Dimondites

 

Feeneyites is the name given to those who deny the dogma of Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB). They derive their name from the excommunicated Jesuit, Leonard Feeney (1897-1978). Feeney was surrounded by Modernists who gave a heretical meaning to BOD. According to them, every (or almost every) non-Catholic who died was in good faith and was saved by BOD. This was never the teaching of the Church.

In response, instead of giving a clear exposition of BOD and BOB, Feeney went to the heretical opposite error of denying they could save anyone, and taught that only the sacrament of baptism ("water baptism") could save someone. In 1953, Pope Pius XII solemnly excommunicated Feeney for heresy (not "disobedience" as his followers falsely declare).  Feeney claimed BOD confers sanctifying grace yet you cannot enter Heaven until water baptism. In other words, you can have sanctifying grace, but die and go to Hell unless you receive Baptism by water! A person in sanctifying grace is a child of God with the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in his soul. How could such a person go to Hell? They can't. 

Modern day Feeneites realize the illogical position and "improve" on it by claiming BOD does not justify. 

As with most heretics, the errors rarely stop at just one point of departure from the One True Faith. In Bread of Life, pgs. 97-98, Fr. Feeney writes these most disconcerting words, "I think baptism makes you the son of God. I do not think it makes you the child of Mary. I think the Holy Eucharist makes you a child of Mary. What happens to those children who die between baptism and the Holy Eucharist?...They go to the Beatific Vision. They are in the Kingdom of Mary, but they are not the children of Mary. Mary is their Queen, but not their Mother. They are like little angels. There was a strong tradition in the Church that always spoke of them as 'those angels who died in infancy.' They have the Beatific Vision, and they see the great Queen, but not move in as part of the Mystical Body of Christ...I say: If a child dies after having received baptism, he dies the son of God, but not yet as the child of Mary..."

Baptism makes you part of the One True Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, yet Feeney talks of infants who die after baptism as not moving in Heaven as "part of the Mystical Body of Christ"? They are not true Catholics? Isn't Feeney contradicting his so-called "strict interpretation" of "Outside the Church no salvation"? The Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of Christ, the Invisible Head of the Church, and by extension, to each member of His Mystical Body. How dare Feeney call baptized infants who die before First Communion as "not a child of Mary." Note well he never cites to even one approved theologian, canonist, Encyclical, or other authoritative Church declaration in support of his novel ideas--and with good reason: there aren't any. More heresy.

I could go on about Feeney's creation of a cult consisting of "married nuns" and "married brothers" who raised their children "communally," contrary to both Divine Positive and Natural Law. However, my point has been made that from one heresy, more inevitably follow. Since Feeney began the crusade against Church teaching on BOD and BOB, his followers are rightfully called Feeneyites, as they are not Catholic; just as Lutherans are named after the heretical excommunicated priest they follow. 

(To read more about Leonard Feeney, please see my post "A Sickness Of Soul;"introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/03/a-sickness-of-soul.html). 

However, most (not all) Feeneyites today were introduced to the heresy by Fred and Bobby Dimond of "Most Holy Family Monastery" here in New York State. They claim to be "Benedictine brothers" and have followers who are nothing short of fanatical.  (My favorite definition of a "fanatic:" one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject). The followers mimic what Fred and Bobby say, write, and they adopt all their views in addition to the rejection of BOD and BOB. It is these other views which shall be the subject of my post. As I already stated above, heresy rarely stops at one point of departure with the Church. Fred, Bobby, and their followers all display a "sickness of soul" endemic among Feeneyites, as my friend Steve Speray once wrote. Perhaps it's time to give these Feeneyites a new moniker---Dimondites. 

The (Very Unimpressive) CV of Fred and Bobby Dimond

One would think that with so many fanatical followers, Fred and Bobby must have outstanding credentials. Nothing could be further from the truth. Before you entrust the care of your immortal soul to Fred and Bobby Dimond, here are the facts about them I have published in the past. They:

• Claim to be Benedictines, yet are sedevacantists. Having been born in the 1970s, they could not be members of the Traditional Benedictines, so they either are "self-appointed" or were made such by someone in the Vatican II sect they claim to abhor. 

• Have no education beyond high school, and possess no formal ecclesiastical training or degrees, yet pontificate on every topic and "damn to Hell" anyone who disagrees

• Claim to understand Church teaching on BOD better than Doctors of the Church, such as St. Alphonsus Liguori

• Have spread the Feeneyite heresy denying Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB) as forcefully as possible, and have made an excommunicated Jesuit, reconciled to the Modernist Vatican and holding to many strange ideas and practices ( Leonard Feeney), an ersatz "hero." They never mention the cult he founded and the children he abused

• Have an unhealthy fascination with UFOs, and material that's fit to be published in supermarket tabloids

They are not exactly "theological giants," and were it not for gullible followers donating to them, they would probably be working the cash register at McDonald's (provided they didn't tell all the customers they're going to Hell). Now let's dive into their strange teachings on matters besides denial of BOD and BOB.

