Baptism Of Desire And St. Alphonsus

 

To My Readers: This week my guest poster, Dominic Caggeso, shows how the great Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Liguori, convinced him of the heretical view of the Feeneyites in denying Baptism of Desire. He explains further, how the glorious St. Alphonsus can be used as a defeater against the Feeneyite heresy.

Feel free to comment as usual. If you have a specific comment or question for me, I will respond as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week. 

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

**SPECIAL NOTICE TO MY READERS** Unfortunately, this will be Dominic's last post. He will now be dedicating all his time and efforts to his Traditionalist publishing company. I want to publicly thank him for all he has done and wish him nothing but the greatest success. 

I still have John Gregory writing a post every other month, and in the other months, Lee has graciously offered to step up and help out. As long as I get a one week break each month, I can continue writing. ---Introibo

Baptism of Desire and St. Alphonsus

By Dominic Caggeso

By the grace of God, I came out of the Novus Ordo. If you have also left, you likely understand the difficulty of searching for the true Catholic Faith after realizing the Second Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo religion were full of deceits and falsehoods. It's one thing to know you can no longer trust the "authorities" of the Novus Ordo, but quite another to discern which voices within the "Traditional Catholic" world to heed.

The shock of discovering the subtle and skillful deceptions within the Novus Ordo makes one understandably cautious, skeptical, and thorough in seeking the True Faith. Therefore, after leaving, I meticulously examined the various Traditional Catholic groups. I explored each group and its positions, repeatedly reading their writings and watching their videos, comparing them to one another. This was, and to some extent still is, an agonizing and gut-wrenching process. Consensus, popularity, presentation skills, size, or geographical proximity could not be used to determine the validity of any group’s theological positions. Instead, the logic and merits of their arguments were all that mattered. During this time, I developed a prayer I still recite daily: “Dear Lord, please lead me to true Catholic doctrine. If I am deceived, please don’t let it be a cause of my damnation.” In other words, I asked to be led to the Truths of the Catholic Faith, recognizing my own susceptibility to manipulation and deception.

With this mindset, I forced myself to explore the arguments against Baptism of Desire. I had discovered these arguments online, presented forcefully and seemingly knowledgeably by individuals largely critical of the Novus Ordo and the Second Vatican Council, and very familiar with the writings of past popes and councils. Despite their unpopularity among the various Trad groups, I could not dismiss their position without careful examination. Encounters with these individuals often resulted in accusations of heresy. Therefore, I needed to determine the validity of their arguments, lest I put my soul in possible danger.  I needed to approach their arguments with an open mind. However, I also knew I was unqualified to fully grasp the finer points of Sacramental theology on this subject. I begged Our Lady for guidance.

Just Listen to the Priests

If, by God's grace, I reach Heaven, I will be eternally grateful for our Sedevacantist clergy. As I write this article now, I am already extremely grateful for them. They stepped into the breach after Vatican II, traveling the world to provide the Sacraments, acting as caring pastors, and exposing the many errors of the Novus Ordo sect. Without being able to articulate it, I sense that our priests and bishops possess a certain authority over their flocks. However, without delving into the profound theological technicalities of jurisdiction, I hesitate to say this authority is equivalent to that of clergy before the Second Vatican Council. After all, I distinctly remember what it was like coming out of the Novus Ordo, and searching for the voices of Truth. At the end of the day, I was the one, determining for myself, which group of Traditional Catholics was adhering to Catholic doctrine. I chose, based on my evaluation of the evidence, to reject the position of the “recognize and resist” and to adhere to sedevacantism.  

When I left the Novus Ordo, I wasn’t immediately placed under the pastoral care and authority of any sedevacantist bishop, but instead, I had to go to them. Thank God such priests and bishops like Fr. Cekada, Bishop Sanborn and Bishop Dolan made themselves available online in order for a person like me to find them. But there was no pope to approve their teachings, so I had to decide to believe them based on the merits of their arguments. 

I say all this because I want to underscore the point that I can not necessarily listen to my priest as the final and definitive answer on every pressing theological question. Don't get me wrong, I highly value the advice and instruction of our sedevacantists priests and I don’t automatically question what they say. In fact, as far as I know, I am in complete agreement with them. However, regarding Baptism of Desire, the stakes felt too high to rely solely on their knowledge without personally exploring the counterarguments. 

St. Alphonsus’ Writings

In my quest for certitude of Catholicity on the subject of Baptism of Desire, I ventured on my own into the vast Traditional Catholic online world. I quickly encountered numerous writings by saints on Baptism of Desire, most particularly St. Alphonsus. I was greatly relieved that this Saint and Doctor of the Church spoke to plainly and boldly on the subject. Below is his treatment of the subject, taken from the Latin version of his sixth book of Moral Theology, followed by an English translation from the CMRI website. I painstakingly copied the Latin from a scanned photocopy of the 1841 edition. A few minor blemishes on the photocopy may have resulted in one or two misspelled Latin words, for which I apologize.

“Baptismus autem flaminis est perfecta conversio, ad Deum per contritionem, vel amorem Dei super omnia, cum volo explcito, vel implicito veri Baptismi flaminis, cujus vicem supplet (juxta Trid. Sess.14 c.4) quoad culpae remissionem, non autem quoad characterem imprimendum, nec quoad tollendum omne reatum poeuae: dicitur flaminis, quia fit per impulsum Spiritus Sancti, qui flamen nuncupatur. Ita Viva de Bapt. (q.2, art. 1, n.2, Salm c.1, n.2 cum Suar. Vasq. Val. Croix lib.6, p.1, n.244 el alii) De fide autem est per Baptismum flaminis homines eliam salvari, ex c. Apostolicam. De Presb. non bapt. et Trid. sess.6, c.4 Ubi dicitur neminem salvari posse sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto.”

Theologia moralis divi Alphonsi De Ligorio 6

page 132

Published 1841

ex typographia Simoniana 

National Library of Naples 

Translation:

“But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind␅ [flaminis] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost Who is called a wind [flamen]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam De Presbytero Non Baptizato and the Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.” 

Armed with this quote, and other similar quotes from venerated Catholic Saints and Doctors of the Church, I returned to engage the opponents of Baptism of Desire. I thought this quote would suffice to quell any opposition to Baptism of Desire, and alleviate the anxiety I felt in not having sufficient certitude about it. In my mind, my salvation could possibly be at stake if I came down on the wrong side of this issue. 

I was not prepared for the counter arguments that I received after confidently presenting this quote from St. Alphonsus. I was shocked to learn that the opponents of Baptism of Desire boldly declared that St. Alphonsus was wrong on this topic. The evidence they gave for this accusation against St. Alphonsus was confusing and complex. I was not properly educated in Catholic Sacrament theology to know how to refute their arguments against St. Alphonsus. It was then, that I came upon a counterargument that proved very effective at both giving me peace of mind and also in silencing the attacks of the Feeneyites. I still use this simple argument today, and I would like to share it with you.

St. Alphonsus is in Heaven

Let me preface my thoughts by stating that I now firmly believe in Baptism of Desire. I have listened to the explanations from our priests and have conducted adequate research to convince myself of its truth. In the above writings of St. Alphonsus, he declares that Baptism of Desire is “De Fide,” and cites the Council of Trent as his source. I do not question this. Nevertheless, in addressing opponents of Baptism of Desire, I have found it useful to hypothetically concede that St. Alphonsus might have made an error on this subject. After all, as the Feeneyites point out, saints are not infallible. After making this hypothetical concession, I proceed as follows:

I begin by asking, or otherwise establishing, that St. Alphonsus is in Heaven. Once my interlocutor concedes this point, I highlight that he, St. Alphonsus, unequivocally taught the existence of Baptism of Desire. On this point, they usually agree. I then ask if, by believing in Baptism of Desire, I would be in danger of eternal damnation for denying the Catholic doctrine on water baptism. The answer is almost always affirmative, as they assert that believing in Baptism of Desire makes one a heretic.

