Monday, May 31, 2021
Monday, May 24, 2021
- In 1757, Pope Benedict XIV ordered all heliocentric writings to be removed from the Index of Forbidden Books
- In 1820, Fr. Filippo Anfossi, the Master of the Sacred Palace and hence chief censor for Rome at the time, denied an imprimatur to a book written by Canon Giuseppe Settele that presented the motion of the earth as a legitimate conclusion of science. The reason for the denial was that, in Anfossi’s opinion, this view violated the 1633 decree of the Holy Office against Galileo. Canon Settele appealed the decision to the pope, who referred the matter to the Holy Office and out of that appeal came not only the imprimatur for Canon Settele’s work but a decree from Pope Pius VII that there is no obstacle whatsoever for Catholics to hold to the motion of the earth.
- On June 30, 1909, The Pontifical Biblical Commission answered the following question, which answer was approved by Pope St. Pius X and ordered by him to be published: Question 7: Whether, since in writing the first chapter of Genesis it was not the mind of the sacred author to teach in a scientific manner the detailed constitution of visible things and the complete order of creation, but rather to give his people a popular notion, according as the common speech of the times went, accommodated to the understanding and capacity of men, the propriety of scientific language is to be investigated exactly and always in the interpretation of these? — Reply: IN THE NEGATIVE. The Magisterium grants the basic premise of the question; that the author of Genesis did not intend to put details of the physical order into the creation account, and decides instead, according to the rule laid out by Pope Leo XIII that the author used “common speech of the times”
Monday, May 17, 2021
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, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church, and made him shepherd of the whole flock; it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter, was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head. (Emphasis mine).
According to Catholic teaching, the subject of the supreme, full, and universal power of teaching and of jurisdiction is the pope alone, who, when he wishes, may associate with himself the body of bishops, for a determined period of time. The pope by himself is able to exercise the supreme, total, and universal power of teaching and jurisdiction without having to unite to himself the body of bishops. This post will set forth the teaching of the Church compared to the heretical view of the Vatican II sect on the relationship of the bishops to the pope, and the disastrous consequences of the sect's teaching.
The Church is Monarchial in Her Fundamental Structure
The Apostles form a college in the broad sense of the term. It is therefore correct to speak of the apostolic college. The Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles teach that the twelve Apostles were chosen in order to live together with Our Lord. In this way they would receive together their teaching, witnesses the Passion and Resurrection, and be elevated together to the fullness of the priesthood, which is the episcopacy. The expression "apostolic college" is orthodox, but it is necessary to point out that the Apostles were not a college in the strict sense as taught by the Vatican II sect.
In the strict sense the term college implies the existence of a moral person endowed as such with powers that no single person who would be a member of it (in this case, each of the Apostles) would have by himself. To make an analogy, the phrase corporate body can be used in the broad sense as a specific group of persons, or in American jurisprudence, a corporate body (i.e., corporation) is considered a person that can do things and has rights different from the members who comprise it.
In Sacred Scripture, there is not a single word about this moral person or college in the strict sense, nor is there anything found in the teaching of the Magisterium. All of the texts prove that the Apostles were a college in the broad sense. Christ did at times speak to the Apostles in the plural; however this in no way proves that He was referring to them collectively, but rather it was distributive. When Christ told the Apostles at the Last Supper to "Do this in commemoration of Me," He did not intend for them to concelebrate Mass. Likewise, the Great Commission was not meant to be done collegially. The Gospel accounts and the Acts of the Apostles give proof of this; the Apostles act collegially only at the Council of Jerusalem. Nowhere is it recorded that the Apostles heard confessions, baptized, or taught collegially.
That the Church is a monarchy founded upon the papacy is dogma. The pope alone possesses supreme authority in the Church. From the Vatican Council of 1870:
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord Himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.
