The Communion Of Saints

My Dear Readers: This week's post is by Lee. On Thanksgiving, I was grateful for his contributions to my blog! It allowed me to have time with my family and friends and catch up on work. The post, like Lee's last contribution, is an excellent and edifying piece. This month of November began with the Feast of All Saints. Let's end it with meditating on the importance of saints in our lives and how each of us must strive to become a saint himself/herself! 

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo.

I Believe in the Communion of Saints

By Lee

In my freshman year of high school, some time ago, a reality check came over me that  was not expected. Frustrated with the amusements of watching football, the contradictions of celebrity lifestyles, and the unimportant things my friends talked about at school, I decided to do something one day which I was not in my habit of doing. In my boredom and on a whim, I went over to my father's book case and thumbed through a few of his books, many of which were not interesting to me at the time. Looking for something that would satisfy my excitement, a book somewhat hidden appeared. On the front it said, Picture Book of Saints. It was a kids book.

Sadly, I knew nothing about any of the saints, nor did I pay much attention in Sunday school class as to who my confirmation saint (St. Anthony of Padua) was other than liking his name. Being ashamed, I started reading the short descriptions of his life and after finishing up, the interest kept growing. After reading a few other saints lives, I became even more curious and eventually read the whole book.

The questions dawned on me. Why am I following athletes, celebrities, or friends in my local community instead of striving to pursue living like the lives of the saints? Where will those heroes of mine go once this life is over? How will they be judged? What do they have to show for before Almighty God? Why aren't they teaching us this at Church or Sunday school? At this point it was clear to me that I have two choices (like we all do); live for this world and most likely be damned forever, or live for God and hopefully get to heaven--like the saints.

Since the saints have had such an effect on my life and my conversion from the beginning, I want to explain why it is an insult to them and the Catholic Church either to believe in Vatican II sect so-called saints or to reject the Church's canonization process as being infallible.  

Church teaching on saints.

According to the Twenty-Fifth Session of the Council of Trent:

The holy Synod enjoins on all bishops, and others who sustain the office and charge of teaching, that, agreeably to the usage of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, received from the primitive times of the Christian religion, and agreeably to the consent of the holy Fathers, and to the decrees of sacred Councils, they especially instruct the faithful diligently concerning the intercession and invocation of saints; the honor (paid) to relics; and the legitimate use of images: teaching them, that the saints, who reign together with Christ, offer up their own prayers to God for men; that it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to have recourse to their prayers, aid, (and) help for obtaining benefits from God, through His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who is our alone Redeemer and Savior; but that they think impiously, who deny that the saints, who enjoy eternal happiness in Heaven, are to be invocated; or who assert either that they do not pray for men; or, that the invocation of them to pray for each of us even in particular, is idolatry; or, that it is repugnant to the word of God; and is opposed to the honor of the one mediator of God and men, Christ Jesus; or, that it is foolish to supplicate, vocally, or mentally, those who reign in Heaven. 

Also, that the holy bodies of holy martyrs, and of others now living with Christ,-which bodies were the living members of Christ, and the temple of the Holy Ghost, and which are by Him to be raised unto eternal life, and to be glorified, are to be venerated by the faithful; through which (bodies) many benefits are bestowed by God on men; so that they who affirm that veneration and honor are not due to the relics of saints; or, that these, and other sacred monuments, are uselessly honored by the faithful; and that the places dedicated to the memories of the saints are in vain visited with the view of obtaining their aid; are wholly to be condemned, as the Church has already long since condemned, and now also condemns them.

Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints, are to be had and retained particularly in temples, and that due honor and veneration are to be given them; not that any divinity, or virtue, is believed to be in them, on account of which they are to be worshiped; or that anything is to be asked of them; or, that trust is to be reposed in images, as was of old done by the Gentiles who placed their hope in idols; but because the honor which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which those images represent; in such wise that by the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head, and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ; and we venerate the saints, whose similitude they bear: as, by the decrees of Councils, and especially of the second Synod of Nicaea, has been defined against the opponents of images.

And the bishops shall carefully teach this,-that, by means of the histories of the mysteries of our Redemption, portrayed by paintings or other representations, the people is instructed, and confirmed in (the habit of) remembering, and continually revolving in mind the articles of faith; as also that great profit is derived from all sacred images, not only because the people are thereby admonished of the benefits and gifts bestowed upon them by Christ, but also because the miracles which God has performed by means of the saints, and their salutary examples, are set before the eyes of the faithful; that so they may give God thanks for those things; may order their own lives and manners in imitation of the saints; and may be excited to adore and love God, and to cultivate piety. But if any one shall teach, or entertain sentiments, contrary to these decrees; LET HIM BE ANATHEMA...

In fine, let so great care and diligence be used herein by bishops, as that there be nothing seen that is disorderly, or that is unbecomingly or confusedly arranged, nothing that is profane, nothing indecorous, seeing that holiness becometh the house of God.

And that these things may be the more faithfully observed, the holy Synod ordains, that no one be allowed to place, or cause to be placed, any unusual image, in any place, or church, howsoever exempted, except that image have been approved of by the bishop: also, that no new miracles are to be acknowledged, or new relics recognized, unless the said bishop has taken cognizance and approved thereof; who, as soon as he has obtained some certain information in regard to these matters, shall, after having taken the advice of theologians, and of other pious men, act therein as he shall judge to be consonant with truth and piety. But if any doubtful, or difficult abuse has to be extirpated; or, in fine, if any more grave question shall arise touching these matters, the bishop, before deciding the controversy, shall await the sentence of the metropolitan and of the bishops of the province, in a provincial Council; yet so, that nothing new, or that previously has not been usual in the Church, shall be resolved on, without having first consulted the most holy Roman Pontiff.

The problem with Vatican II sect "saints."

Vatican II sect "saints," such as John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Sr. Faustina etc. all have something in common; their lives were the exact opposite of actual saints.

Could anybody imagine for one moment Pope St. Pius X being praised for tolerating or even hobnobbing with Modernists? Or Pope St. Leo the Great telling Atilla the Hun in his famous meeting with him that he and his clan could continue worshiping their deities and taking advice from their soothsayers, while striking a deal for peace? Or St. Peter praying with Simon the magician, for the sake of performing miracles? Or St. Clare of Assisi making an attempt to tell the Moors (Moslems) getting ready to attack her town the same thing Lumen Gentium #16 says, "But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind"? 

Could any real Catholic imagine St. Margaret Mary Alacoque claiming that Jesus said this to her "My Will is dearer to you than life. That is why I am uniting Myself with you so intimately as with no other creature... or From today on, do not fear God’s judgment, for you will not be judged... Or after receiving communion say Jesus transform me into another host!…. You are a great and all-powerful Lord; you can grant me this favor.  And the Lord answered me, ‘You are a living host.’”

Can anybody fathom putting relics such as St. Francis Xavier's stole with John Paul II's Zoroastrian stole in the same Church, or a Missale Romanum used by St. Alphonsus Liguori placed next to a Koran kissed by John Paul II? Could anybody in their right mind conceive of the idea of putting relics of the True Cross next to the ephod worn by Paul VI? Or how about dedicating a whole new feast day after Easter called Divine Mercy Sunday as a replacement of Low Sunday?

Those who are so lost inside the new religion will probably see nothing wrong with the above mentioned examples if those saints were to do such things, but that is because they are the blind leading the blind. Only Vatican II sect "saints" do such things because it's in accordance with the "spirit of (Robber Council) Vatican II." 

On the flip side, there are many who don't believe they are saints (and rightly so) but nevertheless believe the Vatican II "popes" are true popes and that the Vatican II sect is simultaneously the Catholic Church (wrongfully so). They maintain that canonizations are not infallible because they know if they admit such, it would contradict their beliefs. Regardless of the arguments, if the new sect was the Catholic Church (as they believe) then the literal implication would mean that you may or may not believe whether a person is in fact a saint despite whether the Church says so or not.

