Monday, May 31, 2021

Sins Of Omission


There is so much wrong and un-Catholic in the Vatican II sect, it is often difficult to know where to begin in describing and listing it. The above picture is that of a Vatican II sect "adult baptism." It speaks the proverbial thousand words about what's wrong. However, there are many other things we don't see or hear that is wrong, and it is wrong precisely because we neither see nor hear it--the things that are missing. What, exactly, is missing? It's the Catholic theology, by words and deeds, that is suppressed where it was formerly professed. They are the Vatican II sect's "sins of omission," so to speak.

According to theologian Prummer, sins of omission are "transgressions of a positive precept, such as missing Mass." (See Handbook of Moral Theology, [1957], pg. 68). There must be a positive precept to do something which, through the person's own fault, they fail to carry out; this constitutes the sin of omission. The Holy Roman Catholic Church, the One True Church of Christ, has a positive duty to profess the Faith whole and entire; a duty She has always kept. Another proof that the Vatican II sect cannot be the Roman Catholic Church lies in the fact that it does not publicly profess the One True Faith, but purposely omits truths that were once publicly and proudly professed in the Sacraments. 

As one example, this post will demonstrate how infant baptism has changed in the Vatican II sect. By using the very texts of the Rite from the True Church and the Vatican II sect, it will become apparent that the sect says much according to what they omit to say.  There are many Catholic doctrines which are omitted or greatly downplayed, but I will focus on one in particular: Belief in the existence and malice of Satan

To Hell With The Devil
In the Catholic Rite of Baptism Satan is addressed no less than five times. In the Vatican II sect's rite, he is never addressed. The omission of Satan is a serious one, and it comes with a huge shift in theology. The Catholic Rite clearly shows the world divided into two Kingdoms; The Kingdom of God and The Kingdom of Satan. According to theologian Ott:

The Council of Trent names as a consequence of Adam's sin [i.e., Original Sin] Man's subjection to the power of the devil. The Church's belief finds liturgical expression in the ceremonies of baptism. Christ designates the Devil as "the prince of this world." St. Paul calls him "the god of this world." (2 Corinthians 4:4). By Christ's redemptive act the dominion of the Devil was in principle, conquered.
(See Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, [1955], pg. 121; Emphasis mine).  

Baptism correctly understood is removing the one to be baptized from his/her slavery to Satan and placing him/her into the Church as a friend of God and heir of Heaven. Fr. DePauw once told me that he always was very cognizant of the fact that he was addressing Satan himself, and ordering him in the name of Christ and by virtue of his sacerdotal power to leave the child alone. He told me that even after 50 years in the priesthood it still "sends shivers down my spine." 

 Catholic baptism begins at the Church door and proceeds to the baptismal font. During this trip, the priest confronts the Devil, places a seal against the Devil returning, and has a laying on of hands. At the baptismal font, there is a solemn exorcism. After the sacrament, the newly baptized baby is presented with a white garment and lighted candle, as he is now in the Church with the light of Christ in sanctifying grace. Life is presented as it truly is; a life-long struggle against the Devil, and only by being faithful to Christ and His One True Church can you hope to obtain the light of Christ for all eternity.

(A) From the Catholic Rite:
 The Exsufflation

The priest then breathes 3 times on the candidate in the form of a Cross, recalling the Spirit (breath, wind, “ruach”) of God.
Priest: Exi ab eo (ea), immunde spiritus, et da locum Spiritui Sancto Paraclito.
[Priest: Go forth from him (her), unclean spirit, and give place to the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete.]

The Exsufflation is completely omitted in the Vatican II sect. 

From the Catholic Rite:

The Sign of the Cross

The priest now makes the Sign of the Cross with his thumb on the candidate’s forehead and breast.
Priest: Accipe signum Crucis tam in fronte, quam in corde, sume fidem cælestium præceptorum: et talis esto moribus, ut templum Dei iam esse possis.

Priest: Oremus: Preces nostras, quaesumus, Domine, clementer exaudi; et hunc electum tuum (hanc electam tuam), N. crucis Dominicae impressione signatum (-am), perpetua virtute custodi; ut magnitudinis gloriae tuae rudimenta servans, per custodiam mandatorum, ad regenerationis gloriam pervenire mereatur (-antur). Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Sponsor/Catechumen: Amen.

[Priest: Receive the Sign of the Cross both upon your forehead + and also upon your heart +; take to you the faith of the heavenly precepts; and so order your life as to be, from henceforth, the temple of God.

Priest: Let us pray: Mercifully hear our prayers, we beseech Thee, O Lord; and by Thy perpetual assistance keep this Thine elect, N, signed with the sign of the Lord’s cross, so that, preserving this first experience of the greatness of Thy glory, he (she) may deserve, by keeping Thy commandments, to attain to the glory of regeneration. Through Christ our Lord. Sponsor/Catechumen: Amen.]

Take note of the language of life-long battle:  "by Thy perpetual assistance," "preserving this first experience of the greatness of Thy glory," "by keeping Thy commandments, to attain to the glory of regeneration." Compare:

Vatican II sect's The Sign of the Cross

The Celebrant continues:

N., the Christian community welcomes you with great joy. in its name I claim you for Christ our Savior by the sign of his cross. I now trace the cross on your forehead, and invite your parents (and godparents) to do the same.

He signs the child on the forehead, in silence. Then he invites the parents and (if it seems appropriate) the godparents to do the same.

Evaluation: All reference to a life-long battle with Satan, beginning with the Exsufflation, is omitted by the Vatican II sect. The "celebrant" speaks, not in the name of Christ or His Church, but as a member of the "Christian community." If the celebrant "claims [him/her] for Christ," it is never stated who or what (if anyone) had prior claim. The Devil is--once more--omitted. Why are parents and godparents making a sign of the cross when they are not priests and have no sacerdotal power? It is because it falls in line with the ecumenical and Protestant heresy of the "priesthood of all believers." I can only wonder under what conditions, if any, the celebrant would think it doesn't "seem appropriate." Lastly, seriousness gives way to "joy." Joy comes at the end of a battle won, not before. 