At this juncture, I point out that St. Alphonsus clearly believed in Baptism of Desire, and he is neither a heretic nor eternally damned. I conclude with them that, even if he were mistaken on this subject, it evidently does not lead to the loss of one's soul. Therefore I continue, by extension, I cannot lose my soul by simply affirming my belief in Baptism of Desire.

I have found great success with this counterargument in neutralizing the vitriol from the Feeneyites. It is simple and clear. Despite this, however, at times it has evoked very strange and seemingly desperate responses. I recall one instance where, in response to this argument, I was told that because St. Alphonsus did not have access to the internet, he would not be held to the same standard of culpability as I would be for believing in Baptism of Desire. But most of the time, the discussion with the Feeneyites on this topic would quickly end once I made this simple point.

Conclusion

I wanted to share this simple argument with you because it has given me peace of mind and alleviated for me one of the many anxieties we face as Catholics striving to preserve the pure doctrines of the Church during the Great Apostasy. I recognize the limitations of my knowledge of Catholic theology. That is why this simple and logical argument is so attractive. We can read and embrace the teachings of great Saints and Doctors of the Church because the Church, our Mother, has provided them to us. When St. Alphonsus declares Baptism of Desire to be “De Fide,” we can trust him.

God The Almighty And The Commandments Of God

 

To My Readers: This week's post, by John Gregory, explains what it means to follow an Almighty God, as well as the importance and duty of following the Ten Commandments. 

Feel free to comment as usual. If you have  a specific comment or question for me, I will respond as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week.

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

God The Almighty and The Commandments of God

By John Gregory

But the men wondered, saying What manner of man is this, for the winds and the sea obey him. 

(St. Matthew 8: 27)  

These men were not the disciples, but the sailors and others who were in the ship of Jesus, and in the other ships which accompanied it.  For, as Origen says, “The disciples are never named but with the mark of distinction, Apostles, or disciples.”  Saint Jerome adds, “If anyone maintains that the disciples are meant here, the reply should be that they are called men, because they have not yet known the Savior’s power.  What manner of man? “Who and what sort of man is this, and whose messenger?  He does not seem to be like other men, but a Being of a different race.  He does not seem to be born of earth, but to have come down from heaven, for not only the denizens of the earth and their sicknesses obey him, but also the heavens and their winds, as though he were their master and lord. (For the Greek text has, “For the winds and the sea heed him, submit to him.”)  Who, therefore, is this new Aeolus [“god”] in Palestine, what sort of wind-god is he, and how great his power command?”  Thus they thought, not yet knowing Christ to be the one true God. 

Topologically, Saint Augustine says, “Imitate the winds and the sea: obey the creator at Christ’s command.  The sea listens, and you are deaf?  The sea heeds, and the wind stops, and you blast? — What?  I speak, I act, I devise. — What is that, if not being puffed up, and at Christ’s word you are unwilling to cease?  Let not the waves overcome you in the commotion of your hearts.” (See Lapide Commentary on Saint Matthew Volume one, pages 419 and 420) 

God created us and maintains us in existence.  Therefore, we should know Him, and this knowledge of Him should lead to a filial fear and love of Him.  We should fear Him, because it is He Who can make us healthy or sick, rich or poor, happy or sad.  But more importantly, it is He who can damn us to Hell or give us eternal happiness.  This love of God should lead to the latria – the worship and adoration reserved for God alone – as the Introit of the Mass (the form of worship God prescribed for us and highest form of worship possible in this life) for the fourth Sunday after Epiphany suggests: 

Adore God, All you His angels: Sion heard, and was glad; and the daughters of Juda rejoiced.  The Lord hath reigned; let the earth rejoice: let many islands be glad (Psalm 96: 7, 8)  

The Mass is the greatest prayer this side of heaven.  This public worship in common is the best way to strengthen the sanctifying grace in our souls.  The Mass is God Himself (Jesus) offering Himself to God (the Father) in the unity of the Holy Ghost.  It is the one sacrifice of the cross made present to us in an unbloody manner which is used to apply the fruits of that sacrifice to the benefit of our souls.  Prescribed prayer in public is strong and effective as there is strength in numbers.  We collectively pierce the heavens to rain down graces upon us, such as detachment from worldly goods, if we pray in unison with sincerity, devotion and confidence.  The prayer in the above mentioned Fourth Sunday after the Epiphany Mass gives such an example: 

O God, Who knowest that we are beset by perils so great as to be unendurable because of our human frailty, grant us health of mind and body, so that by Thine assistance we may conquer the things with which we are afflicted because of our sins. 

This is why praying to Rosary together in large groups and in the family is so very important for individual souls as well as for the world as a whole.  Our Lady of Lourdes and Fatima, who saw the increasing moral depravity that would fall upon the world along with the lack of valid Masses, bishops and priests, which provide the ordinary means of obtaining, fortifying and increasing sanctifying grace in this world, left us with her Rosary and brown scapular to cling to in this barren wasteland of what appears to be the end times. 

Some Protestants our fond of claiming that “they are saved."  As if they need not fear Hell so long as they believe.  They claim to get this belief, (faith alone) from the bible, their sole rule of faith (bible alone).  Yet the bible did not give itself to us.  It did not write itself.  It did not decide which books belong in it and which do not.  The Catholic Church gave it to us, wrote the New Testament, preserved the Old and decided which books belong and which do not.  The bible also does not interpret itself.  Guess who does that.  God through His Catholic Church which was founded upon the rock of Peter does that.  She (the Catholic Church) guards and preserves the deposit of faith and infallibly explicates it for the ears and the hearts of the faithful.  That is why the Chosen People, those within the Catholic Church, do not put their souls in peril through heretical beliefs such as “faith alone”, “the bible alone”, “faith without works”.   

Ah.  That is why in the Mass we are looking at has in the Epistle for the day the following: 

Brethren, owe no man anything, but to love one another; for he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law.  For thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is comprised in this word, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.  The love of our neighbor worketh no evil.  Love, therefore, is the fulfilling of the law.  (Romans 13: 8 – 10) 

The above passage is in the bibles Protestants use.  I do not use the term “Protestant bible” as that is a contradiction of terms.  For the Protestants ripped out seven books and parts of two others from the bible and mistranslate much of what they left in on their own authority.  Their bible, which is their sole rule of faith, and which they claim to understand and interpret correctly, tells them they must keep the Commandments for salvation to be possible.  For as Saint Paul explains above if we truly love our neighbor, we will not cheat on them, or kill them, or lie to them, or covet what they have, or do, or will any evil to them.  If we authentically love our neighbor as God wills and commands, we will keep the Commandments as a result of that love.  Yes, God indeed is almighty and we must obey His Commandments if we wish to have eternal life.  And obeying His Commandments will give us great joy even in this life as the Gradual for this Mass states: 

The Gentiles shall fear Thy name, O Lord, and all the kings of the earth Thy glory.  For the Lord hath built up Sion, and He shall be seen in His majesty.  The Lord hath reigned, let the earth rejoice: let many islands be glad.  (Psalm 101: 16, 17) 

No one on earth is glad or rejoices if they do not keep the Commandments.  The worm that will gnaw at the conscience of those outside the Catholic Church and or lacking sanctifying grace for all eternity gnaws as it does now even with all the distractions of this life, and when they are alone with their thoughts, they wonder why they are not really happy.  For their pleasures are momentary and not fulfilling. 

