Monday, May 30, 2022

The Evolution Of Hate


On May 14, 2022, 18-year old Payton S. Gendron entered a supermarket in Buffalo, New York wearing body armor and toting a  modified Bushmaster XM-15 rifle. He opened fire, killing ten innocent people, and seriously wounding three others. (See All the victims were African-American, and Gendron wanted it that way as it was racially motivated by his hatred of black people. Immediately, the usual "white people are all racist" crowd began using this tragedy to further their agenda. The alleged need for "Critical Race Theory" nonsense in schools was stressed, and calls for confiscating guns from law abiding citizens ("gun control") was renewed. 

What was passed over quietly was that Gendron self-identified as an eco-fascist, a white supremacist, national socialist, ethno-nationalist, and an antisemite who was politically on the Authoritarian Left. Notice the lack of religious affiliation, and his identification with National Socialism. Likewise on April 20, 1999, Eric Harris donned a shirt emblazoned with "Natural Selection" before heading off to high school. For weeks he had been preparing a special event in honor of Adolf Hitler (April 20th being "the Fuhrer's" birthday). Together with his friend, Dylan Klebold, he planted a bomb in the Columbine High School cafeteria. Harris planned to shoot his fellow students as they fled the explosion. When the bomb failed to detonate, he and Klebold entered the school and opened fire, killing thirteen and wounding twenty-four before turning their guns on themselves.

If we delve into the ideology of Nazis, neo-Nazis, and white nationalists, we find that Darwinism—the view that species have evolved over eons of time through the process of natural selection—plays a fundamental role, shaping their views about race and society. Nazis and white nationalists consider it their mission to advance their own race in this universal racial struggle, even to the point of perpetrating violence against those deemed their racial enemies. In the Darwinian struggle for existence, someone has to die, after all. Atheistic Darwinism is at the core of the hatred and shootings we see today. It excludes God from its warped worldview. 

In this post, Charles Darwin, the man and his theory of evolution, will be investigated. Darwin was far from the "brave man of science" his defenders claim him to be, and evolution has led to the overthrow of God in society, with disastrous consequences. For this post, I have used many sources, especially Thomas Glick, The Comparative Reception of Darwinism (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1988); Mark Isaak, The Counter-Creationism Handbook (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2005); and Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin; The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist (New York: Time Warner, 1991)---Introibo. 

Life Without Meaning or Purpose
Darwin demanded that evolution must exclude all inference of design or purpose. Everything is here in a stochastic way. This is why any attempt to introduce Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) is met with anger and lawsuits by the scientific community [See Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)]. The fact that evolution teaches life is purposeless except to aid survival is not lost on teachers. Yale psychologists Bloom and Weisberg concluded in a study on why children resist accepting evolution, that the evolutionary view of the world, which the authors call "promiscuous teleology," makes it difficult for children to accept evolution. Children "naturally see the world in terms of design and purpose" and they have to be indoctrinated to see the world in another way.(See Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg, "Childhood Origins to Adult Resistance to Science," Science 316 (2007): 996; Emphasis mine). 

The ultimate purposelessness of evolution, and thus its products including life, was eloquently expressed by Professor Lawrence Krauss as follows: "We're just a bit of pollution. . . . If you got rid of us . . . the universe would be largely the same. We're completely irrelevant." As Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins concluded, although "humans have always wondered about the meaning of life" the fact is "life has no higher purpose [other] than to perpetuate the survival of DNA."[See The Selfish Gene, (1976)]. According to Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph S. Levine's high school textbook, Biology, [fourth edition (1998), p. 161]:

[Darwin knew his theory] required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless — a process in which . . . nature ruthlessly eliminates the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us. (First emphasis in original, the rest is mine).

One text taught that humans are just "a tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life" and the belief that a "progressive, guiding force, consistently pushing evolution to move in a single direction" is now known to be "misguided."[See Peter H. Raven and George B Johnson, Biology, (2002)]. Many texts teach that evolution is purposeless and goal-less except to achieve brute survival:

[Natural selection is] totally blind to the future. . . . Humans . . . came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and our brains. . . . Natural selection . . . explains . . . the whole of life, the diversity of life, the complexity of life, [and] the apparent design in life (from an interview with atheist evolutionary biologist Dr. Richard Dawkins). [See Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reece, and Lawrence G. Mitchell, Biology, (1999)]. 

The same claim of purposelessness that results from evolution is related in the mass media as well. For example, Newsweek relates that Darwin knew full well the consequences of his theory. Mankind was no longer the culmination of life but merely part of it; creation was mechanistic and purposeless. In a letter to a fellow scientist, Darwin wrote that confiding his theory was "like confessing a murder."(See Malcolm Jones, "Who Was More Important: Lincoln or Darwin?" Newsweek (July 7–July 14, 2008): 32). 

These texts all clearly teach worldviews, not science. An excellent example is a textbook that openly ruled out not only theistic evolution but any role for God in nature, noting that Darwinism threatened theism by showing that humans and all life "could be explained by natural selection without the intervention of a god":

Evolutionary randomness and uncertainty had replaced a deity having conscious, purposeful, human characteristics. The Darwinian view that . . . present-type organisms were not created spontaneously but formed in a succession of selective events that occurred in the past,contradicted the common religious view that there could be no design, biological or otherwise, without an intelligent designer. . . . In this scheme a god of design and purpose is not necessary. . . . Religion has been bolstered by . . . the comforting idea that humanity was created in the image of a god to rule over the world and its creatures. Religion provided emotional solace, a set of ethical and moral values. Nevertheless, faith in religious dogma has been eroded by natural explanations of its mysteries. . . . The positions of the creationists and the scientific world appear irreconcilable. (See Monroe W. Strickberger, Evolution, third edition, (2000), pgs. 70-71). Note well, that by "creationists," they are not talking about Protestant fundamentalists who insist on a literal six days of creation lasting 24 hours each, but anything other than atheistic evolution. I was a New York City science teacher for five years before going to law school. I wrote a paper submitted to a journal for science teachers showing that design can be found in nature, and it nearly cost me tenure and my job. This was in the 1980s. Today, you wouldn't have any chance to survive as a science teacher unless you tow the Darwinian line. 

Darwin: A Disturbed, God-Hating Sadist
Lest anyone claim that by attacking Darwin, I'm committing the ad hominem fallacy, let me be clear that science doesn't tell us anything, scientists do. The scientific method may be objective, but how the results are tabulated, presented, how information may be omitted, etc., is the product of scientists. Are they without bias and agendas? If you think so, you weren't paying attention during COVID-19. 

