The Stigmata: Bearing The Wounds Of Jesus Christ

 

To My Readers: As my work and family responsibilities have been piling up, I decided to put together a post on a very misunderstood spiritual phenomenon, the stigmata. This compilation comes from a variety of approved sources, most notably theologian Carty, The Stigmata and Modern Science, [1958], and theologian Farges, Mystical Phenomena Compared with their Human and Diabolical Counterparts, [1926]. The information is compiled by me, and I take no credit except in condensing the information into a concise post. Above is a picture of St. Gemma Galgani (died 1903; canonized 1940), who bore the stigmata.

In my post, I make no mention of the man who arguably is the most famous alleged stigmatist, Padre Pio. I have most serious doubts about his authenticity as both a stigmatist and as a "saint." For the reasons why, please see my post:

https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/01/was-padre-pio-ecumenist.html

Feel free to comment as usual, but it may take me a bit longer than usual to respond this week. God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

What is the Stigmata?

The stigmata has been defined by theologians as "participation in the Passion of Christ in a way that is shown outwardly by marks on those parts of the body where Christ bore His wounds. It is a charisma or supernatural gift.”

The external marks of the wounds of Christ are then only the material element of Stigmatization; to be regarded as stigmata in the ecclesiastical sense they must be accompanied by a participation in the sufferings of Christ. Not all marks or wounds, even if they be on those places where Christ bore His wounds, are regarded as even the material element of Stigmatization. To be regarded as stigmata in the ecclesiastical as against the medical meaning of the term, these wounds must not be mere surface marks such as are sometimes produced by hypnotism, but must be deep wounds such as, for example, those of St. Francis of Assisi; they must not vanish after a short time but must remain fresh for years without suppurating, and when they bleed they must emit fresh blood. In addition, these wounds which form the material element of Stigmatization must be accompanied by a participation in the physical sufferings of Christ’s Passion and by the profession and pious practice of the true Faith in the Catholic Church, before they can be regarded as stigmata in the strict sense.

The phenomenon of the stigmata is a sign of the reality of Christ’s passion on the Cross. By God’s will, certain saints who have loved and meditated on the sacrifice of Christ crucified have participated in His sufferings. They offer those sufferings with the same spirituality as Saint Paul, who said, "I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church." (Colossians 1:24). 

A few theologians have taught that the apostle Paul himself had the stigmata, and that when he says, "… I carry the marks of Jesus branded on my body" (Galatians 6:17), he wasn’t saying it metaphorically, but literally. For stigmatists, the wounds of Christ on their bodies are an unmerited grace; therefore, if they are a form of grace, God is the one who gives them. Stigmatists do not ask for these mystical experiences. The vocation of the stigmatists is to suffer a share of the Passion of Christ—which exceeds all earthly sufferings. St. Margaret Mary Alocoque, to whom Christ appeared with His Most Sacred Heart, participated in the agony of Christ in the Garden and felt that death itself could hold nothing so painful for her. 

What must it be then to share in all the sufferings of the Passion, including the crucifixion, as most of the stigmatists are asked to do? Need we wonder then if Almighty God allows the stigmatists to get a glimpse of Thabor occasionally? Need we wonder if He gives them special gifts? St. Paul says: “we are the sons of God . . . and joint heirs of Christ, yet so, if we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified with Him.” (Rom. 8:16-17). 

In the cases the Church has approved, the stigmata is a grace of God granted to few saints; the stigmata are physical manifestations of Christian mysticism. We must keep in mind that when the Church recognizes a phenomenon as authentic, it accepts the phenomenon but in no case does it propose that it be believed as a doctrine of faith. Moreover, the Church doesn’t canonize anyone just because they have the stigmata. What the Church does when it canonizes is recognize the exemplary Christian life of a saint, whether or not he or she has the stigmata.

So, why does God grant the stigmata? Through the stigmata, God expresses his pleasure in the holiness of life related to the conscious acceptance of the Cross taken up spiritually. It is, then, an experience of suffering colored with joy for the grace received.

A stigmatist receives the mission of being a prophet to remind humanity of the realities that are truly important. They help us to see the extremes to which Christ went to redeem us. They help those who suffer to conform themselves to Christ, offering their own sufferings for the salvation of souls.

Signs of True Stigmata

In the history of the stigmatists, we find that the stigmata were always accompanied with other charismata such as living for years without earthly food, the gift of prophecy, the gift of reading the secrets of the heart, the faculty of distinguishing between sacred and profane objects, the gift of perceiving the presence of the Blessed Sacrament in places hidden from view. If any fault against faith or morals is detected in the stigmatists by proper authority—the Bishop or the Holy See—it is a sign that the person in question is not corresponding to the graces that go with the stigmata, or that the stigmata were not genuine. As long as the proper authority issues no condemnation, the faithful need not be disturbed by shrill warnings from unauthorized individuals. In the long list of the stigmatists since St. Francis of Assisi, only a few of those who had real external marks of the Wounds of Christ were found to be unfaithful.

A few Catholic theologians who hold peculiar views about the stigmata refer to the few cases of lapse with apparent triumph, as if they proved that the possession of the marks of the Wounds of Christ was of no consequence. The extraordinarily high proportion of stigmatists faithful to their glorious but painful vocation, amounting to nearly 100%, may be attributed to the fact that, in the Providence of God, only those receive the stigmata who have been tried in the crucible of suffering for many years and who have been found faithful.

What are the criteria that the Church uses to determine whether or not the stigmata are authentic?

1. The stigmata are located in the same general places as the five wounds of Christ.

2. The stigmata all appear at the same time.

3. The stigmata appear spontaneously while the person prays in ecstasy.

4. They cannot be explained by natural causes.

5. They do not deteriorate into necrosis.

6. The do not give off a bad smell; on the contrary, sometimes it is said they smell of flowers.

7. They do not become infected.

8. They bleed daily and profusely.

9. They remain unchanged despite treatment. They do not become worse.

10. They cause a significant modification of the bodily tissues.

11. They do not close perfectly and instantaneously.

12. They are accompanied by intense physical and moral suffering, as from participating in the sufferings of Christ. (The lack of pain is a bad sign and a cause for doubt.)

As to the first criterion, skeptics will ask why some stigmatists have the wounds in the HANDS instead of the WRISTS which according to the Shroud of Turin (and historical/scientific evidence) is where Christ bore the nails. Some stigmatics did have them in the wrist, like St. Francis of Assisi and St. Gemma Galgani, just to name two. The stigmata’s purpose is not to present us an exact medical model of Jesus’ wounds. Otherwise, all genuine occurrences of them would look exactly alike — yet they do not. Instead, through this extraordinary phenomenon, those who witness it are called to grow deeper in union with our crucified Lord. 

As if the above were not enough, the entire life of the person involved is also studied.  He or she must be a person who practices Christian virtues heroically — in particular, their great love for humility and for the cross should stand out.

Throughout history, many cases have appeared; there are so many that the stigmata can be classified as follows:

1. Stigmatization of divine origin.

2. Stigmatization of diabolical origin.

3. Stigmatization of undetermined origin.

4. Stigmatization of neurotic and/or psychological origin, in the case of people who suffer from hysteria and who cause their own wounds, although it may be unconsciously etc.

Answering Skeptics

There are those who claim that all stigmatists belong to the fourth category, those who are fakes, or they have natural explanation relating to mental illness. This is true of atheists and agnostics. That there are fakes and natural causes; conceded. That all are fakes or have natural causes; denied. Authentic stigmata can be distinguished from natural causes and fakes because the genuine stigmata:

 

• conforms to the wounds of our Lord, whereas those of a pathological nature would emerge at random on the body
• bleeds especially on days when our Lord's passion is remembered (such as Fridays and Good Friday)
• emits clean and pure blood, whereas those of the pathological origin suppurate
• can be great at times without harm to the person, whereas that of a pathological nature would seriously weaken a person and require a blood transfusion
• cannot be healed through medication or other treatments, whereas one of pathological origin can
• appears suddenly, whereas that of a pathological origin appears gradually over time and can be linked to underlying psychological and physical causes

Another amazing fact concerning the stigmata are the numerous documented cases where various natural laws, such as gravity, are suspended. For example, we see in the life of the Servant of God, Domenica Lazzeri (1815-1848) where a respected observer, Lord Shrewsbury John Talbot testified in 1837 while observing Domenica lying in her bed:  "Instead of taking its natural course, the blood flowed upwards over the tops of the toes, as it would do were she suspended on a cross."