Three problems with this:

1. Not only are saints honored and prayed to, but they (along with their relics) are venerated at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The same people who deny the infallibility of the canonization of saints are also the same people who hate the Novus Bogus "mass," but consider it to be valid. If the Novus Ordo Mass is valid and it was John Paul II's feast day (Oct. 22), then it would be a matter which would affect the whole Church, since he would be honored by the whole Church in the liturgy. This would lead not only to impiety at the so-called Mass itself, but encourage faithlessness in the authority of the Church for allowing such a monstrosity. 

The Council of Trent says: 

CANON V.--If any one saith, that it is an imposture to celebrate masses in honor of the saints, and for obtaining their intercession with God, as the Church intends; let him be anathema. 

CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema  

2. If some people in "the Church" believe in the Vatican II saints, and others do not, where is the first Mark of Oneness of the Church or the Unity of Faith? Who is suppose to believe who and how would the faithful know what to believe, when everybody would hold a different opinion?

3. How could anybody not believing in the Vatican II sect saints and at the same time say it's "the Church" not be lying to themselves when they say in the Creed "I believe in the Communion saints?"

Pre-Vatican II Jesuit theologian Fr. Joachim Salaverri explains Church’s teaching on the infallibility of canonizations:

…the end of the infallible Magisterium demands those things that are necessary in order to direct the faithful without error to salvation through the correct worship [=veneration] and imitation of the examples of Christian virtues. But for such a purpose infallibility concerning decrees on the Canonization of Saints is necessary.

[This] is certain, because by the solemn decrees of the Canonization of Saints the Church not only tolerates and permits, but also commends and instructs the whole flock of the faithful that certain definite Saints whom it canonizes are to be honored, and it proposes them as examples of virtue who are worthy of imitation. But the mere possibility of error in such a solemn declaration would take away all confidence from the faithful and fundamentally would destroy the whole cult of the Saints; because [then] it could happen that the Church would solemnly propose to all and mandate that condemned and evil men perpetually should be honored. Therefore, in order to direct the faithful without error to salvation through correct worship and imitation of the examples of Christian virtues, infallibility is necessary concerning the solemn decrees of the Canonization of Saints.

(See Fr. Joachim Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB: On the Church of Christ, trans. by Fr. Kenneth Baker [original Latin published by BAC, [1955]). 

Conclusion

The Catholic Church has always had the authority and protection from the Holy Ghost to declare anybody it deems fit to truly be in Heaven with God and His angels as saints. When we say "I believe in the communion of saints," we not only believe in the Church's power to declare them such, but also believe in their powerful intercession on our behalf, the miracles they have (or can) perform if it be God's Will, and that they make up the Church Triumphant in Heaven due to their virtuous life on earth. We also venerate them and honor their memory.

The New (Novus Ordo) Church, Vatican II sect, Conciliar Church, The Counterfeit Church, or as Joe Biden would probably call it, "The thing," not only loves to mingle with other religions but also mingle false saints with true ones, which is of Anti-Christ. Those in the R&R position need to humble themselves like the true saints known to them and abandon the false "Church" which is none other than an ape church. This is not only what a real Catholic would do, but also a saint.

Blessed be God in His Angels and in His Saints.

 

Self-Approved Theologians

 

There was a time, not that long ago, when people realized that you needed an expert for answers on various topics. Hence, when you are having medical problems you go to a board certified physician. Need legal help? Go to a licensed attorney who practices in that field of law. Now, people look up symptoms on "Dr. Google," and take legal advice from eighteen year-old "influencers" on social media. The result is that many people wrongly "diagnose themselves" to their own detriment, and draw up their own legal papers, only to have them easily shot down in a court of law. Welcome to the Internet-inspired age of ultracrepidarians (i.e., people who expresses opinions on matters outside the scope of their knowledge or expertise). 

Theology is a science, indeed the "queen of the sciences," as it deals with the most important topic in the universe; God and His One True Church, outside of which no one can be saved. Like medicine and the law, theology must be handled by professionals, i.e., Church-qualified experts (theologians) who have the approbation of the Church ("approved"). Approved theologians have something no medical doctor or lawyer could ever possess; the protection of the Holy Ghost from teaching heresy in matters of Faith and/or Morals. The Church's Magisterium prevents it by censuring their opinions that are a danger to the faith. That does not mean they cannot be wrong about things the Church has not settled (e.g., Aquinas rejecting the Immaculate Conception when it was not defined and up for debate among the theologians), only that they cannot teach heresy. 

Since the Great Apostasy, when Roncalli usurped the Throne of Peter as a false pope and the hierarchy defected at Vatican II, there can be no more approved theologians unless and until the papacy is restored. Therefore, Traditionalists need to look to the teachings of the approved theologians pre-Vatican II for answers about the Faith. Unfortunately, that does not prevent certain individuals from becoming self-approved "theologians," free to spread error and evil on the Internet. Even worse, these same self-approved pseudo-theologians go so far as to accuse the genuine approved theologians from the past of having written heresy.

This post will examine three such pseudo-theologians: Fred and Bobby Dimond, the Feeneyite sedevacantists of "Most Holy Family Monastery" in New York, and Ronald L. Conte, Jr. a Vatican II sect defender of Bergoglio. The Dimonds have attacked the eminent theologian Van Noort, and Conte has attacked the great theologian Jone. In order to address their pompous and egregious calumnies, it is necessary to first establish:

1. What the Magisterium is and how it operates.

2. What, exactly, constitutes the credentials of an approved theologian according to the Church.

3. Examine the credentials of the Dimonds and Conte. 

Finally, I can (4) demonstrate the falsehood of the attacks on theologians Van Noort and Jone.

(WARNING! The attacks on Jone are of a very delicate and sensitive nature regarding marital relations. Reader discretion is strongly advised---Introibo).

The Basics

1. What is the Magisterium? According to theologian Parente, it is "the power conferred by Christ upon His Church and strengthened with the charism of infallibility, by which the teaching Church (Ecclesia docens) is constituted as the unique depository and authentic interpreter of divine revelation to be proposed authoritatively to men as the object of faith for their eternal salvation." (See Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, [1951], pg. 170). Therefore, the Church is divinely appointed to teach all necessary truths of faith to people, free from error, in order that they may attain Heaven. "Magisterium" comes from the Latin magister or "teacher." Christ told His Apostles "Go therefore, teach ye all nations..."(St. Matthew 28:19). 

The Magisterium, therefore, is expressed either solemnly or in an ordinary and universal way. This is clear from both Church history and the dogmatic decree of the Vatican Council of 1870.  The former exercise of the Church's teaching authority is called the Solemn or Extraordinary Magisterium and the latter is called the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium ("UOM"). Both are equally infallible. As the Vatican Council of 1870 dogmatically taught:

Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium, proposes for belief as having been Divinely-revealed.(Dei Filius, Emphasis mine). 

The Extraordinary Magisterium is expressed by (1) solemn definitions ex cathedra promulgated by either the Roman Pontiff or an Ecumenical Council approved by the Roman Pontiff; (2) professions of faith decreed by the Church; (3) theological censures contrary to heretical propositions. (See theologian Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, [1959], 1:174). 

The UOM is explained according to theologian Scheeben: The Criteria, or means of knowing Catholic truth may be easily gathered from the principles...nearly all set forth in the Brief Tuas Libenter, addressed by Pius IX to the Archbishop of Munich. (See A Manual of Catholic Theology 1:89). Pope Pius IX wrote, For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith. (See Tuas Libenter [1863], DZ 1683; Emphasis mine).