So why was Darwin so insistent that his theory must exclude God? I offer three reasons:

1. The death of his daughter Anna. 
According to Randal Keynes, in his book Darwin, His Daughter and Human Evolution (2002), Darwin saw in the death of his ten-year old a universe that couldn't have a loving God. Keynes wrote that Darwin was at a loss to understand why most naturalists at the time thought they saw evidence of ubiquitous, benevolent design in a world so full of pain, death and disease. "There seems to me," he wrote, "too much misery in the world" for a loving deity to have designed it that way. He had witnessed genocide of the Indians in Argentina and the torture of slaves in Brazil. He had written of wasps whose larvae devour a living caterpillar from within, leaving the beating heart for last. With the slow death of Annie, the misery became personal. So too, his hatred of any idea of God.

2. His lukewarm religious upbringing.
Darwin's father, Robert, his brother Erasmus, and his grandfather Erasmus, all well-known students of science in their own right, were agnostics. Darwin would later declare himself agnostic. He had no use for God in his life.

3. His circle of friends.
Darwin's ideas on religion were also partly a reflection of his upper-class British social milieu. His views for the most part were not all that radical or highly original in his social circle; his achievement was primarily to elaborate and publicize them through his best-selling books. Darwin's family and social network included many liberal Unitarians, agnostics, and atheists.

Darwin's mental state.
Darwin suffered from severe depression; insomnia; incapacitating anxiety; fits of hysterical crying; depersonalization; vision alterations (such as seeing spots and other visual hallucinations); malaise; vertigo; shaking; tachycardia; fainting spells; shortness of breath; trembling; nausea; vomiting; dizziness; muscle twitches, spasms, and tremors; cramps and colics; bloating and nocturnal flatulence; headaches; nervous exhaustion; dyspnea; skin problems (including scalp blisters and eczema); tinnitus; and sensations of loss of consciousness and impending death. (See Clifford A. Picover, Strange Brains and Genius: The Secret Lives of Eccentric Scientists and Madmen (1998), p. 290). Darwin suffered severe anxiety disorder, which he attributed to his tyrannical father. English psychiatrist Dr. Rankine Good claimed that, "If Darwin did not slay his father in the flesh, then he certainly slew the Heavenly Father in the realm of natural history," suffering for his "unconscious patricide" which accounted for "almost forty years of severe and crippling neurotic suffering." (See Ralph Colp, To Be an Invalid: The Illness of Charles Darwin, (1977), pg.32). 

Darwin's Sadism.
Darwin glorified death and loved torturing animals. He beat a puppy to death as a young boy and trembled with excitement. He loved guns and hunting, watching with pleasure to see his prey die slowly. He liked to make lab animals die as painfully as possible. Darwin clearly viewed death and destruction as an engine of evolutionary progress, as we see in the penultimate sentence of The Origin of Species: "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows." To escape any guilt or fear of punishment, God must be jettisoned. 

 Social Darwinism
When Darwin's ideas are applied to society, the survival of the fittest means that the physically and mentally handicapped must not be allowed to reproduce and—-in extreme cases, like Nazi Germany--must be euthanized. Here in the United States, the Supreme Court decision in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), upheld a statute instituting compulsory sterilization of the unfit "for the protection and health of the state." The 8 to 1 decision, had Oliver Wendell Holmes as the author of the majority opinion. He wrote:

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes...Three generations of imbeciles is enough. (Emphasis mine).

The sole dissenter was Associate Justice Pierce Butler, a devout Catholic. Afraid of Protestant harassment, he declined to write a dissenting opinion. 

If God doesn't exist, and life is about survival, racists of all colors, will want to stamp out the other races for "genetic purity" and to make this ephemeral life better by promoting the advancement of evolution. Darwin himself was racist and exulted in the European extermination of the “lower races,” which he integrated into his theory of human evolution. Many other scientists likewise promoted racism on the basis of their understanding of evolutionary theory. If the Nazi perspective was a misinterpretation of Darwinism, it was a misinterpretation fostered by the Darwinian biologists themselves, not by non-scientists or fringe publicists. 

Atheistic evolution, shoved down the throats of the young, has had its intended effects.  According to a 2014 Pew research survey of atheists, only 9% were age 65 and older, compared to 14% of those ages 50-64, 37% of those ages 30-49, and 40% ages 18-29. (See The Vatican II sect tells us (via Bergoglio) that atheists can go to Heaven; a clear implication beliefs are unimportant--even belief in God Himself.

God has been banished from public life, and "St." John Paul the Great Apostate helped facilitate it by promoting Vatican II's heretical religious liberty. The time is ripe for Darwinian ideas to seep in deeply once more. The Church combatted the Communists and Nazis--the Vatican II sect does nothing. Children are told that science says there is no purpose, no God, and no meaning. Life is for the survival of the fittest. Those deemed unfit get picked on and want to strike back, while those who think they are superior believe in a right to eliminate the inferior.

So the next time you hear of a shooting spree, don't blame Trump, guns, or anything else the mass media is selling. Blame a world that has grown up without the true Faith, and fed a steady diet of Darwinism. 


Monday, May 23, 2022

False Accusations About A True Apparition


Regular readers of this blog know that I do not make apparitions (those approved by the Church) to be the focus point of the Faith; they are not. I call Apparitionists people who exalt private revelations and apparitions whether approved by the Church (such as Our Lady of Fatima) or not (such as Our Lady of the Roses) over the teaching of the Church. They obsess over the alleged "true meanings" of messages (as if salvation depended on them), or even accept them to the exclusion of authentic Church doctrines in some area(s). The late "Fr." Gruner falls squarely in this category.  

Personally, I don't think Traditionalists should concern themselves over private revelations. To make the terminology clear, "private revelation" has nothing to do with the number of persons that claim to have seen and/or experienced something. "Public Revelation" refers to the Divine Deposit of Revelation given to the Church for all human beings to believe, so that they may be saved. Public Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, St. John, in 100 AD. Private revelation refers to all communication by God (directly or indirectly) with humans after Public Revelation ended. I can't stress strongly enough that no private revelation, including those deemed "worthy of belief" by the Church, need to be accepted by Catholics. You can reject any or all private revelations and you would not be a heretic, nor would you commit a sin.

On the other hand, private revelations must not be lightly dismissed as totally irrelevant and of no importance either.  Obviously, if the Church approves something as worthy of belief, we can believe it without fear of sinning against faith or morals. God communicates to us for a reason. To be certain, I believe in approved apparitions without making them the focus point of faith. I have devotion to Our Lady of Hope and Our Lady of Fatima. I wear the Five-fold Scapular, pray the Rosary daily, insert the "Fatima Prayer" at the end of each Rosary decade, and try to attend Mass every First Saturday of the month. These are great Catholic devotions all Traditionalists should try to maintain. 