Atheists and Agnostics often claim not to believe in God because if He existed, He would not allow all the terrible things we see going on around us and to us in the world today.  But what did God the Father allow to happen to God His Son?  To be born in poverty, to be hated and misunderstood during His whole public life, to be spat upon, beaten, scourged, crowned with thorns and nailed to a cross to die a most ignominious death between two thieves.  But we refuse to believe in God because something bad happened to us or to someone we love, or to countless innocent victims?  I believe the real reason they chose not to believe stems from fear.  They know the lifestyle they live would be at odds with God if He exists and that they will be damned to Hell if He exists.  So, they just convince themselves He doesn’t exist.  Much easier huh.  In time perhaps.  But not in eternity, which lasts a bit longer than our life on earth.  They should be afraid not to follow the Lord.  For though doing so can lead to temporary tribulations it ultimately will lead to eternal bliss.  What follows is the Gospel of this Mass: 

At That time, when Jesus entered into the ship, His disciples followed Him.  And behold a great tempest arose in the sea, so that the ship was covered with waves, but He was asleep.  And they came to Him and awaked Him, saying, Lord, save us, we perish.  And Jesus saith to them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith?  Then rising up, He commanded the winds and the sea, and there came a great calm.  But the men wondered, saying, What manner of man is this, for the winds and the see obey Him. 

This shows that our best option is not only to believe in Jesus, but to follow Him.  If we follow Him we may have trials and tribulations, but they can be meritorious and exchanged for eternal crowns.  Let us look at the offertory of the Mass:  

The right hand of the Lord hath wrought strength, the right hand of the Lord hath exalted me: I shall not die, but live, and shall declare the works of the Lord. (Psalm 117: 16, 17) 

Do you notice how the Propers of this Mass continually extol God’s mightiness?  

Secret: Grant, we beseech Thee, almighty God, that this sacrifice offered to Thee, may purge us of all evil and fortify our weak nature. 

Here we see how almighty God may cleanse of [venial] sin and fortify with us with additional graces if we worship at Mass with devotion. 

Communion: They all wondered at these things, which proceeded from the mouth of God. (Luke 4: 22) 

Every day at holy Mass, we get catholicized as the foundations of the Faith, such as the reiteration of the power of God which can help us in our temporal and eternal needs. 

Postcommunion: May Thy gifts, O God, free us from the allurements of earthly things, and ever restore us with heavenly nourishment. 

Again, detachment from worldly things get reemphasized in our minds and the reminder that we are in continual need of renewal for we are quite often guilty of venial sins and imperfections.  We never can rest on our laurels or we will drift away, we must continually strive for holiness.  Never getting too down when we fall, nor prideful when we are doing well.  See Pope Saint Gregory the Great: 

"We refresh the body lest it should grow too weak and fail us; we chasten it by abstinence, lest it should wax gross, and become lord over us; we strengthen it with exercise, lest it perish by the not using; and straightway we give it rest, lest it faint through weariness; we succor it with raiment, lest the cold should blight it; and we strip it of the raiment wherewith we have clothed it, lest the heat should afflict it.  In all these so many offices what do we but serve the corruptible?  Upon what is all this care spent but upon that whereover hangeth the doom of weakness and change? "

Therefor saint Paul tells: For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of Hm Who hath subjected the same in hope because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. (Romans 8: 20).  The creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly for when man had of his own free will abdicated his state of unchangeable blessedness, the just sentence of death was passed upon him, and whether he willed or not, he became subject to the state of change and corruption.  But the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption when it shall rise again incorruptible and be made partaker of the glory of the children of God. 

Where, then, the elect are still subject to sorrow, being yet bound by the sentence of corruption; but when we shall have put off this corruptible we shall be loosed from that sentence, and shall sorrow no more.  For though we earnestly desire to appear before God, we are still hindered by the burden of this dying body.  Rightly then are we called prisoners, since we are not free to go whither we will, that is to say, to God; and rightly did the prisoner Paul, yearning after the things which are eternal, and still weighed down with the burden of this corruptible, rightly did he cry out I have a desire to depart and to be with Christ. (Philippians 1: 23) He would not have felt this keenness if he had not felt himself bound down. 

Saint Jerome as well, may have a word of interest to us: 

The fifth sign that He did was when He took ship at Capernaum, and commanded the winds and the sea the sixth, when, in the country of the Gergesenes, He suffered the devils to enter into the swine the seventh, when, as He came into His own city, He cured the man sick of the palsy lying on a bed.  The first man sick of the palsy that He cured was the centurion’s servant. 

But He was asleep; and His disciples came to Him, and awoke Him, saying Lord, save us.  There is a type of this in the history of Jonah, who, when the storm arose, was lying fast asleep, and whom the sailors woke to help them; who also saved the sailors by commanding them to throw him into the sea, the said casting of him into the sea, being, as we know, a figure of Christ’s Passion.  Then He arose and rebuked the winds and the sea.  From these words we understand that all things, which have been made, are sentient to their Maker.  All things which He rebuketh or commandeth, hear His voice.  This is not the error of the heretics who will have it that everything is quick, but part of the majesty of the Creator, Who maketh to feel Him things which we cannot make to feel us. 

But the men marveled, saying what manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?  It was not His disciples that marveled, but the sailors, and the others that were in the ship.  If however, any one willeth to withstand this our interpretation and to maintain that it was the disciples who marveled, we are ready to answer them that they who knew not before the power of the Saviour deserve to be stripped of the title of disciples, and to be called simply the men. 

A disciple is one who follows Christ by keeping His Commandments.  When trying to obey the Commandments the understanding that God is Almighty can be very helpful. 

And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10: 28) 

The Arabic has “into the fire of hell.”  The sense is: Do not, from fear of death with which the persecutors will threaten you, deny My Faith, or cease from the preaching which I have commanded you, or commit any act unworthy of it, for if ye do this, ye will incur both the death of the body and the far worse and longer-lasting death of the soul, even its eternal death in hell, where the damned die an undying death, because they are constantly living in mortal torments and endure as though in living death and moribund life, according to Isaias 66: 24, Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched.  Truly does Saint Chrysostom say, “He who is always afraid of hell will never fall into its flams, for he is continually purified by this fear. (See Lapide Commentary on Saint Matthew Volume one, pages 502 and 503) 

For a better understanding of the term “Almighty” and how that should resonate with those truly devoted to God, let us take a look at the beloved Catechism of Trent (COT): 

“Almighty” 

The Sacred Scriptures, in order to mark the piety and devotion with which the most holy name of God is to be adored, usually express His supreme power and infinite majesty in a variety of ways; but the pastor should, first of all, teach that almighty power is most frequently attributed to Him. Thus He says of Himself: I am the almighty Lord; (Genesis 17: 1) and again, Jacob when sending his sons to Joseph thus prayed for them: May my almighty God make him favourable to you. (Genesis 43: 14) In the Apocalypse also it is written: The Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the almighty; (Apocalypse 1: 8) and in another place the last day is called the great day of the almighty God.  Sometimes the same attribute is expressed in many words; thus: No word shall be impossible with God; (Luke 1: 37) Is the hand of the Lord unable? (Numbers 11: 23) Thy power is at hand when thou wilt, (Wisdom 12: 18) and so on.  

MEANING OF THE TERM “ALMIGHTY” 

From these various modes of expression it is clearly perceived what is comprehended under this single word almighty.  By it we understand that there neither exists nor can be conceived in thought or imagination anything which God cannot do.  For not only can He annihilate all created things, and in a moment summon from nothing into existence many other worlds, an exercise of power which, however great, comes in some degree within our comprehension; but He can do many things still greater, of which the human mind can form no conception. 