Then too, how can those like Maria von Morl (1812-1868) who continuously bore the stigmata for exactly 33 years (Christ lived 33 years on Earth), not develop any kind of infection in the large, open wounds on the hands, feet and side over the course of numerous decades?  How is it that there has never been a documented case of infection in the wounds of any of the hundreds of known stigmatics?

At the same time, how can anyone explain the amazing speed at which St Gemma Galgani's (and many others) stigmatized wounds would heal each week? Beginning on Thursday evenings, Gemma would be drawn into ecstasy, and would soon develop the crown of thorn wounds on her forehead. By Friday at noon, she would have the stigmata on both her hands and feet--large open wounds that would be bleeding profusely, with the sheets on her bed being completely saturated in blood. At 3pm on Friday, all of the wounds would stop bleeding and begin to close up, and by the next day (Saturday) the wounds would be completely healed with no scabs--in less than 24 hours, the only evidence of the large nail sized wounds the afternoon before would be a round whitish colored scar, as witnessed and testified by numerous people on many occasions.

As stated above, the Church doesn’t canonize anyone just because they have the stigmata, but if someone does have the stigmata and the Church concludes, after rigorous study, that they are false, then that is an impediment for a future canonization of that person, even if he or she leads a holy life.

Those of Diabolical Origin

The great theologian Cardinal Bona has been quoted as holding the opinion that the devil not only can produce the marks of the stigmata but that he has actually done so. He writes: “ . . . The marks of the wounds (of Christ) can be imitated and impressed by the fiend, as so many examples too painfully have proven.” (See De dicretione spirituum  [1672], Chapter VII by Cardinal Bona [1609-1674]).

It is to be noted that all the Cardinal says is that the marks of the wounds “can be imitated and impressed” by the devil; he does not say that the devil can produce deep wounds that remain fresh for years. He adds that there have been many examples of diabolical stigmata, but in none of the examples commonly quoted do we find reference to deep wounds that have remained fresh for years.

 The case of diabolical stigmata most commonly referred to, especially by writers who endeavor to disparage the true stigmata, is that of Magdalena de la Cruz, and when referred to, the facts of the case are generally distorted. The following are the facts of the case: Magdalena de la Cruz was born in Spain near Cordoba in 1487. At the age of twelve she was solicited by the devil who appeared to her in human form, and she remained under his power for more than forty years. She entered the Franciscan Convent of Sancta Isabel de los Angeles in 1504, of which convent she afterwards became Abbess. She gained a great reputation for holiness and for thirty-nine years exhibited a series of pseudo-mystical phenomena among which were the stigmata which bled. These she frequently exhibited to people who visited her. 

In 1543 she fell dangerously ill and confessed that her holiness was only a pretense and that the extraordinary phenomena in her life were the work of the devil. When she repented, all these phenomena, including the stigmata, ceased and never reappeared. She passed the last seventeen years of her life in the convent of Sancta Clara, deeply penitent, and died in 1560. With regard to her stigmata, it is not stated that they were deep wounds or that they were permanent. As she was fond of displaying them, it may be presumed that they were produced by the devil for each occasion, and that they disappeared during the intervals. At all events they disappeared in 1643 when she repented and never reappeared. Hers is the most extreme case and most commonly quoted of the devil’s attempts to deceive people by counterfeiting the stigmata, and it is to be noted that Divine Providence did not allow the deception to be permanent. Much the same may be said about all other cases of stigmata “imitated and impressed” by the devil. 

Conclusion

The stigmata is a rare and beautiful gift of God, which reminds us of what He suffered for our redemption. It is also a reminder of the true sanctity that women can achieve. Over 70% of stigmatics were women. It is understandable that atheistic writers should seize on the fact to discredit this form of miracle, that is confined to the Catholic Church, by representing the stigmata as the effect of emotionalism or hysteria. They will also ask why these wounds would appear in the body of a woman since Jesus Christ was a man.

The answer is simple, and upholds the dignity of women. The vocation of all true stigmatists is to bear a portion of the physical sufferings of Our Lord and in a mysterious manner to keep Our Blessed Lady company at the foot of the cross. At the actual crucifixion of Our Blessed Lord on Calvary, there were three women present, including Our Blessed Lady and only one man, St. John, the Beloved Disciple. Notice three to one in favor of women. 

While Christ reserved the dignity of the priesthood for men, and given them more frequent opportunities for martyrdom than women; and for the honor of keeping Our Blessed Lady company at the foot of the cross, while not excluding other St. Johns, He has chosen members of the female sex. Women outnumber men in many callings where courage and constancy of a high order are necessary. For instance, prior to Vatican II, women outnumbered men in the mission-fields; the number of women in the various religious orders and congregations was far greater than the number of men. Such is the arrangement of Divine Providence. 

While most of us will never be stigmatics, we can all meditate on the Passion of Our Lord, and perform the Stations of the Cross on Fridays. Attend Mass while contemplating the bloody death of Christ on the cross, as you see its unbloody re-presentation through time and space before your very eyes. Let us bear with patience our daily crosses. As Christ told us, "If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for My sake, shall find it." (St. Matthew 16:24-25)

St. Gemma Galgani, pray for us! 

The False Teachings Of "The Spirit World"

 

It's hard to believe the number of popular "self-help" and "spiritual books" written by those who have claimed to have (a) channeled spirits or (b) were suddenly "spoken to" by "God." Just to focus on three such authors, Neale Donald Walsch claims "God" dictated his book  Conversations With God; Helen Schucman who claimed a spirit declaring itself to be the "voice of Jesus Christ" dictated A Course in Miracles; and Judy Zebra "J. Z." Knight (born Judith Darlene Hampton) who channels an "enlightened spirit of  a human warrior" that wrote Voyage to the New World: An Adventure Into Unlimitedness will be examined. 

They have all written follow-up books and have far-reaching influence. Interestingly, even though Walsch, Schucman, and Knight do not have anything to do with each other, and in spite of claims that their books come from very different sources, they all have the same basic false claims stated slightly different. These claims show a decidedly occult worldview.

There are three basic teachings of the occult:

1. Moral and Cognitive Relativism. Moral relativism teaches there are no absolute standards of right and wrong; cognitive relativism teaches there is no objective truth (listen to Millennials who speak about "my truth" and "your truth.").

2. "You are God." Pantheism teaches the universe conceived of as a whole is God, so everything is "part of God." Panentheism teaches everything is in some way a part of God, because God exists in the universe like a soul exists in a body. Both of these philosophies are at the root of most paganism and virtually all of the occult. Humans are exalted to "God status."

3. The Denigration of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His One True Church. True Christianity is made to seem irrelevant, inferior to other things, and even evil. 

In this post, the occult connection between these authors' writings will be explored. In fact, you could see the similarity between any so-called "message from the spirit world" and the authors I mention. Ditto for those claiming "God" spoke to them (you will see the stark difference between those phonies and authentic private revelation from God, like Christ to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque regarding His Most Sacred Heart). The Holy Bible tells us to test the spirits. Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. By this is the spirit of God known. Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God: And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world. (1 St. John 4:1-3; Emphasis mine). 

The Teachings of Demons

First, I will present a brief summary in which I expose the spirits’ (i.e., demons') views from chan­neled literature, which are at open odds with Church teaching. Then I will quote the spirits in more detail to further document their beliefs.

God

The spirits teach that God is ultimately an impersonal force (an “it”), like electricity or a “personalized” universal energy that constitutes everything. God is “infinite power,” “all life,” “universal consciousness,” etc. The consensus of “most channeled material” is that “God is all that is” and that “the universe is a multi-dimensional living Being,” i.e.. God.

Jesus Christ

The spirits teach that Jesus is an evolved spirit or a man just like us. Jesus was the person who highly emulated the Christ spirit which is also part of us all. The spirits say that Jesus has died and has now evolved to a higher state of existence just like other people have. Thus, one spirit confesses that Jesus was only a representative of the impersonal divine force living in all men (the Christ spirit) and that Catholics who believe in Jesus Christ as the Incarnate Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity are "delusional."