So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
Other Magisterial teachings clearly confirm this truth:
The foundation on which this society rests is of such a nature that it makes the divine establishment of the Church of no consequence. For, it is wholly in this: that it supposes the true Church of Jesus Christ to be composed partly of the Roman Church scattered and propagated throughout the whole world, partly, indeed, of the schism of Photius, and of the Anglican heresy, to which, as well as to the Roman Church, "there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism" [cf. Eph. 4:5]. Surely nothing should be preferable to a Catholic man than that schisms and dissensions among Christians be torn out by the roots and that all Christians be "careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" [Eph. 4:3]. . . . But, that the faithful of Christ and the clergy should pray for Christian unity under the leadership of heretics, and, what is worse, according to an intention, polluted and infected as much as possible with heresy, can in no way be tolerated. The true Church of Jesus Christ was established by divine authority, and is known by a fourfold mark, which we assert in the Creed must be believed; and each one of these marks so clings to the others that it cannot be separated from them; hence it happens that that Church which truly is, and is called Catholic should at the same time shine with the prerogatives of unity, sanctity, and apostolic succession. Therefore, the Catholic Church alone is conspicuous and perfect in the unity of the whole world and of all nations, particularly in that unity whose beginning, root, and unfailing origin are that supreme authority and "higher principality''* of blessed PETER, the prince of the Apostles, and of his successors in the Roman Chair. No other Church is Catholic except the one which, founded on the one PETER, grows into one "body compacted and fitly joined together" [Eph. 4:16] in the unity of faith and charity. . . .(See the Letter of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office to the bishops of England, Sept. 16, 1864).
CONDEMNED PROPOSITION: In addition, the proposition which states "that the Roman Pontiff is the ministerial head," if it is so explained that the Roman Pontiff does not receive from Christ in the person of blessed Peter, but from the Church, the power of ministry, which as successor of Peter, true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church he possesses in the universal Church,--heretical. (See Pope Pius VI, Apostolic Constitution, Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794).
. . regarding the constitution of the Church . . . first of all an error, long since condemned by Our predecessor, Innocent X, is being renewed, in which it is argued that St. Paul is held as a brother entirely equal to St. Peter;--then, with no less falsity, one is invited to believe that the Catholic Church was not in the earliest days a sovereignty of one person, that is a monarchy; or that the primacy of the Catholic Church does not rest on valid arguments. (See Pope St. Pius X, Ex Quo Nono, December 26, 1910; Emphasis mine).
The False Collegiality of the Vatican II Sect
According to Catholic teaching, the bishops habitually and per se are a body and only extraordinarily and per accidens do they become a college. Only the pope can establish the body of bishops as a college, such as in the case of convoking an Ecumenical Council, without being necessitated to it by a divine institution as is taught by Vatican II. In Lumen Gentium para. #22, however, the usual, permanent, ordinary subject of supreme, full, and universal power of teaching and jurisdiction is the "College of Bishops" with the pope at its head. Such a doctrine succeeds in avoiding the heresy of conciliarism (or Gallicanism), which declares that the body of bishops alone, without its head, has de facto the supreme power of jurisdiction. However, it wanders away from Catholic doctrine which has never spoken of a permanent and necessary college of bishops, even if it should be united to the pope.
Lumen Gentium falsely asserts that Just as in the Gospel, the Lord so disposing, St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together. It has been demonstrated that no such collegial relationship was created by Christ, and therefore, as a logical corollary, nothing similar could exist between the bishops (as successors of the Apostles) and the pope (as successor of St. Peter and Vicar of Christ). A "note" was added to the text of paragraph 22, but it did nothing to change the error. The proof of this can be seen in Wojtyla's New "Code of Canon Law" (1983):
1. The 1917 Code, Canon 218; Traditional Teaching of the One True Church
1. The Roman Pontiff, the Successor in primacy to Blessed Peter, has not only a primacy of honor, but supreme and full power of jurisdiction over the universal Church both in those things that pertain to faith and morals, and in those things that affect the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the whole world.
2. This power is truly episcopal, ordinary, and immediate both over each and every church and over each and every pastor and faithful independent from any human authority.
2. The 1983 Code, Canon 336; Teaching of the Vatican II sect
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 over the universal Church. (Emphasis mine; the bishops--with or without the pope--are never the subject of Supreme and Full power).