Canon 1323 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law further gives proof of the belief of the Church regarding the UOM and imposes on the faithful the obligation of consent. The eminent canonist Augustine writes, The universal and ordinary Magisterium consists of the entire episcopate, according to the constitution and order defined by Christ, i.e., all the bishops of the universal Church, dependently on the Roman Pontiff...What the universal and approved practice and discipline proposes as connected with faith and morals must be believed. And what the Holy Fathers and the theologians hold unanimously as a matter of faith and morals, is also de fide. (See A Commentary on Canon Law, pg.327). 

Approved theologians therefore, hold great importance in the Church. As theologian Tanquerey teaches, They [theologians] are not to be esteemed lightly no matter what the Protestants, Modernists or other adversaries have alleged against them. (Ibid, pg.180; Emphasis mine). Hence, those who deny the importance of the teachings of approved theologians are Protestants, Modernists and other enemies of the Church, not Catholics.

2. What, exactly, constitutes an approved theologian of the Church? The book by Fr. Reginald-Maria Schultes OP, De Ecclesia Catholica: Praelectiones Apologeticae [Apologetic Lectures on the Catholic Church], 2nd. ed., Paris: Lethielleux 1931, was used by priest-students studying for doctoral degrees at Pontifical Universities. Fr. Schultes himself taught at the world-renowned Angelicum University. A theologian is thus defined by him (and recognized by the Church) as "learned men who after the time of the Church Fathers scientifically taught sacred doctrine in the Church."

 The pre-Vatican II theologians were all clerics (i.e., priests and bishops) who received either a Doctorate in Sacred Theology (STD) or a Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD). The latter are known as canonists and apply the proper theological principles to the Sacred Canons to ascertain the correct meaning and application of each Canon to each unique situation. Every theologian had to defend and publish a dissertation before the Board of Examiners of a Pontifical University, and it had to bear an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat declaring the work free from all error against faith and morals.  The breadth and depth of theological knowledge enjoyed by theologians was vastly superior to both laymen and the average priest or bishop because of the excellence of their training.

Theologians are said to be "approved" at least insofar as (a) they manifest a certain eminence in doctrine in their writings and (b) display orthodoxy at least to the extent recognized by the Church that their writings are used by the faithful and the theological schools, with the knowledge of (and with no opposition from) the Magisterium of the Church.  (See, e.g,. theologian Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa, IB, [1955]). The doctorate may only be dispensed by the Roman Pontiff if the cleric is found by the Vicar of Christ to be highly proficient in both Canon Law and Sacred Theology; such is the case with bishops as well (See 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 331; see also canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, [1952], 1:357-358). 

Theologians demonstrate, and do not determine Catholic doctrine. Theologians do not determine whether some doctrine is de fide or some other theological note, like "certain."  They merely demonstrate, or manifest, or give witness, that a particular doctrine is Church teaching and to what degree. They prove their assertions with convincing arguments, so that when theologians reach an objective, morally unanimous consensus, we must accept such conclusions as belonging to the Faith. According to Schultes (cited above), theologians are witnesses not only to whether a doctrine is defined, but also to its meaning. 

Fr. Fenton's The Concept of Sacred Theology makes clear that Councils, encyclicals, etc, are the raw data the theologian uses for his work. Theology is not simply quoting Church documents, any more than law is not simply quoting the Supreme Court. 

Two Common Objections Answered:

1. Theologians are not infallible. Theologian Scheeben teaches, Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be lead astray. The consent of the theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine's dictum, 'Not to resist an error is to approve of it---not to defend a truth is to reject it.' (Scheeben, Ibid, pg. 83; Emphasis mine). 

2. We only need to follow the infallible teachings of the Church. Pope Pius IX was writing a mere letter not addressed to the whole Church in Tuas Libentur. 

The Church has condemned this very idea. Condemned proposition #22 of the Syllabus of Errors, addressed to the whole Church teaches:

22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound is restricted to those matters only which are proposed by the infallible judgement of the Church, to be believed by all as dogmas of the faith. 

Pope Pius XII condemns the idea popes need not be given assent in their teachings that are not ex cathedra: It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in these the popes do not exercise the supreme powers of their Magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent ‘He who heareth you, heareth me.’; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. (Humani Generis [1950]).

Proof of Church approbation of approved theologians.

• The many popes who taught material from the works of the theologians

• The founding, directing, and supervision of the various theological schools by the Magisterium

• Since the Council of Trent, theological works were used in seminaries which were supervised by bishops and popes

• Popes have used theologians as consultants and commissioned them to draw up Magisterial documents. Theologian Garrigou-Lagrange drafted the encyclical Humani Generis (1950) condemning modern errors, and theologian Guerard des Lauriers drafted the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus (1950) declaring the dogma of the Assumption; he later became a sedevacantist bishop consecrated by Abp. Thuc

• The writings of various theological schools have been praised and recommended by popes. Likewise, the popes and Roman Congregations have been diligent in censoring theologians who go astray. Consider that Frs. John Courtney Murray, Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans Kung, and Josef Ratzinger ("Pope" Benedict XVI) were all censured in their writings and/or suspected of Modernism. These were the theologians who "hijacked" Vatican II once a false pope (John XXIII) rehabilitated them and gave them prominent roles at Vatican II. They were able to create the man-made Vatican II sect, posing as "Catholicism." 

The Magisterium further supports the theologians in the last two Ecumenical Councils

From the history of the Council of Trent and the Vatican Council of 1870, it is certain that in the theologians was recognized, as a certain criterion of the truth of faith and morals, the unanimous consent of the theologians or of the theological schools.

When the Church has not pronounced a subject closed to debate, the theologians (and theological schools) may disagree.

By argumentation, the theologians refine their arguments and clarify all sides of an issue until there is consensus, or the Magisterium takes sides. This is NOT "proof" that a theological school (or theologians in general) are "in error."

Two Theological Giants: Monsignor Gerard Van Noort and Fr. Heribert Jone

According to many sources, including online sites that are mostly accurate, Heribert Jone (1885-1967) was born as Joseph Jone. He entered the Capuchin Order in 1904 and was given the name Heribertus von Schelklingen. In the Order, he completed his philosophy and theology studies and was ordained a priest in 1910. A year later he began to study canon law at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, but interrupted it to work as a missionary to the Carolines from 1913 to 1919. After his return he continued his studies and received his doctorate in canon law in 1922. From 1924 to 1948 he taught moral theology and canon law at the religious college of the Capuchins in Munster. From 1925 he also worked as a synod judge at the marriage court of the diocese of Munster.

(See second.wiki/wiki/heribert_jone).

 He died in the Vatican II sect, but just as Tertullian is cited before his apostasy, so can we cite Jone when he was under a true pope and hierarchy making sure he did not publish heresy.

Gerard Van Noort (1861-1946) studied at Hageveld and Warmond. Following his ordination in 1884, he served as chaplain in Medemblik and Amsterdam. From 1892 to 1908 he was professor of dogmatic theology at the seminary of Warmond, and it was here that he completed his ten-volume manual of dogmatic theology, Tractatus apologetici et dogmatici (Leyden 1898–1908). It is a model of clarity and conciseness, with a judicious blend of positive and speculative theology. It is in use all over the world, and has gone through several editions. In 1908 Van Noort left seminary work to become a pastor in Amsterdam, and in 1926 he was named a canon in the cathedral chapter of Haarlem. He received a Roman doctorate honoris causa [papal approval] in 1930 and in 1934 Pius XI appointed him a domestic prelate. 

(See encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/van-noort-gerard). 