(B) From the Catholic Rite:
The Imposition of Hands

The priest places his hands on the candidate’s head.

Priest: Oremus: Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, Pater Domini nostri Iesu Christi, respice dignare super hunc famulum tuum (hanc famulam tuam), N, quem (quam) ad rudimenta fidei vocare dignatus es: omnem caecitatem cordi ab eo (ea) expelle: disrumpe omnes laqueos Satanae, quibus fuerat (-ant) colligatus (-a); aperi ei, Domine ianuam pietatis tuae imbutus (-a), omnium cupiditatum foetoribus careat (-ant), et ad suavem odorem praeceptorum tuorum laetus tibi in Ecclesia tua deserviat, et proficiat de die in diem. 

Priest: Per eundum Christum Dominum nostrum.

Sponsor/Catechumen: Amen

[Priest: Let us pray: Almighty, everlasting God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, look graciously down upon this Thy servant, N., whom Thou hast graciously called unto the beginnings of the faith; drive out from him (her) all blindness of heart; break all the toils of Satan wherewith he (she) was held: open unto him (her), O Lord, the gate of Thy loving kindness, that, being impressed with the sign of Thy wisdom, he (she) may be free from the foulness of all wicked desires, and in the sweet odor of Thy precepts may joyfully serve Thee in Thy Church, and grow in grace from day to day.

Priest: Through the same Christ our Lord.

Sponsor/Catechumen: Amen]

Evaluation: Here, the strong terminology of battle against the forces of evil continues: "drive out from him (her) all blindness of heart,"  "break all the toils of Satan wherewith he (she) was held," "he (she) may be free from the foulness of all wicked desires," "in the sweet odor of Thy precepts may joyfully serve Thee in Thy Church." 

The Imposition of Hands is completely omitted in the Vatican II sect. 

(C) From the Catholic Rite:
The Exorcisms
The priest makes the Sign of the Cross over the candidate three times and says:
Priest: Exorcizo te, immunde spiritus, in nomine Patris + et Filii + et Spiritus + Sancti, ut exeas, et recedas ab hoc famulo (hac famula) Dei N.: ipse enim tibi imperat, maledicte damnate, qui pedibus super mare ambulavit, et Petro mergenti dexteram porrexit. Ergo, maledicte diabole, recognosce sententiam tuam, et da honorem Deo vivo et vero, da honorem Iesu Christo Filio eius, et Spiritui Sancto, et recede ab hoc famulo (hac famula) Dei N, quia istum (-am) sibi Deus et Dominus noster Iesus Christus ad suam sanctam gratiam, et benedictionem, fontemque Baptismatis vocare dignatus est.

[Priest: I exorcise thee, unclean spirit, in the name of the Father + and of the Son, + and of the Holy + Spirit, that thou goest out and depart from this servant of God, N. For He commands Thee, accursed one, Who walked upon the sea, and stretched out His right hand to Peter about to sink. Therefore, accursed devil, acknowledge thy sentence, and give honor to the living and true God: give honor to Jesus Christ His Son, and to the Holy Spirit; and depart from this servant of God, N. because God and our Lord Jesus Christ hath vouchsafed to call him (her) to His holy grace and benediction and to the font of Baptism.(Emphasis in English translation mine).]

The priest again makes the Sign of the Cross on the candidate’s forehead:

Priest: Et hoc signum sanctae Crucis, + quod nos fronti eius damus, tu, maledicte diabole, numquam audeas violare.

Priest: Per eundum Christum Dominum nostrum.

Sponsor/Catechumen: Amen

[Priest: And this sign of the holy Cross, which we make upon his (her) forehead, do thou, accursed devil, never dare to violate.

Priest: Per eundum Christum Dominum nostrum.

Sponsor/Catechumen: Amen (Emphasis in English translation mine)]. 

For the final time, the priest lays his hand on the candidate’s head:

Priest: Oremus: Aeternam, ac iustissimam pietatem tuam deprecor, Domine, sancte Pater omnipotens, aeterne Deus, auctor luminis et veritatis, super hunc famulum tuum (hanc famulam tuam) N, ut digneris eum (eam) illuminare lumine intelligentiae tuae: munda eum (eam), et sanctifica: da ei scientiam veram, ut, dignus (-a) gratia Baptismi tui effectus (-a), teneat (-ant) firmam spem, consilium rectum, doctrinam sanctam.

Priest: Per Christum Dominum nostrum

Sponsor/Catechumen: Amen

[Priest: Let us pray: O Holy Lord, Father Almighty, Eternal God, Author of light and truth, I implore Thine everlasting and most just goodness upon this Thy servant N., that Thou wouldst vouchsafe to enlighten him (her) with the light of Thy wisdom: cleanse him (her) and sanctify him (her), give unto him (her) true knowledge; that, being made worthy of the grace of Thy Baptism, he (she) may hold firm hope, right counsel and holy doctrine.

Priest: Through Christ our Lord.

Sponsor/Catechumen: Amen (Emphasis in English translation mine)]. 

Evaluation: Notice in the first two prayers how the priest, an alter Christus, adjures the "accursed Devil" to depart from the baby, and never dare to violate the sign of the Holy Cross. In the third prayer, the priest calls upon God to enlighten, cleanse, and sanctify the child, granting him/her the Gifts of Hope and Counsel from the Holy Ghost. God is also invoked that the child may keep holy doctrine by never falling into error and heresy. 