The Evil Fruits of Collegiality
Collegiality goes hand-in-glove with the heresy from which all the others of Vatican II flow; the false and heretical ecclesiology found in Lumen Gentium para. #8 whereby the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church are not the same; the Church of Christ subsists in its fullness in the Catholic Church, but it also subsists elsewhere according to how many "elements of sanctification" it possesses. To have all the elements is best, but having just some is good too, and leads to salvation. Collegiality is complementary to this new idea of what constitutes the Church. Just as the Church allegedly subsists everywhere, so too does authority in varying degrees.
Archbishop Lefebvre was not, unfortunately, an avowed sedevacantist. His "recognize and resist" position has caused much confusion and difficulties. Nevertheless, the Archbishop did do much good during the Great Apostasy. During the Council he fought the Modernists and often made salient observations. At the damnable Robber Council, the Archbishop spoke against collegiality in an "Intervention" (speech), wherein he stated the grave ills that would be caused by that false teaching. From the Archbishop's book I Accuse The Council! (1982), here is what he said:
Text of the Intervention (read publicly):
Venerable Brethren, I am speaking on behalf of several Fathers, whose names I am handing to the General Secretariat. It has seemed to us that if the text of Chap. 2, nos. 16 and 17, be retained as it is at present, the pastoral intention of the Council may be placed in grave danger. This text, in fact, claims that the members of the College of Bishops possess a right of government, either with the Sovereign Pontiff over the universal Church or with the other bishops over the various dioceses. From a practical point of view, collegiality would exist, both through an international Senate residing in Rome and governing the universal Church with the Sovereign Pontiff, and through the national Assemblies of Bishops possessing true rights and duties in all the dioceses of one particular nation. [Cf. the definitive text of the Constitution Lumen Gentium, nos. 22-23].
In this way national or international Colleges would gradually take the place in the Church of the personal Government of a single Pastor. Several Fathers have mentioned the danger of a lessening of the power of the Sovereign Pontiff, and we are fully in agreement with them. But we foresee another danger, even more serious, if possible: the threat of the gradual disappearance of the essential character of the bishops, namely that they are "true pastors, each one of whom feeds and governs his own flock, entrusted to him in accordance with a power proper to him alone, directly and fully contained in his Order."
The national assemblies with their commissions would soon — and unconsciously — be feeding and governing all the flocks, so that the priests as well as the laity would find themselves placed between these two pastors: the bishop, whose authority would be theoretical, and the assembly with its commissions, which would, in fact, hold the exercise of that authority. We could bring forward many examples of difficulties in which priests and people, and even bishops find themselves at variance.
It was certainly Our Lord's will to found particular churches on the person of their pastor, of whom He spoke so eloquently. The universal Tradition of the Church also teaches us this, as is shown by the great beauty of the liturgy of episcopal consecration. That is why the episcopal assemblies, based upon a moral collegiality, upon brotherly love and mutual aid, can be of great benefit to apostolic work. But if, on the contrary, they gradually take the place of the bishops because they are founded upon a legal collegiality, they can bring the greatest harm to it. (See pgs. 10-11).
Not only has that come to pass, but authority is now "shared" by all. Vatican II sect "bishops" in their national councils routinely do their own thing against the official teachings of Bergoglio's Unholy See. "Priest" councils do their own thing contrary to the local "bishop." "Parish Councils" dictate to the "priests" how to run the parish and "create good liturgy" while laymen and laywomen usurp the role a real priest once had. No one can really correct anyone else because authority "subsists" in all sect members, contrary to the Divinely established monarchial structure of the One True Church.
The doctrine of collegiality is yet another proof that the Vatican II sect is not, and cannot be, the One True Church. As Pope Leo XIII so clearly taught in his encyclical Satis Cognitum:
But the Epsicopal order is rightly judged to be in communion with Peter, as Christ commanded, if it be subject to and obeys Peter; otherwise it necessarily becomes a lawless and disorderly crowd. It is not sufficient for the due preservation of the unity of the faith that the head should merely have been charged with the office of superintendent, or should have been invested solely with a power of direction. But it is absolutely necessary that he should have received real and sovereign authority which the whole community is bound to obey. What had the Son of God in view when he promised the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter alone? (para. #15; Emphasis in the original).