Three Theological Misfits

Fred and Bobby Dimond claim to be Benedictines, yet are sedevacantists. Having been born in the 1970s, they could not be members of the Traditional Benedictines, so they either are "self-appointed" or were made such by someone in the Vatican II sect they claim to abhor. They appeal to specious statements about their "founder" and the idea that "there must always be Benedictines." Their highest degree of education is high school. They have no formal ecclesiastical training or degrees, yet pontificate on every topic and damn to Hell anyone who disagrees. Website: vaticancatholic.com. 

Ronald L. Conte Jr declares himself a "Roman Catholic theologian and Bible translator." On his website he states:

A summary of my credentials as a lay theologian:

I am a baptized and confirmed, believing and practicing cradle Catholic, who receives the Sacraments of Confession and Communion regularly. I believe that the teachings of the holy Catholic Church, found in Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and in the teachings of the Magisterium, are the teachings of Jesus Christ. I believe what the Church teaches, and I live according to that teaching. (This credential is sorely lacking among many theologians.)

I have a bachelor’s degree in philosophy and theology from Boston College.

I reject all heresies and doctrinal errors. I continually write against heresy and doctrinal error, in order to protect the poor and weak flock of Jesus Christ from false teachers, from wolves in sheep’s clothing, who claim that their heresies and errors are actually a correct understanding of magisterial teaching...I have translated the entire Vulgate Bible from Latin into English, and I have placed that translation in the public domain. I worked for a while on the World English Bible project. I was a proof-reader for the Tweedale edition of the Vulgate (London, 2005). I produced my own edit of the Latin Vulgate Bible (2009). 

As you can see, he does not possess the educational requirements for being a theologian, and he is not a cleric. Yet, under his novel definition of "theologian," who needs any of that?

A person who writes theology, on a continuing basis, is a theologian. The term ‘theologian’ is a descriptor, not a title. The Church has never issued a formal designation of theologian, as if only those designated persons could be correctly called ‘theologian’. This statement is demonstrably wrong, as I wrote above about the qualifications of a theologian. Yet, that still doesn't matter because "God gave him the gift of being a lay theologian." 

I used to think that any intelligent and well-informed Catholic could write formal theology. But over time, I found that there are many Catholics, who despite intelligence and education in the Faith, seem unable to make a sound theological argument, or even properly evaluate the theological arguments of other persons. So I have reached the conclusion that the ability to write theology is a gift from the grace of the Holy Spirit. It is a vocation awakened by the Spirit in some, but not in others. Although theologians come from every rank among the faithful, not every member of the faithful has this calling and this gift. Ron, of course, has this "gift." Indeed he does; unfortunately for him, it's the "booby prize." He is a staunch defender of Bergoglio and Vatican II.

Website: ronconte.com.

He claims to be a "Bible translator," and sells his books on Amazon.com. He is the "translator" of the Latin Vulgate Bible to his allegedly more accurate "Catholic Domain Public Version" (CDPV). Two problems: (1)he has no advance degree in Latin and could not possibly understand how to properly translate a language in which he has (and claims) no formal education, and (2) it has no Vatican II sect Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat. Canon 825, section 1 of the 1983 Vatican II sect Code of Canon Law clearly states:

Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.

This "faithful lay theologian" is in violation of his own sect's Code of Canon Law. 

At this point, before even getting out of the starting gate, it is painfully obvious that these three self-approved "theologians" are a joke and have no right to say even one word against the theological giants pre-Vatican II. Nevertheless, their criticisms will be addressed.

The Attack on Theologian Van Noort by Fred and Bobby Dimond

 In an article entitled, The Revealing Heresies in Msgr. Van Noort's Pre-Vatican II Dogmatic Theology Manual, the theologian is attacked for his position on (what else?) "Outside the Church No Salvation." 

(See https://vaticancatholic.com/revealing-heresies-msgr-van-noorts-dogmatic-theology-manual/)

VAN NOORT REJECTS AND REDEFINES THE TWO RELATED DOGMAS: 1) OUTSIDE THE CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION AND 2) WITHOUT THE CATHOLIC FAITH THERE IS NO SALVATION

Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ's Church, p. 265: “From the matter previously discussed, it should be relatively easy both to explain and to defend that slogan – often misunderstood and bitterly complained against by non-Catholics – which the fathers of the Church and the Church itself take as an axiom: ‘outside the Roman Catholic Church there is no salvation.’  The axiom should be strictly understood as referring to actual union with the visible Church; but its full and correct meaning is: anyone who by his own fault lives and dies outside the Church will definitely be damned.  That the axiom is understood by the Church only with that qualification is obvious from its clear teaching that no one will go to hell without serious guilt on his part.”

Here Van Noort states that the solemnly defined dogma, Outside the Church There is No Salvation, should be understood to mean that only someone who is outside the Church “by his own fault” cannot be saved.  That is heresy and modernism.  The dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation does not teach that only someone who is outside the Church “by his own fault” will not be saved.  Rather, it teaches that all who die outside the Church are not saved, and that all who die without the Catholic faith are not saved.  The Church has proclaimed this dogma from the Chair of St. Peter approximately seven different times.  The formulation is always the same.  Not once did the Church define that only someone outside the Church “by his own fault” cannot be saved, as Van Noort declares.

What Dimond omits is Van Noort's citation to Pope Pius IX: There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. (Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, #7). 

Dimond tries to brush off Pope Pius IX by stating: The notion that all the dogmatic definitions on this matter [EENS] should be set aside, and that the entire issue hinges on non-universal, non-infallible (and misinterpreted) statements of Pope Pius IX, is absurd. There is no misinterpretation; Pope Pius IX made it clear that those who are invincibly ignorant, live honest lives by following the natural law, and ready to obey God can be saved --not by water baptism--but by "divine light and grace." God can enlighten their minds and infuse sanctifying grace bringing them within the Church before death. Moreover, all theologians interpreted his statements as saying such and he did nothing to stop them. Nor did Popes Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII.  Therefore, we have a Church that cannot teach according to Dimond. No one understood the real meaning (not even Pius IX himself and the five popes who followed). 

Van Noort even explains with two reasons why the words "by his own fault" are not usually explicitly added:

First, because the axiom is a penal sentence, and the notion of penalty by its very nature presupposes guilt. Secondly, because the axiom helps to inculcate the truth that by the ordinary decrees of God's Providence only the Church can lead one to salvation and consequently that anyone who is outside the Church, no matter how he got there, is there where salvation is per se unobtainable. (pg. 266). This was conveniently omitted by Dimond. 

Theologian Salaverri explains this truth of being outside the Church "by one's own fault" thus: But adults because of their full use of reason, who have died without Baptism and lacking at least an implicit desire of belonging to the Church, in the present order of grace, de facto, are lacking such a desire not without their own fault and are damned, as Pius IX taught. For according to the teaching of St. Thomas [Aquinas]: "This pertains to divine providence that He gives to each one the things necessary to salvation, provided on his part he does not place an obstacle. For if someone, raised in a forest or among brute animals, were to follow the lead of natural reason in the search for good and flight from evil, it must be held for certain either that God will reveal to him by an internal revelation the things necessary to believe or will send to him a preacher of the faith, as He sent Peter to Cornelius" (Acts 10). (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB, [1955], pg. 451; Emphasis mine). 

Van Noort neither rejects nor distorts/redefines "Outside the Church There is No Salvation." As to the charge Van Noort rejects the Catholic faith for "supernatural" faith, it is without merit. Dimond criticizes those like Bp. Sanborn and the late Fr. Cekada's position on ‘supernatural’ faith denies the dogma that ‘Catholic’ faith is what’s absolutely necessary for salvation. Pure ignorance from Dimond. The Catholic Faith alone has the property of supernaturality. According to theologian Rivas, The act of faith is supernatural...The Pelagians, by denying internal grace for salvific acts, thereby deny the supernaturality of the Act of Faith. (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa IIB, pg. 303). The only act of faith that is supernatural is an act of Catholic Faith, for faith comes from God.