But though God can do all things, yet He cannot lie, or deceive, or be deceived; He cannot sin, or cease to exist, or be ignorant of anything.  These defects are compatible with those beings only whose actions are imperfect; but God, whose acts are always most perfect, is said to be incapable of such things, simply because that capability of doing them implies weakness, not the supreme and infinite power over all things which God possesses.  Thus we so believe God to be omnipotent that we exclude from Him entirely all that is not intimately connected and consistent with the perfection of His nature.  (COT – p. 23, 24) 

“MIGHTY” 

But both the carnal and the spiritual should be spurred on, especially by two considerations which are contained in this concluding clause, and are highly calculated to enforce obedience to the divine law. 

The one is that God is called the strong.  That appellation needs to be fully expounded; because the flesh, unappalled by the terrors of the divine menaces, frequently indulges in the foolish expectation of escaping, in one way or another, God’s wrath and threatened punishment.  But when one is deeply impressed with the conviction that God is the strong, he will exclaim with the great David: Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy face? (Psalm 138: 7) 

The flesh, also, distrusting the promises of God, sometimes magnifies the power of the enemy to such an extent, as to believe itself unable to withstand his assaults; while, on the contrary, a firm and unshaken faith, which wavers not, but relies confidently on the strength and power of God, animates and confirms man.  For it says: The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? (Psalm 26: 1) (COT – p. 378) 

Our Lord Himself says “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect”.  This leads us to the following consideration of the commandments: 

The Ten Commandments of God come to us by Revelation through Tradition.  They were given to the Jewish people through Moses, and were confirmed by Christ in the New Dispensation, which is the Law of Reality, whereas the Old Law was the law of the shadow of things to come (Colossians 2: 17).  The ceremonial precepts of the Old Law are displaced once for all; for the Jewish Sabbath, the Christian Church has substituted Sunday as the Lord’s day, in memory of Christ’s Resurrection. 

The Commandments summarize in explicit terms man’s duties according to Natural law.  The first three precepts refer to the external worship of God, the last seven refer to authority in the family, the sacredness of life and good report, the sanctity of marriage and the rights of property respectively.  

Since these precepts are imposed by God, their observance is prima facie a matter of serious obligation.  If they are violated in trivial matters—where from the nature of the case that is possible, as in the precept against theft—such violation is not a grave sin.  It is the task of Moral Theology to try to distinguish between what is objectively serious and what is not, for there is an objective order to be maintained; subjectivism in morality leads to nothing but agnosticism or moral anarchy. [This is nowhere so clearly patent as in the reaction from all objective morality that followed upon Luther’s teaching.  He himself deplored it and despaired of success in countering it (cf. Grisar, Life, vol. V): “It is clear enough how much more greedy, cruel, immodest, shameless, wicked, the people now is than it was under Popery.”  cf. Maritain, Three Reformers, p. 186.)  (Moral and Pastoral Theology by H. Davis S.J., 1958) 

The following is from the (COT) on the observance of the commandments: 

But since by this we know that we have known him, if we keep his commandments (1 John 2: 2 – 3), the next consideration, and one intimately connected with the preceding, is to press also upon the attention of the faithful that their lives are not to be wasted in ease and indolence, but that we are to walk even as he walked (1 John 2: 6), and pursue with all earnestness, justice, godliness, faith, charity, patience, mildness (1 Timothy 6: 2); for He gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and might cleanse to himself a people acceptable, a pursuer of good works (Titus 2: 14) These things the Apostle commands pastors to speak and exhort.  

But as our Lord and Saviour has not only declared, but has also proved by His own example, that the Law and the Prophets depend on love, (Matthew 22: 40; 1 Timothy 1: 5; Romans 13: 10) and as, according to the Apostle, charity is the end of the commandant, and the fulfilment of the law, (1 Timothy 1: 5; Romans 13: 10) it is unquestionably a chief duty of the pastor to use the utmost diligence to excite the faithful to a love of the infinite goodness of God towards us, that, burning with a sort of divine ardor, they may be powerfully attracted to the supreme and all-perfect good, to adhere to which is true and solid happiness, as is fully experienced by him who can say with the Prophet: What have I in heaven? and besides thee what do I desire upon earth? (Psalm 72: 25) 

This, assuredly, is that more excellent way (1 Corinthians 12: 31) pointed out by the Apostle when he sums up all his doctrines and instructions in charity, which never falleth away. (1 Corinthians 13: 8) For whatever is proposed by the pastor, whether it be the exercise of faith, of hope, or of some moral virtue, the love of our Lord should at the same time be so strongly insisted upon as to show clearly that all the works of perfect Christian virtue can have no other origin, no other end than divine love. (1 Corinthians 16: 14) (COT – p. 6 – 7) 

THE DECALOGUE 

IMPORTANCE OF INSTRUCTION ON THE COMMANDMENTS 

Saint Augustine in his writings remarks that the Decalogue is the summary and epitome of all laws: Although the Lord had spoken many things, He gave to Moses only two stone tablets, called “tables of testimony,” to be placed in the Ark.  For if carefully examined and well understood, whatever else is commanded by God will be found to depend on the Ten Commandments which were engraved on those two tables, just as these Ten Commandments, in turn, are reducible to two, the love of God and of our neighbour, on which “depend the whole law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22: 40) 

Since, then, the Decalogue is a summary of the whole Law, the pastor should give his days and nights to its consideration, that he may be able not only to regulate his own life by its precepts, but also to instruct in the law of God the people committed to his care.  The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, of the Lord of hosts. (Malachias 2: 7) To the priests of the New Law this injunction applies in a special manner; they are nearer to God and should be transformed from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord. (2 Corinthians 3: 18) Since Christ our Lord has called them light, (Matthew 5: 14) it is their special duty to be a light to them that are in darkness, the instructors of the foolish, the teachers of infants; (Romans 2: 19, 20) and if a man be overtaken in any fault, they who are spiritual should instruct such a one. (Galatians 6: 1) 

In the tribunal of penance the priest holds the place of a judge, and pronounces sentence according to the nature and gravity of the offence.  Unless, therefore, he is desirous that his ignorance should prove an injury to himself and to others he must bring with him to the discharge of this duty the greatest vigilance and the most practiced acquaintance with the interpretation of the law, in order to be able to pronounce, according to this divine rule, on every act and omission; and, as the Apostle says, to teach sound doctrine, (2 Timothy 4: 3) free from error, and heal the diseases of the soul, which are sins, in order that the people may be acceptable to God, pursuers of good works. (Galatians 3: 19) (COT – p. 357, 8) 

GOD IS CALLED FATHER BCAUSE HE CREATED US 

Thus having created man to His own image—a favor He accorded to no other living creature—it is with good reason that, in view of this unique privilege with which He has honored man, Sacred Scripture calls God the Father of all men; not only of the faithful, but also of the unbelieving. (COT – p. 502) 

MAN’S PRONENESS TO ACT AGAINST GOD’S WILL 

From the beginning God implanted in all creatures an inborn desire of pursuing their own happiness that, by a sort of natural impulse, they may seek and desire their own end, from which they never deviate, unless impeded by some external obstacle.  This impulse of seeking God, the author and father of his happiness, was in the beginning all the more noble and exalted in man because of the fact that he was endowed with reason and judgment.  But, while irrational creatures, which, at their creation were by nature good, continued, and still continue in that original state and condition, unhappy man went astray, and lost not only original justice, with which he had been supernaturally gifted and adorned by God, but also obscured that singular inclination toward virtue which had been implanted in his soul.  All, He says, have gone aside, they are become unprofitable together; there is none that doth good, no, not one. (Psalm 52: 4) For the imagination and thought of man’s heart are prone to evil from his youth. (Genesis 8: 21) Hence it is not difficult to perceive that of himself no man is wise unto salvation; that all are prone to evil; and that man has innumerable corrupt propensities, since he tends downwards and is carried with ardent precipitancy to anger, hatred, pride, ambition, and to almost every species of evil. (COT – p. 529 - 30) 