Monday, May 10, 2021
1. The Bible is unique because unlike any other books, it was composed not by the mere work of humans. The Holy Ghost had such an active role, it is correct to say that God is the Author of the Bible. The human writers acted under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, as instrumental causes. Therefore, the Bible is truly called The Word of God.
2. This working together of God and Man in the composition of the Bible is known as Divine Inspiration. How God inspired the writers is explained by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus: For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write-He was so present to them-that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. (para. #20). There are, therefore, three main elements: (a) God influenced the writers' minds to rightly understand all, and only, those things God wanted written, (b) God influenced their wills to make them determined to write these things, and (c) He influenced them that they correctly and without error wrote all down. It is important to note that inspiration takes place at the time it is written. Approval by the Church that a book belongs to the Bible does not make it inspired, rather it recognizes it as such.
3. Inspiration includes the whole Bible in every sentence. Again, Pope Leo teaches: But it is absolutely wrong and forbidden, either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture, or to admit that the sacred writer has erred. (Ibid). Inspiration is not to be conceived of as dictation, whereby the Holy Ghost told the sacred writers each word to write. Each author could express his individuality in the writing style. This is why there is different wording and styles applied throughout the Bible. Even accounts of the same event are recorded differently by Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
4. The Bible is only inspired according to the original writing (referred to as the "autographs"). Copiers can make mistakes, and translations can be inaccurate. Neither the mistakes or inaccuracies are inspired. The Magisterium will correct any such defects and make sure God's Word is not corrupted.
5. The fact of the Bible's Divine Inspiration and Origin is infallibly decreed by the Church. The Ecumenical Councils of Florence and Trent call God the Author of the Old and New Testaments. The Vatican Council of 1870 infallibly decreed: CANON IV: If anyone shall not receive as sacred and canonical the Books of Holy Scripture, entire with all their parts, as the Holy Synod of Trent has enumerated them, or shall deny that they have been Divinely-inspired; let him be anathema.
Church Teaching on Biblical Inerrancy
1. Inerrancy means that the sacred books of the Bible are totally free from error in all their statements. This is a logical corollary to their being Divinely Inspired. Since God is the Author of the Bible, and God is all-truthful, there can be no errors in the Bible. To assert otherwise is to impute error to God; the very notion of which is false and blasphemous. Pope Leo XIII sums it up very well:
For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican. (Ibid).
Pope Pius XII says of Pope Leo's teaching in Divino Afflante Spiritu:
This teaching [on Inerrancy], which Our Predecessor Leo XIII set forth with such solemnity, We also proclaim with Our authority and We urge all to adhere to it religiously. No less earnestly do We inculcate obedience at the present day to the counsels and exhortations which he, in his day, so wisely enjoined. (para. #4).
2. Inerrancy extends to all matters written, not just concerning faith and morals. In Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII taught:
For some go so far as to pervert the sense of the Vatican Council's definition that God is the Author of Holy Scripture, and they put forward again the opinion, already often condemned, which asserts that immunity from error extends only to those parts of the Bible that treat of God or of moral and religious matters. They even wrongly speak of a human sense of the Scriptures, beneath which a divine sense, which they say is the only infallible meaning, lies hidden. In interpreting Scripture, they will take no account of the analogy of faith and the Tradition of the Church. Thus they judge the doctrine of the Fathers and of the Teaching Church by the norm of Holy Scripture, interpreted by the purely human reason of exegetes, instead of explaining Holy Scripture according to the mind of the Church which Christ Our Lord has appointed guardian and interpreter of the whole deposit of divinely revealed truth.(para. #22).