The Exorcisms are completely omitted in the Vatican II sect. 

(D) From the Catholic Rite:
The Solemn Exorcism and Ephpheta
Priest: Exorcizo te, omnis spiritus immunde, in nomine Dei + Patris omnipotentis, et in nomine Iesu + Christi Filii eius, Domini et Iudicis nostri, et in virtute Spiritus + Sancti, ut discedas ab hoc plasmate Dei N, quod Dominus noster ad templum sanctum suum vocare dignatus est, ut fiat templum Dei vivi, et Spiritus Sanctus habitet in eo. Per eundum Christum Dominum nostrum, qui venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos, et saeculum per ignem.

[Priest: I exorcise thee, every unclean spirit, in the name of God the Father + Almighty, in the name of Jesus + Christ, His Son, our Lord and Judge, and in the power of the Holy + Spirit, that thou be depart from this creature of God N, which our Lord hath deigned to call unto His holy temple, that it may be made the temple of the living God, and that the Holy Spirit may dwell therein. Through the same Christ our Lord, who shall come to judge the living and the dead, and the world by fire. (Emphasis in English translation mine)]. 

The priest takes a little spittle and touches the ears and nostrils of the candidate with it. For health reasons, the use of spittle may be omitted. This rite comes from Mark 7:33-35, when Jesus healed the deaf-mute: “And taking him from the multitude apart, he put his fingers into his ears: and spitting, he touched his tongue. And looking up to heaven, he groaned and said to him: Ephpheta, which is, Be thou opened. And immediately his ears were opened and the string of his tongue was loosed and he spoke right."

Priest: Ephpheta, quod est, Adaperire. In odorem suavitatis. Tu autem effugare, diabole; appropinquabit enim iudicium Dei.

[Priest: Ephpheta, that is to say, Be opened, for an odour of sweetness. Be thou, devil, begone; for the judgement of God shall draw near. (Emphasis in English translation mine)]. 

The Vatican II Sect's Prayer of Exorcism
The celebrant says:

Almighty and ever-living God, you sent your only Son into the world to cast out the power of Satan, spirit of evil, to rescue man from the kingdom of darkness, and bring him into the splendor of your kingdom of light. We pray for this child: set him (her) free from original sin, make him (her) a temple of your glory, and send your Holy Spirit to dwell with him (her). We ask this through Christ our Lord.

All: Amen.

Evaluation: The difference is striking. In the Vatican II Rite, the Devil is mentioned but not addressed. This is not an exorcism whereby the Devil and demons are addressed and confronted with a command to leave. Here you have a simple declaration that God became Man to save humanity from the kingdom of darkness. It follows with imploring a blessing. Exorcism is a complete misnomer for this prayer. 

The  Ephpheta is completely omitted in the Vatican II sect.

(E) From the Catholic Rite:
The Renunciation of Satan
Priest: N., abrenuntias Satanæ?
Sponsor/Catechumen: Abrenuntio.
Priest: Et omnibus operibus eius?
Sponsor/Catechumen: Abrenuntio.
Priest: Et omnibus pompis eius?
Sponsor/Catechumen: Abrenuntio.

[Priest: N., do you renounce Satan?
Sponsor/Catechumen: I do renounce him.
Priest: And all of his works?
Sponsor/Catechumen: I do renounce him.
Priest: And all his pomps?
Sponsor/Catechumen: I do renounce him (Emphasis in English translation mine)].

The Vatican II Sect's Renunciation of Sin and Profession of Faith

The celebrant speaks to the parents and godparents in these words:

Dear parents and godparents: You have come here to present this child for baptism. By water and the Holy Spirit he (she) is to receive the gift of new life from God, who is love.  On your part, you must make it your constant care to bring him (her) up in the practice of the faith. See that the divine life which God gives him (her) is kept safe from the poison of sin, to grow always stronger in his (her) heart.  If your faith makes you ready to accept this responsibility, renew now the vows of your own baptism. Reject sin; profess your faith in Christ Jesus. This is the faith of the Church. This is the faith in which this child is about to be baptized.

The celebrant questions the parents and godparents:
Option A:
Celebrant: Do you reject Satan?     Parents and Godparents: I do.

Celebrant: And all his works?          Parents and Godparents: I do.

Option B:
Celebrant: Do you reject sin, so as to live in the freedom of God’s children?  

Parents and Godparents: I do.  

Celebrant: Do you reject the glamor of evil, and refuse to be mastered by sin?  

Parents and Godparents: I do.  

Celebrant: Do you reject Satan, father of sin and prince of darkness?  

Parents and Godparents: I do.

Evaluation: The word "renounce" means to "formally declare one's abandonment of something or someone." Hence, in the civil law, you can renounce your inheritance. It presupposes the inheritance is real. The word "reject" has several meanings; to "dismiss as inadequate, inappropriate, or not to one's taste." The Devil is not merely "inadequate." It can also mean to "rebuff or repudiate." However, in modern English, to "reject God" doesn't merely mean "not to follow Him," but rather He does not exist. The Catholic Rite uses "renounce," while the Vatican II sect uses "reject." Notice, too, that the Vatican II sect calls this part of the Rite "Renunciation of SIN" not "SATAN" or "THE DEVIL."

The Catholic Rite calls for the renunciation of the Devil, his works, and his pomps. The wretched fallen angel, his doings, and "pomps" (i.e., splendorous enticements to evil) are renounced. "Pomps" were used by Satan against Christ in the desert (See St. Matthew 4:1-11). 

If Option A is used, pomps is omitted. If Option B is used, what does "living in freedom" mean? Also, Satan's works are omitted.

