To Lead Astray, If Possible, Even The Elect

 

In last week's post, I attempted to give some reasons as to why miracles don't always happen, no matter how sincere our prayers and how laudable our intentions. Some of my readers asked for a follow-up post on how to discern true miracles from false ones. After all, the Vatican II sect claims miracles as proof of their counterfeit Catholicism. What makes those miracles false? Our Lord Jesus Christ warned us, "Beware of false prophets, who come to thee in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." (St. Matthew 7:15). In the days of the Great Apostasy in which we live, it is more necessary than ever to be able to discern the false from the true. 

Brief Summary of Church Teaching on Miracles

I will reiterate what I had written before:

The definition of a miracle. According to theologian Parente, the word miracle comes from the Latin word miror---I wonder. In the broad sense, it is an extraordinary event which calls attention and excites wonder. Theologians explain it is: (a) done by God as principle cause; (b) done in the world; (c) in a way superior to all forces of nature; and outside or above, but not in violation of the laws of nature, but by an exceptional happening brought about by a divine power that intervenes in created things, producing an effect superior to their natural power. The possibility of the miracle rests chiefly on the absolute dominion of God as the First and Free Cause of the Universe, Whose laws are subordinate to Him and cannot limit either His freedom of action or His power. Only the logically impossible and that which violates His Nature (sin) are impossible to Him. (See Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, [1951], pg. 188).  

Miracles are an effect wrought in nature by the direct intervention of God. They are proofs of the truth of the Catholic religion.

Proof: From the Oath Against Modernism promulgated by Pope St. Pius X for all clerics on September 1, 1910:

Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. (Emphasis mine)

From the Vatican Council (1870):

If anyone shall say that miracles are impossible, and therefore that all the accounts regarding them, even those contained in Holy Scripture, are to be dismissed as fables or myths; or that miracles can never be known with certainty, and that the divine origin of Christianity cannot be proved by them; let him be anathema.

Miracles cannot be used to help give credibility to that which is false. Any "miracle" that does so is either (a) naturally explained, and therefore not a miracle, or (b) of demonic origin.

Proof: A miracle is a deed that is sensible, extraordinary, and of divine origin. Hence, since transubstantiation is not sensible, it cannot be considered a miracle in the strict sense. Miracles can only be used to support that which is true and good. It is impossible for God to deceive. Moreover, God would equivalently be producing falsehood if He were performing some miracles in order to demonstrate that some false doctrines or a doctrine that is altogether human has been revealed by Himself. We should recognize that God allows extraordinary things to be performed by the devil. (See theologian Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, [1959], 1:40-45; Emphasis mine)

In Exodus 7: 8-13, we read:

The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "When Pharaoh says to you, 'Perform a miracle,' then say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and throw it down before Pharaoh,' and it will become a snake." So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the Lord commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron’s staff swallowed up their staffs. Yet Pharaoh’s heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the Lord had said." (Emphasis mine).

While we must believe in miracles (especially those contained in the Holy Bible), we are not bound to believe in every specific event claimed to be miraculous. We should only give credence to those events considered miracles by the authority of the Church. 

Proof: Many events thought to be miraculous were denied as such by the Magisterium of the Church prior to the defection of the hierarchy at Vatican II. 

• Many people claimed that they saw the statue of Our Lady of Assisi move and smile. (1948) The Church later declared there was no apparition of Our Lady in Assisi, and no miraculous events.

• There are people hundreds of years into the canonization process as of 1958 (death of Pope Pius XII) whose alleged miracles were never confirmed despite large numbers of witnesses.

• Theresa Neumann (d. 1962) was alleged to have survived only on the Eucharist for 30 years, and claimed the stigmata. The Church has never confirmed nor denied these miraculous claims which were investigated beginning in 1928.

Types of Miracles 

According to theologian Tanquerey:

A miracle is physical, intellectual, or moral, according to whether it happens beyond the laws of the physical, intellectual, or moral order. In the past theologians made this distinction among miracles: beyond nature, above nature, and against nature. A miracle is said to be beyond nature when the miraculous effect could have been brought about by nature, but in a completely different way; a miracle is said to be above nature when it could not have been produced by nature in any manner; a miracle is contrary to [against] nature when nature, following its usual laws would have produced the opposite effect. However, a miracle is not against nature directly, but more truly it is against the tendency that is a part of any nature. (See Manual of Dogmatic Theology, [1959], 1:38; Emphasis in original). 

Miracles in the intellectual order would be, e.g., the knowledge of the Apostles gained regarding the Truths of the Faith at Pentecost. Miracles of the moral order would be like the Apostles who were afraid, now embracing martyrdom with supernatural fortitude. I will limit discussion in this post to miracles in the physical order, which are four in number: healings, exorcisms, raising the dead, and power over the forces of nature. (Exorcisms are a special healing of the body of a person  possessed by a demon).

We must remember miracles:

• Are performed for the glory of God and the good of humanity, and are the primary or supreme ends of every miracle.

• Are evidences attesting and confirming the truth of a Divine mission, or of a doctrine of faith or morals

• Are wrought to attest to true sanctity. Thus, e.g., God defends Moses ( See Numbers 12)

• Benefits either spiritual or temporal. The temporal favors are always subordinate to spiritual ends, for they are a reward or a pledge of virtue, e.g. the widow of Sarephta (1 Kings 17), the Three Children in the fiery furnace (Daniel 3), the preservation of Daniel (Daniel 5), the deliverance of St. Peter from prison (Acts 12), of St. Paul from shipwreck (Acts 27). Thus semeion, i.e., "sign", completes the meaning of dynamis, i.e., "[Divine] power". It reveals the miracle as an act of God's supernatural Providence over men. It gives a positive content to teras, i.e., "wonder", for, whereas the wonder shows the miracle as a deviation from the ordinary course of nature, the sign gives the purpose of the deviation. 

(Above bullet points taken from the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia)

Vatican II Sect "Healings"

Through the "Catholic" Charismatic Movement, "miracles of healing" allegedly abound. Other Vatican II sect clergy eschew the supernatural entirely; the sect encompasses both errors and shuns the truth which lies in the middle. Miracles are performed in the Church only when necessary according to circumstances of time and place; consequently they will be more frequent in one age than another. At the beginning of the Church, they were more necessary. As Pope St. Gregory the Great wrote, "Miracles were necessary in the beginning of the Church that the faith might grow by their nourishment. In the same way we water newly planted trees until we see they have taken root in the soil; then we cease to water them any longer." (See theologian Berry The Church of Christ, [1955], pg. 67). 