Human Beings

The spirits teach that humanity's true nature is perfect and one essence with God. Original sin and even personal sin is denied.

Sin

The spirits teach that sins are merely “mistakes,” “an illusion,” or ignorance of one’s own deity, and that sin in the Catholic sense is nothing with which God concerns Himself.

Salvation

The spirits teach that “salvation” involves realizing that one is already part of God. Each person must accomplish this for himself by practicing various occult techniques.

Death

The spirits teach that at death there is no final judgment. It is merely transition into the wonderful spirit world or Heaven. Hell does not exist.

Satan

The spirits teach there is no devil. (I'm reminded of the famous saying: “The devil's greatest trick is convincing the world he doesn't exist.”). 

Conversations with "God"?

Neale Donald Walsch (b. 1943) was baptized and raised in the One True Church. He claims to have studied comparative religions for years, but was never a devout Catholic. In 1992, Walsch, then 49, was angry and despondent over the course his life had taken. His marriage ended in divorce, a fire then destroyed all his belongings, after which he was in a car accident wherein he suffered a broken neck. After he left the hospital, he was alone, broke, and living in a tent. He picked up aluminum cans for the deposit money in order to eat.

It was then he decided to write an angry letter to God asking why He allowed all this to happen to him. As he finished writing the last question, Walsch claims the pen moved on its own and he found himself writing words as though taking dictation (known as "automatic writing"). Walsch states he knew this was "God" dictating the responses, although he does not explain how he knew God was responsible. Later, he would deny automatic writing, and assert he was writing down what "God" told him.

In an interview with Larry King, Walsch claims he heard a voice saying, "Do you really want an answer to all these questions or are you just venting?" (See cs.cmu.edu/~zechner/cwg/lkl-ndw.html). He turned around he saw no one there, yet Walsch felt answers to his questions filling his mind and decided to write them down as his pen moved. The resulting "dialogue" became the best selling book Conversations With God in 1995. It spent an incredible 135 weeks on the New York Times Bestsellers List. There were eight other books in the series to follow, and Walsch is worth approximately $81 million dollars today. 

The elements set forth above will be examined in Walsch's books. As there are a total of nine (9) books in the series, quotes will be culled from more than just the first book, and citations will be given accordingly (For example 3:27, means book 3 page 27 in the series). I obtained copies of originals years ago and the pages might be different from other editions, or pdf versions.

Sin is non-existent and morality is subjective. In his first book, pg. 152, we are treated to this gem: 

There’s nothing "wrong" with anything. "Wrong'" is a relative term, indicating the opposite of that which you call "right." Yet, what is "right"? Can you be truly objective in these matters? Or are "right" and "wrong" simply descriptions overlaid on events and circumstances by you, out of your decision about them?

I'm sure if Mr. Walsch's publisher refused to pay him the royalties on his book, I'm willing to bet he would see something very wrong with that and sue. The danger of this nonsense should be self-evident. We can't be truly objective about murder, lying, stealing, etc. being immoral? It gives the green light to sin.

God loves you as you are; there is no need to amend your life. 

You must first see your Self as worthy before you can see another as worthy. You must first see your Self as blessed before you can see another as blessed. You must first know your Self to be holy before you can acknowledge holiness in another (1:26)

 Walsch claims "God" taught him Original Sin is a "myth," and we are all holy--why? Because everything is holy (part of God; pantheism). Pure heresy.

"True for you, but maybe not for me."

Feeling is the language of the soul. If you want to know what's true for you about something, look to how you're feeling about it. (1:13). 

Notice the phrase "what's true for you"--as if each person can have a "different truth" because there is no objective, unchanging truth. If that's the case, why is Walsch (or "God") asking us to accept what is said in the book as true? Wouldn't that eliminate anything that contradicts it as objectively false? At the beginning of the book we are told by "God" that Words are really the least effective communicator . . . merely utterances... If true, why is "God" communicating words to Walsch and why should we believe these "mere utterances"? It's a self-refuting statement.

There is no One True Religion.

No path to God is more direct than any other path. No religion is the "one true religion," no people are "the chosen people," and no prophet is the "greatest prophet." (7:98).

In one sentence, Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam are denied. All organized religions are false according to Walsch's "conversations with 'God.'"  Furthermore, there is no Hell, and everyone is assured of eternal happiness. Your happy destiny is unavoidable. You cannot be "saved." There is no hell except not knowing this.-- (1:93).

Jesus Christ is NOT God.

In book 2 of his series, on page 244, we are told The Buddha, Krishna, and Jesus were spacemen. Yes, aliens from another planet! Walsch denigrates Catholicism by claiming "God" said: Wait a minute! This God of yours sent you to Purgatory if you ate meat on Friday? (2:44). In the first book we are told by "God" that drinking is not OK. But Jesus took alcohol! says Walsch. To which "God" replies, So who said Jesus was perfect? (1:192).

A Course in Miracles (and the Occult)

Popular occultist Marianne Williamson (running for U.S. President in 2024), is a follower of the teachings of one Helen Schucman (d. 1981) who wrote the occult book A Course in Miracles (1976). In October of 1965, then 56 year old Schucman, a Jewish atheist psychologist and associate professor of medical psychology at Columbia University in NYC, began receiving what she claimed were channeled messages from a "spirit guide" identifying itself as "the voice of Jesus Christ." Soon, Schucman became used to the "voice" which dictated things for her to write down. She acted as a scribe, with her hand moving in what is known as "automatic writing," which I mentioned above. Popular in occult circles, this automatic writing means that the writer's hand forms the words, but the person is unaware of what will be written. This is what also happened to Walsch. It is undeniable Walsch claimed automatic writing, but later said it was locutions dictated by "God."

The result of Schucman's automatic writing was the book A Course in Miracles. The book tells us that our beliefs are unimportant. What is important is the application of the book's ideas which will bring you into a "higher form of consciousness." It further states that what is important is the "inner core of our own being" that unifies all religions of the world. This is a sample of what the "spirit guide" pretending to be the voice of Jesus Christ dictated to Schucman:

Some of the ideas the workbook presents you will find hard to believe, and others may seem quite startling. This does not matter. You are merely asked to apply the ideas as you are directed to do. You are not asked to judge them at all. You are asked only to use them. It is their use that will give them meaning to you, and will show you they are true.

Remember only this; you need not believe the ideas, you need not accept them, and you need not even welcome them. Some of them you may actively resist. None of this will matter, or decrease their efficacy. But do not allow yourself to make exceptions in applying the ideas the workbook contains, and whatever your reaction to the ideas may be, use them. Nothing more than that is required. (See A Course in Miracles: Text, Workbook for Students, Manual for Teachers, Glen Ellen, CA, The Foundation for Inner Peace [Reprint 1977], pg.ix).

Here are the teachings of “Jesus Christ”—the demon who worked through medium Helen Schucman in A Course in Miracles, 1977; citations are listed by volume and page:

Teaching on God: The recognition of God is the recognition of yourself. There is no separation of God and His creation. (1:136). Pure pantheism. 

Teaching on Jesus Christ: There is nothing about me [Jesus] that you cannot attain. (1:5); Christ waits for your acceptance of Him as yourself. (1:187); Is Jesus the Christ? O yes, along with you. (1:83). Once more, YOU are "God." Christ is blasphemously denigrated as "nothing special." 

Teaching on humanity: God’s Name is holy, but no holier than yours. To call upon His Name is but to call upon your own. (2:334); You are the Holy Son of God Himself.  (2:353-54). More self-divinization. 

Teaching on sin: Sin does not exist. (3:81); Sin is the grand illusion… joyously [release] one another from the belief in sin.  (1:375, 377-78); See no one, then, as guilty … [within all people] there is perfect innocence; No one is punished for sins [and you] are not sinners. (1:88).

Teaching on salvation: [Divine] forgiveness, then, is an illusion (3:79);  [It is] a terrible misconception that God Himself [judged] His own Son on behalf of salvation…. It is so essential that all such thinking be dispelled that we must be sure that nothing of this kind remains in your mind. I was not ‘punished’ because you were bad. (1:32-33, 87);  A sense of separation from God is the only lack you really need to correct; Salvation is nothing more than ‘right-mindedness’; You are one with God. (1:11,53; 2:125); Do not make the pathetic error of ‘clinging to the old rugged cross.’… This is not the gospel I… intended to offer you. (1:47).