The Vatican II sect is evil not only in what it does, but also in what it omits to do. Someone might object, "But even without belief or explicit mention of the Devil, it doesn't affect the validity of baptism." True enough, but validity is not all that matters. You must have true doctrine. By suppressing almost all references to Satan and eliminating the exorcisims, the sect accomplishes two goals: (a) it accommodates the ecumenism of the Modernists because Satan is seen as irrelevant; it doesn't really matter since everyone gets saved (Universalism), and (b) for the Ultra-Modernists, Satan is a non-existent fairy tale from days of old. Only one brief mention based on a Bible yet to be fully de-mythologized. 

The practical consequences are manifest. When people begin to think of Satan as a fairy tale, or of no importance, is it any wonder we are experiencing an increase in the occult that rivals--if not surpasses--pagan Rome pre-Christianity? The One True Church says, "To Hell with [i.e., send back to Hell] the Devil." The Vatican II sect says, "To Hell with [i.e., forget about] the Devil." The sect members who do so will neglect to fight their infernal enemy with their one and only imortal soul at stake. 

Monday, May 24, 2021

Heliocentric Heresy?


I knew an intelligent man who seriously maintained that Elvis Presley feigned his death in 1977 and was still alive. He never claimed to have seen him, or said that he worked at a supermarket, but he had a whole list of "evidence" that suggested the singer was to be found among the living. I did not (nor have I ever) shared his conviction. You may now be asking yourself, "What does Elvis still being alive or not have to do with the One True Faith?" The simple answer is "nothing." That's the point of my anecdote. Whether Elvis faked his death all those years ago and still roams the Earth (as of this writing he would be 86), or if he died at age 42 in 1977, it has no bearing on being a true and faithful Traditionalist Catholic. That's why I'll never write a post about it.

This year I will celebrate being a Traditionalist for 40 years, and during the last 11 of those years, I have maintained this blog. In all that time, I've met Traditionalists (both in person and online) who give credence to a variety of things which I consider to be whacky ideas. They include (but are not limited to) the Earth being flat, every Jew in the world (yes, every single one) is part of a massive conspiracy to enslave humanity, 9/11 never took place and involved no Moslems, every single school shooting in the U.S. was a hoax, and werewolves are real. I do not share any of those convictions, and I will not get involved in protracted discussions regarding them. Personally, I think they make Traditionalists look and sound foolish, and it becomes harder to win converts. Nevertheless, believing in strange ideas is not necessarily incompatible with maintaining the Integral Catholic Faith. 

A problem arises when certain individuals want to make peculiar ideas into ersatz "dogmas of faith," the rejection of which places one outside the Church. This takes place almost exclusively in the realm of science. I have given such people the appellation of "Science Deniers" because you must read the Bible like a fundamentalist Protestant (e.g., Ken Ham) without reference to authentic Magisterial teaching. In 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission under Pope St. Pius X specifically taught that the word yom used in the book of Genesis need not mean a literal day of 24 hours, but could mean a certain space of time open to free discussion among exegetes. Yet, the Science Deniers will find all kinds of excuses for insisting that only a literal 24 hours may be used, and anyone who disagrees (as Pope St. Pius X allowed) is a "Modernist" and not Catholic. 

However, a monumental conundrum ensues regarding the condemnation of Galileo for teaching heliocentrism (i.e., the Earth revolves around the sun and not vice-versa). There are those who claim for the condemnation infallibility, and it rests on several lines of theological reasoning not easily dismissed. The Galileo case has been used, for that very reason, to attack papal infallibility, as well as to paint the Church in a bad light for being "anti-science" and backwards. Most recently, it has even become a point to attack Traditionalists on sedevacantism, because if the pope got it wrong then and was still pope, couldn't the same hold true today?  In this post I will not be arguing whether heliocentrism is true, but only that it is neither heretical, nor does it impugn the authority of the pope when rightfully understood. If someone wants to believe the Earth is flat and/or the center of the universe, they can do so and also be true Catholics (although the former science teacher in me winces in intellectual pain to realize people can think that way). Hence, I will only argue the theological points, and not against the alleged "scientific proofs" of geocentrism. 

(I wish to credit especially the work of Bishop John Walsh, The Doctrine of Papal Infallibility Stated and Vindicated , [1875], the work of Peter Cooper, Galileo, the Roman Inquisition: A Defense of the Catholic Church From the Charge of Having Persecuted Galileo for His Philosophical Opinions [2017 reprint], and the 1997 paper The Theological Status of Heliocentrism by Mr. John Daly, all of which were invaluable and points from all were used in the formation of this post---Introibo).

Galileo's Controversy
Let me say at the outset that the idea for this post came from a reader of this blog who raised serious theological questions. His questions were both concise and sincere; they came from a man seeking answers to a complex issue. I write this for him and all sincere truth-seekers, and I do not mean to suggest that they are behaving like Protestants, or hold strange ideas. Quite to the contrary, they boldly and intelligently seek out answers. I will not go into an in-depth background on Galileo which can be found from many historical sources; I will try to get to the heart of the matter in controversy, before sorting it out. 

Galileo was born in Italy in 1564. He was an astronomer, physicist, engineer, philosopher, and mathematician who played a major role in the science of the 17th century. It was alleged that the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition (later to be named the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office)  had him condemned because he championed the heliocentric theory of Copernicus (i.e., the Earth revolved around the sun, as opposed to geocentrism, where the sun revolves around the Earth). We are indebted to the Church for the Copernican revolution in science. Copernicus delivered lectures in Rome by command of Pope Leo X, held a professional chair and published his treatise on heliocentrism by command of (and by the aid of) Pope Paul III. His work went forward to the world, bearing the sanction of the Holy See. 