Theologian Tanquerey gives four categories to be considered when distinguishing true miracles from  diabolical prodigies:

1. The character of the miracle worker (where there is one)

2. The manner in which the miracle takes place

3. The effects of the miracle

4. The doctrine with which the miracle is connected

(Ibid, pg. 44)

Many so-called "miracles" are healings performed within the context of a "healing service" usually during the Novus Bogus "mass." Not all false miracles are of demonic origin. Before moving on to those phonies, there are healings which are psychologically induced, and those of charlatans. These will be examined first.

A) Mind Over Matter

Most of those caught up in these "healing services" do not want to hear of demonic influence (which probably occurs in some of them). They are not open to hearing that Satan will gladly cure a malady (inflicted by him) in order to bring about the "cure" and keep a soul in a false religion leading to perdition. Many so-called healings are the result of the power of suggestion. Some ailments are caused by the power of suggestion (known as psychosomatic illness). So too, can the mind cure certain ailments. According to Dr. Paul Brand, who studied such cases and co-published an article in Christianity Today entitled, "A Surgeon's View of Divine Healing" ( issue of November 25, 1983), he cites the following documented examples:

• In the placebo effect, faith in simple sugar pills stimulates the mind to control pain and even heal some disorders. In certain experiments, among those with terminal cancer, morphine was an effective pain killer in two-thirds of patients, but placebos were equally effective in half of those! The placebo tricks the mind into believing relief has come, and the body responds accordingly.

• Through biofeedback, people can train themselves to direct bodily processes that previously were thought involuntary. They can control blood pressure, heart rate, brain waves, and even vary the temperature in their hands by as much as 14 degrees.

• Under hypnosis, 20 percent of patients can be induced to lose consciousness of pain so completely that they can undergo surgery without anesthetics. Some patients have even cured warts under hypnosis. The hypnotist suggests the idea, and the body performs a remarkable feat of skin renovation and construction, involving the cooperation of thousands of cells in a mental-directed process otherwise unobtainable.

• In a false pregnancy (known as pseudocyesis), a woman believes so strongly in her condition that her mind directs an extraordinary sequence of activities: it increases hormone flow, enlarges breasts, suspends menstruation, induces morning sickness, and even prompts labor contractions. All this occurs even though there is no physical cause, that is, no fertilization and growing fetus inside. 

B) Charlatans (Frauds)

To give but one example, Theresa Caputo (nee Brigandi) (b. 1966) is popularly known as the "Long Island Medium." A member of the Vatican II sect, she claims to talk to the dead. Ron Tebo, a private investigator, has declared her a fraud. "For her more on-point readings, Tebo believes Caputo may arrive fully prepared: He suspects her assistants run a background check or even eavesdrop on certain audience members outside the theater to guarantee a catch." (See RadarOnline, 6/4/14). She has published two books, the latest entitled, You Can't Make This Stuff Up : Life Changing Lessons From Heaven (2014). The fact that being a medium puts one in contact with demons and is condemned explicitly by the Bible and Church teaching does nothing to make the Vatican II sect excommunicate her or even warn against what she does. 

According to theologian Jone, "Spiritism claims to be able to communicate with the spirit world and endeavors to establish such commerce with it. Although spiritism is for the most part fraud, still the intention alone to enter into communication with spirits is gravely sinful. Therefore, it is mortally sinful to conduct a spiritistic seance or to act as a medium." (See Moral Theology, pg. 100; Emphasis mine). 

C) Demonic Counterfeits--Historical Example

[The following account is an example of how some members of the One True Church can be fooled by alleged miracles of a so-called saintly nun. Some, knowing the teaching of the Church well, were not fooled. Let this historical record serve as a warning to us who do not have the privilege of a pope and hierarchy united with him.---Introibo]. 

The case of Sr. Magdalena of the Cross

(Condensed from mysticsofthechurch.com/2011/12/sister-magdalena-of-cross-nun-who-made.html, and other sources; I take no credit for writing this account.--Introibo). 

A devout child, at the age of five she was praying in her church in Cordoba when she heard beautiful, ethereal music and a handsome young man with long black hair appeared before her. He was assumed to be Jesus Himself, and word spread through the city.

She had visions; she fell into ecstasy. She made a lame man walk and a deaf man hear. Someone looked in her eyes when she was in a trance and saw the heavens and the Holy Trinity and the Communion of Saints. At age ten she tried to crucify herself on a wall. Dying from the infected wounds, on Easter Sunday she tore off her bandages and said that Jesus had cured her. She stopped eating, but seemed healthy. She whipped herself bloody, but the wounds healed overnight. Strangely, two of her fingers had not grown; they remained the size of a small child’s. Some believed those were the fingers Jesus had touched in her first vision.

At seventeen she joined a Franciscan convent. She carried a heavy cross around the convent, kissed her companions’ feet, and ate only Holy Communion. Her fame spread. On the day she took her vows and became Magdalena of the Cross, the archbishop himself came to the ceremony, and rather than exhorting her to Christian piety, as is usual, he asked her for her prayers. A dove descended from the ceiling of the cathedral, landed on her shoulder, and seemed to speak into her ear. Then it flew outside and rose straight up into the sky. The news traveled, people all over Spain wrote for help from her prayers, donations poured into the convent. She predicted various events that all came true.

Then, on the day of the Feast of the Annunciation in 1518, she told her abbess that she was pregnant. She had never left the convent; the only man she saw was her confessor. The archbishop sent three midwives to examine her and her virginity was intact. On Christmas Eve she announced that she was about to give birth, but that her guardian angel had told her she must do this completely alone to increase her suffering. She was locked in a little house; the whole convent prayed.

She later told them that at midnight she had given birth to a magnificent child who radiated blinding light; the cold air of her chamber had become warm. Her hair suddenly grew very fast so she could swaddle the child in it, and it miraculously turned from black to blonde and then to black again. On Christmas morning, she found herself alone, the baby gone, her breasts chapped from suckling. The midwives were called in again, and confirmed that she indeed had the marks of childbirth.

Thanks to this miracle, her convent became the richest in Spain. Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain, and Queen Isabella asked for a piece of her habit to wrap around their own expected baby, the future Prince Philip II, in order to give the royal child the “assistance of a living saint from birth, to envelop him in Divine grace.” The archbishop consulted Magdalena on the construction of a new cathedral and largely used the convent’s overflowing treasury to build it.