Teaching on death: There is no death, but there is a belief in death. (1:46); Death is the central dream from which all illusions stem. (3:63).

Voyage to...Hell

JZ Knight explains herself thus on her website:

JZ Knight is the unique channel of Ramtha and author of the best-selling autobiography, “A State of Mind, My Story.” Historians and religious experts who have studied her life’s work call JZ Knight the Great American Channel and recognize her as one of the most charismatic and compelling spiritual leaders of the modern age.

JZ Knight and Ramtha have captivated and inspired audiences worldwide for the last three decades, bridging ancient wisdom and the power of consciousness together with the latest discoveries in science. JZ Knight has appeared on national TV shows, such as Larry King and The Merv Griffin Show, offering spiritual insight and inspiration to thousands of people from all over the world and all walks of life, including many well-known figures from the entertainment world....

Ramtha is an ascended Master Teacher who learned in his lifetime the unlimited potential of our minds for creating reality and the extraordinary in our lives. Ramtha lived as a human being on Earth 35,000 years ago. In that lifetime he discovered the true nature of the human person, the power of the mind, and the malleable nature of physical reality. Through his study of the nature of reality he achieved the supreme convergence of spirit and matter and became an ascended master. His powerful message of hope for humanity has already changed countless lives — none more powerfully and dramatically than JZ’s own life. (See jzknight.com/about).

Knight claims the entity appeared to her in her kitchen in 1977, and dictates what to write through her. He also speaks through her. 

“Ramtha”—the spirit speaking through medium J. Z. Knight in Douglas Mahr’s, Ramtha, Voyage to the New World, 1987; citations are listed by pages.

“Ramtha’s” teaching on God: Ramtha teaches the Christian God is an “idiotic deity” (p. 219); God, the principal, is all things (p. 250). Pantheism strikes again.

“Ramtha’s” teaching on humanity: You are God.(p. 61); God the Father is you .(p. 136); Everyone is what you call a psychic. (p. 139); Love yourself… live in the moment, to exalt all that you are.(p. 149).

“Ramtha’s” teaching on sin:  There is no such thing as evil. (p. 60); For 2,000 years we have been called sinful creatures … [but] we are equal with God or Christ. (pgs. 180-81).

“Ramtha’s” teaching on salvation: Do not preach to this world…. The world doesn’t need saving— leave it alone. (p. 130); Relinquish guilt… do not live by rules, live by feelings. … You are the Lord of Hosts, you are the Prince of Peace. (p. 149); Now to become enlightened is to make the priority of enlightenment first—the priority of love of Self first. (p. 227).

“Ramtha’s” teaching on death: God has never judged you or anyone. (p. 62); No, there is no Hell and there is no devil. (p. 252).

Conclusion

Notice the common themes throughout all these alleged contacts with "spirits," or "God," or specifically, "Jesus Christ." All came from occult automatic writing and/or locutions. Could some be simply money-making scams? Sure. However, did they remain such? Are the recurrent themes all coincidence? All three authors had some rough times in their lives connected to their interaction with spirits, or voices claiming to be God. They all teach the same things, even though there are many ways to be against the Church. 

Directly from Hell, or doing Satan's work--one thing remains clear: The religious teachings of the spirits are exactly what one might expect from demons. Many have gone into the occult as skeptics to "see if it's real" or to make a quick buck--but in my experience and research, I have never known anyone who remained skeptical once they began. 

The next time you see a "self-help book," a book that gives "spiritual guidance/enlightenment" or read about an alleged "message from God," put it to the test. 

Defending Jesus As The Messiah

 

There is a large Jewish population in New York, and among NY lawyers. Having worked with them for years, I know that they will not try and make converts. Even the Orthodox Jews don't proselytize. According to Jewish scholar Rabbi Allen S. Maller:

Judaism lacks a strong missionary impulse because Judaism is a pluralistic religion. Judaism teaches that the Jewish way is right for us, but good people in other religions also have a place in the world to come. Correct behavior in society is more important than correct beliefs about God. Thus, while Jews welcome non-Jews to join us, we do not have a urgent motive to ‘enlighten’ or ‘save’ them.

(See eurasiareview.com/10112022-a-jewish-scholar-explains-why-jews-dont-proselytize-oped). 

Jewish people have more in common with Bergoglio than they probably realize--"Proselytism is solemn nonsense," said the Argentinian apostate. There have been a number of converts from Judaism to "Christianity" (I use that word broadly to encompass Protestant sects). The organization Jews for Jesus  is known for its proselytism of Jews, and promotes the belief that Jesus is the Christ --the Messiah promised in the Old Testament.

Hence, there is now a strong push by certain rabbis to prevent anyone from leaving Judaism. They concentrate on arguments meant to show that Jesus was not, and could not, be the Messiah. In this post, I will expose some of those arguments, and how to respond with evidence that shows Christ is the Messiah as prophesied. For this post, I have used many sources, and take credit only for compiling them into a terse post. I want to acknowledge in particular, a 1949 Catholic pamphlet written by an anonymous priest entitled Jesus Christ is the Messiah: Proven From The Bible.

Jesus Christ: Son of God and "Son of Man"

The term "Son of Man" is used over 80 times in the New Testament.  What does “Son of Man” mean?

When Jesus spoke of Himself and His mission, He often referred to Himself as “Son of Man.” Some, who are not well-versed in the Faith, may think "Son of Man" emphasizes Jesus' Humanity, while "Son of God" emphasizes His Divinity. In the context of Jesus, “Son of Man” seems to relate to Jesus’ self-designation and understanding of being the Messiah (though sometimes in a hidden or “secret” way).

In the Gospel of St. John, a bystander asks Jesus this very question: “Who is this Son of Man?” (12:34). Jesus, however, does not give a clear answer. He instead refers to himself differently: as the light. In St. Matthew 16, however, He is more explicit. When He asks His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” (16:13), Jesus affirms the response of St. Peter: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (16:16).

One of the most important prophecies Christ fulfilled was that of the "Suffering Servant" found in the Book of Isaiah, chapter 53:

Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

3 He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

4 Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.

8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. Yet who of his generation protested? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished.

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

11 After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied ; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Christ fulfilled all the Messianic prophesies, which in itself would take several posts to examine. In the next section will be specific Jewish objections and their refutations.

Charges Made and Answered

1. Jesus couldn't be the Messiah because He was not a prophet; He appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.

Reply: In the mid to late second century, Judaism established an arbitrary "end of prophecy" upon the death of the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi and declared that Jesus cannot be the Messiah since "He appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended."

If this were true, then according to Judaism, the Messiah can never come.  Any Messiah that showed up today, tomorrow, next week, or next year would "appear on the scene over 2,300 years after prophecy had ended" and would not qualify as a prophet either.

2. Jesus couldn't be the Messiah because He could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David.

Reply: Judaism has invented a requirement of patriarchal lineage (i.e. lineage through the father) that does not exist in Scripture.  The Law of Moses allows for inheritance and continuation of lineage through daughters as well as sons. (see Numbers 27:1-7)

In a rather ironic twist, modern Judaism only acknowledges Jewish heritage and legitimacy through a mother's lineage... not the father's.

3. The Virgin Birth is made up by Christians and not found in Scripture. Isaiah 7:14 says that a "young woman" will give birth and not a "virgin."

Reply: "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Emmanuel." (Isaiah 7:14; Emphasis mine).  

In Isaiah 7:11, God tells King Ahaz, "Ask for a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; make it as deep as Sheol or high as heaven."

Ahaz declines in fear saying, "I will not ask, nor will I test the LORD!" (verse 12)

In verse 14, God declares His choice of a miraculous sign for Ahaz: a virgin shall be with child and bear a son.

According to the Jewish "anti-missionaries" the miraculous sign God chose was that a "young woman" would get pregnant (presumably in the normal way) and have a son.  Really?  How is something that happens millions of times every year a miracle?

Yes, the Hebrew of this passage uses the word "alma."  Yes, that word generally means "a young woman," however, young women described using this word are virgins.  A young woman who is not a virgin is called a naarah.  Jacob's daughter Dinah (who is raped by a young man) is described using naarah and not alma.