“And lead us not into temptation” 

IMPORTANCE OF INSTRUCTION ON THIS PETITION 

When the children of God, having obtained the pardon of their sins, are inflamed with the desire of giving to God worship and veneration; when they long for the kingdom of heaven; when they engage in the performance of all the duties of piety towards the Deity, relying entirely on His paternal will and providence, — then it is that the enemy of mankind employs the more actively all his artifices, and prepares all his resources to attack them so violently as to justify the fear that, wavering and altered in their sentiments, they may relapse into sin, and thus become far worse than they had been before.  To such as these may justly be applied the saying of the Prince of the Apostles: It had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than, after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them. (2 Peter 2: 21)  

Hence Christ the Lord has commanded us to offer this petition so that we may commend ourselves daily to God, and implore His paternal care and assistance, being assured that, if we be deserted by the divine protection, we shall soon fall into the snares of our most crafty enemy. 

Nor is it in the Lord’s Prayer alone that He has commanded us to beg of God not to suffer us to be led into temptation.  In His address to the holy Apostles also, on the very eve of His death, after He had declared them clean, He admonished them of this duty in these words: Pray that ye enter not into temptation. (John 13: 10; Matthew 26: 41) 

This admonition, reiterated by Christ the Lord, imposes on the pastor the weighty obligation of exciting the faithful to a frequent use of this prayer, so that, beset as men constantly are by the great dangers which the devil prepares, they may ever address to God, who alone can repel those dangers, the prayer, Lead us not into temptation. (COT – p. 565-6) 

Conclusion

Our Lord is recorded twice in Holy Writ to have said “He that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved.”  [Mt. 10: 22 & 24: 13] Let us pray to our dear sweet Mother Mary to implore the Almighty God to please help us keep the commandments and thus to persevere in the state of sanctifying grace unto the end as His faithful and loving disciples! 

The Four Temperaments---Choleric (Part II)

 

To My Readers: I have received several requests for posts on the subject of The Four Temperaments. This week's post is the seventh installment to this most important and interesting topic. I will follow-up with other posts so that by sometime in 2025, I will have concluded the series, and hopefully do some justice to presenting the Four Temperaments. 

I want to acknowledge that I take no credit for the posts on this topic. My primary sources will be from theologian Schagemann and his work entitled Manual of Self-Knowledge and Christian Perfection (1913).  Also, the work of theologian Hock The Four Temperaments (1934) will be used throughout this series of posts, with various other sources. I take absolutely no credit whatsoever for the content of this post (or the ones on this topic to follow). All I did was condense the material of these theologians into a terse post that hopefully will be advantageous for  those looking for information, but without time to read an entire book or two from the pre-Vatican II era on the subject.

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

The Bright Side of the Choleric Temperament

If the choleric develops his faculties and uses them for good and noble purposes, he may do great things for the honor of God, for the benefit of his fellow men, and for his own temporal and eternal welfare. He is assisted by his sharp intellect, his enthusiasm for the noble and the great, the force and resolution of his will, which shrinks before no difficulty, and the keen vivacity which influences all his thoughts and plans.

Saul, the persecutor of the infant Church, became Paul, the great Apostle who, as he himself said, did more than any other apostle for the spread of Christianity. He made himself "all things to all men that I might save all." (1. Cor. 9:22.) He suffered all kinds of trials and persecution (See 2 Corinthians 12) in order to preach Christ, and Him Crucified, and sealed his mission by his martyrdom for the Gospel.

Many Saints, men and women, have done likewise, dedicating their unremitting labor and intense sufferings under severe persecutions to the service of Christ, as is proved by the thousands and thousands of martyrs of years past and of the present, outstanding among them Joseph Cardinal Mindszenty of Hungary.

The choleric may with comparative ease become a saint. The persons canonized, with few exceptions, were choleric or melancholic. The choleric who is able to control his temperament is recollected in prayer, because by his strong will he can banish distractions and especially because by force of his nature, he can with great facility concentrate his attention upon one point. The latter may also be the cause why the choleric so easily acquires the prayer of simplicity, or as St. Francis calls it, the prayer of recollection. 

With no other temperament do we find the spirit of contemplation, properly so called, as often as with the choleric. The well-trained choleric is very patient and firm in endurance of physical pains, willing to make sacrifices in sufferings, persevering in acts of penance and interior mortification, magnanimous and noble toward the indigent and conquered, full of aversion against everything ignoble or vulgar. Although pride penetrates the very soul of the choleric in all its fibers and ramifications, so much so that he seems to have only one vice, i.e., pride, which he shows in everything he undertakes, he can, nevertheless, if he earnestly aspires for perfection, easily bear the greatest and most degrading humiliations and even seek them. 

Because the choleric has not a soft but a hard heart, he naturally suffers less from temptation of the flesh and can practice purity with ease. But, if the choleric is voluntarily addicted to the vice of impurity and seeks his satisfaction therein, the outbursts of his passion are terrible and most abominable.

The choleric is very successful also in his professional work. Being of an active temperament, he feels a continual inclination to activity and occupation. He cannot be without work, and he works quickly and diligently. In his enterprises he is persevering and full of courage in spite of obstacles. Without hesitation he can be placed at difficult posts and everything can be entrusted to him. In his speech the choleric is brief and definite; he abhors useless repetitions. 

This brevity, positiveness, firmness in speech and appearance gives him a great deal of authority especially when engaged in educational work. Choleric teachers have something virile about themselves and do not allow affairs to get beyond their control, as is often the case with slow, irresolute, melancholic persons. A choleric can keep a secret like a grave.

The Training Needed for a Choleric to Make Spiritual Advancement

1. A choleric needs high ideals and great thoughts; he must draw them from the word of God by meditation, spiritual reading, sermons, and also from the experience of his own life. There is no need of a multiplicity of such thoughts. For the choleric St. Ignatius it was sufficient to think: All for the greater glory of God; for the choleric St. Francis Xavier: What does it profit a man if he gain the whole world, but suffer the loss of his soul? One good thought which deeply impresses the choleric acts as a miraculous star which leads him, in spite of all obstacles, to the feet of the Redeemer.

2. A choleric must learn day by day and repeatedly to implore God fervently and humbly for His assistance. As long as he has not learned to beg he will not make big strides on the road to perfection. To him also apply the words of Christ: "Ask and you shall receive." The choleric will make still greater progress if he can humble himself to ask his fellow men, at least his superiors, or his confessor, for instructions and direction.

3. The choleric must above all keep one strong resolution in his mind: I will never seek myself, but on the contrary I will consider myself: a) An instrument in the hands of God, which He may make use of at His pleasure. b) A servant of my fellow men, who desires to spend himself for others. He must act according to the words of Christ: "Whosoever will be first among you, shall be the servant of all", (St. Matthew 20:27 or St. Mark 10:44), or as St. Paul says of himself: He must become all things to all men, in order to save them. (1 Corinthians 9:22).

4. The choleric must combat his pride and anger continually. Pride is the misfortune of the choleric, humility his only salvation. Therefore he should make it a point of his particular examination of conscience for years.

5. The choleric must humiliate himself voluntarily in confession, before his superiors, and even before others. Ask God for humiliations and accept them, when inflicted, magnanimously. For a choleric it is better to permit others to humiliate him, than to humiliate himself.