She was made the abbess of the convent and imposed severe mortifications and penances. The nuns were to crawl on their knees and make the sign of the cross with their tongues on each other’s shoes; cord whips were replaced with iron-tipped ones. Contrary to the tradition that self-mortification should be done in darkness and solitude, Mother Magdalena ordered that the nuns perform it with candles lit and in front of the others. They were encouraged to wear crowns of thorns and belts with spikes pointing inward, to kneel on nail-studded boards, to stretch out on the floor and have the other nuns walk over them. They were ordered to confess to graver sins than they had ever admitted, but as for Magdalena herself, St. Francis had appeared before her and told her she no longer needed to confess at all.

In 1543, she fell seriously ill and was near death, normally the moment for a confession of one’s entire life. But as soon as her confessor put on his stole, she went into convulsions. It was suspected that she might be possessed by demons. An exorcist was called. He noticed that in her ecstasies her eyes were not fixed, one of the hallmarks of true rapture. He stabbed her with a needle and she had no reaction. Then he dipped the needle in holy water and stabbed her again. She moaned, a sure sign of possession.

She was told she would not live to see the next Christmas. She suddenly sat up in bed and cried out: “1544! The forty years as announced! I am a cursed dog! Take me to Hell!” She screamed “revolting blasphemies,” rose into the air and was suspended there. Another exorcist was called. Horrible words and demonic laughter issued from her mouth. The cardinal ordered an inquisitor to investigate, and gradually the story was revealed:

The beautiful young man she had seen as a child was not Jesus, but a devil named Balban, who turned into a shimmering mist and then into a monster with a toothless mouth, a wide, flat nose, and twisted horns, and then back into a beautiful young man again. He promised her fame for forty years if she consented always to obey him; he left the mark of the devil on the two fingers that never grew.

It was Balban who secretly fed her all the years when she claimed to eat nothing but Communion [she never received Communion. When it was time to receive at Mass, she would fall to the floor and claim "Jesus put the Host directly into her mouth." A lie from Hell). Her pregnancy was a cruel joke they had played on the nuns and the clergy. She was "impregnated" so as to mock the Virgin Birth.  Exorcised and repentant, Magdalena was sent to prison. She begged the Inquisition to consign her to the flames, but it was decided—perhaps to save face among the many influential people she had deceived—that the fault was the demon’s, influencing a young child, and that this pact with the devil had finally ended after forty years.

She was sent to another convent, where she lived for many more years in blameless expiation for her sins.

The Teaching of the Church Applied to Vatican II Sect "Healings"

1. The character of the miracle worker.

Here is a brief bio of four Vatican II sect clergy who "heal" people "miraculously:"

1. "Fr" Richard McAlear was "ordained" in 1970, and began his "healing ministry" in connection with involvement with the Catholic (sic) Charismatic Movement in 1976. He says a "healing mass" in which "After attending Father McAlear's healing mass, many individuals experience emotions that are sometimes too powerful to express in human language; all experience a deep peace." (See http://www.frmac.org/about-the-ministry.html)

2. "Fr" Fernando Suarez was "ordained" in 2002 and is currently 55 years old. He is Filipino and on January 26, 2008, two people died and seven were rushed to James Gordon Hospital, Olongapo City while waiting for Suarez' "healing mass." Juanito Eleazar, 69, was one of those who died. She had a heart attack amid more than 15,000 worshipers having lined-up 

3. Fr. Ralph DiOrio was ordained in 1957. He claims that "On Sunday, May 9th, 1976 (Mother’s Day), Father Ralph Anthony DiOrio, Jr. was openly blessed with the Holistic Charisma of Healings." (whatever that means). He claims that he knew he had the "gift of healing" his whole life. He is quoted in People magazine as saying, "Whether church officials of any denomination accept us or not, we’re here to stay. That’s God’s plan, not mine." His "healing ceremonies" resemble a Protestant revival. He retired January 2017. 

4. Fr. Francis MacNutt (d. 2020) was ordained in 1956. He became involved in the Catholic (sic) Charismatic Movement during the late 1960s. In 1980, he broke his vows to "marry" a woman more than 20 years his junior and set up a "healing ministry." In 1993, the Vatican II sect granted him a "dispensation" from his vows and "Bishop" John Snyder performed their Church wedding in Florida. In 2007, the Modernist Vatican co-sponsored an international conference with his "Christian Healing Ministries" for 450 Catholic (sic) leaders from 42 countries. He turned the organization over to his concubine when he turned 92. 

These are four "characters," alright. Ask anyone who is caught up in these "healing masses":  To what doctrine of faith and/or morals do they attest? That false sects are a "means of salvation"? That "there is no Catholic God"?

Do any of the aforementioned healers seem especially holy?

What benefits are given? "Emotions and a feeling of deep peace"?

2. The manner in which the miracle takes place. 

Beware of the following which inevitably happens at these "healing masses(sic):"

The "Healer" claims "you must have faith" and "If you don't believe strongly enough, God can't heal you." God is in control of the universe and faith is not some condition without which He cannot act. God can cure whomever He wishes, in His Divine Providence. Someone without faith may be cured because of others praying for them, or because of a greater spiritual good that will result for the one healed, or perhaps another. Of the thirty-seven (37) miracles Christ performed as recorded in the Bible, fifteen (15) were done with no faith on the part of the recipient (e.g., the healing of the ear of Malchus in St. Luke 22: 49-51). On the other hand, psychological healings (power of suggestion) does require belief--not in the true faith, but in the "healer" or even a placebo.

The "Healer" needs to touch you or have you place your hands on some object (blessed or not).

God does not need anyone to touch anything to heal. Consider how Christ brought Lazarus back from the dead without touching him, and He healed the centurion's servant from afar. Making contact with people (or objects--"put your hands on the TV and be healed" as those phony Protestant "televangelists" would declare back in the 1970s and 80s) is part of a psychological build up.

The "Healer" claims the cure is gradual. Miraculous cures are instantaneous and permanent. People who claim they "begin to feel better" and then go to doctors to complete the "miracle" shows a true case of psychological healing, not Divine Intervention.

3. The effects of the miracle.

The people are convinced that the Vatican II sect, with all its heretical teachings is really the Roman Catholic Church, thereby keeping them in grave error.

4. The doctrine with which the miracle is connected. 

Modernism.

Most of these "healing services or masses" are conducted like Protestant revivals, where the emotions of those present are worked up to the point of making them susceptible to induce certain cures. Point to be made: tell those involved with these "healing masses" that mental suggestion, charlatans who place false people in the audience to be "healed," and demonic activity to dupe people, can all be possible causes of "miraculous cures."