The ignorance of the populace took scandal at what appeared to contradict plain statements of the Bible. (e.g., Ecclesiastes 1:5, "The sun also riseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to its place where it ariseth."). Yet, Galileo was left in peace. The problem arose when Galileo tried to prove his theory from Scripture. He was warned in a letter approved by Pope Urban VIII which read, "You ought not to travel out of the limits of physics and mathematics; you should confine yourself to such reasoning as Ptolemy and Copernicus used. Theologians maintain that the interpretation of Scripture is their own personal care." 

Ultimately, there were issued two condemnations of Galileo; one in 1616, and more seriously in 1633. The condemnation of 1633 is the one that needs to be understood. It reads:

The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically [i.e., scientifically] and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture.

The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically [i.e., scientifically]  and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

This decision clearly labels heliocentrism as heretical, and that is because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. What must be discerned is (1) whether the decision infallible and (2) even if not infallible, must we not believe it on Magisterial authority? If not, how is that any different from Feeneyites who claim we only need to believe ex cathedra teachings?

The Galileo Decision Does Not Meet The Requirements Of An Infallible Decree
The Vatican Council of 1870 clearly defines the conditions necessary and sufficient for an infallible decree.

We teach and define that it is a divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when exercising the office of shepherd and teacher of all Christians, by his supreme and apostolic authority he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in the person of blessed Peter, enjoys that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals; and that for this reason such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable in themselves and not by the consent of the Church. (See Pastor Aeternus). 

Therefore, the five conditions that the pope must meet for an infallible teaching are that he must:

1. Exercise the office of shepherd and teacher (not give a mere opinion as a private theologian)

2. Intend to teach ALL CHRISTIANS (he is binding the Church and not just certain people within the Church)

3. Use his supreme and apostolic authority (intend to teach infallibly)

4. Define a doctrine concerning faith or morals (not other topics such as medicine, unless it directly implicates faith and/or morals)

5. Intends for the doctrine to be held by the whole Church (the matter is forever settled).

Applying it to the decree of 1633, it does not constitute a doctrinal definition (#4) since it was personally addressed to Galileo alone and since its direct object was the condemnation and absolution of a single individual – a factor which is also incompatible with conditions #2 and #5, namely that the pope should be acting as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, as well as ordering his doctrine to be held by the whole Church. 

It is also doubtful whether his supreme and apostolic authority was explicitly engaged since his involvement was nowhere explicitly indicated. It is true that the pope ordered the terms of the condemnation to be circulated among the Inquisitors in many cities and communicated to other prominent ecclesiastics throughout the world with a specific view to their being read to mathematicians, astronomers and scientists. 

This was to prevent the continued prevalence of heliocentrism by the clear implicit indication that all were bound to respect the same doctrinal norm which had been imposed on Galileo. Nevertheless, by the very fact that the circulation of the text of the condemnation was ordered to be communicated to scientific specialists rather than to all the faithful, it remains certain that conditions #2 and #5 were never fulfilled. 

According to theologian Van Noort:

It is beyond question that the whole case of Galileo no ex cathedra decision was ever handed down. The pope was aware of the decree of the congregation, and approved it AS A DECREE OF THE CONGREGATION, even though (as was customary at the time) no explicit mention of papal approbation is found in the decree itself. But the pope himself in his capacity as pope did not hand down any decision. In the Galileo case, therefore, we have a decision which is by its very nature revocable and nothing more. As a matter of fact, both the more sensible theologians of the time and a fair number of scientists of the day understood the matter in exactly that light. (See Dogmatic Theology [1956], 2:309; Emphasis in original).

Conclusion: The Galileo decision of 1633 was not an infallible decision requiring Catholics to condemn heliocentrism as heresy or accept geocentrism as truth. 

Isn't Geocentrism Infallible By The Unanimous Consent of the Church Fathers?
In a word: NO. The unanimous agreement of the Church Fathers that a certain doctrine is de fide, would prove it infallibly true, but that state of affairs also does not obtain with geocentrism. According to theologian Tanquerey, The Fathers are those men, distinguished for their sanctity and their doctrine, who in the first centuries made the Church renowned by their writings, and who received full approbation from the Church, at least in an implicit manner. (See Dogmatic Theology, [1959],1:178). 

The Fathers did not teach geocentrism. Proof:

The unshrinking defense of the Holy Scripture, however, does not require that we should equally uphold all the opinions which each of the Fathers or the more recent interpreters have put forth in explaining it; for it may be that, in commenting on passages where physical matters occur, they have sometimes expressed the ideas of their own times, and thus made statements which in these days have been abandoned as incorrect (Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus para. #19; Emphasis mine)

...there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous. There remain therefore many things, and of the greatest importance, in the discussion and exposition of which the skill and genius of Catholic commentators may and ought to be freely exercised, so that each may contribute his part to the advantage of all, to the continued progress of the sacred doctrine and to the defense and honor of the Church. (Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, para. #47; Emphasis mine).

Many Fathers of the Church were in favor of a geocentric interpretation of the relevant passages of Holy Scripture but it is not sufficiently shown that the Fathers regarded that interpretation as part of Catholic tradition rather than merely the scientific tradition of their day which they believed to be true without necessarily having any theological motive. 

Eight patristic witnesses do speak, in various quasi-scientific terms, of Earth at the center of things. These are Sts. Anatolius of Alexandria, Basil, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Thaumaturgos, Hippolytus, and Methodius. In none of these instances do these great teachers of the Faith cite Scripture, state (or even imply) that they are passing on a Sacred Tradition, or indicate that their view is divinely revealed by God.  They express these views of the centrality of the earth as matters of natural philosophy/science, not Divine Revelation. Fr. Melchior Inchofer, the anti-Galileo theological consultant for the Holy Inquisition in 1633 said this, “Regarding the Holy Fathers it must be noted that they presupposed, rather than argued, that the Earth is at rest, in agreement with the common opinion of the philosophers." (As quoted in R. J. Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at Galileo’s Trial [2008], p. 119).