That having been said, I was shocked to find an article circulating among some Traditionalists on the web and Twitter claiming that Fatima was a false apparition. Each time, the person calling the reality of Fatima into question would begin by correctly stating that private revelations need not be believed, and then present the article which claims Fatima was of demonic origin. It is one thing not to believe in a Church approved apparition, and quite another to claim it to be diabolic. 

There have been thousands upon thousands of reported apparitions to various individuals from the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and various saints. Holy Mother Church, in Her wisdom, would investigate any such serious claim and declare it "worthy of belief," reject the apparition as false, or render no judgement pending further proof. To show how solicitous the Church is for the eternal welfare of Her members, very few apparitions have met with approval. The manifest weight of the credible evidence must fall down squarely on the side that Heaven has spoken, so that no one should be lead astray by frauds, the mentally ill, or the deceits of Satan. Only the following Marian apparitions have Church approval pre-Vatican II (since there is currently no authority to pass judgement during the Great Apostasy) and notice how few there are; only ten (10):

1. Our Lady of Guadalupe (took place 1531; approved 1555)
2. Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal (took place 1830; approved 1837)
3. Our Lady of LaSalette (took place 1846; approved 1851)
4. Our Lady of Lourdes (took place 1856; approved 1862)
5. Our Lady of Knock (took place 1879; approved 1879)
6. Our Lady of Fatima (took place 1917; approved 1930 by the local bishop and in 1940 by Pope Pius XII)
7. Our Lady of the Good Event aka Our Lady of Quito (took place 1594-1634; approved 1611 while still taking place)
8. Our Lady of Hope (took place 1871; approved 1872)
9. Our Lady of Beauraing (took place 1932-1933; approved 1949)
10. Our Lady of Banneux (took place 1933; approved 1949)

There are seven cases where the Holy See and local Ordinary have not pronounced directly on the supernatural character of the apparition, yet have implicitly attested to their veracity by approving the public religious activity inspired by the apparition and/or authorizing liturgical veneration:

1. Our Lady of the Pillar (took place 40 AD while Mary was still alive; considered the first Marian apparition wherein Our Blessed Mother assisted the Apostle St. James the Greater)
2. Our Lady of Walsingham (took place 1061)
3. Our Lady of Mount Carmel (took place 1251)
4. Our Lady of the Watch (took place 1490)
5. Our Lady of Siluva (took place 1608)
6. Our Lady of Pellevoisin (took place 1876)
7. Our Lady of Zion (took place 1842)

Hence, from the year 40 AD to 1958, we have only 17 apparitions of Mary that have explicit or implicit Church approval. To claim that Fatima is from Hell would be an indirect denial of the Indefectibility of the Church--i.e., the Church cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to Her members. If, ad arguendo, the apparition at Fatima didn't happen, it didn't produce anything contrary to Faith and Morals. Yet, it if came from Satan, there would have to be things contrary to Faith and/or morals, because the adversary of mankind does not do anything for our benefit. 

In this post, I will examine the blasphemous article "Why Pay Any Attention To Fatima?" and demonstrate why it is the article itself, and not Fatima, to which we should pay no heed. 

Attempting to Sound Catholic
The source of the article is the website, by Dr. Bob Thiel. Thiel was originally part of the "Worldwide Church of God"(WCG) sect, run by Herbert W. Armstrong (d. 1986). "Armstrongism" was an eclectic mix  of mainline Protestantism and Seventh Day Adventist teachings, along with what Armstrong himself would say as the self-declared "Prophet of God on Earth." WCG teachings included the necessity of observing Mosaic dietary laws to be saved, denial of the Most Holy Trinity, avoidance of doctors and medicine, observing Saturday as the Sabbath, and denial of divorce (of course, when Armstrong wanted a divorce, that teaching changed, and he also went to doctors and took medicine while prohibiting his followers from doing it, living to the age of 93).  

After Armstrong's death, many new sects came from dissatisfaction among his high-ranking members, one such being the aforementioned Bob Thiel. Thiel founded the "Continuing Church of God" or "CCG." His sect rejects the Holy Ghost as God, and has many strange teachings similar to Armstrong.

The article, Why Pay Any Attention To Fatima? (hereinafter WPATF), doesn't list an author. It appears to be a chapter of a book, but I could not locate it. The fact that it appears on a website run by Thiel means either (a) he is the author, or (b) he approves the content as it is on his site. He appears to be the author since you will find a short bio and picture of him on the last page. There is no mention of his religious affiliation.  I knew something was off prior to finding out this information. For example, the article claims that the apparition could not be "the Mary of the Bible." Also used to describe her are the phrases "Mother of Jesus," and once "Mother of Christ" but never the Mother of GOD, Our Blessed Mother, and other distinct Catholic titles. The article informs us:

Learning the truth about the shocking messages of Fatima could save you and your loved ones from making horrible mistakes.

What, exactly, would those "mistakes" be? Praying the Rosary? Wearing the Scapular? Making reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary? It never tells us, but wants us to believe Our Lady of Fatima was a demonic deception. What proof do they offer for this assertion?  That will now be examined.

Attacking the Blessed Mother of God

Below is a list of the attacks on Our Lady of Fatima and my response to each one. 

1. The apparitions at Fatima were predicted by occultists.
A group of occult psychics in Portu, Portugal claimed that “something transcendental” would occur on May 13,1917. And this was published in the Portuguese newspaper Jornal de Notícias. There was another prediction claimed to have been written on February 7, 1917 in Furtado de Mendonça, Portugal by way of “automatic writing” that moved the psychic’s hand and wrote the following backwards (and in Portuguese):

The day of May 13th will be one of great happiness for the good souls of the world…Always at your side shall ye have your friends, who will guide your steps and who will assist ye in your
work…The brilliant light of the Morning Star will illuminate the path.
~ Stella Matutina

So the above occult prophecy claimed that a lightbringer would illuminate a path on May 13, 1917. Stella is Latin for star. Matutina is associated with the morning. It may be relevant to note that the name Lucifer means lightbringer, and he is associated in sacred scripture with both the morning and stars (Isaiah 14:12-13), as well as becoming known as Satan the devil (Revelation 12:9). Although Jesus is also called the “Morning Star” (Revelation 22:16), using the type of automatic backward writing to reveal His mother does not seem to be biblically appropriate (cf. Isaiah 8:19-20), hence it should not be concluded that this Stella Matutina was Jesus. (See WPATF, pg. 33).