Between 130 to 350 years before the Messiah was born, Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek---a translation we call The Septuagint.  They translated the Hebrew word alma in Isaiah 7:14 into the Greek word parthenos.  This word parthenos means "a young woman who is a virgin".

4. Jesus Christ is not the "Suffering Servant." That title belongs to Israel. In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. Throughout Jewish scripture, Israel is repeatedly called, in the singular, the "Servant of God" (see Isaiah 43:8). In fact, Isaiah states no less than 11 times in the chapters prior to 53 that the Servant of God is Israel. 

Reply: This is a common Jewish claim. Not surprisingly, there are several holes in their logic:

• The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is innocent and guiltless and "had done no violence, nor was there any deceit in His mouth."  In contrast, Isaiah describes Israel as a "sinful nation, a people weighed down with iniquity." (Isaiah 1:4)

• The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53:3 was not esteemed by Israel ("we did not esteem Him") and yet Israel esteems themselves daily in their prayers.

• The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53:8 suffers the penalty of the transgression in lieu of "my people," [Israel] "to whom the stroke was due."  This cannot be Israel.

• The Suffering Servant dies, is buried, and is called rich in His death (verse 9) and yet the nation of Israel has (obviously) never died or been buried.

• The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 serves as a "guilt-offering" (Hebrew: asham).  This type of offering is used to atone for willful sin.  Can the suffering of a sinful nation serve to atone for their own sins much less the sins of other nations?  No!

 Therefore, The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is not Israel. Jesus Christ is the Messiah.

Conclusion

Though there were many factors that led the Jewish people to reject Jesus as the Messiah, it can be stated simply: they did not believe in Him because they did not want to believe. It is the same reason most people throughout history have rejected Jesus as Messiah. It is not that they could not believe, it is that they would not believe. It is not that people need more evidence, it is that they do not act upon the evidence which they have. As Jesus Himself said in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man:

 If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead. (St. Luke 16:31). 

What Vatican II Could Have Been

 

My best friend is an ardent reader of what have been called "alternate history books." The premise of these books is to posit a realistic scenario (or scenarios) if something in history had happened differently. To give but a single example of such books, there is one entitled Dropping the Atomic Bomb on Hirohito & Hitler: What Might Have Happened if the A-Bomb Had Been Ready Early by Jim Mangi. A description is given by the publisher:

...what might have happened if the atom bomb had been available somewhat earlier than it really was (?) What if the atomic bomb had been ready for deployment in, say, February 1945? Had the atomic bomb been ready sooner, how would this have affected the war in Europe, and in particular Germany’s surrender? What would the impact have been in the war in the Pacific against Imperial Japan, and how would the Soviets have reacted? And what would the following Cold War have looked like? These are all questions and scenarios that the author rigorously examines. Solidly based on real people and actual events, in this book James Mangi describes the Manhattan Project to build the atom bomb getting an earlier start after President Roosevelt appointed an energetic scientist, Walter Mendenhall, to study the feasibility of the bomb, instead of the more traditional bureaucrat, Lyman Briggs, he actually chose. This scenario, he reveals, might well have produced a war-ending atomic bomb earlier, the effects of which rippled through the post-war world.

I must admit that it is most interesting to ponder such things, even though I almost exclusively read non-fiction. These books are partial non-fiction as they are based on certain real persons, facts, and situations. The rest is fictitious speculation and conjecture. I'm willing to bet many (perhaps even most) Traditionalists have wondered what the Church and the world would have been like now had the Robber Council never taken place. 

Recently, I was reading the original drafts of six documents of Vatican II, translated from the Latin by a Vatican II sect priest, Fr. Joseph A. Komonchak (ordained 1963). I started contemplating a different kind of alternate Church history. What if Cardinal Ottaviani had been validly elected at the October 1958 conclave and had taken the name of "Pope Pius XIII"? (Fr. DePauw informed me that it was Cardinal Ottaviani, not Siri, who was the favorite to win, and Ottaviani was so sure of the outcome, he even chose the name Pius prior to entering that fateful conclave ---Introibo). What if those drafts (called schemas) had been duly passed by a True Council called by Pope Pius XIII to combat modern errors? Thanks to Fr. Komonchak, we can have a pretty good speculative outlook. 

Although these schemata carry no Magisterial authority at all (as they were never passed), it nevertheless shows what the most erudite, orthodox, approved theologians taught on various subjects, and furthermore believed that it was ripe for being defined by the Church. I must admit, those theologians were prescient; it was as if they knew what would happen if certain errors were left unchecked. I will highlight some salient points, and you, the reader, can imagine what Vatican II could have been. 

A Catalogue of Errors Condemned

Preliminary note: These schemata were the product of the very best and most Anti-Modernist approved theologians under Pope Pius XII. However, they were drafts made to be worked on at the Council. If there were a true pope, each schema would be debated and subject to additions, omissions, and alterations by the Council. When in final form, if it should pass by majority vote of the Bishops, it would then be presented to the pope for his approval and promulgation. Only then would it have binding Magisterial authority. For my purposes here, I will assume these schemata were each in their final form and approved/promulgated by (the alternate history) Pope Pius XIII. 

What follows is what jumped out at me while reading each schema. The six drafts were:

1. DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE SOURCES OF REVELATION (SR).

2.  DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH (CC).

3. DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON DEFENDING INTACT THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH (DDF)

4.  DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHRISTIAN MORAL ORDER (CMO)

5. A DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON CHASTITY, MARRIAGE, THE FAMILY, AND VIRGINITY (CMFV).

6. DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY, MOTHER OF GOD, AND MOTHER OF MEN (BVM)

The text of each schema cited will be in red font. My commentary will be in the usual black font and all emphasis (in red or black) is mine.

From the schema on the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (CC)

a) The One True Church of Christ is the Mystical Body of Christ and Identical To the Apostolic Roman Church. 

Para. #4: But of all the figures, because it more clearly expresses the social element along with the mystical, the principal one is the figure of the body which, at Christ's inspiration, Paul used: "And he is the Head of the Body of the Church" (Col 1:18); "which is His Body and the fulness of Him who fills all in all" (Eph 1:23). For all those who have entered the Church through baptism and have put on Christ in the communion of the saints, since they share in the one Eucharistic Bread, are made perfect in the unity of the one Body: "Because there is one bread, we, though many, are one body, for we all share in the one bread" (1 Cor 10:17). 

This paragraph cites to Pope Pius XII's encyclical, Mystici Corporis, and raises its teaching (already taught since St. Paul himself) to dogma. 

Concluding paragraph: The holy Synod teaches and solemnly professes, therefore, that there is only a single true Church of Jesus Christ, that Church which in the Creed we proclaim to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, the Church which the Savior acquired for Himself on the cross and joined to Himself as body to head and as bride to bridegroom, the Church which, after His resurrection, He handed over to be governed by St. Peter and his successors, the Roman Pontiffs. Therefore, only the

Catholic Roman is rightly called the Church.

A most beautiful exposition of Catholic dogma that unequivocally states the One True Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is identical to the Catholic Roman Church. In the footnote, it explains the appellation "Catholic Roman:"  The First Vatican Council deliberately said "Catholic apostolic Roman" and not "Roman Catholic," because the latter smacks of the doctrine of the three branches. The so-called "Branch Theory" was advanced by Anglican heretics in the 18th century. They taught that the Catholic Church is comprised of three "branches;" the Eastern Church, the Roman Church, and the Anglican Church. These schismatic branches, according to the heretical theory, will eventually be united into the future "ecumenical" Church, a synthesis of all of the confessional Churches at present separated in practice but united in origin and substance with the reality of apostolic Catholicism. To avoid any connection with such false ecclesiology, the term "Catholic Roman" Church was employed. 

Compare the damnable Vatican II sect document on the Church which replaced this one, Lumen Gentium, para. #8:

This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.

The Church of Christ is therefore distinct from the Catholic Roman Church. It "subsists" there because it contains all the "elements" but it subsists in other sects too according to how many "elements" each one has. To have all the elements is best, but to have just some is good too, and leads to salvation. This is the heresy in ecclesiology that leads to all the other errors and heresies in Vatican II. 

b) Feeneyism Condemned. Baptism of Desire is Expressly Taught. 