6. He must practice a true and trusting devotion to the humble and meek Heart of Jesus.

Considerations in Spiritual Training

Cholerics are capable of great benefit to their family, their surroundings, their parish, or to the state on account of their ability. The choleric is naturally the born and never discouraged leader and organizer. The well-trained choleric apostle indefatigably and without fear seeks souls who are in danger; propagates good literature perseveringly, and in spite of many failures labors joyfully for the Catholic press and societies and consequently is of great service to the Church. On the other hand, the choleric can, if he does not control the weak side of his temperament, act as dynamite in private and public and cause great disturbance. For this reason it is necessary to pay special attention to the training of the choleric, which is difficult but fruitful.

1. The choleric should be well instructed so that he can apply his good talents to the best advantage. Otherwise he will in the course of time pursue pet ideas to the neglect, of his professional work, or what is worse, he will be very proud and conceited, although in reality he has not cultivated his faculties and is not, in fact, thorough. Cholerics who are less talented or not sufficiently educated can make very many mistakes, once they are independent or have power to command as superiors.

They are likely to make life bitter for those around them, because they insist stubbornly upon the fulfillment of their orders, although they may not fully understand the affairs in question or may have altogether false ideas about them. Such cholerics often act according to the ill-famed motto: Sic volo, sic jubeo; stat pro ratione voluntas: Thus I want it, thus I command it; my will is sufficient reason.

2. The choleric must be influenced to accept voluntarily and gladly what is done for the humiliation of his pride and the soothing of his anger. By hard, proud treatment the choleric is not improved, but embittered and hardened, whereas even a very proud choleric can easily be influenced to good by reasonable suggestions and supernatural motives. In the training of cholerics the teacher should never allow himself to be carried away by anger nor should he ever give expression to the determination to 'break' the obstinacy of the choleric person.

 It is absolutely necessary to remain calm and to allow the choleric to 'cool off' and then to persuade him to accept guidance in order to correct his faults and bring out the good in him. In the training of the choleric child one must place high ideas before him; appeal to his good will, his sense of honor, his abhorrence of the vulgar, his temporal and eternal welfare; influence him voluntarily to correct his faults and develop his good qualities. Do not embitter him by humiliating penances, but try to show him the necessity and justice of the punishment inflicted; yet be firm in what you must demand.

Conclusion

This concludes the examination and consideration of the Choleric temperament in this series of posts. In the next installment, the Phlegmatic temperament and "mixed temperaments" will be considered. 

Contending For The Faith---Part 36

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

Recovering From The Truth

One of my readers brought to my attention an anti-Traditionalist website called Trad Recovery. It is run by and for disaffected Traditionalists who have apostatized to the Vatican II sect. It describes itself as follows:

Trad Recovery was established in February of 2023 to provide resources and community for individuals who are leaving traditionalist environments or ideologies and coming into full communion with the Catholic Church. By "traditionalism," we refer to the harmful or negative elements of a movement that is often motivated by desire for reverence, beauty, and devotion in our faith. While we support certain elements of the movement (including the Latin Mass according to the Missal of 1962, which many of our site members still attend), we at Trad Recovery are here to support those who want to remain orthodox and faithful in their Catholicism while recognizing that disobedience and schism are not compatible with being truly traditional. (See https://www.tradrecovery.com/about-4).

The website (hereinafter "TR") lumps sedevacantists with R&R under the term "Traditionalist." The site contains mostly (1) testimonials of priests who left the SSPX (but NOT to join the V2 sect), (2) a blog with bad theology, and (3) resources from the usual V2 apologists like Siscoe and Salza. 

Under the "resources" section, there is a 323 page prolix monograph entitled "Contra Sedevacantism:

A Definitive Refutation of Sedevacantism."

The first chapter has the ambitious (and false) title "Sedevacantism is Heretical." I must admit, at first blush it does seem impressive. The anonymous author(s) use citations from approved pre-Vatican II theologians. It is way above anything written by a Feeneyite, yet it nevertheless does a masterful job of proving nothing. 

Luckily, even though I have no time for a 323 post rebuttal, such isn't necessary. I have written on this before, in different forms. My next "Contending For The Faith" post in March will expose the false theology of Vatican II which TR tries to defend. First, I will show why sedevacantism is not heresy, and how TR gets it all wrong.

Shifting the Burden of Proof

The monograph is basically a rehashing of John Sala's arguments. The resurrected Salza arguments boil down to sedevacantism being heretical because we have no bishops (at least none of whom we know) possessing Ordinary Jurisdiction, which the approved pre-Vatican II theologians seem to tell us is necessary for Apostolicity; one of the Four Marks of the Church. TR claims this "refutes" sedevacantism. Then there is the nonsense regarding formal declarations against a pope and he remains in office until/unless such takes place. No one needs to even try a direct refutation.

When a Vatican II sect apologist says, "How do you explain (such and such) if sedevacantsim is true?" do not attempt an answer. The Great Apostasy is a unique time and it makes sense if we don't have all the answers at our fingertips. If Bergoglio and his sect are the One True Church, as V2 sect apologists contend (and we know very well what things must be like with the Church in normal conditions), the question must be asked of the sect's apologist, "If Bergoglio is pope and Vatican II is a legitimate Council of the Church, then how do you explain the almost word for word contradictions between pre- and post-V2 teachings?" 

 Everyone recognizes that there are serious differences with what purports to be the Roman Catholic Church today and how She existed prior to the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). What was always believed and taught was now outright contradicted. The Mass and sacraments were substantially altered. It is a dogma that the Church is Indefectible and will exist until the end of time. This presented a big problem for Catholics worldwide. It seemed like there was a new religion operating inside formerly Catholic churches. The clergy tried telling the people that only outward appearances changed, but the "substance" of the faith, morals, Mass, and sacraments remained. 

This simply was not the case. The teaching of the Church regarding such topics as ecclesiology, religious liberty, and collegiality was completely different. The "Mass" was now identical to the invalid bread and wine "Lord's Supper" at the local  Lutheran church, and it introduced practices that had been condemned pre-Vatican II. Either the Church had been wrong from its founding by Our Lord Jesus Christ until Vatican II (in which case the Church was never founded by Christ and is a lie), or the Church was wrong after Vatican II (however, the dogma of Indefectibility teaches that the Church cannot teach error or give evil and She will last until the end of the world). The answer is to be found in the traditional teaching of the approved theologians and canonists: that it is possible for the pope, as a private theologian, to publicly profess heresy as a private theologian and fall from the pontificate by Divine Law. It is also taught that a heretic cannot obtain the papacy. 

These very real theological possibilities are referred to as sedevacantism (meaning "the seat/See of St. Peter is vacant"). Sedevacantism, broadly speaking, is the position that there is currently no pope, and the man Jorge Bergoglio, commonly accepted and called the pope, is in fact a false pope, with no known real pope at present. More specifically, it is the position that the men considered successors to Pope Pius XII are not legitimate successors, and the last known pope was Pius XII. (TR states sedes consider Roncalli the last true pope, but I know of not a single Traditionalist who still holds this view. It must be an extreme minority, if any do still exist). 

The Church under Pope Pius XII had the Four Marks and was clearly the One True Church in continuity with all popes before going back to St. Peter. The problem began when Roncalli started to rehabilitate all the Modernist theologians censured under Pope Pius XII and called the Council to "update" the Church. Roncalli either never obtained to the papacy (in my opinion the more likely scenario) or lost his authority after the election by public profession of heresy as a private theologian. Only a false pope could have signed Pacem in Terris. 

First Things First: Can Bergoglio Be The Pope?