What is the source of this information? I referenced the book in the endnotes, Celestial Secrets: The Hidden History of the Fatima Incident (2007) by Joaquim Fernandes and Fina D'Armada. The authors believe that Our Lady was actually an alien sent by a UFO. There is a trio of books (this one and two others) attempting to prove this whacky thesis. Moreover, the books are promoted by  Andrew D. Basiago, a "UFOlogist." Besides an attempted run for President of the U.S. in 2016, Basiago claims he:

  • Can teleport himself through time and space
  • Has made contact with Bigfoot
  • Went to Mars in 1981 and converses with Martians who live there 
(See, e.g.,

These are the people we are supposed to believe over Church authority regarding Fatima. The trilogy is itself occult (talking to "beings from other worlds"--more than likely demons if not delusions of mental illness) and used by Thiel to make Fatima look "demonic." Moreover, occultists will often use the superior knowledge of demons to make something true appear false and vice-versa--if such an occult prediction even happened. No less than 20 of Thiel's 96 endnotes reference this occult book.  

2. The Blessed Mother was allegedly dressed immodestly.
Throughout the book, much is made of alleged claims by the seers of Fatima that Mary was immodestly dressed. From WPATF:

In 1917, the Catholic priest and investigator Canon Manuel Nunes Formigao interviewed the three Fatima children. Here is some of what he wrote:

Jacinta confirms that Our Lady’s dress fell only to the knees… Our Lady obviously could not have appeared other than dressed with the utmost decency and modesty…{This} constitutes a serious problem, opposing the very validity of the Apparition, giving rise in the spirit to the dread that this whole affair is a mystification, prepared by the Prince of Darkness. (pgs. 25-26).

This information is supplied by (you guessed it) Celestial Secrets. The dominant instrument used by the authors and promoters of that book, to convince the reader of their research prowess and to buildup interest and credibility for their product, is the highlighting of their previous visit to the secured Fatima Shrine archives in 1978. During that visit they were permitted to view the largely unknown personal notes of the local Fatima priests of that year of 1917, especially those who had directly interviewed the children. They have since been made public in 1992. They tell a different story from the cherry-picked quotes.

These initial recorded accounts by seer Jacinta (and Lucia) are tellingly conflicting with the young seer Francisco's descriptions, where the only knee-length clothing that he reports throughout all of his testimony was the mantle headpiece, a fact conveniently omitted, along with the fact that an investigative priest is supposed to be skeptical and not jump to supernatural conclusions in favor of the apparition. Even after that, the demonic must be considered as well. Lucia and Jacinta were no doubt scared by the questioning, and even probably misunderstood by the priest. The manifest weight of all the evidence explains why the Bishop approved the apparition as authentic upon the final report in 1930. 

3. Calling Dogma into question.
WPATF tries to link the Mother of God to the pagan goddess Diana by attacking the Dogma of the Assumption:

Some believe that the reason that August 15th was chosen as the day for the feast of the “Assumption of Mary” is that it was related to a similar festival for Diana. The Catholic Encyclopedia suggests questionable circumstances:

Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known... The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite...Regarding the origin of the feast we are also uncertain.

Thus, it is known that this dogma originated from false sources. It was not officially adopted as Catholic dogma until 1950. (See pgs. 23-24). 

In endnote 43, theologian Ott is cited to support this blasphemy:
The “assumption” became Catholic dogma in 1950 (though it was alluded to earlier). According to Dr. Ott “express scriptural proofs are not to be had” he indicated that it first appeared in documents
falsely ascribed to Jerome and then other documents in the 5th and 6th centuries (others claimed false fourth century documents). Hence, this too, is an innovation and not an apostolic tradition.

Here's what theologian Ott actually says in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, (1955):
Direct and express scriptural proofs are not to be had. The possibility of the bodily assumption before the Second Coming of Christ is not excluded by 1 Corinthians 15, 23 as the objective redemption was completed with the sacrificial death of Christ, and the beginning of the final era foretold by the prophets commenced. It probably is suggested by St. Matthew 27, 52, 53: "And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose, and coming out of the tombs after His Resurrection came into the holy city and appeared to many." According to the more probable explanation, which was already expounded by the Fathers, the awakening of the "saints" was a final resurrection and transfiguration. If, however, the justified of the Old Covenant were called to the perfection of salvation, immediately after the conclusion of the redemptive work of Christ, then it is possible and probable that the Mother of the Lord was called to it also...Pope Pius XII confirmed: "the unanimous doctrine of the ordinary Church Teaching Office, and the unanimous belief of the Christian people" in a solemn definition on November 1, 1950. (See pgs. 208-209; 211; Emphasis mine). 

Theologian Ott further explains that apocryphal letters were a hinderance to the Assumption's development, not that it "first appeared" in such documents. As to the Catholic Encyclopedia, here's what was left out:  The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. (Emphasis mine). 

4. Other Falsehoods.

  • The apparition did not refer to herself as Mary. Nonsense. There are so many sources on this point even the article backs off saying, "Even if the apparition possibly later called herself Mary..." 
  • Mary did not refer worship to Jesus. In True Devotion to Mary, St. Louis DeMonfort reminds us of this Catholic Truth: [Regarding Scrupulous Devotees of Mary] It is all they can do to endure that there should be more people before the altar of the Blessed Virgin than before the other, as if those who prayed to our Blessed Lady did not pray to Jesus Christ through her. They are willing that we should speak so often of Our Lady and address her so frequently...[they say]“We must have recourse to Jesus Christ; He is our only Mediator. We must preach Jesus Christ; this is the solid devotion.” What they say is in a certain sense true, but in the application they make of it, namely, to hinder devotion to our Blessed Lady, very dangerous; and it is, under pretext of a greater good, a subtle snare of the evil one. (Emphasis mine).
  • Referred to the Lady of the Rosary. As if the Rosary is evil!! They also cite to the Celestial Secrets to "prove" Lucia was not sure if the Apparition spoke of herself or another. More cherry-picked claptrap.
  • Mary wanted a chapel built for her own glory. Blasphemy. Again, he who honors the Mother honors the Son all the more--it is to the ultimate glory of God. 

Finally, the article takes a shot at Our Lady of LaSalette, stating that the seer Maximin Giraud:
...reported false prophecies such as that the Antichrist would arrive in the end of the 19th or commencement of the 20th centuries. The Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office actually forbade the discussion of that very secret on which the Church never passed final judgement.