Para. #8: The Holy Synod teaches, as God's Holy Church has always taught, that the Church is necessary for salvation and that no one can be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded by God through Jesus Christ, nevertheless refuses to enter her or to persevere in Her. Just as no one can be saved except by receiving baptism--by which anyone who does not pose some obstacle to incorporation becomes a member of the Church--or at least by desire for baptism, so also no one can attain salvation unless he is a member of the Church or at least is ordered towards the Church by desire. But for anyone to attain to salvation, it is not enough that he be really a member of the Church or be by desire ordered towards it; it is also required that he die in the state of grace, joined to God by faith, hope, and charity.

Cited by the schema as authorities for this formulation:  For the teaching of the Church, see the Athanasian Creed (Dz 40); Pelagius II, Letter Dilectionis vestris (Dz 247); Innocent III, Profession of Faith for the Waldensians (Dz 423); Boniface VIII, Bull Unam sanctam (Dz 468); Clement VI, Epist. Super quibusdam (Dz 570b); the Council of Florence, Decree for the Jacobites (Dz 714); the Tridentine Profession of Faith (Dz 1000); Benedict XIV, Profession of Faith for the Maronites (Dz 1473); Gregory XVI, Enc. Mirari vos (Dz 1613); Pius IX, Enc. Quanto conficiamur maerore (Dz 1677); Syllabus, n. 16-17 (Dz 1716-17); Pius XII, Mystici Corporis (AAS 35 [1943], pp. 242-43); Humani generis (Dz 2319); Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, Aug. 8, 1949.

Note well that the top theologians cite to the very documents the Feeneyites claim exclude Baptism of Desire (e.g., Unam Sanctam). Bye, bye Fred and Bobby! For someone who wishes to do all God wants of him, and leads a morally upright life by cooperating with actual graces, God can, before the moment of death, infuse his intellect with Faith, and give him perfect contrition so as to fill the soul with sanctifying grace. He therefore dies within the Church and in the state of grace; the requirements to be saved. 

c) That the Sacraments are not permitted to non-Catholics, is once more affirmed.

Para. #54: The principal obstacle to liturgical communion between Catholics and the separated brethren is the nature of the communion in worship by which the members of the Church themselves are linked with one another. For the communion of the members of the Church with one another in their sacred worship is a gift of Christ himself, given solely to his one Church, by which the union in faith and in communion under one supreme pastor is consummated and which is a sign of that unity in truth and love by which the Church is the mystical Body of Christ and already here on earth a figure and anticipation of heavenly union in Christ.

Since, therefore, in the sacred liturgy, carried out by ministers in Christ's name and with the Church's mandate, the communion of the faithful confesses the faith of the Church (see Acts 2:42), active participation in the sacred liturgy must per se be considered a certain profession of faith.

Consequently, the active participation of dissident Christians both in the very worship of the Church in general and in particular receptions of the sacraments generally cannot be permitted, since, intrinsically, it is contrary to the unity of faith and communion and, extrinsically, it obscures the sign of the unity of the Body of Christ, and from such defects the dangers of religious indifferentism, interconfessionalism, and scandal often flow.

Compare to Vatican II's decree for Eastern Rite Churches, Orientalium Ecclesiarum, para. #27:

Without prejudice to the principles noted earlier, Eastern Christians who are in fact separated in good faith from the Catholic Church, if they ask of their own accord and have the right dispositions, may be admitted to the sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and the Anointing of the Sick. 

d) There is but One True Church of Christ that ALWAYS possesses Unity, Catholicity, Holiness, and Apostolicity.

Para. #48: Since the Church, as the One and unique institution of salvation, was built by Christ to be the one and only sign lifted up among the nations, nothing can ever intrinsically violate Her unity.

The Church is always One, Catholic, Holy, and Apostolic. No amount of those leaving to start or join false sects can ever change that. Compare to Vatican II's decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, para. #4 where heretical and schismatic sects impede the Church from being "fully Catholic:"

Nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from attaining the fullness of catholicity proper to Her, in those of her sons who, though attached to Her by Baptism, are yet separated from full communion with Her. Furthermore, the Church Herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life Her full catholicity in all Her bearings. 

e) Religious Liberty Condemned.

Para. #42: The good of the State itself requires that the civil power not consider itself indifferent towards religion. It was established by God to help men acquire a truly human perfection; it must, therefore, not only provide its members the opportunity to procure temporal goods, both material and cultural, but must also assist them so that the spiritual goods for leading a religious life can more easily abound. Among those goods none is to be more highly regarded than to know and acknowledge God and to fulfil the duties owed to God, for these are the foundations of all private virtue, and indeed of all public virtue as well.

These duties toward God are not to be fulfilled only by individual citizens, but also by the civil power, which in its public acts represents the civil society. For God is the author of civil society and the source of all the goods which through it flow down to every member. Although, in the order willed by Christ, liturgical worship belongs only to God's Church, still the civil society must also worship God in some social way.

In the light of its nature, it will especially do this if by procuring the common good it faithfully observes the laws of God established by the divine Majesty for this economy of salvation. This demands above all that full freedom be granted to the Church and that whatever the Church judges to hinder the attainment of the eternal goal is excluded from legislation, governing, and public activity. The goal indeed should be to make it easier to live a life on Christian principles, one conducive to eternal life.  

Ironically, the very American theologian censured by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office for his heretical teachings on Church and State, the Jesuit Fr. John Courtney Murray, was to  become the principle author of the heretical Vatican II declaration on religious liberty, Dignitatis Humanae. 

In 1954, the Holy Office solemnly condemned Murray's four principle errors:

• the Catholic state is not the ideal
• full religious liberty can be considered as a valid political ideal in a truly democratic state
• it is sufficient for the state to guarantee the freedom of the Catholic Church by a general guarantee of religious liberty
• the teaching of Pope Leo XIII on the obligations of States to God is not applicable to the democratic state.

Murray was ordered to submit his writings to the censors in Rome before publication. His Jesuit superiors ordered him to write no more on the topic of religious liberty, to which he acquiesced.

In 1957-1958, the Holy Office was preparing a document on religious freedom. A draft included a list of 21 errors, 14 of which were drawn from Murray’s writings. When Pope Pius XII died and Roncalli was "elected," the condemnations of error were ordered scrapped by His Wickedness, false "Pope" John XXIII. Here is what Dignitatis Humanae, para. #3 heretically teaches:

The religious acts whereby men, in private and in public and out of a sense of personal conviction, direct their lives to God transcend by their very nature the order of terrestrial and temporal affairs. Government therefore ought indeed to take account of the religious life of the citizenry and show it favor, since the function of government is to make provision for the common welfare. However, it would clearly transgress the limits set to its power, were it to presume to command or inhibit acts that are religious. 

 From the schema on the Dogmatic Constitution Defending Intact the Deposit of Faith (DDF)

a) The True Catholic Development of Doctrine is clearly Expounded and Defended.

Para. #31:The Sacred Council, therefore, acknowledges and professes that true development in understanding and presenting the doctrine of faith does take place in Christ's Church, in such a way that new definitions of revealed truth can even be made. But it declares legitimate only a development which consists simply in an increase in human knowledge about revelation, and not in the growth of the deposit itself. For the deposit remains in itself immutable, since any truth that may be proposed newly by the Church is contained therein at least implicitly and therefore is supported by divine authority.

Compare with the Modernist conception of development of doctrine contained in the Vatican II's declaration on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, para. #8:

The Tradition that comes from the apostles makes progress in the Church, with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realties and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts (cf. Lk. 2:19, 51). It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth. Thus, as the centuries go by, the Church is always advancing towards the plenitude of divine truth, until eventually the words of God are fulfilled in Her. 

The last sentence is telling: Thus, as the centuries go by, the Church is always advancing towards the plenitude of divine truth, until eventually the words of God are fulfilled in Her. The "plenitude of truth" is evidently the same thing as the "whole, complete truth" towards which the Holy Ghost leads. The "Spirit of God" leads to the "whole, complete truth" which the Church however does not yet possess; otherwise it would not have need of being led nor of tending there incessantly. This is to say that the Church does not yet fully possess Revelation and has not a true, perfect deposit of Faith. This is clearly heretical.