Canon 188 of the 1917 Code simply restates what the Church has always taught: that a heretic is barred by Divine Law from obtaining the papacy. The pre-Vatican II canonists affirm that it is not canon law, but rather God's Law that prevents a heretic such as Bergoglio from obtaining the office of pope in the first place.

Proof: According to canonist Coronata, "III. Appointment of the office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment: … Also required for validity is that the appointment be of a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded." (Institutiones 1:312; Emphasis mine)

According to Wernz-Vidal: "Those capable of being validly elected are all who are not prohibited by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law… Those who are barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics, schismatics…" (Jus Canonicum 1:415; Emphasis mine).

Bergoglio was a heretic much prior to his alleged "election" in 2013.  According to the Anti-Deformation League: "Cardinal Bergoglio maintained a close relationship with the Jewish community in Argentina. He has celebrated various Jewish holidays with the Argentinian Jewish community, including Chanukah where he lit a candle on the menorah, attended a Buenos Aires synagogue for Slichot, a pre-Rosh Hashana service, the Jewish New Year, as well as a commemoration of Kristallnacht, the wave of violent Nazi attacks against Jews before World War II."

 (See adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-congratulates-new-pope-francis; Emphasis mine).

"Cardinal" Bergoglio also participated in an ecumenical service wherein a Protestant minister "laid hands on him" as a religious action: "...then-Cardinal Bergoglio—metropolitan archbishop of Buenos Aires, primate of the Catholic Church in Argentina, and president of the Argentinian Bishops’ Conference—is kneeling, head bowed, between Father Raniero Cantalamessa and Catholic Charismatic leader Matteo Calisi, with Evangelical Pastor Carlos Mraida extending his hand toward the cardinal’s head, as the people invoke the Holy Spirit over him." 

(See catholicworldreport.com/2014/09/05/francis-ecumenism-and-the-common-witness-to-christ/; Emphasis mine).

Participating in false religious worship, according to the approved canonists and theologians, is a manifestation of heresy and/or apostasy. According to theologian Merkelbach, external heresy consists not only in what someone says, but also dictis vel factis, that is "signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds." (See theologian Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis, 1:746.)

Hence, Bergoglio could never have attained the papacy in the first place. Yet, just as a cause can be known by its effects, the Argentinian apostate continues to deny dogma as the "pope."

Jorge Bergoglio denies many dogmas, but I will focus on two: (a) There is only One True Church, and (b) that One True Church is absolutely necessary for salvation (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus--Outside The Church There Is No Salvation). Pope Eugene IV, in the Apostolic Constitution Cantate Domino, teaches ex cathedra: "The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil, and his angels," (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, alms-deeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (See Denzinger #714; Emphasis mine)

Pope Innocent III in 1215: "With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved." (Denzinger 423; Emphasis mine)

Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctum (1302), infallibly declared, "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

The Nicene Creed: "...I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." (Emphasis mine).

That pretty much makes the case that the Magisterium has defined there is only ONE True Church, and outside of Her, no one is saved. Theologian Salaverri teaches: "From the documents of the Church it is clear that the necessity of belonging to the true Church is a dogma of faith." (See Sacrae Theologiae Summa IIB [1955], pg. 446; Emphasis in original). Also, "Therefore it is an Article of divine and Catholic Faith to be professed by all that the Church necessarily and indefectibly is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic." (Ibid, pg. 472; First Emphasis in original, second emphasis mine).

What has Bergoglio said? "Proselytism is solemn nonsense." Is it taken out of context? Not if you believe his good friend and co-author, Rabbi Abraham Skorka. (Together they published a book in 2010, On heaven and Earth while Bergoglio was "Cardinal") The leftist rabbi has said, "When he [Francis] speaks about evangelization, the idea is to evangelize Christians or Catholics," to reach "higher dimensions of faith" and a deepened commitment to social justice, Skorka said. "This is the idea of evangelization that Bergoglio is stressing — not to evangelize Jews. This he told me, on several opportunities." (See https://news.yahoo.com/rabbi-whose-good-friend-became-pope-060646630.html).

It is impossible to believe there is no salvation outside the Church and not try to convert everyone--including Jews--just as Our Lord commanded us to do in The Great Commission, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded thee. And surely I am with thee always, to the consummation of the world." (St. Matthew 28:19-20).

How about "I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being." (See https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pope_Francis). The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. As Pope Pius XII taught: If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Christ" - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers.

That the Church is a body is frequently asserted in the Sacred Scriptures. "Christ," says the Apostle, "is the Head of the Body of the Church." If the Church is a body, it must be an unbroken unity, according to those words of Paul: "Though many we are one body in Christ."But it is not enough that the Body of the Church should be an unbroken unity; it must also be something definite and perceptible to the senses as Our predecessor of happy memory, Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Satis Cognitum asserts: "the Church is visible because she is a body. Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely "pneumatological" as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are untied by an invisible bond. (See Mystici Corporis Christi, [1943], para. #13 and 14). God and His Church are inextricably united. God is indeed Catholic because that is His One True Church; His Mystical Body on Earth.

Furthermore, Bergoglio adheres to the teaching of Vatican II, which says, "For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [false sects] as means of salvation..." (See Unitatis Redintegratio, para. #3; Emphasis mine). He believes in the false ecclesiology of Vatican II, wherein there is a "Church of Christ" distinct from the Roman Catholic Church, yet resides there in its "fullness" because it contains all of the "elements" of the Church of Christ. To have all the elements is best, but to have just some is good too, and leads to salvation. The New Ecclesiology is mutually exclusive of the True Ecclesiology pre-Vatican II.

Yet, the protests will come that Bergoglio "wasn't understood correctly," or he was "ambiguous" and it can be interpreted in an orthodox way.  For example, TR might say something along the lines that when Bergoglio said, "There is no Catholic God," what he really meant was that God created all people and not just Catholics, so in that sense "there is no Catholic God" because he is Creator of all regardless of religion. Of course, TR would have to ignore the context as well as the testimony of men like Skorka, to whom Bergoglio explained himself. Nevertheless, we need not bother delving into that difficulty.

The Church cannot (and does not) teach ambiguously in expressing theological truths. Any deliberate ambiguity must be interpreted against the orthodoxy of the one teaching ambiguously. Propositions that are ambiguous or admit of interpretations that are either orthodox or heterodox are deemed "heretical by defect." This is also the case with propositions that are true, but are calculated to omit pertinent truths or terms they ought to include. The following proposition of the Jansenist Pseudo-Synod of Pistoia was condemned:

"After the consecration, Christ is truly, really and substantially present beneath the appearances (of bread and wine), and the whole substance of bread and wine has ceased to exist, leaving only the appearances."

In 1794, Pope Pius VI condemned that proposition in the Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei because "it entirely omits to make any mention of transubstantiation or the conversion of the entire substance of the bread into the Body, and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, which the Council of Trent defined as an article of Faith...insofar as, through an unauthorized and suspicious omission of this kind, attention is drawn away both from an article of Faith and from a word consecrated by the Church to safeguard the profession of that article against heresies, and tends, therefore, to result in its being forgotten as if it were merely a scholastic question."

What about pleas for the need of "warnings" (even as a "Cardinal") because he doesn't know something he said was heretical? The objection fails miserably:

According to theologian MacKenzie, "The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity… excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist." (See The Delict of Heresy in its Commission, Penalization, Absolution, CUA Press, [1932], pg. 35) Again, MacKenzie, "If the delinquent making this claim be a cleric, his plea for mitigation must be dismissed, either as untrue, or else as indicating ignorance which is affected, or at least crass and supine… His ecclesiastical training in the seminary, with its moral and dogmatic theology, its ecclesiastical history, not to mention its canon law, all insure that the Church’s attitude towards heresy was imparted to him." (Ibid, pg. 48; Emphasis mine). Now of course we have one final objection...