It has come to the attention of this Supreme Congregation that certain ones are not lacking, even from among the ecclesiastic assemblage who, responses and decisions of this Holy Congregation itself having been disregarded, do proceed to discuss and examine through books, small works and articles edited in periodicals, whether signed or without a name, concerning the so-called Secret of La Salette, its diverse forms and its relevance to present and future times; and, this not only without permission of the Ordinaries, but, also against their ban. So that these abuses which oppose true piety and greatly wound ecclesiastical authority might be curbed, the same Sacred Congregation orders all the faithful of any region not to discuss or investigate under any pretext, neither through books, or little works or articles, whether signed or unsigned, or in any other way of any kind, about the mentioned subject. Whoever, indeed, violates this precept of the Holy Office, if they are priests, are deprived of all dignity and suspended by the local ordinary from hearing sacramental confessions and from offering Mass: and, if they are lay people, they are not permitted to the sacraments until they repent. Moreover, let people be subject to the sanctions given both by Pope Leo XIII through the Constitution of the offices and responsibilities against those who publish books dealing with religious things without legitimate permission of superiors and by Urban VIII through the decree "Sanctissimus Dominus Noster" given on 13th March 1625 against those who publish asserted revelations without the permission of ordinaries. However, this decree does not forbid devotion towards the Blessed Virgin under the title of Reconciliatrix commonly of La Salette. 

Given at Rome on 21st December, 1915. 

Aloisius Castellano, S. R. and U. I. Notary.

It is true that we are not bound to believe in private revelations, nor should we make them the focal point of our faith. However, to attack an approved apparition of the Church as being of "demonic origin," is an evil assertion and must be rejected. It is heretical to declare anything as coming from error and evil when Holy Mother Church has solemnly approved it for Her members. When anyone dares to attack something approved by the Church as evil, scrutinize it carefully, and you'll find out it's false--like WPATF. 

The article is written by the leader of a non-Christian sect trying to sound Catholic. He cites to occult sources (and perhaps the mentally deranged). He quotes sources out of context and cherry-picks what was written in said sources. All of this to the denigration of the Mother of God, Mary Most Holy. Let us venerate the Blessed Mother under her title Our Lady of Fatima, and remember well the words of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Father and Doctor of the Church:

Let us not imagine that we obscure the glory of the Son by the great praise we lavish on the Mother; for the more she is honored, the greater is the glory of her Son. There can be no doubt that whatever we say in praise of the Mother gives equal praise to the Son. 


Monday, May 16, 2022

Our Life, Our Sweetness, And Our Hope


To My Readers: May is the month traditionally dedicated by the Church to the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of God. This week Lee gives me a much needed break, and all of us get his excellent post on devotion to the Immaculate Virgin; she who is "Our Life, Our Sweetness, and Our Hope." I hope you enjoy this post as much as I did! As always, I will respond to any questions addressed to me, but it may take me a little longer to write back this week, so please be patient with me.

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

Our Life, Our Sweetness, and Our Hope
By Lee

One of the greatest advantages of being Catholic is being taught to have devotion and love towards the Blessed Virgin Mary. However, to my great surprise, I once talked to a person (remaining nameless) who claimed to be a Traditional Catholic and who complained how at church too much attention was given to the Holy Mother. To make a long story short, this person didn't believe in certain titles under which she is honored, didn't believe we should pray before statues of her, didn't believe we should honor her in May, didn't believe she was the Mother of the Church, didn't believe she was the Co-Redemptrix, didn't believe she was the Mediatrix of All Graces, and (to my memory) doubted that she was Immaculately Conceived. 

While the conversation had longevity, at one point I couldn't take it anymore and it ended, never to be continued. I hadn't had a conversation like that about our Holy Mother Mary since my days in public school when Protestants would attack her. In fact, it was worse because Protestants are generally ignorant as to why they despise Mary, while this person was fully aware of what was being said, but spoke with much contempt while simultaneously claiming to be Traditional Catholic. It was truly Satanic; as if talking to the devil himself.

The Most Blessed Virgin Mary is so important to each individual's salvation. That is why few are saved, because they either (a) don't have a true devotion as they think, (b) have no devotion at all for whatever reason, or (c) they have the mindset of the person I mentioned in the above paragraph. Hence St. Anselm says, "It is impossible to save one's soul without devotion to Mary and without her protection." St. Alphonsus Liguori says, "If you persevere until death in true devotion to Mary, your salvation is certain." St. Bonaventure says "He who neglects her, shall die in his sins."

False devotees to Mary

Beware if you fall under one of the seven distinguishing marks that St. Louis De Montfort records in his book, True Devotion to Mary. He states as follows:
1. Critical Devotees:
These are, for the most part, proud scholars, rash and self-sufficient spirits, who have at heart some devotion to the holy Virgin, but who criticize nearly all the practices of devotion which simple people pay simply and holily to their good Mother, because these practices do not fall in with their own humor and fancy.

They call in doubt all the miracles and pious stories recorded by authors worthy of faith, or drawn from the chronicles of religious orders: narratives which testify to us the mercies and the power of the most holy Virgin.

They cannot see, without uneasiness, simple and humble people on their knees before an altar or an image of Our Lady, sometimes at the corner of a street, in order to pray to God there; and they even accuse them of idolatry, as if they adored the wood or the stone.

They say that for their part, they are not fond of these external devotions, and that they are not so credulous as to believe so many tales and stories that are told about Our Lady. When they are told how admirably the Fathers of the Church praised the Blessed Virgin, they either reply that the Fathers spoke as professional orators, with exaggeration; or they misinterpret their words.

These kinds of false devotees, proud and worldly people, are greatly to be feared. They do an infinite wrong to devotion to Our Lady; and they are but too successful in alienating people from it, under the pretext of destroying its abuses.

2. Scrupulous Devotees:
These are those who fear to dishonor the Son by honoring the Mother, to abase the one in elevation the other. They cannot bear that we should attribute to Our Lady the most just praise which the holy Fathers have given her.

It is all they can do to endure that there should be more people before the altar of the Blessed Virgin than before the other, as if those who prayed to our Blessed Lady did not pray to Jesus Christ through her. They are willing that we should speak so often of Our Lady and address her so frequently.

Here are some of their favorite sayings: “Why so many rosaries, so many confraternities and so many external devotions to the Blessed Virgin? There is much ignorance in all this. It makes a mummery of our religion. Speak to us of those who are devout to Jesus Christ.” (Yet they often name Him without raising their hats- I say this by way of parenthesis.) “We must have recourse to Jesus Christ; He is our only Mediator.

We must preach Jesus Christ; this is the solid devotion.” What they say is in a certain sense true, but in the application they make of it, namely, to hinder devotion to our Blessed Lady, very dangerous; and it is, under pretext of a greater good, a subtle snare of the evil one.

For the more we honor the Blessed Virgin, the more we honor Jesus Christ, because we honor Mary only that we may the more perfectly honor Jesus, since we go to her only as the way by which we are to find the end we are seeking which is Jesus.

The Church, with the Holy Ghost, blesses Our Lady first, and Our Lord second; “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.” It is not Mary is more than Jesus or even equal to Him-that would be intolerable heresy; but it is that, in order to bless Jesus more perfectly, we must begin by blessing Mary.