In 1907, Pope St. Pius X, CONDEMNED the following propositions of the Modernists in Lamentabili Sane:

21. Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles.

22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort.

54. Dogmas, Sacraments and hierarchy, both their notion and reality, are only interpretations and evolutions of the Christian intelligence which have increased and perfected by an external series of additions the little germ latent in the Gospel.

58. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him.

59. Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and all men, but rather inaugurated a religious movement adapted or to be adapted to different times and places.

62. The chief articles of the Apostles’ Creed did not have the same sense for the Christians of the first ages as they have for the Christians of our time.

All of the above condemned propositions show the Modernist heresy of "development" whereby dogmas (and even the Church Herself) "evolve" over time into something completely different since truth is not immutable according to Modernism. Vatican II adopted this idea. 

b) The Rightful Place of Private Revelations.

Para. #32: With regard to private revelations which are claimed to have occurred after the death of the Apostles, the Holy Synod declares that they are to be subjected completely to the judgment of the Church's Pastors, lest the faithful be deceived, since Christ warned, "False prophets will arise and will deceive many" (Mt 24:11). It also declares that they are worthy of consideration only when they are in total agreement with the truths contained in the public treasury of faith and when they promote the living of the Christian life under the leadership of the Pastors. They cannot offer an opportunity to bring forth any ecclesiastical institutions unless they have a dogmatic foundation elsewhere. And, finally, it is never permitted because of them to introduce new doctrines or to begin new undertakings if the Church is unwilling. It further teaches that we neither must nor can give private revelations, even approved ones, the assent of Catholic faith but only the assent of human faith, according to the rules of prudence if these indicate that such revelations are probable and piously credible.

The Christian faithful should thus carefully restrain immoderate curiosity about wonders that are not sufficiently approved by the Church's Pastors. For there are people who pursue such things as if the very Deposit of faith were insufficient to nourish the Christian life or as if richer pastures lie before the sheep of Christ outside the Deposit. 

c) Occultism forcefully condemned. 

Para. #33: Such curiosity becomes truly pernicious when it moves believers to give themselves over to the superstition of divination of any form, but especially to that spiritualism that attempts by human effort to evoke sensible communication with spirits or with separated souls in order to attain various information or various helps. "There shall not be found among you anyone who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer.. For the Lord abominates all these things" (Dt 18:10-12). The Apostolic See has not neglected in various of its documents to oppose evil spiritualism with appropriate remedies.

Para. #34: In many regions superstition is creeping widely and is being spread more every day, sometimes also deceitfully under the false title of parapsychology, the discipline whose task it is to explain facts that appear to contradict the ordinary laws of psychology. The Sacred Council declares that the divine law prohibits as a very serious sin against religion both to want to call out the souls of the dead and to wish to establish perceptible communications with them or with any other spirits,

however it may be done, publicly or privately, even if the intention is to address only good spirits and the whole exhibition has the appearance of propriety, piety and religion. It forbids all Christians even out of mere curiosity to attend or to promote in any way spiritualist sessions or other meetings of this sort.

Para. #35: The Holy Synod does, however, exhort all the faithful to imitate the example of holy Mother Church by praying for the faithful departed that they may attain the vision of God and intercede with Him for us; it also exhorts them to commend themselves to the holy Angels who in God's fatherly providence guard the human race and are ready by direction, assistance, and enlightenment to help individuals not to succumb to their malicious enemies.

The approved theologians saw the ugly head of the occult slowly beginning to rise during the 1950s.

Had this condemnation emanated from a true Council, led by a true pope, I have no doubts in my mind that the occult revival and invasion after Vatican II--which made occult practices ubiquitous---would never had happened. 

d) Polygenism condemned. 

Para. #49: The sacred Synod, therefore, rejects the views of those who assert either that after Adam there have been here on earth true men who did not derive by natural generation from that one first parent or that Adam represents some multitude of first parents; such views contradict Catholic doctrine.

For it is not at all apparent how such views are compatible with the sources of revealed truth, and the acts of the Church's Magisterium present about original sin, which proceeds from the sin truly committed by the one Adam and which is transmitted to all by generation, and which is in each person as his own.

Here, the schema ratifies the condemnation of Pope Pius XII regarding polygenism in para. #37 of his encyclical Humani Generis:

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. 

From the schema on the Dogmatic Constitution on the Christian Moral Order (CMO)

a) Moral Relativism Condemned.

Para. #1: When the infinitely good and infinitely holy God revealed the mystery of his holiness and love in the work of creation and redemption, he at the same time showed men the way of love and holiness. For this reason, in accord with the Apostle's statement, "This is the will of God, your sanctification" (1 Th 4:3), the Second Vatican Council [this is a schema; this is what Vatican II was intended to profess, but did not] solemnly professes that there is an ordering [ordinatio] of the same infinitely good and infinitely holy God by which to measure the rightness and wrongness of human acts. This ordering of divine wisdom, which men share by knowledge, becomes the rule and norm of holiness for them so that, as Sacred Scripture teaches, they may be holy as God Himself is holy.

Observing this moral order with the help of God, without which no one can serve the divine will, man conforms his will to the will of God; and, sharing in the law of liberty (see Jas 1:25), he not only becomes a faithful servant of God, but also shares in that freedom of the children of God in virtue of which, freed from the slavery of sin,  he can tend towards his ultimate end, which in this economy of salvation is God himself, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, to be possessed in heaven by contemplation and by love. The moral order, therefore, is not a fiction of the human mind, but really exists, just as the will of God, infinitely wise, good, and holy, really exists.  

b) "Situation Ethics" condemned.

Para. #15: Finally, there are people who so make love the only criterion of morality and its single norm that they think the other virtues are not important. It is true that the love by which the just love God above all things and love the neighbor because of God is "greater" than faith, hope, and the other virtues (1 Cor 13:13); it does not, however, remove the need for both these kinds of virtues, but so nourishes and fosters them that we may come "to the extent of the full stature of Christ" (Eph 4:13).

The Holy Council therefore encourages that all the activities of the Christian faithful "be done in love" (1 Cor 16:14). But they should not therefore make the mistake of thinking that a man "acts in a Christian manner" only when love is the motive or that the other virtues are unimportant, as if God crowned only an explicit act of love. For acts ofthe just that proceed from another proper motive or impulse condignly merit the growth of grace and of glory, not however without that love.

Care should likewise be taken that simple people not misunderstand the statement, "Love and do what you wish," and mistakenly think that only one precept, namely Thou shalt love, has to be kept in the Christian life. For such a life is reduced to some uncertain feeling of love, completely neglecting the keeping of the commandments, in contradiction of the Lord himself, who said,

"If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:17), and elsewhere---

"Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me" (Jn 14:21).

"Situation Ethics" is a system made popular by Episcopal "priest" turned atheist, Joseph Fletcher (d.1991). Fletcher wrote ten books and hundreds of articles, book reviews, and translations. Situation ethics essentially states that other moral principles can be cast aside in certain situations if love is best served. Fletcher supported abortion on demand, euthanasia, infanticide, contraception, pre-marital sex, and every form of sexual perversion. In his 1966 book, Situation Ethics, Fletcher wrote, Whether any form of sex is good or evil depends on whether love is fully served. (pg. 139). He also opined that ...only the end justifies the means. (pg. 120). Vatican II never mentions (let alone condemns) moral relativism or situation ethics. 

From the schema on the Dogmatic Constitution on Chastity, Marriage, the Family, and Virginity (CMVF)

(a) Transgenderism condemned.

Para. #4: It should be noted that God alone is the absolute lord of man's life and of its integrity, particularly with respect to what makes man naturally capable of and associates him with God in the propagation of human life.

Attempts to change one's sex, therefore, when this is sufficiently determined, are wicked; nor is it allowed, in order to save the health of the whole man, to mutilate his genital organs or to render them infertile, if there are other ways to provide for his health.

 Nor in any case is or can there be a right to transplant into the human body the sexual organs of animals which produce the germinative cells of their own genus, or vice-versa; nor also to try to unite the human germ cells of each sex in a laboratory, even if this is done without violating modesty and chastity and solely for the sake of scientific progress. 