Suffice it to say, Dimond is clueless and Van Noort is brilliantly Catholic! I will not address all the other alleged heresies of Van Noort, as it is clear his opponent doesn't understand the topics upon which he writes.

The Attack on Theologian Jone by Conte

Conte objects to a book by one Christopher West who cites Jone's Moral Theology, a short one-volume reference. (See ronconte.com/2018/06/05/what-heribert-jone-wrote-in-moral-theology/). 

Conte writes:

“To cite another example, Fr. Heribert Jone wrote in his highly regarded 1956 book Moral Theology: ‘Excluding the sodomitic intention [that is, the intention to ejaculate] it is neither sodomy nor a grave sin if intercourse is begun in a rectal manner with the intention of consummating it naturally’ (section 757).” [West, p. 227]

West gets it correct, but Conte excoriates Jone thus:

There are many things wrong with that statement. How can a husband not have a “sodomitic intention” when he is in fact committing sodomy? The bare assertion that “it is neither sodomy nor a grave sin” contradicts the description of the act itself as “intercourse begun in a rectal manner”. That is a description of sodomy. And Jone provides no theological argument to prove otherwise. Then, as he continues to discuss the act in question, he calls it “sodimitical commerce” and, repeatedly, “the sin”. A sodomitical sin that Jone approves, as if it were somehow moral.

1. The husband has no intention of sodomy if he only wants foreplay and to end with natural intercourse

2. It is a "bare assertion" because it is a reference manual checked by the Magisterium, it is not a full dissertation where elaborate arguments are made.

3. This is the opinion of one theologian on a matter the Church has not decided. You may disagree, but it is not "heretical" or evil, unless the Church passes final judgement against the opinion in question. The manual, originally written under the pontificate of Pope Pius XI, continued to be approved when reprinted under Pope Pius XII, and even in 1961 when there was a hierarchy with Ordinary Jurisdiction.

Conte continues his attack:

However, Jone followed that sentence with this assertion, which West omits:

“Positive co-operation on the part of the wife in sodomitical commerce is never lawful, hence, she must at least offer internal resistance. However, she may remain externally passive, provided she has endeavored to prevent the sin. She thus applies the principle of double effect and permits the sin to avert the danger of a very grave evil which cannot otherwise be averted; it remain unlawful for her to give her consent to any concomitant pleasure.” [Jone, Moral Theology, n. 757.]

So Jone’s actual theological position is that the husband may use his wife’s posterior for a type of “foreplay”, to prepare himself for natural marital relations, but she is morally obligated to resist and “to prevent the sin”. And, according to Jone, she would sin gravely if she consented interiorly to any pleasure that might accompany the sodomitical act. Jone thinks that this particular sexual act (anal foreplay absent male climax) is moral for the husband, but immoral for the wife! 

Here, Jone switches to discussing not foreplay, but actual sodomy. Conte doesn't understand (no surprise) and thinks Jone is contradicting himself, when he is talking about another matter, closely related. As theologians McHugh and Callan teach, non-consummated venereal acts "are lawful per se when they are used only as accessories to the act of marriage or as a means to foster and preserve conjugal love, for the acts are meant by God to serve the purposes mentioned...There is mortal sin when these acts are not referred to the lawful conjugal act..." (See Moral Theology, [1930], 2:599). 

Yet this pseudo-educated, self-approved theologian would have you go out and buy his book The Catholic Marriage Bed at Amazon.com for the "correct answers" to sexual morality. His book possesses no approbation from the Vatican II sect he serves. I can only imagine how his "Bible" --also done without approval of his sect or personal expertise--is an insult to Sacred Scripture and can lead people in his sect further astray. 

Conclusion

I have stated many times that I am not a theologian, nor have I ever claimed to be such. I'm merely a layman sharing what I learned from my time with a real canonist (Fr. DePauw) and trying to make my best Catholic way I can in this time of Great Apostasy. If I can show what real theologians have taught, and help others along the way as God's unworthy instrument, all the time I spend writing will have been worth it. My identity is unimportant and I have never tried to make a dime off my writing. 

When people filled with hubris and devoid of credentials start calling themselves "theologians" or "teaching" as if they were such, run away as fast as you can. You get Feeneyites and Vatican II sect members selling you heresy while attacking the genuine theologians of the past. Approved theologians like Van Noort and Jone have the backing of the One True Church. Self-approved theologians have the backing of themselves--and in many cases, the forces of Hell. 

An Evil Non-Prophet Religion

 

Islam poses an ever-growing threat to our world. Of course most people don't see it, and label anyone who exposes this evil sect as "Islamophobic," another made-up word (like "homophobic") that implies a mental illness ("phobia") for those who dare to disagree. Earlier this month, New York City (aka "Sodom on the Hudson," "The Big Rotten Apple," etc.) elected Shahana Hanif as the first female Moslem to the NYC Council. The city now has a population of just over 750,000 Moslems living in the five boroughs (Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, Staten Island, and the Bronx). Time magazine asked Hanif what it meant that there was no "female Muslim representation" until now. Her response was typical, "It reflects a history that is deeply rooted in racism and xenophobia."

(See time.com/6114026/shahana-hanif-city-council-new-york/). 

Yes, it is alleged hatred and mental illness that prevented the election of Moslems. It wasn't the fact that Islam is a wicked, violent, and false religion that seeks to enslave others. It wasn't the fact the followers of the false moon "god" Allah and his demon-possessed false prophet, Mohammed, perpetuated the most heinous act of terrorism on American soil that fateful September 11, 2001. No, it's "hatred" and "mental illness." The rehabilitation of Islam began (where else?) with Vatican II. In its heretical document Nostra Aetate:

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom. (para. #3; Emphasis mine). 

In the document Lumen Gentium, it is heretically taught:

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day. (para #16; Emphasis mine).

Two falsehoods are presented: (1) Moslems worship the same God as Catholics, and (2) it is more important to forget the murder and torture of Christians and to stop trying to convert Mohammedans to the One True Church; what matters is purely naturalistic "social justice" in "mutual understanding" with these barbarians. It is also presented as acceptable to view Christ as a mere "prophet" and to put the Satanic Mohammed on the same level with Our Lord. Sheer blasphemy. 

The first subtle brainwashing came in the form of changing the name by which followers of Islam were called. In the time of my Patron Saint, the great King St. Louis IX, the word Saracen was used. Its meaning is aptly "thief, marauder, plunderer." 

 (See books.google.com/books?id=W4H97SA6pMAC&pg=PA125#v=onepage&q&f=false).

The term Moor was used loosely as "infidel," and Mohammedan designated them as followers of the fake prophet they served.

Until I graduated high school in the early 1980s, all textbooks referred to the followers of Islam as Moslems--one of the terms I still use. Since the mid-1990s, the term was replaced by Muslim. The following explains why the change was made:

According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, "Moslem and Muslim are basically two different spellings for the same word." But the seemingly arbitrary choice of spellings is a sensitive subject for many followers of Islam. Whereas for most English speakers, the two words are synonymous in meaning, the Arabic roots of the two words are very different. A Muslim in Arabic means "one who gives himself to God," and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means "one who is evil and unjust" when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z...Journalists switched to Muslim from Moslem in recent years under pressure from Islamic groups.

(See historynewsnetwork.org/article/524; Emphasis in original). 

I was texting a friend of mine about a month ago over what will now be the subject of this post; the false teaching that Mohammedans worship the same True God as Catholics. My friend gave me many good insights (as he always does), and I thought at length about how this wicked teaching is normalizing a Hell-spawn religious sect. Allah is not the True God, and Mohammed is no true prophet. 