Let us then say, with all the true clients of Our Lady, in opposition to these false scrupulous devotees, “O Mary, thou art blessed among all women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.”

3. External Devotees:
These are persons who make devotion to our Blessed Lady consist in outward practices. They have no taste except for the exterior of this devotion, because they have no interior spirit of their own.

They will say quantities of Rosaries with the greatest precipitation; they will hear many Masses distractedly; they will go, without devotion, to processions; they will enroll themselves in all her confraternities-without amending their lives, without doing any violence to their passions, or without imitating the virtues of that most holy Virgin.

The world is full of these exterior devotees, and there are no people who are more critical that they of men of prayer, who foster an interior spirit as the essential thing, without, however, disregarding that outward modesty which always accompanies true devotion.

4. Presumptuous Devotees:
These are sinners abandoned to their passions, or lovers of the world, who under the fair name of Christians and clients of our Blessed Lady conceal pride, avarice, impurity, drunkenness, anger, swearing, detraction, injustice or some other sin.

They sleep in peace in the midst of their bad habits, without doing any violence to themselves to correct their faults, under the pretext that they are devout to the Blessed Virgin.

They promise themselves that God will pardon them; that they will not be allowed to die without confession; and that they will not be lost eternally because they say the Rosary, because they fast on Saturdays, because they belong to the Confraternity of the Holy Rosary, or wear the Scapular, or are enrolled in other congregations, or the wear the little habit or little chain of Our Lady.

They will not believe us when we tell them that their devotion is only an illusion of the devil and a pernicious presumption likely to destroy their souls.

To blind themselves still further, they quote certain stories which they have heard or read – it does not matter to them whether they be true or false – relating how people have died in mortal sin without confession, and then, because in their lifetime they sometimes said some prayers or went through some practices of devotion to Our Lady, how they have been raised to life again in order to go to confession; or their soul has been miraculously retained in their bodies till confession; or through the clemency of the Blessed Virgin they have obtained from God, that at the moment of death, contrition and pardon of their sins, and so have been saved, and that they expect similar favors.

Nothing in Christianity is more detestable than this diabolical presumption. For how can we truly say that we love and honor our Blessed Lady when by our sins we are pitilessly piercing, wounding, crucifying and outraging Jesus Christ, and her Son?

It is not absolutely necessary to be so holy as to avoid every sin, though this were desirable; but this much at least is necessary,

i. To have a sincere resolution to avoid at least all mortal sin, which outrages the Mother as well as the Son;

ii. To do violence to ourselves to avoid sin

iii. To enroll ourselves in confraternities, to say the Rosary or other prayers, to fast on Saturdays and the like.

5. Inconstant Devotees:
These are those devoted to Our Lady by fits and starts. Sometimes they are fervent and sometimes lukewarm. Sometimes they seem ready to do anything for her, and then a little afterward, they are not like the same people.

They begin by taking up all the devotions to her, and enrolling themselves in the confraternities; and then they do not practice the rules with fidelity.

They change like the moon, and Mary puts them under her feet with the crescent, because they are changeable and unworthy to be reckoned among the servants of that faithful Virgin who have for their special graces fidelity and constancy.

It was better for such persons not to burden themselves with so many prayers and practices but to choose a few and fulfill them with faithfulness and love, in spite of the world, the devil and the flesh.

6. Hypocritical Devotees:
These men cloak their sins and sinful habits with her mantle, in order to be taken by men for what they are not.

7. Interested Devotees:
These have recourse to Our Lady only to gain some lawsuit, or to avoid some danger, or to be cured of some illness, or for some other similar necessity, without which they would forget her altogether. All these are false devotees, pleasing neither to God nor to His holy Mother.

In conclusion, let us then take care not to be of the number of the critical devotees, who believe nothing and criticize everything; nor of the scrupulous devotees who are afraid of being too devout to Our Lady, out of respect to Our Lord; nor of the exterior devotees, who make all their devotion consist in outward practices; nor of the presumptuous devotees, who, under the pretext of their false devotion to the Blessed Virgin, wallow in their sins; nor of the inconstant devotees, who from levity change their practices of devotion, or give them up altogether, at the least temptation; nor of the hypocritical devotees, who join confraternities and wear the liveries of the Blessed Virgin in order to pass for good people; nor, finally, of the interested devotees, who have recourse to Our Lady only to be delivered from bodily evils, or to obtain temporal goods.

The Power of the Blessed Virgin Mary

In his book The Secret of the Rosary in the 33rd chapter St. Louis De Montfort tells us the following story:

"When St. Dominic was preaching the Rosary near Carcassone, an Albigensian was brought to him who was possessed by the devil. The Saint exorcised him in the presence of a great crowd of people; it appears that over twelve thousand had come to hear him speak. The devils who were in possession of this wretched man were forced to answer St. Dominic's questions in spite of themselves. They said:

1. that there were fifteen thousand of them in the body of that poor man, because he had attacked the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary;

2. that by the Rosary which he preached, he put fear and horror into the depths of hell, and that he was the man they hated most throughout the world because of the souls he snatched from them by the devotion of the Rosary.

3. They revealed several other things.

St. Dominic put his rosary round the neck of the possessed man and asked them who, of all the saints in heaven, was the one they feared most, who should therefore be the most loved and revered by men.

At this they let out such unearthly screams that most of the people fell to the ground, seized with fear. Then, using all their cunning so as not to answer, the devils wept and wailed in such a pitiful way that many of the people wept also, out of pure natural pity. The devils, speaking through the mouth of the Albigensian, pleaded in a heart-rending voice, "Dominic, Dominic, have pity on us, we promise you we will never harm you.

"You have always had compassion for sinners and those in distress; have pity on us, for we are in grievous straits. We are suffering so much already, why do you delight in increasing our pains? Can't you be satisfied with the pains we now endure? Have mercy on us, have mercy on us!"

St. Dominic was not in the least moved by the pathetic words of those wretched spirits, and told them he would not let them alone until they had answered his question. Then they said they would whisper the answer in such a way that only St. Dominic would be able to hear. The latter firmly insisted upon their answering clearly and audibly. Then the devils kept quiet and would not say another word, completely disregarding St. Dominic's orders.

So he knelt down and said this prayer to our Lady: "Oh, most glorious Virgin Mary, I implore you by the power of the holy Rosary command these enemies of the human race to answer my question."

No sooner had he said this prayer than a glowing flame leaped out of the ears, nostrils and mouth of the possessed man. Everyone shook with fear, but the fire did not hurt anyone. Then the devils cried, "Dominic, we beseech you, by the passion of Jesus Christ and the merits of his holy Mother and of all the saints, let us leave the body of this man without speaking further; for the angels will answer your question whenever you wish. After all, are we not liars - so why should you want to believe us? Do not torment us any more, have pity on us."