There are those who, in addition to the Fathers, appeal to The Catechism of the Council of Trent to claim geocentrism was taught. One such passage:

He also gave to the sun its brilliancy, and to the moon and stars their beauty; and that they might be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years. He so ordered the celestial bodies in a certain and uniform course, that nothing varies more than their continual revolution, while nothing is more fixed than their variety. (Emphasis mine).

This is a clear case of grasping at straws. Once more, there is no attempt to define anything, only using common parlance regarding the science of the day. Those who believe in heliocentrism also talk about "the setting sun" and not the "rotating Earth" because that is how it appears. From theologian Van Noort:

Furthermore, even in those truths which the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium unmistakably inculcates, there is sometimes room for questioning whether all the elements of that teaching are meant to be inculcated with equal force. For example, the following doctrines have always been unmistakably proposed by the Ordinary Magisterium: that God created our first parents by forming their bodies from the slime of the Earth and from the rib of the man; that Adam sinned in tasting the forbidden fruit at the urging of the serpent; that God in punishment for mankind's sins caused a deluge over the entire Earth; that Christ will come one day as the Judge upon the clouds of Heaven, etc.

Do you think that the definitive intention of the Magisterium bears with equal force upon the mode of the bodily formation and on the very fact of creation? With equal force upon upon the external description of the sin of our first parents and upon the sin itself? With equal force upon the universality of the flood and upon the manifestation of Divine Justice? With equal force upon the circumstances of the heavenly spectacle and upon the actual return of the Judge? Even upon a priori grounds an affirmative answer would have little probability to it, seeing that the circumstances described contribute either nothing at all or very little to religion. Actually, if one checks history, he will find at least a number of the circumstances enumerated have been called into doubt by one or another of the Fathers of the Church, or by excellent theologians, without their teaching ever being considered in the slightest heretical. (See Dogmatic Theology, [1961], 3:223-224; Emphasis in original, except for last sentence which is mine). 

Some Church Fathers and numerous approved theologians could not be considered "Modernist" or "heretical" for questioning these things unless they were dogmatic; and since they were not, in fact, censured as heretical, it is proof these matters are not defined. No heretical man could be named a Father by the Church unless we have a Magisterium that can't teach, and then the Church would not be Indefectible--but that is impossible. 

Papal Support For Heliocentrism
  • 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”
      The Church Was Correct In 1633, If Properly Understood
      How could the decree of 1633 be correct, if heliocentrism can be true? It was correct, if you understand what it condemned in context. Hence, I'm not like a Feeneyite who claims non-infallible documents of the Magisterium need not be followed. Ad arguendo, let's say the 1633 decree really was a papal document, rather than coming exclusively from a Roman Congregation and it was doctrinal. There exists no problem because the decree of 1633 condemned Copernicanism as a unity, simultaneously embracing both an immobile sun at the center of the universe and a mobile earth--and all scientists uniformly agree this is wrong. 

      Copernicanism, as a unity, has indeed been demonstrated to be false. All scientists now agree that not a single one of the arguments that Galileo put forward in his Dialogues to “prove” Copernicanism—tides, sunspots, the phases of Venus, etc.—is valid today as a proof.  One could argue that the Church was right for the wrong reasons, but that only shows the protection of the Holy Ghost over the One True Church!

      I am a heliocentrist. You can agree with me or not. It is of no importance to the faith. Yet, if this is the case, why do some Traditionalists insist geocentrism is so significant? A reader once commented, "Geocentrism means that the one planet on which intelligent life exists also happens to be the center of the universe. Evolutionists believe human life came into being as the result of random collisions of matter, despite staggering odds. For them to admit that this happened on the one planet that is also the center of the universe would be too much of a coincidence even for them, and would indicate the presence of a Creator." Human life is here, so God put us at the center. If we don't believe the Earth is at the center of the universe, then human life will be devalued, Darwinian evolution will be believed, the Bible devalued, and atheism will be the outcome. None of these (real) evils will follow from heliocentrism.

      I can flip it around on the geocentrist quite easily. In the Bible, we see that God regularly chooses the lowly to shame the great, the insignificant to rise above the mighty, the weak to triumph over the strong. By making us seem insignificant, we come to realize that there is a Supreme Being that cares for us and allowed the fine-tuning of a cold and indifferent universe to give way to His finest creation. Thus, there is no theological validity to the argument that our planet should be located at the physical center of the universe in order to demonstrate its importance in God’s plan.  

      Those who invent "heresies" and "sins" would do well to investigate all aspects of the issue to understand it--especially in a time of sedevacante. As Fr. DePauw once said to me, "A theological matter only partially investigated will be worse than not investigating it at all." 

      Monday, May 17, 2021

      Flunking The College Of Bishops


      One of the lesser discussed heresies of Vatican II is that of collegiality. This heretical doctrine teaches that the bishops exist as a "college" or permanent group. The teaching is to be found in paragraph #22 of Lumen Gentium, Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. It reads:

      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

      Modernizing Scripture


      One of the most misunderstood treasures of the Deposit of Revelation is the Holy Bible. The problem began, not with the alleged "ignorance" of Catholics concerning Sacred Scripture in ages past, or the equally spurious claim that the Church forbade Catholics to read it. Rather, it originated with the heretical Protestant so-called "Reformation" of the 16th century. Luther, Calvin, and the others taught the false and evil doctrine of sola scriptura (i.e., "the Scripture alone") as the only rule of faith. Protestant sects quickly multiplied without Magisterial authority to correctly interpret the Bible; every man gave the Bible his own private interpretation. 