Asking the Right Questions

Some apologists for the Vatican II sect teaching on Islam have asserted (without citation to be read in context) that some approved theologians and Church historians pre-Vatican II claimed Moslems worship the True God in a false manner. I cannot attest to the veracity of this but what might have been meant (if it was really written) is that Moslems may intend to worship the True God. The question should not be "Do the Moslems worship the True God," rather, it should be asked, "Does Islam profess the True God?" It will be made obvious it does not. Since they worship what they profess, Islam does not objectively worship the True God. 

Islam has always been placed in the same category as the Jews--"infidels"--aka non-baptized monotheists. Mohammed combined the beliefs of pagans (hence the Koran speaks of a "Pegasus"), Jews (they do not eat the flesh of "unclean" animals like pigs), and Catholics (veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary). For both Moslems and Traditionalist Catholics, God is not just an additional fact about reality; rather, God is the foundation underpinning the whole of reality. There is nothing commendable about merely believing that God exists: "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that – and shudder." (St. James 2:19). The question we need to answer is not "Is there a God?" but "Who is God?" What is God’s character, nature and identity? What are his attributes? The answer to these questions will make it clear that Moslems do not profess the True God of Catholicism.

A Morally Defective "God" That Produces Evil Followers

It is my contention that Allah is morally defective, is lacking in omniscience, and gives commands that are contrary to basic ethical principles. All this is easily explained because the Koran is a book written by Mohammed under the guidance of a demon he thought to be the angel Gabriel. Islam relies on a multitude of revelations. But only one, the Koran, (also spelled Qur'an) is considered to be the eternally existent word of Allah, channeled through his chosen prophet six centuries after the crucifixion of Christ. It is considered to be uncreated and unalterable, inerrant, having ethics beyond question, and eloquent above anything the world has ever experienced.

The evidence proves this wrong. The Koran comprises 114 suras (chapters), some revealed in Mecca, others in Medina. Meccan suras feature Mohammad as God’s final prophet—a prophet greater than all the prophets who came before him. Far from being divine, the Koran is clearly written by a human and has its origin from the Father of Lies. If Allah is God, he would be omniscient. If the Koran was dictated by angel Gabriel from Allah himself, the Koran must be inerrant. Using the Koran (The Holy Qur'an Arabic Text with English Translation [2013]) it will be shown that Allah cannot be omniscient and therefore is not "God." 

Allah Doesn't Understand the Theology He Condemns

• Allah thinks since Christ was begotten, it means there was sexual reproduction. In Koran 6:101, the book asks rhetorically, "How can He [Allah] have a Son when He has no consort?" 
• Allah thinks Christianity teaches that the Blessed Virgin Mary is part of the Most Holy Trinity. "And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden?" (Koran 5:116) 
• Allah tells an historical falsehood; Christ was not crucified by the Jews. "And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain." (Koran 4:157-158). 

Far worse than the above is the immorality that is openly commanded by Allah. That will be examined next.

God is Necessarily Morally Perfect

 God is the greatest conceivable Being. (I'm not using St. Anselm's ontological argument. It is what both the Church and Islam teach). If a being is in some way morally imperfect, then it is not a perfect being and therefore not the greatest conceivable being (i.e., not God).  Moral perfection entails being all-loving; wanting what is best for others. This, to me, is axiomatic. Every good parent knows this fact. A rebellious teenage son or daughter will break a parent's heart precisely because they love him or her despite his or her defiant and wicked behavior. If a parent didn't love their child, it wouldn't hurt so bad. The fact is that parents do love their children, despite their waywardness.

Allah has a different character than the True God. It is significant that of the "99 beautiful names for Allah," which Moslems memorize and use for worship, not one is "love" or "loving." The Koran stresses that Allah loves only those who do good, and that he does not love those who do evil. Here are the suras and verses:

"Allah loves not transgressors" (2:190)

"He loves not creatures ungrateful or wicked" (2:276)

"Say: 'Obey Allah and His Apostle;' but if they turn back Allah loveth not those who reject Faith." (3:32)

"Allah loves not those who do wrong" (3:57, 140)

"Allah loveth not the arrogant the vainglorious" (4:36)

Compare to Jesus Christ:

"Christ died for the ungodly... God demonstrates His own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us...If when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to Him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through His life? (Romans 5:6,8,10). Christ loves all humans, hates all sin, and Wills their salvation contingent upon them coming freely into the Church and dying in the state of grace. No one is lost except through their own fault.

Allah hates sinners which is why he:

Commands the murder of non-Moslems: "Koran 2:191: "And kill them (non-Moslems) wherever you find them … kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers (non-Moslems)."

Koran 9:5: "Then kill the disbelievers (non-Moslems) wherever you find them, capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush …"

Allows Moslems to commit adultery with slave girls: Koran 4:24, "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess."

Commands Moslems to steal from Non-Moslems and enjoy doing it: “Enjoy what ye took, for it is lawful and good” (Koran 8:69).

Allows Moslems to lie, for Allah is himself a deceiver: The Koran overtly teaches that Allah is the master of deception. As Koran 3:54 and 8:30 put it, “Allah (is the) best (of) the deceivers” (literal translation)

Commands Moslems to fight, kill, or violently subjugate non-Moslems simply for being non-Moslems: "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness." (Koran 9:123)

"Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah’s way, so they slay and are slain." (Koran 9:111)

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." (Koran 9:29)

A False and Morally Bankrupt Prophet

Mohammed behaved wickedly, just as the false moon god he served taught. There is an excellent circular I read compiled by Mr. Stanley Robertson. Although not a Traditionalist, Mr. Robertson has done an excellent job of exposing Islam as a false and wicked sect. Below, I set forth some of his pertinent points. The author's citations are retained as he wrote them.

Mohammed:

• Said Allah hates those who don't accept Islam. (Qur'an 30:4, 3:32, 22:38)

• Permitted stealing from unbelievers. (Bukhari 44:668, Ibn Ishaq 764)

• Permitted lying. (Sahih Muslim 6303, Bukhari 49:857)

• Murdered those who insulted him. (Bukhari 56:369, 4:241)

• "If then anyone transgresses the prohibition against you, Transgress ye likewise against him" (Qur'an 2:194)

• Jihad [War] in the way of Allah elevates one's position in Paradise by a hundred fold. (Muslim 4645)

• Married 13 wives and kept sex slaves. (Bukhari 5:268, Qur'an 33:50)

• Slept with a 9-year-old child. (Sahih Muslim 3309, Bukhari 58:236)

• Ordered the murder of women. (Ibn Ishaq 819, 995)

• "O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness." (Qur'an 9:123)

• Encouraged his men to rape enslaved women. (Abu Dawood 2150, Qur'an 4:24)

• Demanded captured slaves and a fifth of all other loot taken in war. (Qur'an 8:41)

• Was never tortured, but tortured others. (Muslim 4131, Ibn Ishaq 436, 595, 734, 764)

• "And fight them until there is no more persecution and religion is only for Allah" (Qur'an 8:39)

• Blessed the brutal murder of a half-blind man (al-Tabari 1440)

• What are the Greatest Commandments? "Belief in Allah and Jihad [War] in His cause" (Muslim 1:149)

• Died fat and wealthy from what was taken from others in war or demanded from others in tribute

• Advocated crucifying others. (Qur'an 5:33, Muslim 16:4131)

• According to his followers: Had others give their lives for him. (Sahih Muslim 4413)

The True Triune God worshipped by the One True Church of Jesus Christ is not the object of worship professed by Islam. Therefore they do not worship the same God. Allah has been shown to be (a) non-Trinitarian, an essential attribute God revealed; (b) culpably ignorant of theology he opposes; (c) morally defective and commands evil of his so-called prophet and followers. 