"Woe to you, wretched spirits, who do not deserve to be heard," St. Dominic said, and kneeling down he prayed to the Blessed Virgin: "O most worthy Mother of Wisdom, I am praying for the people assembled here, who have already learned how to say the Angelic Salutation properly. I beg you for the salvation of those here present, compel these adversaries of yours to proclaim the whole truth here and now before the people."

St. Dominic had scarcely finished this prayer when he saw the Blessed Virgin near at hand surrounded by a multitude of angels. She struck the possessed man with a golden rod that she held and said, "Answer my servant Dominic at once." (It must be noted that the people neither saw nor heard our Lady, only St. Dominic.)

Then the devils started screaming:

"Oh, you who are our enemy, our downfall and our destruction, why have you come from heaven to torture us so grievously? O advocate of sinners, you who snatch them from the very jaws of hell, you who are a most sure path to heaven, must we, in spite of ourselves, tell the whole truth and confess before everyone who it is who is the cause of our shame and our ruin? Oh, woe to us, princes of darkness.

"Then listen, you Christians. This Mother of Jesus is most powerful in saving her servants from falling into hell. She is like the sun which destroys the darkness of our wiles and subtlety. It is she who uncovers our hidden plots, breaks our snares, and makes our temptations useless and ineffective.

"We have to say, however, reluctantly, that no soul who has really persevered in her service has ever been damned with us; one single sigh that she offers to the Blessed Trinity is worth far more than all the prayers, desires, and aspirations of all the saints. We fear her more than all the other saints in heaven together, and we have no success with her faithful servants.

"Many Christians who call on her at the hour of death and who really ought to be damned according to our ordinary standards are saved by her intercession. And if that Marietta (it is thus in their fury they called her) did not counter our plans and our efforts, we should have overcome the Church and destroyed it long before this, and caused all the Orders in the Church to fall into error and infidelity.

"Now that we are forced to speak, we must also tell you that nobody who perseveres in saying the Rosary will be damned, because she obtains for her servants the grace of true contrition for their sins by which they obtain pardon and mercy."

Then St. Dominic had all the people say the Rosary very slowly and with great devotion, and a wonderful thing happened: at each Hail Mary which he and the people said, a large number of devils issued forth from the wretched man's body under the guise of red-hot coals. When the devils had all been expelled and the heretic completely delivered from them, our Lady, although invisible, gave her blessing to the assembled company, and they were filled with joy.

A large number of heretics were converted because of this miracle and joined the Confraternity of the Holy Rosary."

Last But Not Least

In proclaiming and establishing the Queenship of Mary on May 31st His Holiness Pope Pius XII had these beautiful words to say in AD CAELI REGINAM:

43. Let all Christians, therefore, glory in being subjects of the Virgin Mother of God, who, while wielding royal power, is on fire with a mother's love.

44. Theologians and preachers, however, when treating these and like questions concerning the Blessed Virgin, must avoid straying from the correct course, with a twofold error to guard against: that is to say, they must beware of unfounded opinions and exaggerated expressions which go beyond the truth, on the other hand, they must watch out for excessive narrowness of mind in weighing that exceptional, sublime, indeed all but divine dignity of the Mother of God, which the Angelic Doctor teaches must be attributed to her "because of the infinite goodness that is God."[59]

45. For the rest, in this as in other points of Christian doctrine, "the proximate and universal norm of truth" is for all the living Magisterium of the Church, which Christ established "also to illustrate and explain those matters which are contained only in an obscure way, and implicitly in the deposit of faith."[60]

46. From the ancient Christian documents, from prayers of the liturgy, from the innate piety of the Christian people, from works of art, from every side We have gathered witnesses to the regal dignity of the Virgin Mother of God; We have likewise shown that the arguments deduced by Sacred Theology from the treasure store of the faith fully confirm this truth. Such a wealth of witnesses makes up a resounding chorus which changes the sublimity of the royal dignity of the Mother of God and of men, to whom every creature is subject, who is "exalted to the heavenly throne, above the choirs of angels."

47. Since we are convinced, after long and serious reflection, that great good will accrue to the Church if this solidly established truth shines forth more clearly to all, like a luminous lamp raised aloft, by Our Apostolic authority We decree and establish the feast of Mary's Queenship, which is to be celebrated every year in the whole world on the 31st of May. We likewise ordain that on the same day the consecration of the human race to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary be renewed, cherishing the hope that through such consecration a new era may begin, joyous in Christian peace and in the triumph of religion.

48. Let all, therefore, try to approach with greater trust the throne of grace and mercy of our Queen and Mother, and beg for strength in adversity, light in darkness, consolation in sorrow; above all let them strive to free themselves from the slavery of sin and offer an unceasing homage, filled with filial loyalty, to their Queenly Mother. Let her churches be thronged by the faithful, her feast-days honored; may the beads of the Rosary be in the hands of all; may Christians gather, in small numbers and large, to sing her praises in churches, in homes, in hospitals, in prisons. May Mary's name be held in highest reverence, a name sweeter than honey and more precious than jewels; may none utter blasphemous words, the sign of a defiled soul, against that name graced with such dignity and revered for its motherly goodness; let no one be so bold as to speak a syllable which lacks the respect due to her name.

49. All, according to their state, should strive to bring alive the wondrous virtues of our heavenly Queen and most loving Mother through constant effort of mind and manner. Thus will it come about that all Christians, in honoring and imitating their sublime Queen and Mother, will realize they are truly brothers, and with all envy and avarice thrust aside, will promote love among classes, respect the rights of the weak, cherish peace. No one should think himself a son of Mary, worthy of being received under her powerful protection, unless, like her, he is just, gentle and pure, and shows a sincere desire for true brotherhood, not harming or injuring but rather helping and comforting others.

51...Whoever, therefore, reverences the Queen of heaven and earth - and let no one consider himself exempt from this tribute of a grateful and loving soul - let him invoke the most effective of Queens, the Mediatrix of peace; let him respect and preserve peace, which is not wickedness unpunished nor freedom without restraint, but a well-ordered harmony under the rule of the will of God; to its safeguarding and growth the gentle urgings and commands of the Virgin Mary impel us.


For those who already have a devotion to Mary, just remember to keep it true (not false), to pray the rosary devoutly (not sloppily), and never give up hope of salvation when the Blessed Virgin Mary has great power to intercede for us. For those who have disdain for the Blessed Virgin Mary, simply stop listening to the devil who hates She whom crushes his head.