Who are you to judge the pope a heretic?

A famous Vatican II sect and R&R "boogeyman:" Sedevacantism "judges" the pope. As a procedural matter they are  correct, "The First See is judged by no one" as Canon 1556 of the 1917 Code clearly states. As explained by canonist Cappello, "Immunity of the Roman Pontiff. 'The First See is judged by no one.' (Canon 1556). This concerns the Apostolic See or the Roman Pontiff who by the divine law itself enjoys full and absolute immunity." (See Summa Juris Canonici 3:19.) However, a pope who becomes a manifest heretic loses his office by DIVINE LAW, and an apostate, like Bergoglio, cannot attain the office. This is the teaching of all pre-Vatican II canonists and theologians. (To name but a few, Van Noort, Coronata, Dorsch, Iragui, Prümmer, Regatillo, Salaverri, and Zubizarreta).  Sedevacantists depose no one, we just recognize a fact that has already happened..

First Summation:

1. Bergoglio was a heretic prior to his "election" as "pope." 

2. The heresy is apparent. 

3. Heresy is a Divine impediment to becoming pope.

Inescapable Conclusion: Bergoglio is not pope, and his clergy are not Catholic. 

Second Things Second: Sedevacantism and The Four Marks

Let the TR explain away how they have the Four Marks with a pope teaching heresy. As to sedevacantism, do WE possess the Four Marks as Traditionalists?

Is Apostolicity gone? No. Attempting to cite to any approved pre-Vatican II theologian to the contrary is useless because they were speaking about Apostolicity in normal times, not extraordinary times. There is a distinction which will be discussed next. 

 Approved theologians taught there could be an extended interregnum as we have today, and therefore it cannot be incompatible with maintaining the Four Marks.

According to theologian Dorsch, "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…

Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…

For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.

These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine)

Therefore, the Church can remain for many years deprived of a pope, and the form of government remains "then in a different way." Moreover, there was a historical situation in the Church for 51 years called The Great Western Schism. From 1378 until 1429, when Pope Martin V became the universally recognized pontiff, there were up to three claimants to the papal throne, all with arguments for their legitimacy. Only one (or possibly none) could have been the true pope. Which one, if any, was it? Mutual excommunications, appointing bishops and cardinals; to whom do you submit?  There was no discernible pope, so according to the pope= visibility theory, the Church would have defected--an impossibility. In an age of much shorter life spans there could have been no bishops left with Ordinary jurisdiction, had none of the claimants been a true pope. That the Church is Indefectible is a dogma of the Faith.

As Van Noort teaches, "[During the Great Western Schism]...hierarchical unity was only materially, not formally, interrupted.  Although Catholics were split three ways in their allegiance because of the doubt as to which of the [papal] contenders had been legitimately elected, still all were agreed in believing that allegiance was owed to one legitimate successor of Peter, and they stood willing to give that allegiance." (See Dogmatic Theology [1956] 2:131; First Emphasis in original, second emphasis mine). So too, Traditionalists stand "willing to give that allegiance" when there is a true pope. 

The real nail in the coffin was delivered by theologian Fr. Edmund James O'Reilly, one of the most orthodox and erudite theologians of the 19th century. He wrote a book in 1882 (a scant twelve years after the Vatican Council), entitled The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays. On page 287, he writes in reference to the Great Western Schism:

There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance... nor ever with such a following...

The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. 

Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. 

We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree. (Emphasis mine).

Theologian Zubizarreta teaches:

When the Chair is vacant and the Church is temporarily deprived of its visible head, She retains the privileges of indefectibility and infallibility in both its passive infallibility of the body of the faithful in matters of belief  as well as the active infallibility of the Episcopal body in its teaching role, however without being able to infallibly define dogma not yet already declared. (Theologia Fundamentalis, 1:369, [1937]). 

The following points are made unmistakably clear:

• The Vatican Council's 1870 decree on the papacy has been misconstrued. The institution of the papacy is perpetual; there is no need nor guarantee of actual men to fill that See at every point in time.

• The Great Western Schism sets historical precedent for a de facto interregnum of 51 years, since no one knew which papal claimant was pope, and there was a real possibility that none of the claimants was Vicar of Christ. 

• The teaching of the theologians clearly shows a vacancy of the Holy See lasting for an extended period of time. Such a vacancy cannot be pronounced to be incompatible with the promises of Christ as to the Indefectibility of the Church.  Therefore, all Four Marks, including Apostolicity and everything else the Church requires, continue of necessity, even if we may not know the exact answers in any given situation. The Magisterium would not allow theologians to teach a hypothetical situation as a real possibility, if that would somehow be incompatible with the dogma of Indefectibility and the promises of Christ. 

• It is also taught by the theologians that it would be exceedingly rash to set any prejudged limits as to what God will be prepared to allow to happen to the Holy See, except for that which would be contrary to Divine Law (such as a "heretical pope"--an oxymoron)

 Finally, Some Interesting Omissions from TR:

In their alleged "refutation" of sedevacantism, TR quotes frequently from theologian Elwood Sylvester Berry's work The Church of Christ [1955]. I wonder if  TR bothered to read it, or if  they even understand it. Here are some of Berry's teachings from the same treatise:

A False church with a false pope and false sacraments lead by Satan. On pgs. 65-66,  The prophesies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition of the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church. (Emphasis in original). A false church! Could Bergoglio and the Vatican II sect be paving the way for the end times?

Apostolicity as one of the Four Marks. On page 88: Apostolicity, as a mark, is thus restricted to succession, and that a material succession, since legitimacy is not an external quality easily recognized by all, whereas material succession, i.e., an unbroken line of pastors reaching back to the Apostles, can be known even by the unlearned as easily as the succession of civil rulers in the State. But since Apostolicity of material succession may, and probably does, exist in some schismatical churches, it constitutes a negative mark only.

So material succession determines Apostolicity as a Mark of the Church. Berry, on page 104, explains why schismatic sects like the Eastern Orthodox don't have a positive Apostolic mark, In no case do they [Eastern Schismatics] have legitimate succession; there is no transmission of jurisdiction because they have withdrawn from communion with Rome, the center and source of all jurisdiction. Sedevacantists have never withdrawn from communion with Rome! In order to prove we have, Contra must beg the question by asserting Bergoglio is a true pope, which is the very matter under dispute. 

A Doubtful Pope is No Pope. On page 229, A DOUBTFUL POPE. When there is prudent doubt about the validity of an election to any official position, there is also similar doubt whether the person so elected really has authority or not. In such a case no one is bound to obey him, for it is an axiom of the law that a doubtful law begets no obligation---lex dubiat non obligat. But a superior no one is bound to obey is really no superior at all. Hence the saying of Bellarmine: a doubtful pope is no pope. (Emphasis in original)

Can you say, "Roncalli"? 

Conclusion

Don't allow "Trad Recovery" to fool you. It is the Vatican II sect apologists that must explain how contradictory and ambiguous teachings can be taught as being in continuity with what the Church always held as true prior to Vatican II. Just because we may not know every answer about the functioning of the Church in a unique state doesn't mean She has not the Four Marks, as the Church Herself shows.  Likewise, not knowing exactly how or when we will get a real pope again doesn't make Bergoglio and his sect "pope and Church by default." I feel sorry for those who may have been hurt by thoughtless Traditionalist clerics or laity. Yet just because there was Judas doesn't mean we should abandon Christ.

I sincerely hope and pray these people come to their senses and recover the Truth which they tragically threw away.