You Can Know With Certainty Who is in Hell

There's an old aphorism, "A proof-text without context is a pretext." If you take something out of the context in which it was written and hold it up as "proof" for a preconceived notion, you're not interested in the Truth, just validating your point; "My mind is made up, so don't bother me with the facts." This is the hallmark of Fred and Bobby Dimond. In their article Catholics May Not Pray For Deceased Non-Catholics, Fred and Bobby contort Church teaching. They begin with this general statement:

It’s a dogma that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.  All who die as non-Catholics go to Hell.  Therefore, prayers may not be offered for people who die as non-Catholics.  If a person was a non-Catholic or a heretic during life, unless there is evidence of a conversion to the true faith in the external forum, the person is considered to have died as he or she lived (i.e. as a non-Catholic and outside the Church).  Therefore prayers may not be offered for a person who, based on the last available evidence, was a non-Catholic or a heretic on the hope that there was a conversion in that person’s final days.  Prayers may only be offered for people who die with the true faith.  Here are some quotes that reiterate the Church’s teaching that Catholics may not pray for (or consider among the faithful departed) those who die as non-Catholics or without the true faith. (See http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/catholicchurch/catholics-may-not-pray-deceased-non-catholics/#.WYvioNQrKt_).

It is true that there is no salvation outside the One True Church and all non-Traditionalist Catholics who die as such go to Hell. The rest is woefully wrong. They claim that unless there is evidence that the person converted, prayers may not be offered in the hope that there was a conversion in the person's final days.

Let's see what the Church has to say:

1. 1917 Code of Canon Law 
Canon 1240 speaks to the types of persons to be denied ecclesiastical burial. They include Masons, excommunicates, those who committed suicide, those who live as public and notorious sinners, etc. However, Canon 1241 says a person deprived of Christian burial "shall also be denied any funeral Mass, even an anniversary Mass, as well as all other public funeral services. Priests may say Mass privately for him and the faithful may pray for him. (See canonists Abbo and Hannon, The Sacred Canons, 2: 495-497; Emphasis mine). Obviously the Church does not give up hope in a last minute repentance/conversion, but Fred and Bobby do.

2. Theologian O'Connell
"So far as the dead are concerned, the Exequial Mass and Anniversary Mass (or other public funeral offices)may not be offered for a person to whom ecclesiastical burial had been denied...It is not, however, forbidden to offer a Mass privately for such persons." (See The Celebration of Mass, The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee [1941], pg. 45; Emphasis mine).

3. Theologian Szal
"But if he [a schismatic] gave no signs of repentance, then Mass can still be said for him, but only privately and in the absence of scandal." (See The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA Press, [1948], pg. 181; Emphasis mine).

What proof did the Dimond brothers give for claiming Catholics can't pray for deceased non-Catholics? A quote from St. Thomas Aquinas, "St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Suppl. Q. 71, A. 5. “Gregory says (Moralia xxxiv): There is the same reason for not praying then (namely after the judgment day) for men condemned to everlasting fire, as there is now for not praying for the devil and his angels who are sentenced to eternal punishment, and for this reason the saints do not pray for dead unbelieving and wicked men, because, forsooth, knowing them to be already condemned to eternal punishment, they shrink from pleading for them by the merit of their prayers…” Yes, THE SAINTS do not pray for dead and unbelieving men because they know for certain who they are, and we do not (except for Judas Iscariot, for the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches, "...but the priesthood brings to them [i.e., evil clerics] in its train the same rewards the Apostleship brought to Judas--eternal perdition." pg. 213).

The other quotes from, e.g., Pope Gregory the Great, clearly mean prayers are not offered for non-Catholics publicly, because no one but God knows what happens between Him and a soul prior to death except by special revelation. We know the canonized saints are in Heaven; that is an infallible decree. We know Judas is in Hell. We know the Antichrist and the false prophet will go to Hell. For everyone else, we may hope they were saved by God in the last moments of life, being brought into the Church infused with faith and sanctifying grace, because nothing is impossible with God. Prayers said for them, if they did not convert, are not "wasted;" they will be used by God for another poor soul--the same as prayers for someone whom is now (unknown to us) in Heaven are never "wasted."

This also puts Fred and Bobby in a conundrum. The Code of Canon Law is infallible, but even if it were not, they have a difficult choice to make. The pope cannot teach heresy, even non-infallibly

.

(See my post introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2025/05/can-true-pope-teach-heresy.html).

 If Pope Benedict XV promulgated heresy in Canon Law (Canon 1241), then he could not be a true pope. According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10). Therefore, if praying for the dead who died outside the Church in the external forum is heresy, Pope Benedict XV was not a true pope. If he was a true pope, then Canon 1241 is not heretical, and the Dimond's teaching collapses. Which is it, Fred and Bobby? 

Calling Mary "Co-Redemptrix" is Heretical

The Dimonds do not state that calling Mary Co-Redemptix is heresy in the article found here: vaticancatholic.com/mary-co-redeemer-co-redemptrix. 