Prayer: "My Queen, my Mother! I give myself entirely to thee, and to show my devotion to thee I consecrate to thee this day, my eyes, my ears, my mouth, my heart, and my whole being without reserve. Wherefore, good Mother, as I am thine own, keep me, guard me, as thy property and possession." Amen. 

Monday, May 9, 2022

The Authority Of Papal Allocutions


The popes of the early 20th century began giving radio addresses, allocutions, and the like. What are the doctrinal implications of such speeches? Feeneyites claim that nothing  outside ex cathedra pronouncements are of any importance and they scoff at such papal talks. In 1951, Pope Pius XII made an Address to Italian Midwives in which he stated the truth of Baptism of Desire:

But, nevertheless, the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation. Without it, it is not possible to attain supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God. An act of love can suffice for an adult to obtain sanctifying grace and supply for the absence of baptism; for the unborn child or for the newly-born, this way is not open. (Emphasis mine).

Feeneyites whine, "It's not infallible!" Likewise, apologists for the Vatican II sect will deny that Bergoglio is guilty of heresy when he says, "Proselytism is solemn nonsense," because it was not "official teaching." This post will focus on the authority of the pope to bind Catholics in allocutions, and the logical corollaries that flow from it.

  The Use of Allocutions by Pope Pius XII
Pope Pius XII, the last true pope of the Catholic Church before the Great Apostasy, used allocutions the most, as different mediums of communication were coming out. During his reign (1939-1958), he made (excluding canonizations) two ex cathedra pronouncements, one of which was Munificentissimus Deus, defining the dogma of the Assumption of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, body and soul, into Heaven. Most theologians consider Sacramentum Ordinis of 1947 to have been infallible, as it settled what constituted the exact matter and form for all three grades of Holy Orders, and had the definitive language of binding Catholics forever on the subject. 

What is the doctrinal value of non-infallible decrees, when the Ordinary Magisterium makes a pronouncement? Here is an important citation from the encyclical Humani Generis (1950):

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me;" and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. (para. #20; Emphasis mine). 

In his treatise "Authentic Teaching of the Magisterium," theologian Cotter teaches:

The Pope [Pius XII] has no doubt that those Catholic theologians whom he has in mind throughout the encyclical [Humani Generis] are willing to abide by the definitive decisions of the Magisterium, those handed down, solemni iudicio, They are neither heretics nor schismatics. But he complains that they ignore papal pronouncements that come to them with less authority, such as encyclicals. If reputable theologians have disagreed in the past, that assume that nothing less than a solemn definition can settle the matter; and as long as none such is forthcoming, everyone is presumed free to construe papal documents according to his own interpretation of Tradition.

In reply, the Pope reminds them that encyclicals, besides often containing matters of dogma, may intend to settle points hitherto disputed, and that such decisions demand of themselves a positive assent on the part of the faithful, theologians included. In issuing them the popes exercise what is technically known as the Ordinary or Authentic Magisterium, of which it is true to say: "He that heareth you, heareth Me."
(As cited in Contemporary Moral Theology, [1962], 1:24-26). 

Theologian Cotter notes, though the papal statement refers primarily to encyclicals, it is not restricted to these. Rather, it covers the whole range of what is called the "Ordinary Magisterium" of the Holy Father. Everything that has been said, therefore, could apply to the papal radio messages and allocutions; yet, since these have played such a prominent part in papal teaching (especially under Pope Pius XII), they merit special attention. Pope Pius XII himself, made it strikingly clear that his discourses, even when given to small groups, can contain authoritative teaching for the whole Church. 

In his radio message on the education of the Christian conscience, Pope Pius XII said:

Mindful, however, of the right and duty of the Apostolic See to intervene authoritatively, when the need arises, in moral questions, in the address of 29th October last we set out to enlighten men's consciences on the problems of married life. With the self-same authority we declare today to educators and to young people also that the divine commandment of purity of soul and body still holds without any lesser obligation for the youth of today. 

According to theologian Hurth (consultor to the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office and a staunch anti-Modernist) papal radio addresses and allocutions have the same doctrinal value as encyclicals: they are an integral part of the ordinary teaching of the pope; and, as such, though not infallible, they require both internal and external acceptance. (Ibid, pg. 26). 

Catholics Must Assent To Non-Infallible Teachings
Having shown that even allocutions are part of the "Ordinary Magisterium of the Holy Father," some pose the objection that  this is an "invention" of theologians. They have the temerity to claim that there is no positive duty to accept non-infallible teachings of the Church. Here's what the popes themselves have taught:

Pope Leo XIII:
In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the [1870] Vatican Council declared are to be believed “with Catholic and divine faith.” But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the Apostolic See.
(See Sapientiae Christianae, para. #24; Emphasis mine). 

Pope Pius IX:
Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.” But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.
(See Quanta Cura, para. #5; Emphasis mine).

Pope Pius XI:
Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.
(See Casti Connubii, para. #104; Emphasis mine). 

Practical Consequences

1. Feeneyites and "Recognize and Resistors:" You must accept all that the Church teaches and submit to it--even in an address to midwives explaining Baptism of Desire, or even when "Pope" Francis, whom you accept as Vicar of Christ tells you "There is no Catholic God." 

2. Vatican II apologists: The Vatican II sect must give credence to Bergoglio's rantings that "There is no Catholic God," "Proselytism is solemn nonsense," and "Even atheists can go to Heaven." These statements are a denial of the Catholic Church as the One True Church, outside of which there is no salvation. It also denies faith as necessary for salvation. 

The Dreaded "S-Word:" The last line of defense for those listed above is to exclaim, "He was only speaking as a private theologian!" However, that brings them to a place they don't want to be. As St. Alphonsus Liguori teaches: "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.”(See Oeuvres Complètes. 9:232; Emphasis mine). The Feeneyite, when confronted with the Address to the Italian Midwives, must conclude Pope Pius XII wasn't pope, as he professed the "heresy" of Baptism of Desire as a private theologian. The R&R and Vatican II apologist must realize Bergoglio cannot be pope also for professing heresy. Welcome to sedevacantism. 


The Church is our sure guide in life. Even allocutions have doctrinal value that cannot be dismissed. In the theological periodical Clergy Review, theologian Smith summed it up well:

Catholics are bound to believe what the Church teaches. To refuse the assent of divine-Catholic faith to a dogma is to be a heretic; to refuse the assent of ecclesiastical faith to a doctrine which the Church teaches as belonging indirectly to the deposit of faith is to be more or less near to heresy; to refuse internal religious assent to the non-infallible doctrinal decisions of the Holy See is to fail in that submission which Catholics are strictly bound to render to the teaching authority of the Church.(Emphasis mine).