Conclusion

What about Novus Bogus wafers that "bleed," etc.?  Again, look at the criteria. Why wouldn't Satan want people to think a Masonic bread and wine service is "mass"? The Vatican has been faking miracles. In one of the alleged “miracles” used in the “canonization” Of Mother Teresa, it involved the cure of a young Indian woman, Monica Besra, who claimed that a tumor on her ovary was cured when a medal of Mother Teresa was touched to her body where she felt pain.

Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, the chief gynecologist treating her, claims that it was the four drugs to which she was responding. The Vatican never contacted Dr. Mustafi to investigate, and nevertheless claimed "there was no medical explanation" for her cure.

The Vatican II sect has false miracles to complement its false worship, false sacraments and false beliefs/morals. This should not surprise us. It was taught by the theologians of the Church that this would happen. According to theologian Berry: The prophesies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition to the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of the Pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church.  (Ibid, pgs. 65-66; Emphasis in original). 

Look to the definition and criteria for authentic miracles as taught by the Church. Anyone who claims something is "a miracle," should be viewed in light of said criteria. Whatever draws people away from the truth of the One True Church, do not believe it.  No one is required to believe any particular miracle not approved by the Church; therefore in these times I suggest staying away from any "miraculous claims." Remember well the words of Our Lord, "For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive, if possible, even the elect." (St. Matthew 24:24). 

Expecting Miracles

 

It has been my experience that most people who lose their Faith do so over emotional issues rather than intellectual ones. When you read the Bible, it is full of miraculous accounts. In the New Testament alone, Our Lord Jesus Christ performs no less than 37 specifically recorded miracles, not including His Resurrection. Jesus Christ:

• Turns Water into Wine at the Wedding in Cana (St. John 2:1-11)

• Cures an Official's Son at Capernaum in Galilee (St. John 4:43-54)

• Drives Out an Evil Spirit From a Man in Capernaum (St. Luke 4:31-36)

• Cures Peter's Mother-in-Law Sick With Fever (St. Mark 1:29-31)

• Cures Many Sick and Oppressed at Evening (St. Matthew 8:16-17)

• Produces The First Miraculous Catch of Fish on the Lake of Gennesaret (St. Luke 5:1-11)

• Cures a Man With Leprosy (St. Luke 5:12-14)

• Cures a Centurion's Paralyzed Servant in Capernaum (St. Matthew 8:5-13)

• Cures a Paralytic Who Was Let Down From the Roof (St. Mark 2:1-12)

• Cures a Man's Withered Hand on the Sabbath (St. Matthew 12:9-14)

• Raises a Widow's Son From the Dead in Nain (St. Luke 7:11-17)

• Calms a Storm on the Sea (St. Mark 4:35-41)

• Casts Demons into a Herd of Pigs (St. Luke 8:26-39)

• Cures a Woman in the Crowd With a Hemorrhage  (St. Mark 5:25-34)

• Raises Jairus' Daughter Back to Life (St. Luke 8:40-42; 49-56) 

• Cures Two Blind Men (St. Matthew 9:27-31)

• Cures a Man Who Was Unable to Speak (St. Matthew 9:32-34)

• Cures an Invalid at Bethesda (St. John 5:1-15)

• Feeds 5,000 Plus Women and Children (St. Luke 9:10-17)

• Walks on Water (St. Mark 6:45-52)

• Cures Many Sick in Gennesaret as They Touch His Garment (St. Matthew 14:34-36)

• Drives the Demon Out of a Gentile Woman's Demon-Possessed Daughter (St Mark 7:24-30)

• Cures a Deaf and Mute Man (St. Mark 7:31-37)

• Feeds 4,000 Plus Women and Children (St. Matthew 15:32-39)

• Cures a Blind Man at Bethsaida (St. Mark 8:22-26)

• Cures a Man Born Blind  (St. John 9:1-12)

• Exorcises a Boy With an Unclean Spirit (St. Luke 9:37-43)

• Produces a Miraculous Temple Tax in a Fish's Mouth (St. Matthew 17:24-27)

• Cures and Exorcises a Blind, Mute Demoniac (St. Luke 11:14-23)

• Cures a Woman Who Had Been Crippled for 18 Years (St. Luke 13:10-17)

• Cures a Man With Dropsy on the Sabbath (St. Luke 14:1-6)

• Cures Ten Lepers on the Way to Jerusalem (St. Luke 17:11-19)

• Raises Lazarus from the Dead in Bethany (St. John 11:1-45)

• Restores Sight to Bartimaeus in Jericho (St. Luke 18:35-43)

• Withers the Fig Tree on the Road From Bethany (St. Mark 11:12-14)

• Heals a Servant's Severed Ear While He Is Being Arrested (St. Luke 22:50-51)

• Produces a Second Miraculous Catch of Fish at the Sea of Tiberias (St. John 21:4-11)

(N.B. Some of these miracles are recorded in more than one Gospel. For sake of brevity, I cited only one reference for those miracles.---Introibo). 

Traditionalists will often pray, make novenas, have Masses offered, etc. for some urgent necessity. Many times, they are asking God to prevent a loved one from dying of a disease or prevent a calamity, such as losing their house in a hurricane. When the loved one dies, or the calamity is not averted, they become bitter. "God raised Lazarus from the dead, so why couldn't He stop my (mother/father, wife/husband, sibling, best friend, etc.) from dying?" "Christ calmed the storm and walked on water but couldn't prevent my house from being destroyed?" This will often lead to anger at God, and they will cease to practice the Faith--or what's worse--lose their Faith to become agnostics or atheists.

The atheist publisher of Skeptic magazine, Michael Shermer, was once a devout Protestant. He relates how the paralysis of his college girlfriend lead to his atheism. She was in an automobile accident that broke her back and rendered her paralyzed from the waist down. Shermer declared, "If anyone deserved to be healed it was her, and nothing happened, so I just thought there was probably no God at all."(See wsj.com/articles/michael-shermers-skeptical-eye-1504279779).

When something like this happens, some well-meaning Traditionalist (layman or clergyman) will usually say something unhelpful, such as, "We must accept this as God's Will." The statement is true, but intellectually unsatisfying. "Why was this God's Will? Why is everything some 'mystery'?" To be certain, some people are so overwhelmed with emotion, no amount of reason can reach them. In this post, I will attempt to give some reasons as to why miracles don't always happen, no matter how sincere our prayers and how laudable our intentions. Perhaps by being well-informed prior to an experience of this sort, someone can come to peace and keep the Faith. 