      Protestants had many false ideas about Sacred Scripture, and made their own versions of it, which were better suited to fit as proof texts for their numerous heretical doctrines. They jettisoned seven books of the Old Testament (2 Maccabees was considered particularly odious as it referenced Purgatory), and Luther came very close to omitting the Epistle of St. James as it declared faith without good works to be dead. Protestants became adept at citing Scripture and memorizing verses to bedazzle Catholics unknowledgeable in the Faith. More than one Catholic thereby lost their faith and joined a Protestant sect. 

      Other non-Protestant sects emerged (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses) with their own "bible" and interpretations to support their unfounded tenets. Then came the Great Apostasy at Vatican II. The heretics who created the V2 sect also warped the true sense of Scripture to support their Counterfeit Catholicism. I find that, even today, most Traditionalists don't understand many of the ideas associated with the Bible. In this post I will (a) give the Church's teaching on the Divine Origin and Inspiration of the Bible, Biblical Inerrancy, and (b) the condemned ideas of the Modernists adopted by the Vatican II sect.

      The Meaning of the Divine Origin and Inspiration of Holy Scripture

      (All principles in the first two sections are condensed from theologian Nicolau, Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB, [1955], pgs. 554-714 on Holy Scripture---Introibo). 

      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 

      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 [2013], 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

      When Strangers Come Knocking---Part 21


      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 "Jesus People" Movement
      His name is Shane Claiborne (b.1975), and he is not the typical person thought about when the word "radical" is used. Highly intelligent, well-educated, and articulate, Claiborne (pictured at the top of this post) is staunchly pro-life. He also opposes all war and the death penalty while discussing the need to be a "radical for Christ." He is an author and speaker; one of the leaders of what has been loosely deemed the "Jesus People Movement" (hereinafter "JPM"). The JPM began during the late 1960s, in the wake of the Great Apostasy. This movement has a great appeal to many people because of their idealism, altruism, and counter-culture values that mostly go against the decadence of our times. 

      In many ways the JPM is a revival of Marc Sangnier’s (1873-1950) Sillon movement condemned by Pope St. Pius X in 1910. Sangnier attempted to build a utopia on false premises. The Sillon called for the birth of a new world in which a misconception of fraternity based on a vague and false notion of "human dignity" replaced true charity based on the Faith. The Sillon (i.e., "The Path") was intended to bring Catholicism into a greater conformity with Socialist ideals, in order to provide an alternative to Marxism with something that professed Christianity and was not inherently anti-clerical. 

      In order to understand the JPM better, (and see their Sillon-like ideas), I will examine two prominent places in the movement; "Jesus People USA" (aka "JPUSA" pronounced "Jah-Phew-Sah") and "The Simple Way." 

      According to their website, JPUSA is  "...a church family of nearly 200 people living together in intentional community, sharing a 10-story building in the Uptown neighborhood of Chicago." Their tagline is "Living Together in Intentional Community and Serving the Poor." 

      An "intentional community" has been defined as "a planned residential community designed from the start to have a high degree of social cohesion and teamwork. The members of an intentional community typically hold a common social, political, and religious values." Intentional communities are people, unrelated to each other (for the most part), and who have decided to live together as an extended family. While some are secular communities, about half are religious. JPUSA is overtly religious with people living there to have a modest lifestyle while helping the poor in the name of Christ.

      JPUSA began in 1972 when self-styled non-denominational "Christian hippies" decided to pool their resources and buy a severely dilapidated building from the city of Chicago. They worked jobs and continued to live together with all money in common. A "Council of Elders" leads the group, and all members serve on a rotating basis, so as to share authority and prevent abuse by those in power. The members of the sect are a resourceful and industrious group. JPUSA started many businesses over the years including a magazine, and a Christian rock group called "Rez" (short for the "Resurrection Band") which has disbanded after being together 25 years. Rez put out records (which sold well and made money for the sect) from 1972 to circa 1997. 

      They explain why they live together:
      We have learned we can do much more by sharing our space, time, and finances...All of our members live in small apartments in a renovated 10 story building in the heart of Uptown, Chicago...The community comes together weekly at Community Gathering for a time of worship, prayer and encouragement as well as discussion of community life topics...In the midst of all of community life is the development of our relationship to God and one another. As we work out the particulars of our shared life together, God works out grace, mercy, and love in our intentions, attitudes, and words.(Ibid).

      They explain their sharing of money from a common account:
      One of the unique aspects of our lifestyle is that we do not get paid directly for our work...The money earned from our mission businesses goes into a common purse from which our communal needs are covered. This ranges from toiletries and food to mortgage payments and utilites... There are a variety of jobs within the community from cook, building engineer, receptionist, caseworker, forklift driver, barista, graphic designer, mechanic and many more...Money in the common purse covers our collective expenses- There is also money set aside for individuals to buy clothes, travel, or enjoy a night out...In this act of trust and faith, Jesus People is able to take the resources we have and together do so much more for God than we could ever do alone. (Ibid).

      The group has one of the largest and best homeless shelters and food kitchens in Chicago called Cornerstone Community Outreach. They have serviced more poor people with greater efficiency than any government-run organization (no surprise there). In their own words: Pouring out our service to those in need is what gives us purpose and keeps us close to the heart of Jesus. Anyone wishing to visit JPUSA for a short time (usually a week or two) may do so, all expenses paid by the community, as you live as one of them. This is one of the many ways they proselytize, hoping the person who comes will decide to join and live there permanently. 

      What, exactly, do they believe at JPUSA? In 1988, the group joined the "Evangelical Covenant Church," and they have six (6) Covenant Affirmations, to which all must subscribe. They are:

      • 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."). 
      The last affirmation basically means the other five are not that important if you are willing to live by the rules of the community, espouse a belief in the Trinity and Christ as God Incarnate, and are willing to help the poor. (For official sect doctrine, See The group eschews the charge of being on a commune or being Communists; rather they claim to be living as "communalists" like the Apostles allegedly did. The group has had its share of troubles, including accusations of cult-behaviors and sexual abuse. Although sued by former members, none of the charges held up.

