free will is not bad, but a good attribute that can be misused for evil. When a drunk driver kills a family, who is responsible? Is he responsible for the accident –or is Henry Ford responsible for creating the car? 
  • God knows ALL future acts without exception, including free acts and does not destroy free will
According to the Angelic Doctor, God's knowledge is not simply of the actual; He also knows the potential. He knows both what is and what could be, for God can know whatever is real in any way that it can be known. Both the actual and potential are real. Only the logically impossible has no reality. (See Summa Theologica 1a.14.13). God can know all future contingents, that is, things that are dependent on free choice, because the future is a potential that preexists in God. God knows whatever exists in Himself as the cause of those things. (See Summa Theologica 1a.14.4). God is timeless and knows all of time in one eternal present. Certainly a timeless Being can know the necessary end of a state of affairs that is caused by means of a free choice from an intelligent creature. 
  • Misuse of Scripture by Private Interpretation
Not just Protestants, but even Eastern Schismatics and members of the Vatican II sect disregard Church teaching and use the Bible as a proof text for their doctrinal aberrations. In response to the passages often cited by Open Theists (above), the answers are simple:

Genesis 3:9-- God asked this question to give Adam and Eve an opportunity to confess. Good lawyers know to ask questions of clients –even if the lawyer knows the answer to the question before they ask it. Jesus asked roughly 150 questions in the Gospels, which shows the same pattern. Moreover, in the very next chapter of Genesis, we see that God asked Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” (Genesis 4:9) However, when Abel lied to Him, God already knew the answer to His own question (v.10). Therefore, the text demonstrates that God was not ignorant; instead, He asked questions to draw out his listeners.

What about the passages where God changes His mind or shows regret? This is a case of anthropomorphic language. Think about it; from our perspective, the sun appears to rise and set. However, this is man-centered language. The sun doesn’t move; we move around it. The same is true with God. From Moses’ perspective, God changed. If the story had been written from the perspective of God’s divine counsel, it would have stated that the people changed. However, because it was written from the perspective of Israel’s history, it states that God changed. The same holds for God speaking to Jeremiah, He was speaking in language a person of his time period would understand. This shouldn’t be taken to conclude that God doesn’t know the future, rather that He had alternate desires and plans for Israel, which they rejected.
  • God's attributes have never been taught as limited by the Church
To be omnipotent means God can do all things possible and not contrary to his Divine attributes. Hence, it is not that "God cannot make a square circle" but a "square circle" says nothing about reality because it is self-contradictory. Nothing can be circular and square simultaneously, just as the propositions "it is raining in New York City" and "it is not raining in New York City" cannot be a true state of affairs at the same exact time and conditions--it violates the Law of Non-Contradiction in logic. God cannot do evil because evil is the absence of Goodness and God is omnibenevolent in the highest degree--evil runs contrary to His very Nature; which is why something is evil in the first place. The Ten Commandments aren't good because God gave them to us, rather the Ten Commandments were given by God because they are good--logical extensions of His attributes. 

Finally, God did not limit His omnipotence by promising not to destroy the world again by a flood. God is still omnipotent because He can do it, but voluntarily refrains from doing it. If God chooses to be ignorant, He loses something real; the knowledge He otherwise would have had, and is therefore not omniscient, which means He lacks all perfection--which is impossible. Open Theists attack a strawman when they claim the Church taught a limitation on the attributes of God. When properly understood and explained, it is obvious no such thing happened. 
  • God distinguishes Himself from false gods based on His omniscience
Isaiah 42:8–9: “I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, nor My praise to graven images. “Behold, the former things have come to pass, now I declare new things; before they spring forth I proclaim them to you.” (Emphasis mine). 
  • False prophets are determined by their inability to predict the future known infallibly by God
When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18:22; Emphasis mine). How does this fit with Open Theism, if God doesn’t know the future?

Is the Open Theist God, the God of Christianity? I argue he is not the True God. Consider that the Open Theist "God:" doesn't know about future free events and learns about it even as we do; he is passible and can have negative feelings based on human actions; he is within time, not atemporal; he changes and gives away power. Does this sound like the True God of Christianity? Don't get taken in!

Prof. Richard Swinburne is an intelligent and humble man. A life-long bachelor, he has led a morally praiseworthy life without the slightest scandal, and dedicated his time on Earth to fight atheism and strengthen faith in Christ Who died for us. He had the intellectual vigor and strength of character to leave Anglicanism when he thought it wrong. Unfortunately, he is still not in the True Faith yet. I sent him an email on the occasion of his 80th birthday seven years ago. He responded, "Thank you, (my first name), for your good birthday wishes. I'm blessed with good health of mind and body. I still write and lecture. However, it can't be that much longer before God calls me out of this world. Please pray that when that time arrives, I may be ready." Indeed, I do Professor, and I ask all my readers to do the same. May you see fit to close the door to Open Theism, and embrace the One True Faith of He Who knows us all perfectly.