Church Teaching on Miracles in Brief

The definition of a miracle. According to theologian Parente, the word miracle comes from the Latin word miror---I wonder. In the broad sense, it is an extraordinary event which calls attention and excites wonder. Theologians explain it is: (a) done by God as principle cause; (b) done in the world; (c) in a way superior to all forces of nature; and outside or above, but not in violation of the laws of nature, but by an exceptional happening brought about by a divine power that intervenes in created things, producing an effect superior to their natural power. The possibility of the miracle rests chiefly on the absolute dominion of God as the First and Free Cause of the Universe, Whose laws are subordinate to Him and cannot limit either His freedom of action or His power. Only the logically impossible and that which violates His Nature (sin) are impossible to Him. (See Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, [1951], pg. 188).  

Miracles are an effect wrought in nature by the direct intervention of God. They are proofs of the truth of the Catholic religion.

Proof: From the Oath Against Modernism promulgated by Pope St. Pius X for all clerics on September 1, 1910:

Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time. (Emphasis mine)

From the Vatican Council (1870):

If anyone shall say that miracles are impossible, and therefore that all the accounts regarding them, even those contained in Holy Scripture, are to be dismissed as fables or myths; or that miracles can never be known with certainty, and that the divine origin of Christianity cannot be proved by them; let him be anathema.

While we must believe in miracles (especially those contained in the Holy Bible), we are not bound to believe in every specific event claimed to be miraculous. We should only give credence to those events considered miracles by the authority of the Church. 

The Argument From Evil and Miracles

There are those who claim God cannot exist because of the evil in the world. The free will defense claims that moral evil must be allowed for humans to be moral agents and not automatons. However, what about physical evils, such as diseases, starvation, and natural disasters? Why doesn't God stop them, or stop them more often? Even moral evils can have their consequences vitiated by God's miraculous intervention. For example, if someone tries to murder an innocent person by shooting them, God can hold the would-be murderer accountable for his attempted act and murderous intention while deflecting the bullet or turning it into jelly. The argument is usually formulated thus:

1. The Church says God is all-good (Omnibenevolent) and all-powerful (Omnipotent).

2. If God were Omnibenevolent, He would want to stop evil.

3. If God were Omnipotent, He would be able to stop evil.

4. However, evil exists and has not been stopped.

5. Therefore, there is no Omnibenevolent, Omnipotent God as the Church teaches. 

Those who understand Church doctrine know that evil is the result of the Fall of our First Parents, and evil will be defeated for good at the Parousia (The Second Coming). The argument can be given a defeater by adding the word "yet" at the end of premise number 4. "However, evil exists and has not been stopped yet." Hence, God has reasons for permitting evil, and it will ultimately be defeated. There are still those who wonder why God can't intervene more often to stop evil. Below, I will offer several possible explanations for non-miraculous intervention. It is by no means intended to be exhaustive.

Reasons Why God Does Not Always Miraculously Prevent Evil

1. It is not possible to have constant miracles. 

Since evils occur all the time, God would need to intervene constantly to prevent them. However, the definition of miracles, given above by theologian Parente, makes it clear that miracles are "an exceptional happening." If God constantly intervenes, such intervention would no longer be exceptional, but ordinary--ceasing to be miracles since this constant intervention is the "norm."

2. Constant miracles would hinder the full use of moral freedom.

God is not directly known by our senses, in the way we see, e.g., trees and other physical objects. This is necessary for Faith and morals. If there were constant miracles, no one could doubt the existence of God, and many people would do what is right based on "being watched" rather than love of God. Moral development would be stopped because evils are necessary in our fallen state to become virtuous. We develop courage through facing our fears. We develop patience and trust in God through trials and tribulations.

There was a story (perhaps apocryphal) pre-Vatican II of a young girl involved in an accident that left her in a wheelchair. The people in her parish prayed and had Masses said for her cure. When no cure was forthcoming, one cruel man said to her, "You don't have enough faith to be healed and get out of that wheelchair." The pious girl replied, "It is you who don't have enough faith to be able to get into this wheelchair and accept God's Will." The truth is that God delivers some people from their sickness, and others through their sickness. The infinite wisdom of God knows what is better for us, even when we don't. 

3. Constant miracles would destroy the regularity necessary for rational decisions and intellectual progress.

People made and wear seat belts because they want to be safe in case of a car accident. If God would intervene, why bother? Everything we do depends on constant laws of nature (like gravity) uninterrupted by constant miracles. We could never be certain what would happen next given a set of circumstances if God constantly intervenes. 

4. The problem of contradictory needs and miracles.

What if two people need something altogether different? Two men are in the same geographical region; one needs it to rain tomorrow for his crops, the other needs it to be sunny for his important meeting in the line of work he performs. God cannot do the logically impossible by making it rain and not rain at the same time and place. Someone cannot be saved by a miracle.

5. God cannot give credence to false beliefs via miracles.

What about people who hold false beliefs? Not all miracles will induce conversion and some will think miracles performed for all (regardless of belief or moral disposition) is an endorsement of holding any belief/moral system. Furthermore, if God makes everyone conform to the truth to avoid this result, free will is negated. 

6. Even making miracles more frequent may disrupt the ideal plan for maximum salvation of souls.

God, in His Omniscience, knows all possible future contingencies. He wants all to be saved, yet not all are saved by the choice of their own free will. No one but God can know how miraculous intervention would affect people, perhaps causing more pain, suffering, and even (counterintuitively) more disbelief. "He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." (St. Luke 16:31; Emphasis mine). Only an Infinite Mind knows how much intervention is enough.

Conclusion

It is sad when we believe our prayers have not been answered. Actually, God's answer was, "This I cannot do for you, it is not ultimately for the best." Traditionalists should respond, "God knows better." Easier said than done, I know. Hopefully, this post will equip people with reasons why God does not miraculously intervene all the time, or with greater frequency. God's Will is always directed towards our good, as I hoped I have demonstrated; it's not something haphazard we must just accept. Given our limited knowledge of God's plans we can (and should) pray for miracles, but never demand them. “For My thoughts are not thy thoughts, neither are thy ways My ways,” declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than thy ways and My thoughts than thy thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9). 

The Chair Of St. Peter And Sedevacantism

 

To My Readers: I am so blessed to have guest posters as I navigate work --and my many other responsibilities-- that increasingly grow and deplete my time to research and write for my blog. This week, Lee does a fine job (as always) of guest posting. Please comment, and I will check in for anyone who asks me a direct question this week. God Bless you all, my dear readers.---Introibo

The Chair Of St. Peter And Sedevacantism

By Lee

On January 18th the Church celebrates the feast day of the Chair of St. Peter in Rome, and has been doing so ever since the 4th century. However, in 1960 John XXIII removed this feast from the liturgical calendar along with some other feast days such as St. Peter in Chains on August 1st. How ironic that a usurper of the very Chair of St. Peter abolishes such feast days in a new calendar for a new religion. It's as though he is giving us a hint that by his very actions, he doesn't belong in the same Chair which he abhors and disdains.