3. However, Inerrancy does not mean that everything written in the sacred books of the Bible is an actual historical event because there are many allegories, parables, etc., which have no need of an historical basis, because they belong to a different type of instruction. With these exceptions, (which must be established on the grounds of substantial evidence and a careful avoidance of sweeping generalizations), the historical truth of Sacred Scripture is a principle to be taken as a starting point for all work of interpretation of the sacred books; it is not a conclusion or end-product of research.
Modernist Errors on Sacred Scripture
In his famous syllabus condemning the errors of the Modernists, Lamentabili Sane, the great Pope St. Pius X showed how the vile heretics were assailing God's Word. Everything he condemned is now either taught or tolerated by the Vatican II sect. As analysis of all the errors would require several posts, the most egregious will be here examined.
(a) The use of Non-Catholic exegetes (interpreters of Biblical texts).
Condemned proposition #19. Heterodox exegetes have expressed the true sense of the Scriptures more faithfully than Catholic exegetes.
We see the proliferation of "ecumenical bibles." One such "bible" is The Message. It was written by a Presbyterian minister and Vatican II sect member. Although not approved for "official use" by the Vatican II sect, it has not been officially condemned either. Here is just a sample of how the verses are rendered:
The Word became flesh and blood, and moved into the neighborhood (St. John 1:14).
This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: So that no one need be destroyed. By believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. God didn't go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again. (St. John 3:16-17).
Here are (what is left of) The Beatitudes in St. Matthew 5: 3-10:
You’re blessed when you’re at the end of your rope. With less of you there is more of God and his rule.
You’re blessed when you feel you’ve lost what is most dear to you. Only then can you be embraced by the One most dear to you.
You’re blessed when you’re content with just who you are—no more, no less. That’s the moment you find yourselves proud owners of everything that can’t be bought.
You’re blessed when you’ve worked up a good appetite for God. He’s food and drink in the best meal you’ll ever eat.
You’re blessed when you care. At the moment of being ‘care-full,’ you find yourselves cared for.
You’re blessed when you get your inside world—your mind and heart—put right. Then you can see God in the outside world.
You’re blessed when you can show people how to cooperate instead of compete or fight. That’s when you discover who you really are, and your place in God’s family.
You’re blessed when your commitment to God provokes persecution. The persecution drives you even deeper into God’s kingdom. (See https://www.themessagecatholic.com/the-beatitudes.html).
This ridiculous rendering of the verses by a Protestant isn't merely stupid, it comes with serious doctrinal problems. Consider St. Luke 1:28, where the angel Gabriel calls the Virgin Mary "full of grace." That phrase is very important theologically, because Mary was the only human being to be conceived in the fullness of grace. (Christ was both God and Man; Mary had only a human nature). The very verse was used as proof of the Immaculate Conception when Pope Pius IX infallibly defined it in 1854. "The Message" translation has it rendered, Good morning! You’re beautiful with God’s beauty, Beautiful inside and out! God be with you. Obviously, being "beautiful inside and out" is not the equivalent of "full of grace." Even approved V2 sect translations (New American Bible) used material from Protestant exegetes and rendered the passage: "Hail, O highly favored daughter!" Every canonized female saint can be considered a "highly favored daughter" of God, but only Mary was "full of grace."
(b) Errors on Inspiration.
Condemned proposition #9: They display excessive simplicity or ignorance who believe that God is really the Author of the Sacred Scriptures.
Condemned proposition #64. Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted.
If God is not really the Author of the Bible, "error" can be ascribed to it. Hence, the exegete must "demythologize" the Bible and "re-adjust it" by making the Bible conform to scientism. Consider Fr. Raymond Brown (d.1998). Ordained in 1953 at age 25, Brown had racked up an impressive number of scholarly credentials pre-Vatican II. He was a theologian, having obtained his Doctorate in Sacred Theology from The Catholic University of America in 1955. He was a closet Modernist and came out in full force in the late 1960s. In 1971, he started teaching at Union Theological Seminary (a Protestant institution) in Manhattan without censure from the Vatican II sect.