Conclusion

President Donald Trump wisely forbade Moslems from terrorist (Islamic) governments to enter the United States. The senile puppet pretending to be president now lets them in. Biden was told by the man pretending to be pope that he should receive "communion" while promoting abortion, sodomite "rights," and giving aid to Moslems. "Pope" "Saint" John Paul II kissed the Koran and prayed, "May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam." Maybe he should be given the title "John Paul the Great Mohammedan."

"Pope" Benedict XVI  called for Christians "to open their arms and hearts" to Moslem immigrants and "to dialogue" with them on religious issues. Ratzinger told participants that the Catholic (sic) Church is "increasingly aware" that "inter-religious dialogue is a part of its commitment to the service of humanity in the modern world."

"Pope" Francis prayed towards Mecca and said, "Islam is a religion of peace, one which is compatible with respect for human rights and peaceful coexistence."

Do not be fooled. Any Traditionalist who behaves immorally does so in spite of Church teaching. Any Moslem who behaves immorally does so because of the teachings of Islam. As the population of Moslems nears the one million mark in NYC, and continues to swell unabated in once-Catholic Europe, remember well the words of Pope St. Pius V, "[Moslems] are the enemy of the Catholic Faith." (See Salvatoris Domini, March 5, 1571).

Let us pray from The Litany of St. Louis IX, King of France (for private use only):

St. Louis, victor over the Saracens, pray for us!

. 

 

A Queer Interpretation

 

It was bound to happen sooner or later. Here, in the People's Republic of New York, there was a note attached to the door of my office. It was Friday, October 8, 2021, and the note reminded me that October 11th was "National Coming Out Day." Attached to the note was a rainbow pin that should be worn that day. If you don't "come out" as a sexual pervert, you are encouraged to "become an ally" of sodomites. How is this accomplished? In three ways: (1) educate yourself on "LGBTQ terms," (2) de-gender your language by saying "spouses" instead of "husband and wife." "Brother and sister" should be replaced by "sibling" and "mother/father" replaced by "parent." To do otherwise, I was assured, would be offensive to "non-binary people," (3) become a "pronoun pro" by "sharing your preferred gender pronouns" and making such normal so that pronouns are not based on either biology or  appearances, but by individual choice. 

After taking a picture of the note and pin to have a record of the offensive material, I went in to see the managing partner and told him that I would not be doing any of this immoral garbage, and if I were ordered to do so, I would file a complaint with the EEOC for religious discrimination and sue for violating my Free Exercise of Religion. He stared at me with a blank expression, and I finished by ripping up the note in front of him, throwing it and the pin in his trash can, and spitting on top of it for good measure. He said nothing as I left. It is interesting October 11th is picked. It seems to be a date of importance. It was on October 11th that Vatican II began, that "St. Roncalli" was assigned that date as his "feast," and (on a good note) the birthday of Fr. DePauw. 

On Monday the 11th, I was one of only 12 lawyers who refused to wear the pin. A female attorney with whom I work asked if she could have a word with me when I was eating my lunch. She was a member of the Vatican II sect. She told me she was "concerned" that I was so vocal in my opposition to "National Coming Out Day" and wearing the rainbow pin. First, she told me the firm should be a "safe place" for all sexual orientations. I told her I opposed violence and bullying of any kind, and that no one here did that, so why the need for "safety" when things are already safe? She then argued that to be "safe" means to be "free from hatred and bigotry," clearly implying that I was a hateful bigot. I calmly told her that disagreeing with someone's lifestyle is neither hateful nor bigoted. I also disagree with heterosexual people shacking up before marriage. It doesn't follow that I hate them. As a matter of fact, I oppose homosexuality because I want homosexuals to repent, be celibate, and save their souls.

It became obvious that she had prepared to confront me over the weekend because she said that my position was "clearly against what the Bible says." She proceeded to pull out a letter and here was her "argument from Scripture:"

• Nothing can separate us from the love of God. (Romans 8:38)

• God did not make a mistake in creating LGBTQ people. “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.  I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.” (Psalm 139:113-14) 

• All people are justified through Christ, including LGBTQ people.  “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them” (2 Corinthians 3:19), therefore, “we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand.” (Romans 5:1, 2). This is not to say that being LGBTQ is a sin, but if it were, it would certainly be forgiven.

• Sodom was not destroyed for homosexuality, but for inhospitality. (Genesis 19)

To give a quick summary of my responses:

• Mortal sin separates us from the love of God, and Hell keeps us that way forever. If that Bible verse from Romans (clearly used out of context) is to be taken literally, it is a declaration of universal salvation and a license to commit sin

• God made people not homosexuality. One is a being, the other is a behavior. Even if, ad arguendo, people have a "gay gene," it does not follow that homosexuality is thereby normal or morally good. There could be a gene for alcoholism. That doesn't mean you can get drunk, or that drunkenness is a natural state, or it's not sinful. You must abstain from drinking as a moral obligation, even if you're "born that way." The same could said for a "violence gene" that predisposes one to aggression against others. There are many other behaviors that cannot be condoned even if there were a genetic predisposition. (She wasn't happy when I pointed out the Psalm is an indirect condemnation of abortion)

• Yes, homosexuality is a sin, and yes, it can be forgiven, but not without sorrow for the sin, and living celibately after a good Confession

• Sodom most certainly was destroyed for the sin that became named for it; sodomy. (It would take too long to expound on my full response here)

She grew angry and responded, "That's just your interpretation," and stormed off. She hasn't spoken to me since (Deo gratias). Her behavior shows inhospitality on her part, but I digress. The purpose of this post is to respond to what I hear a lot from members of the Vatican II sect that was--in years gone by--only heard in Protestant circles; twisting Bible passages as proof-texts for every doctrinal aberration under the sun. St. Mark 13:32 cited as "proof" that Christ was ignorant of His Divinity until after the Resurrection; St. John 3:5 cited as "proof" by Feeneyites that there is no Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood. 

Of course we must follow the Magisterium in authoritative interpretations of Scripture, but are there Catholic rules the Church follows in determining the authentic interpretation of Holy Scripture? Yes, there are such rules, and even most Traditionalists are ignorant of them. Since not every single verse of the Bible has been given a definitive interpretation by the Church, we would all do well to learn and remember these Catholic rules for discerning the true meaning of Bible passages. [The rest of this post is condensed from theologian Rooney, Preface to the Bible, (1952)---Introibo]. 

General Rules of Interpretation

There are six general rules for properly interpreting the Bible. The first three deal with context, and the second set of three rules deal with the actual text under discussion. 

RULE 1.  Establish the Remote Context. Every Biblical author is molded by his environment. Hence, into his mode of thought and expression flow in a vital fashion the religious, cultural, political, economic, and geographic influences, all of which constitute the world in which the author lived. Therefore, to properly understand an author who lived in a very different world than ours, we must try to understand the historic background. God, indeed, is the Author of the Bible, but He used humans as His instruments. They wrote to humanity according to the laws of human language, and the authors must be placed in their proper setting. God is the principal Author of the Bible, but the men who wrote the Bible under Divine Inspiration, were true, yet instrumental authors. 

As Pope Pius XII teaches:

  Let the interpreter then, with all care and without neglecting any light derived from recent research, endeavor to determine the peculiar character and circumstances of the sacred writer, the age in which he lived, the sources written or oral to which he had recourse and the forms of expression he employed...What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use.

 For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East. The investigation, carried out, on this point, during the past forty or fifty years with greater care and diligence than ever before, has more clearly shown what forms of expression were used in those far off times, whether in poetic description or in the formulation of laws and rules of life or in recording the facts and events of history. The same inquiry has also shown the special preeminence of the people of Israel among all the other ancient nations of the East in their mode of compiling history, both by reason of its antiquity and by reasons of the faithful record of the events; qualities which may well be attributed to the gift of divine inspiration and to the peculiar religious purpose of biblical history.  (See Divino Afflante Spiritu, para.# 33, 35, and 36). 