Many websites (including this one) have already explained many aspects of the importance of sedevacantism. In this article I'm going to explain why it's of absolute importance for Catholics to adhere to the papacy and how the only option we are left with is sedevacantism in order to remain Catholic.

Let's first consider a Catholics obligation to believe in Vatican I when it states:

SESSION 4 : 18 July 1870  

First dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ (Pastor Aeternus)

Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

2.) For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood .

3.)Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received.

4.) For this reason it has always been necessary for every church–that is to say the faithful throughout the world–to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body .

Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd .

4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: "My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due."

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

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

Chapter 4: On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff

2. So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: "The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion."

What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession: "The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled."

Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence: "The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church."

6. For the Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

The problem with those who fail to submit to the Roman Pontiff

If Francis I-John XXIII are truly the vicars of Jesus Christ on earth, then according to Vatican I their authority binds on all Catholic consciences and it would be schismatic to reject them. We see over and over again so called traditional Catholics ignoring and ridiculing their pope as if it's a traditional belief to resist a pope. In their case it isn't just over sinful commands but against his ruling authority, his teaching, and while they are so bent on saying they are popes, act as though that is all they care about it. They won't defend them in any other way but will in fact denounce him as though he were the most meaningless man on earth.

When in the history of the Church has a pope ever been resisted on a day to day basis as we see with the so called one today? How is it traditional to preserve tradition by resisting a pope, when traditionally speaking Catholics have always obeyed the pope? How can anybody dare say that he can error and still be the head and teacher of the whole Church? Did not St. Robert Bellarmine say "The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err."  De Romano Pontifice, Book IV, Chapter 3

Could a Council judge a pope if he were a heretic?

There is a common belief among pseudo traditional Catholics that a council will judge and depose a pope. These same people (mostly lay folk) know personally their popes are heretics but to avoid sedevacantism excuse their pope for the bishops and cardinals to decide that for them, when they know that it won't ever happen since a majority of the Vatican II sect Bishops and Cardinals side with Francis and subscribe to Vatican II.

Since Vatican I declared that the pope can be judged by no one, we have a beautiful historical example written by Count Joseph de Maistre in a book called The Pope where he explains how councils are convoked by the pope to settle issues and he alone has the power to assemble them and not the other way around. (Shout out to commenter The Catholic Archive for I found a link to this book off his website).

He states:

Wherever there is a Sovereign, and in the Catholic economy his existence is undeniable, there can be no legitimate assemblies without him, No sooner is his veto pronounced, than the assembly is dissolved, or its co-legislative power suspended; if it resist, their is a revolution.

This very simple and undoubted truth, which can never be shaken, shows in its full light, the extreme absurdity so much discussed: Whether the Pope be above the council, or the council be above the Pope? For it is the same as to inquire, in other words, the Pope be above the Pope or the council above the council?

I firmly believe with Leibnitz, that God has hitherto preserved the truly ecumenical councils from all error contrary to sound doctrine. I believe, moreover, that He will always so preserve them; but since there can be no ecumenical council without the Pope, what signifies the question, whether it be above or inferior to the Pope?

Is the King of Great Britain superior to parliament, or is the parliament above the king? Neither way; but the king and parliament united constitute the legislature or the sovereignty; but there is not an inhabitant of three kingdoms who would not rather have his country governed by a king without a parliament than by a parliament without a king...

To the Sovereign Pontiff alone belongs essentially the right of convoking general councils, which do not exclude the moderate and legitimate influence of sovereigns. He alone is judge of the circumstances which require this extreme remedy. Those who pretend to assign this power to temporal authority, quite overlook the paralogism into which they fell. They suppose an universal and (what is more) everlasting monarchy. They go back without reflecting, to those times when all the mitres in the world could be called together by one scepter only, or two. The Emperor alone, says Fleury, was able to convoke general councils, because he alone could command the bishops to undertake extraordinary journeys. He for the most part defrayed expenses of them, and indicated the place they were to be held in. The Pope confined themselves to asking for these assemblies,  and they often asked without obtaining. ( pgs.12-14)

Is sedevacantism just a opinion? 

A theological opinion is a position which has faulty and insufficient evidence in its favor, so that you would not be surprised to find out that the opposite is true. Sedevacantism would be a theological conclusion because it is an absolute certainty which can be connected to truths of the Faith in such a way that, if denied, you would have to deny the Faith as well. Therefore, Francis I- John XXIII either are popes or they are not popes because to determine obedience and unity of Faith a person would have to know this, which is precisely why it is an important subject matter. We must know because if we are not following a true pope we would be in danger of schism and if we are following a false pope we would be in danger of believing false doctrine. There is no middle ground and it is a pity that so many so called traditionalist even among some sedevacantist who treat this as though it is just an opinion that can be left up to the individual when unity of faith and government are part of the One true Church from how a Catholic would have to follow it.

The Catechism of the Council Trent explains the importance of Unity when it states:

Unity In Government

The Church has but one ruler and one governor, the invisible one, Christ, whom the eternal Father hath made head over all the Church, which is his body; the visible one, the Pope, who, as legitimate successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, fills the Apostolic chair.

It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church. This St. Jerome clearly perceived and as clearly expressed when, in his work against Jovinian, he wrote: One is elected that, by the appointment of a head, all

occasion of schism may be removed. In his letter to Pope Damasus the same holy Doctor writes: Away with envy, let the ambition of Roman grandeur cease! I speak to the successor of the fisherman, and to the disciple of the cross. Following no chief but Christ, I am united in communion with your Holiness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that on that rock is built the Church. Whoever will eat the lamb outside this house is profane; whoever is not in the ark of Noah shall perish in the flood...

Unity In Spirit, Hope And Faith

Moreover, the Apostle, writing to the Corinthians, tells them that there is but one and the same Spirit who imparts grace to the faithful, as the soul communicates life to the members of the body. Exhorting the Ephesians to preserve this unity, he says: Be careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; one body and one Spirit. As the human body consists of many members, animated by one soul, which gives sight to the eves, hearing to the ears, and to the other senses the power of discharging their respective functions; so the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church, is composed of many faithful. The hope, to which we are called, is also one, as the Apostle tells us in the same place; for we all hope for the same consummation, eternal and happy life. Finally, the faith which all are bound to believe and to profess is one: Let there be no schisms amongst you, says the Apostle. And Baptism, which is the seal of our Christian faith, is also one. 