That same year, Brown called for "a scholarly reassessment" of the historical accuracy of Jesus' conception and virginal birth. The heretic dared to deny the Virgin Birth and claimed that a number of New Testament revelations, especially those related to Saints Matthew's, and Luke's infancy narratives, were mythological, just nice stories to underscore a certain truth. Nevertheless, "Cardinal" Roger Mahony of Los Angeles [called "Red Roger" by Fr. DePauw and others for his support of Marxist "Liberation theology"] described Brown as "the most distinguished and renowned Catholic (sic) biblical scholar to emerge in this country ever" and his death, Mahoney said, was "a great loss to the Church (sic)."
(c) Errors on Historicity.
Condemned error #16. The narrations of [St.]John are not properly history, but a mystical contemplation of the Gospel. The discourses contained in his Gospel are theological meditations, lacking historical truth concerning the mystery of salvation.
The Church teaches that everything in Sacred Scripture which appears as an historical narrative should be understood in its literal meaning, unless there are sufficient and proven reasons for thinking otherwise, in which case the matter must be submitted to the Church. Such is the case in the first chapters of the Book of Genesis. Are they literal? here's what the Pontifical Biblical Commission decreed with the solemn approval of Pope St. Pius X:
In response to several questions relating to the Book of Genesis, on June 30, 1909, here's what the Commission decreed:
Question 7: Whether, since in writing the first chapter of Genesis it was not the mind of the sacred author to teach in a scientific manner the detailed constitution of visible things and the complete order of creation, but rather to give his people a popular notion, according as the common speech of the times went, accommodated to the understanding and capacity of men, the propriety of scientific language is to be investigated exactly and always in the interpretation of these? -- Reply: In the negative.(Emphasis mine).
Question 8:Whether in that designation and distinction of six days, with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word (dies) can be assumed either in its proper sense as a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among exegetes? -- Reply: In the affirmative. (Emphasis mine).
This is how Catholics solve such disputes. However, Modernist exegetes immediately reject the literal reading and go in search of whatever novelty in hermeneutics will make it sound "less supernatural."
Case in point:
Condemned proposition #36. The Resurrection of the Savior is not properly a fact of the historical order. It is a fact of merely the supernatural order (neither demonstrated nor demonstrable) which the Christian conscience gradually derived from other facts.
In 1967, the German Vatican II sect bishops, put out a pastoral letter on September 22 in which they stated, The words in the Gospel which affirm that Jesus has risen from the dead are, they [Modernist exegetes] tell us, the result of pious reflection of the primitive community in their attempts to explain the Pascal experience, a "happening" that cannot be explained in precise historical terms. It expresses their conviction that the cause of Jesus had not ended with the cross, but that it continued. This somewhat vague experience had first been understood as the missionary task entrusted to the apostles. Later, it was termed as a vision of the Risen One; and finally, it stabilized into the formula Jesus is risen from the dead. (All emphasis in the original).
The physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is a real historical fact. It cannot be understood as the result of an inner experience, conditioned by time and expressible in other terms. In this one sentence the apostate German bishops destroy all of Christianity, for as St. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." (1 Corinthians 15:14). In this same letter, the German bishops taught that the teaching authority of the Church can, and has, fallen into errors. (See The Development of Moral Theology: Five Strands, by heretic Charles Curran , pg. 273). If you think the German bishops were in any way censured, or had their pastoral letter condemned by Montini ("Pope" Paul VI), guess again.
The study of the Bible must always be done with the guidance of the Magisterium. A good Catholic commentary, like that of theologian Haydock, will go a long way in helping a Traditionalist Catholic understand the true meaning of Sacred Scripture. Always look into what the Church teaches when some Protestant or member of the Vatican II sect bandies about Bible verses to support their contentions. Understanding the Bible as the Church does goes a long way to defeating the Modernists and other heretics who pervert the Word of God unto their own destruction.