This principle condemns transgenderism before it was even known by the general public. As to the experiments with gametes, the footnote in the schema had this to say:

Here the Constitution has in mind all those modern experiments being made to unite the vital human germ cells, even independently of an intention at artificial fertilization, but for other purposes. Many

are waiting for the Church clearly to say that these experiments are in every hypothesis illicit, even if civil legislatures until now, as far as we know, are doing nothing; indeed materialists may take the occasion publicly to ridicule divine principles in the newspapers.

b) So-called "free love" and false ideas about marriage condemned.

Para. #22: The Sacred Synod must severely condemn so-called "temporary" or "experimental" or "companionate" marriages. It also rejects as unworthy of a man and especially of a Christian those instructions by which through various skills a real hedonism in sacred and holy marriage is propagated.

It also rejects theories by which a violation of marital fidelity is considered allowed to spouses, either when the mutual love between the couple has failed or when the sexual impulse is falsely thought to be impossible to keep within the limits of monogamous marriage.

It is also mistaken to state that civil authority itself never has the power to punish adulterers, and indeed with an equal penalty for both men and women. It also rebukes those who say, and indeed under the pretext of benefitting the Church, that mixed marriages are generally and in themselves to be fostered rather than tolerated. That position is also mistaken which maintains that a marriage can be declared invalid or dissolved solely because of a failure of love.

Finally the Sacred Synod most severely condemns so-called "free love," by which, under a false pretext of constructing a new fraternity and society, sin is committed against the divine order and a lethal wound is inflicted not only on marriage but also on the family and society. 

Compare to the Vatican II sect having "marriage preparation" classes for "cohabitating couples." These fornicators, living in a persistent state of mortal sin, are not made to separate bed and board, confess, and stay chaste until marriage. 

c) Feminism Condemned.

Para. #26: It is mistaken, therefore, to deny the divine origin of the family and to subvert the order which God set within it or to remove it from the control and influence of the divine order and of the Church. And therefore this Sacred Synod, while it defends the rights of the woman, rejects that evil form of emancipation by which, whether as a daughter or a wife or a mother, her proper nature, function, and role are disfigured by some false view of her equality with the man.

Nor does it approve of that way of acting by which some people, indeed civil authority itself, moved by some false exaltation of freedom, either denies or belittles or, what is worse, practically destroys, to the detriment of the family's good, the natural and distinct qualities of man and woman.

d) Periodic Abstinence vindicated.

Para. #27: Today especially, a distinctive sign of truly Christian parents should be that generous way

of acting, one in accordance with the norms of Christian virtues, with which they think correctly about the number of their children and act accordingly. The Sacred Synod is not at all unaware of the many and great difficulties which spouses may encounter on this matter. It therefore teaches in general that by divine law, natural or positive, there is no universal norm with regard to the number of children to be had in each family. In each case should be considered what individual conditions, the good of the whole family and of society suggest, according to the dictates of Christian prudence, linked also with the other virtues. In their particular deliberations, the faithful should not be moved only by temporal and material considerations, but first of all by supernatural ones, and they should be led by the light of reason and of faith.

And, as befits Christians, in measuring the number of their children, they should be mindful of divine Providence by which all things are wisely ordered. In so serious a matter, the faithful should avoid irrational and blind instinct and the various forms of hedonism.

If they both agree and if they have a just cause, it is licit for the faithful to make use of marriage only on those days which are known to be infertile. But renouncing the use of marriage becomes illicit for them if, as the Apostle noted (see 1 Cor 7:5), it brings the spouses into a proximate danger of sin. Let the supreme rule be the Apostle's general advice: "Let all your acts be done with charity" (1 Cor 16:14). And therefore values and reasons that are merely medical, eugenic, economic, social or of some other temporal and material order, may not be opposed to, preferred to, or equated with the values and reasons of a higher order, the order of religion and morality. (Emphasis mine). 

Remember that the greatest approved theologians, noted for their orthodoxy, knew that periodic abstinence was permissible for just cause--as this schema demonstrates. This gives the lie to Fred and Bobby Dimond, wreaking havoc on married people's consciences that they must have, in all cases, the most children possible. It was a false pope that allowed this document to be destroyed! Can you imagine if this passed in a true Council with a true pope? It would be a world where Fred and Bobby would need to get real jobs suited to their dispositions and intellects (e.g., asking customers, "Would you like fries with that?").

From the schema on the Dogmatic Constitution on the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, and Mother of Men (BVM)

a) The Blessed Virgin Mary is Co-Redmeptrix of the Human Race.

Para. #2: The Word of the eternal Father willed to receive his human nature from a woman so that as

death came from a woman so also life would arise for us from a woman and thus liberation would be accomplished by both sexes

He did not accomplish this, however, until the designated Mother, redeemed in a more sublime way by the foreseen merits of Christ, had given her free acceptance (see Lk 1:38) so that by the incarnation the Son of God would become her Son also and the new Adam and Savior of the world. By this consent Mary, the daughter of Adam, not only became the Mother of Jesus, the one divine Mediator and Redeemer, but with him and under him also joined her work in accomplishing the redemption of the human race. This salvific consent of the Mother of God and thus her participation in the work of redemption lasted from the time of the virginal conception of Jesus Christ until his death; it especially shone forth when, not without the divine plan, she stood by the cross (cf. Jn 19:25), when she powerfully shared her only Son’s, with him and through him with all her heart offered him as the price of our redemption, and when she was given to men as their Mother by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross (see Jn 19:26-27). Because, however, the mystery of human redemption was not completed until the Holy Ghost Christ had promised came on the day of Pentecost, we contemplate Mary in the Cenacle with the Apostles persevering in prayer (see Acts 1:14) imploring by her prayers too the outpouring of the Spirit.

b) The Blessed Virgin Mary is Mediatrix of All Grace.

Para. #3: This humble "handmaid of the Lord," for whom "he who is mighty has done great things" (see Lk 1:49), is called the Mediatrix of all graces because she was associated with Christ in acquiring these graces, and she is invoked by the Church as our advocate and Mother of Mercy, because even now she remains the associate of the glorious Christ in heaven and intercedes for all through Christ so that in the conferral of all graces to men there is present the maternal charity of the Blessed Virgin. But in no way is the mediation of our only Mediator--according to the absolute sense of the words of the Apostle (1 Tm 2:5): "There is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus"--obscured or diminished; indeed this mediation of Christ is extolled and honored. For it is in Christ that Mary is Mediatrix, and her mediation comes, not from any necessity, but from the divine pleasure and from the superabundance and virtue of the merits of Jesus; it rests on the mediation of Christ, entirely depends on it, and obtains its entire force from it.

This was the hardest schema for the Modernists to relegate to the trash bin. Devotion to Mary and her privileges was "in the DNA," so to speak, of lay Catholics and Catholic clergymen. The Modernists went to work quickly to stop it. Led by arch-Modernist Cardinal Frings, his henchman peritus (theological expert), Fr. Ratzinger (later false pope Benedict XVI), and the wicked theologian Fr. Karl Rahner, the Modernists made the plea that keeping this schema would "alienate the Protestants" and impede the "ecumenical movement" as it would be "hard for the Protestants to understand." Cardinal Spellman of New York, was fighting alongside the Traditionalists at that point, and submitted a written intervention composed with the help of Fr. DePauw.

Cardinal Spellman's intervention asked in disbelief how they could not define important Marian doctrines “because they would be rather difficult for Protestants to understand.” The Cardinal was opposed to this sort of reasoning, he said, because “the task of the Ecumenical Council is to teach the members of the Church, rather than those outside of it.” In the closest vote of the Robber Council, the Marian schema was discarded by a vote of 1,114 Council Fathers in favor of scrapping it, and 1,097 Council Fathers wanting to retain it. The Modernists won by 17 votes. 

Conclusion

Had Roncalli not usurped the throne of St. Peter as false pope John XXIII, the above is what Vatican II (if it were called at all) could have been. The world we would be living in would be so different; in the best way imaginable. The Church, far from being underground, would be in all Her glory. Let us always remember what was taken from us, and resolve all the more to hold on to the One True Faith, True Mass, and true sacraments. 

The words of John Greenleaf Whittier come to mind: For all sad words of tongue and pen, the saddest are these, “It might have been.”