Conclusion

If Francis I-John XXIII are true vicars of Jesus Christ since when did popes (like them) pray with Voodooist priests and animists to their false gods, or ever sympathize with Martin Luther and even go as far as saying he didn't really error on justification and that he is a witness of the gospel, or say that the Blessed Virgin Mary was not born a saint, or say that Christ didn't really descend into hell, or say that altar girls enrich the liturgy, or call Eastern Orthodox members and pastors in the Church of Christ, or say Sodomite people were born that way, or say that error has rights, or say the Moslem's worship the same God as Christians, or invite Protestants to construct a liturgy in more conformance with Protestantism, or have ties with the Freemason or global elites?

So much could be added but Our Lord was clear "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep. But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth: and the wolf catcheth, and scattereth the sheep: And the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling: and he hath no care for the sheep. I am the good shepherd; and I know mine, and mine know me." (St. John 10: 11-14). 

When Strangers Come Knocking---Part 29

 

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

Protestantism

Note to my readers: This will be a two part post. The follow-up will be next month. This series of posts, "When Strangers Come Knocking"(WSCK) gets the fewest number of readers per month on a consistent basis. I would like for you to comment and let me know (a) if you like the series or not (please state a reason) and (b) if you think it's worthwhile to continue with this series of posts. If a majority feel that my time would be better off spent on other subjects, I will soon end this series. Thank you all!---Introibo

[This post is complied from a multitude of sources. I take no credit. Of special note are several articles from American Ecclesiastical Review, one specifically referenced below, and theologian Rooney, Preface to the Bible, (1949]---Introibo). 

Protestantism is not a monolithic sect. Rather it is a multiplicity of sects originating in the 16th century with the so-called "Reformation" begun by apostate priest Martin Luther. Others who played a big role include King Henry VIII of England, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli. To attempt a history would take many posts. All Protestants have two (false) doctrines in common: (1) sola scripture (the Bible as the sole rule of Faith), and (2) sola fide (justification by faith alone). The best way to convert any Protestant is to show the flaws in these two doctrines. This post will tackle sola scriptura, and next month sola fide. 

The Meaning of Sola Scriptura

The Protestant understanding of sola scriptura means that the Bible alone is the infallible rule of faith for the Christians. All that must be believed and is necessary to salvation is in Scripture alone, and there is no Sacred Tradition as a source of Revelation. The teaching of the One True Church is that there are Two Sources of Divine Revelation, the Bible and Sacred Tradition. 

Sola Scriptura is wrong on at least four counts: (a) it is self-refuting since the Bible itself doesn't teach sola scriptura, (b) the "traditions of men" condemned in Scripture is not the sacred Tradition with a capital "T," (c) it goes contrary to history, and (d) the Magisterium is clearly referenced in Holy Scripture.

1. Sola Scriptura is self-refuting. 

The Protestant Westminster Confession of Faith states:

The whole purpose of God about everything pertaining to his own glory and to man’s salvation, faith, and life is either explicitly stated in the Bible or may be deduced as inevitably and logically following from it…The infallible standard for the interpretation of the Bible is the Bible itself. And so any question about the true and complete sense of a passage in the Bible…can be answered by referring to other passages which speak more plainly. (See epc.org/wp-content/uploads/Files/1-Who-We-Are/B-About-The-EPC/WCF-ModernEnglish.pdf). 

Does the Bible teach this principle?  2 Timothy 3:16-17, a common proof text for Sola Scriptura:

All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

It is not stated anywhere that Scripture alone is the infallible source of Christian doctrine. Also note that St. Paul is speaking about the Old Testament, because the New Testament had yet to be completed. How do you know what books are in the Bible? Only an extrinsic source can tell you the Canon of Scripture, as Scripture itself is silent on the issue. Let's look at another favorite verse of Protestants from the Book of the Apocalypse (or "Revelation" as they call it):

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (Apoc. 22:18-19). 

Stating  that you cannot add or take away from a text is not equivalent to saying the Scriptures alone are the infallible rule of faith. It does not state there is nothing else in Divine Revelation to which we must listen. Some Protestants attempt to sidestep this problem. Here is what one such Protestant apologist had to say--and note well he thinks the Vatican II sect is the Catholic Church:

...sola scriptura does not mean that the Bible is our only authority when it comes to what we believe and do as Christians – but it is our highest authority, the authority by which every other authority is to be judged...we should believe in sola scriptura is because we don’t believe that any other source of authority is inspired by God and is completely trustworthy for what we should believe and do as Christians. As Protestants we don’t believe that the Pope is infallible, even when he speaks ex cathedra. (As a side note, Luther’s opponents in the sixteenth century clearly had a higher view of papal infallibility than the Catechism of the Catholic Church does today and certainly more than Roman Catholic apologists do today. I wonder if this is because, from our perspective today, it is all too clear that popes can and do make serious theological mistakes).  (See https://markfrancois.wordpress.com/2017/11/04/no-sola-scriptura-is-not-found-in-the-bible-but-that-was-never-the-point; Emphasis mine). Notice how the disdain for papal authority is evidenced in what he has to say regarding "Catholic" apologists. Some Protestants now say the Bible is the highest authority; this is what sola scriptura really means. If so, we will see what the highest authority commands next.

2. The Bible Commands we follow Sacred Tradition.

The Bible condemns the traditions of men :

St. Matthew 15:3,  He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?

St. Matthew 15:6, So, for the sake of your tradition, you make void the word of God.

St. Matthew 15:9, in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines

Galatians 1:9-12, As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed! Am I now seeking human approval, or God’s approval? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still pleasing people, I would not be a servant of Christ. For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

The Bible commands Apostolic [Sacred] tradition to be followed:

2 Thessalonians 2:15, So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6, Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.

1 Corinthians 11:2, I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.

2 Peter 2:21, For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment that was passed on to them.

Therefore, if the Bible commands the Sacred Traditions are to be kept, they must be of equal value as the Scriptures because both must be maintained and followed. 

3. Sola Scriptura runs counter to Church history.

Protestants defending sola scriptura will claim that Jesus and St. Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. For example:

• The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (St. Matthew 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be "God's word," was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.
•  In St. Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses' seat," but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down.
•  In 1 Corinthians 10:4, St. Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. However, rabbinic tradition does.
•  "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Timothy 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage ( Exodus 7:8) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.