RULE 2. Establish the Complete Context. Just as you cannot understand what a quarterback is apart from a football team, so too, you cannot understand single verses apart from the book of the Bible in which the author wrote them. The whole message of the book must be considered. You must consider the purpose of the author who wrote because it determines his choice of material. St. Matthew wrote his Gospel to meet the religious needs of the Christians in Palestine, and defend the Faith against the attacks and lies of the perfidious Jews. Next, you must consider the audience for whom the author wrote. This will also determine the material chosen, just as a lawyer will speak to a jury much differently than to another lawyer. St. Matthew wrote for Palestinian Christians, and references the culture and morals of those people. 

Pope Pius XII teaches:

There is no one indeed but knows that the supreme rule of interpretation is to discover and define what the writer intended to express, as St. Athanasius excellently observes: "Here, as indeed is expedient in all other passages of Sacred Scripture, it should be noted, on what occasion the Apostle spoke; we should carefully and faithfully observe to whom and why he wrote, lest, being ignorant of these points, or confounding one with another, we miss the real meaning of the author." (See Divino Afflante Spiritu, para. #34).

RULE 3. Establish the Immediate Context. Just as a man who tries to insert himself in the middle of a conversation without having heard all that transpired usually makes a fool of himself, the same holds true for not taking a Bible passage within its surrounding context. For example the second chapter of Wisdom reads:

The time of our life is short and tedious, and in the end of a man there is no remedy, and no man hath been known to have returned from hell:

For we are born of nothing, and after this we shall be as if we had not been: for the breath in our nostrils is smoke: and speech a spark to move our heart,

Which being put out, our body shall be ashes, and our spirit shall be poured abroad as soft air, and our life shall pass away as the trace of a cloud, and shall be dispersed as a mist, which is driven away by the beams of the sun, and overpowered with the heat thereof:

And our name in time shall be forgotten, and no man shall have any remembrance of our works.

For our time is as the passing of a shadow, and there is no going back of our end: for it is fast sealed, and no man returneth.

Come therefore, and let us enjoy the good things that are present, and let us speedily use the creatures as in youth.

Let us fill ourselves with costly wine, and ointments: and let not the flower of the time pass by us.

Sounds like good advice to the modern heathen. However, that's not the advice of the author. The sentence immediately preceding these verses states, "For they [the wicked] have said, reasoning with themselves, but not right:" (Emphasis mine).

RULE 4. Always Make Sure You Understand What The Author Wrote. This is done by consulting a competent commentator, such as theologian Haydock, to explain difficult verses. They are experts in textural criticism, as it is called. 

Pope Pius XII teaches:

 It is scarcely necessary to observe that this criticism, which some fifty years ago not a few made use of quite arbitrarily and often in such wise that one would say they did so to introduce into the sacred text their own preconceived ideas, today has rules so firmly established and secure, that it has become a most valuable aid to the purer and more accurate editing of the sacred text and that any abuse can easily be discovered. Nor is it necessary here to call to mind - since it is doubtless familiar and evident to all students of Sacred Scripture - to what extent namely the Church has held in honor these studies in textual criticism from the earliest centuries down even to the present day. (See Divino Afflante Spiritu, para. #18).

RULE 5. Make Sure You Understand The Exact Sense Of The Words Of The Text. Unless you know the exact meaning of the words in a particular text, you can hardly expect to understand the whole statement. Words can mean different things in different times and places. Words can also have multiple meanings depending on usage. In the United States, the word gentleman, now means a man of good manners and character. In the 19th century, it meant a man who owned land. In the Bible, we read in St. Matthew 22:16, "Neither carest Thou for any man," while 1 Peter 5:7 states, "He hath care of you." A contradiction? Hardly. The statement in St. Matthew was made by the Pharisees who paid Our Lord an accurate compliment that He spoke only the Truth and was not swayed by the consideration of fear or favor of men. In 1 Peter, care has its usual meaning. The word "spirit" has multiple meanings in the Bible. When in doubt as to how a word is used, consult a good commentary by an approved theologian. 

RULE 6. Determine The Literary Mode Of Expression Used By The Sacred Author. 

Pope Pius XII teaches:

Nevertheless no one, who has a correct idea of biblical inspiration, will be surprised to find, even in the Sacred Writers, as in other ancient authors, certain fixed ways of expounding and narrating, certain definite idioms, especially of a kind peculiar to the Semitic tongues, so-called approximations, and certain hyperbolical modes of expression, nay, at times, even paradoxical, which even help to impress the ideas more deeply on the mind. For of the modes of expression which, among ancient peoples, and especially those of the East, human language used to express its thought, none is excluded from the Sacred Books, provided the way of speaking adopted in no wise contradicts the holiness and truth of God, as, with his customary wisdom, the Angelic Doctor already observed in these words: "In Scripture divine things are presented to us in the manner which is in common use amongst men." (See Divino Afflante Spiritu, para. #37).

In these words, Pope Pius XII admonishes the interpreter of the Bible that he is likely to find any mode of speech except indecent or erroneous language.

Special Rules of Interpretation

RULE 1. To Be Properly Understood, The Bible Must Be Read In A Spirit Of Living Faith. A man and a dog can both listen to musical notes, but the former will hear music while the latter hears only sound. The person devoid of Faith can read St. Luke 23:33, "And when they were come to the place which is called Calvary, they crucified Him there; and the robbers, one on the right hand, and the other on the left." That person will understand the historic Person, Jesus of Nazareth, was crucified, but only the person of Faith will understand why He is the Christ and why His Crucifixion and death set us free and gave us a chance to gain Heaven.

RULE 2. Always Bear In Mind The Analogy Of Faith. God is Truth and His Revelation is a beautiful whole. Consequently, Scripture must never be interpreted in such a way that it would contradict Church teaching, or in such a way that one passage contradicts another. For example, St. John 14:28, "The Father is greater than I," does not contradict St. John 10:30, "I and the Father are One." God the Father is greater with respect to Our Lord's Human Nature, yet this is no denial of the Trinity, and the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost being One God. 

RULE 3. Refuse To Admit Any Interpretation Which Would Suppose Error In The Bible. Always remember God is the primary and real Author of the Bible. To ascribe error in the Bible is to ascribe error to God Himself which is both impossible and blasphemous.

RULE 4. Explain Scripture By Scripture. Since God is the Author, the Bible has magnificent unity. What is said not so clearly in one place may be stated much more explicitly in another place. Explain Scripture by Scripture whenever possible.

RULE 5. Whenever The Church Gives An Authentic Interpretation of Scripture, The Catholic MUST Accept It. In St. Luke 10:16, Our Lord said, "He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me." The One True Church of Jesus Christ in infallible in Her solemn decrees concerning Faith and/or Morals. She alone can give the true meaning of Scripture without the slightest error, and should She do so, no Catholic can deny the interpretation or willfully call it into doubt without falling into heresy.

 As for the Fathers of the Church, when they are morally unanimous in the interpretation of a certain passage that is at least closely connected with matters of Faith and Morals, then the Catholic should follow that interpretation; for they were learned and devout witnesses to the mind of the Church. The decrees of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, although not infallible, must be accepted with both exterior and interior assent by the faithful.

Conclusion

The Church has definitive rules for discerning the true meaning of the Bible. Hence, there is no multiplicity of interpretations as in the false Protestant sects and their damnable doctrine of sola scriptura. Never abandon the Church's teaching and rules on Biblical interpretation. The encounter I had with my "gay affirming" colleague in using the Bible to "justify" one of the Four Sins That Scream To Heaven For Vengeance brought to mind the aphorism of William Shakespeare, "Even the devil can quote Scripture."