      The Simple Way
       Shane Claiborne founded this intentional community as part of the "New Monasticism" among the JPM. The New Monasticism is of Modernist-Protestant origin, and is dedicated to ecumenism. Like JPUSA, they are exalt the Corporal Works of Mercy over the Spiritual Works of Mercy, and put an undue emphasis on this world. Unlike most of the JPM, they put more emphasis on the spiritual than the others. Claiborne is a graduate from Eastern University, a Protestant college in Pennsylvania, where he majored in sociology and has a minor in Protestant youth ministry. While a college student, his life changed when he was given the opportunity to work alongside Mother Teresa of Calcutta for ten weeks. If you think the "saint" tried to convert him, guess again. He left with the idea that Christianity is all about helping others and doctrine is secondary (at best). 

      Claiborne says Mother Teresa convinced him of the need for a "seamless garment" or "consistent life ethic" which condemns all abortion (correctly), all euthanasia (correctly) as well as capital punishment (wrong) and all war, even when just (wrong). He came up with the idea of The Simple Way to promote the so-called New Monasticism. In his intentional community, Claiborne and his wife (Katie Jo, married 2011), reject materialism and emphasize living in loving and close community with Christians and non-Christians. There is to be a voluntary redistribution of wealth along the lines of what he considers Christianity, and all must make "environmentally conscious" consumer choices, all supposedly based on love for God and love for all humans. He is a prolific writer, and claims for his inspirations "St." Mother Teresa, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., C.S. Lewis, and St. Francis of Assisi. 

      Claiborne writes well, and two of his books became highly influential in Protestant circles, The Irresistible Revolution (2006) [from which I derived much of my info on Claiborne], and Jesus for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals (2008), co-authored by Vatican II sect "theologian" Chris Haw. Haw (b. 1981) left the Vatican II sect to join the JPM and reverted back to the Vatican II sect circa 2012. He is a Modernists' Modernist (See and a professor of "theology"(!) at Scranton College. In Jesus for President, they endorse a radical agenda and want complete separation of Church and State. They compare a religion of the State as "mixing ice cream and doesn't do much for the manure, but it messes up the ice cream." I guess the approved pre-Vatican II theologians didn't understand the benefits of separation of Church and State using the profound "ice cream and manure" analogy of "theologian" Haw. 

      The New Monasticism is based on "Twelve Marks" (See Schools for Conversion: 12 Marks of a New Monasticism [2005]):

      1. Relocation to the margins of society (living in socio-economically depressed areas)

      2. Sharing economic resources with fellow community members and the poor (redistribution of wealth)

      3. Hospitality to the stranger (let people live there to convert them)

      4. Lament for racial divisions within the church and our communities combined with the active pursuit of a just reconciliation (see discrimination everywhere and apologize for the "white European devil")

      5. Humble submission to Christ's body, the Church (yet they are their own authority and are autonomous)

      6. Intentional formation in the way of Christ and the rule of the community along the lines of the old novitiate (no real monks and nuns ever lived like they do)

      7. Nurturing common life among members of an intentional community (being good Socialists)

      8. Support for celibate singles alongside monogamous married couples and their children (goodbye poverty, chastity, and obedience in real religious orders)

      9. Geographical proximity to community members who share a common rule of life (stay close to other intentional communities)

      10. Care for the plot of God's earth given to us along with support of our local economies (eco-theology; Bergoglio would approve!)

      11. Peacemaking in the midst of violence and conflict resolution within communities along the lines of Matthew 18 (absolute pacifism like the Amish)
      12. Commitment to a disciplined contemplative life (prayer before meals is mandatory and Sunday services)

      (For further information See

      JPM and New Monasticism Condemned
      In reality, the JPM is little more than Socialism with Christian trappings. Such was the case with the Sillon. Here is a run down of the major errors of the JPM:

      • 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.
      Proselytizing the JPM
      The attraction of the JPM is manifest. They have good intentions aimed at alleviating the sufferings of humanity. Referring to the pagan Romans’ view of the early Church, Tertullian wrote “It is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead many to put a brand upon us. See how they love one another, they say.” In today's world of instant communication, we are more alone than ever. I recently watched a family at a reopened restaurant when I was away on business. The father, mother, and two teenagers had their phones out during the entire meal, and hardly a word was spoken between them.

      When I was an undergrad in the 1980s, I read an article on an alleged psychology experiment by NYU. I say "alleged" because I was never able to verify its authenticity--it may very well be apocryphal to make a point. It claimed that the psychology majors were instructed to respond to anyone who greeted them with "Hi, how are you?" (or similar verbiage) by replying, "I only have six months to live." The article I read stated that over 85% of the people who received that reply either (a) said nothing and kept going or (b) replied "Good, glad to hear it" or words to that effect. 

      The JPM sect offers a place to live where people really care for one another and listen to each other. We would do well in our chapels and churches to emulate that, because all too often Traditionalists come across as cold and unwelcoming. More often than not, a member of the JPM will try and convert you by asking you to join in some act of Christian charity. Remember these points:

      • 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
      The JPM is gaining converts due to the increasingly impersonal and uncaring world in which we live. They offer something better than mere paganism, but it is not the truth only found in Christ's One True Church. Father DePauw used to frequently remind us in his sermons how we must distinguish ourselves with charity. As our first pope taught, "But before all things have a constant mutual charity among yourselves: for charity covereth a multitude of sins." (1 Peter 4:8). 

      Let us contemplate the words of Pope St. Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique:
      We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants: 'omnia instaurare in Christo.' (i.e., "To restore all things in Christ").