The Bible records the history of the nascent Church accepting Sacred Tradition. In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6-30), we see Sts.Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Ghost) that was binding on all Christians. In the next chapter, we read that St. Paul, St. Timothy, and Silas were traveling around "through the cities," and Scripture says that "they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem" (Acts 16:4). 

4. The Magisterium is clearly referenced in Sacred Scripture. 

And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ (Ephesians 4:11-15)

If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church is necessary to interpret and apply Scripture. Both Scripture and Tradition are the Two Sources of Revelation. 

The Theologians on Sacred Tradition

[Complied from theologian Francis Connell, Are All Revealed Truth in Sacred Scripture? American Ecclesiastical Review, May 1962, pgs. 303-314].  

St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J., (1542-1621) wrote: "It is necessary to know that there are some books that are truly divine, and this certainly cannot be had from Scriptures… Hence, this so necessary a dogma, that there is divine Scripture, cannot sufficiently be had from Scripture alone. Accordingly, since faith is based on the word of God, we shall have no faith unless we have the unwritten word of God."

Suarez, S.J., (1548-1617) asserted: "According to the true and Catholic faith it cannot be denied that besides Scripture there is in the Church of Christ the word of God, not written in canonical books, which must be accepted with the same faith as the written word."

Gonet, O.P., (1616-81) declared: "I say that besides Scripture there are unwritten traditions pertaining to the rule of faith… There are three types of traditions. Some are immediately from Christ, and these are divine; some from the apostles with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and these are apostolic; some which begin with the prelates of the people, and which obtained the force of law by use and custom, and these are ecclesiastical. The first two have the same force and certitude as the written word of God because they are based on the same authority as the written word. "

Witasse (1660-1716), writing in question-answer form, has the following: "Q. What is tradition? A. It is the word of God not written by the sacred authors. Q. Does this word enjoy the same authority as the written word of God? A. It would be foolish to think otherwise, for the word of God does not draw its authority from writing, but on the contrary, writing derives its authority from the word of God." As an example of unwritten tradition he gives the canon of Sacred Scripture "which is known to us only from Tradition. Scripture does not manifest it."

C. Billuart, O.P., (1685-1757) lays down the principle that "in addition (praeter) to Sacred Scripture divine tradition must necessarily be admitted" and then adds as an example: "Whence do the heretics know that Sacred Scripture, which they commend so highly, is sacred and divine? Not from Scripture itself… It is only from tradition that we know that this and no other scripture is sacred and divine."

St. Alphonsus Liguori, C.SS.R., (1696-1787) wrote: "Traditions are those truths which were first communicated by Jesus Christ or by the Holy Ghost to the apostles, then by the apostles were given to the disciples, and thus under the guidance of the Holy Ghost without interruption were, so to say, transmitted by hand and communicated up to the present time. These traditions, which are the unwritten word of God, have the same authority as the written word of God . . . Traditions are necessary that belief may be given to many articles of faith . . . about which nothing at all exists in scriptures, so that these truths have come to us only from the font of tradition."

N. Bergier (1715-90) thus proposes the subject: "The great question between Protestants and Catholics is to know if there are some divine or apostolic traditions touching dogmas which are in no wise contained in Sacred Scripture, and which are nevertheless a rule of faith. Protestants deny it, we sustain the opposite."

B. Liebermann (1759-1844) wrote: "Sacred Scripture is not perfect in the sense that it embraces the whole religion of Christ. If Scripture were perfect and the only source of Christian doctrine, it should before all tell us which books belong to Sacred Scripture. But it is entirely silent (omnino silet) about this dogma of supreme importance."

J. Perrone, S.J., (1794-1876) wrote: "Besides Sacred Scripture, divine and dogmatic traditions must be admitted, entirely distinct from Scripture… We have added that we must admit such traditions entirely distinct from Scripture to exclude the view of Protestants regarding traditions merely inherent and declarative."

J. Franzelin, S.J., (1816-1886) wrote much about tradition, and clearly upheld the old view. For example, he stated: "After the apostles and after the completion of the inspired writings the Church propagated by the apostles always professed, theoretically and practically, that some truths are divinely revealed which she had received, not from the Scripture but only from tradition."

A. Bonal, S.S., (1827-1904) whose manual of theology went through seventeen editions in the latter half of the nineteenth century, says: "Divine tradition is an entirely distinct source (locus) of Christian revelation, not only because it manifests that revelation in the state of the living and practical word, but also because it contains revealed truths which are not contained in the divine Scripture." This proposition Bonal declares to be an article of faith.

J. Hermann, C.SS.R., (1849-1927) makes these statements: "The unwritten word of God must be admitted as a source of revelation and of faith, independent of Scripture. . . . Divine traditions have the same force as Sacred Scripture, inasmuch as they have the same authority as the divine word of God." Both these propositions, the author asserts, are to be believed with divine-catholic faith, because of the Tridentine decree.

A. Tanquerey, S.S., (1854-1932) in his textbook for seminaries, asserts: "There exists divine tradition, as a font of revelation distinct from Scripture." This he says is de fide. He defines tradition as "revealed doctrine on faith or morals, not related in the Sacred Scriptures, committed by God to the Church and infallibly transmitted by legitimate pastors. "

G. Van Noort, says: "Tradition is a source of revelation distinct from Scripture, and goes beyond the data of Scripture. This is a dogma of faith from the Council of Trent and from the Vatican Council. The first part of the proposition states the existence of tradition in general and consequently includes inherent tradition; the second part refers specifically to constitutive tradition."

J. Salaverri, S.J., asserts: "Scripture needs tradition as a font of revelation to establish its divine authority. For the fact of inspiration, on which the divine authority of Scripture depends, is a truth per se revealed; therefore it must be contained in the fonts of revelation. But the fact of inspiration of all and each of the books of the New Testament is known only from divine tradition." And the author states that "it is a doctrine of divine faith, solemnly defined in the Councils, especially Trent and Vatican I, that Scripture and tradition are two fonts of divine revelation, endowed with equal authority."

Conclusion

It has been demonstrated that the first of the two "pillars of the Reformation" can't stand. By removing the Church as the Guardian and interpreter of Sacred Scripture, Luther and his fellow heretics began the path leading us to where we are today in the Great Apostasy. Everyone became their own "Scripture interpreter," and sects multiplied quickly with the passing whims of each era. People began to wonder if Christian truth was knowable as there were so many competing claims as to what the Bible "really means."  As the great G.K. Chesterton said, "The Catholic Church is the only thing which saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age."