Monday, May 3, 2021
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
- the centrality of the word of God (sola scriptura)
- the necessity of the new birth ("born again" salvation)
- a commitment to the whole mission of the church (paying attention to the poor)
- the church as a fellowship of believers (priesthood of all believers; no hierarchy)
- a conscious dependence on the Holy Spirit (They believe because of God; "irresistible grace")
- the reality of freedom in Christ (in their words, "we offer freedom to one another to differ on issues of belief or practice where the biblical and historical record seems to allow for a variety of interpretations of the will and purposes of God. We in the Covenant Church seek to focus on what unites us as followers of Christ, rather than on what divides us.").
- De facto abolition of private property. The JPM seeks communal ownership of land and most property which must not be considered "personal property." In so doing, they believe that society will improve. They want this arrangement for all people, not just for some--like religious orders of the One True Church. This is a serious error. Humans differ from beasts, not only by possessing a rational soul with an eternal destiny, but also that people have the right of ownership. The human ability to anticipate the future and meet its needs is an added reason for this right. As Pope Leo XIII taught in his encyclical Rerum Novarum: The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property. (See para. #15).
- Indifferentism in religious matters as long as certain lip service to Christ accompanies helping the poor and acts of charity. On August 25, 1910 (the feast of the great King St. Louis IX), Pope St. Pius X promulgated his condemnation of the Sillon, which he signed ten days earlier on the Feast of the Assumption, to teach the French what a true Christian nation should be. The saintly Pontiff decreed, Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. The new Sillonists cannot pretend that they are merely working on “the ground of practical realities” where differences of belief do not matter. ( See Notre Charge Apostolique ["Our Apostolic Mandate"]; Emphasis mine). Pope Pius XI also taught These pan-Christians who turn their minds to uniting the churches seem, indeed, to pursue the noblest of ideas in promoting charity among all Christians: nevertheless how does it happen that this charity tends to injure faith?...Those, who are unhappily infected with these errors, hold that dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative, that is, it agrees with the varying necessities of time and place and with the varying tendencies of the mind, since it is not contained in immutable revelation, but is capable of being accommodated to human life. Besides this, in connection with things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction. For this reason it is that all who are truly Christ's believe, for example, the Conception of the Mother of God without stain of original sin with the same faith as they believe the mystery of the August Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Lord just as they do the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, according to the sense in which it was defined by the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. (See Mortalium Animos, para. #9; Emphasis mine).
- The authority of the State does not come from God, but from the people. The Sillon places public authority primarily in the people, from whom it then flows into the government in such a manner, however, that it continues to reside in the people. But Leo XIII absolutely condemned this doctrine in his Encyclical “Diuturnum Illud” on political government in which he said:“Modern writers in great numbers, following in the footsteps of those who called themselves philosophers in the last century, declare that all power comes from the people; consequently those who exercise power in society do not exercise it from their own authority, but from an authority delegated to them by the people and on the condition that it can be revoked by the will of the people from whom they hold it. Quite contrary is the sentiment of Catholics who hold that the right of government derives from God as its natural and necessary principle.”(Notre Charge Apostolique, cited above).
- Separation of Church and State. Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #55: The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. Pope St. Pius X, Vehementer Nos, para. #3, That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error...Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State.
- Jesus was not a Socialist because he "wanted to help the poor." Nor are you any less of a Socialist because you claim belief in Christ, or don't want a totalitarian government.
- When Jesus told the rich young man to sell all his possessions and give them to the poor, he was not making this a rule for all to follow. (See St. Mark 10:21-22). Jesus acknowledged that he was doing well with his life, but if he wanted perfection, he needed to rise above material things.
- That Christ did not intend for all to give away their wealth and live in common is shown in St. Luke 19:8-10, But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.” Christ did not respond, "Half isn't good enough," but rather “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”
- Doctrines matter. Christ Himself said, "My Kingdom is not of this world,"(St. John 18:36), yet the JPM keeps the emphasis on this world. Where in the Bible does it say only six or so doctrines must be kept? Is this very designation not of arbitrary human origin? The JPM always likes to return to "early Christianity." Show them the many heresies that were battled and that keeping the the Faith whole and pure was of utmost importance; not just a few "basic" beliefs