However, that is the logical and necessary conclusion one must draw if the teaching and title derogates from the infallible teaching that Christ alone redeemed us. Thankfully, it does not contradict any dogma. It has not been defined that Mary is Co-Redemptrix, but there are many and weighty arguments for the privilege and title when rightfully understood. 

The Dimond brothers attack those who wish to honor Our Lady with the title Co-Redemptrix as heretics-in-fact because it (allegedly) contradicts the infallible teaching of the Council of Trent. They write:

 Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 25, On Invocation, Veneration and Relics of Saints, and on Sacred Images, ex cathedra: “…the saints, who reign with Christ, offer up their prayers to God for me; and that it is good and useful to invoke them suppliantly and, in order to obtain favors from God through His Son JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, WHO ALONE IS OUR REDEEMER and Savior….But if anyone should teach or maintain anything contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema.” (Denz. 984-987) (Emphasis in original).

What the Diamonds, in their duplicity, choose to omit are the following words between the ellipsis, "and that they think impiously who deny that the saints who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven are to be invoked, or who assert that they do not pray for men, or that our invocation of them to pray for each of us individually is idolatry, or that it is opposed to the word of God and inconsistent with the honor of the one mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ...(Emphasis mine). It's clear that Trent was condemning the Protestants who think that because there is ONE MEDIATOR (not two or more--See 1 Timothy 2: 5-6), that saints are not to be invoked and cannot pray and intercede for us without derogating from the one Mediator, Jesus Christ. The Dimonds have no problem calling Our Lady Mediatrix, with no fear of minimizing Our Lord's unique role as the one Mediator. Likewise, Trent was not defining Christ to be the only Savior so as to exclude the possibility of Our Lady having a secondary and subordinate role in redemption. Just as Mary has a role in dispensing all grace (subordinate to and united with Her Divine Son) so as to merit the title Mediatrix without dishonoring or denying Her Son as the one and only Mediator, the title Co-Redemptrix would be given in the same manner.  So much for their contorting the meaning of Trent, just as they do in regards to its decrees on Baptism and the sacraments.

Also of note, Fred and Bobby cite to Doctor of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine, and theologian Pohle in favor of their position. Isn't it interesting that approved theologians are only cited when Fred and Bobby seem to agree with them? (I say "seem to" because neither Bellarmine or Pohle thought the title/privilege contradicted Church dogma). Otherwise, citing to theologians is useless "because they are not infallible." Can you say "hypocrite"? But I digress.

What about the theologians and popes who spoke of Mary as having a role with Her Divine Son in the redemption of humanity? According to MHFM, There are a few non-infallible quotations that people bring forward to attempt to show that Mary is Co-Redemptrix.  The answer is that they are not infallible and they are simply wrong.  They cannot be defended. Yet if it contradicts dogma, it is heretical, and Fred and Bobby have another conundrum.

•  Pope Benedict XV, in his Apostolic Letter Inter Sodalicia (March 22, 1918), wrote, "To such extent did she (Mary) suffer and almost die with her suffering and dying Son, and to such extent did she surrender her maternal rights over her Son for man's salvation, and immolated Him, insofar as she could, in order to appease the justice of God, that we may rightly say that she redeemed the human race together with Christ."

•  Pope Pius XI called Our Lady Co-Redemptrix at least six (6) times. In the radio broadcast to the world at the solemn closing of the Jubilee Year which commemorated the Redemption of humanity (April 29, 1935) he prayed, "O Mother of piety and mercy who, when Thy most beloved Son was accomplishing the Redemption of the human race on the altar of the cross, didst stand there both suffering with Him and as a Co-Redemptrix; preserve us we beseech thee, and increase day by day, the precious fruit of His Redemption and of thy compassion."

• Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Ad Coeli Reginam (October 11, 1954) distinguishes Mary's role in the Redemption from her role as Mediatrix of All Grace. 

• On November 26, 1951, the entire Cuban hierarchy petitioned Pope Pius XII for a dogmatic definition of Mary as Co-Redemptrix. An entire nation of bishops felt that it could and should be defined.

If calling Mary Co-Redemptrix goes against dogma, it means Pope Benedict XV, Pope Pius XI, and Pope Pius XII were all false popes. According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10). 

When the Church has not settled a question and leaves it open to discussion among the theologians, Traditionalist Catholics are free to accept any answer the theologians offer as long as it is not censured by the Magisterium. Such is the case on whether the title Co-Redemptrix properly belongs to Mary. The strongest (and most numerous) arguments come down on the side favoring Mary as Co-Redemptrix. Theologian Pohle's objections are more about the fear of misunderstandings that could derogate from Christ's unique salvific role, not a condemnation of the correct understanding of Mary's role in redemption.

Now that Fred and Bobby will cite theologians that suit them, let's move on to the next whacky teaching.

Modernist Theologians were Receiving Imprimaturs Before Vatican II

Besides claiming, "theologians are not infallible" followers of the Dimonds like to intone that the Modernist takeover of the Church "couldn't have just happened" in the 1960s, and will trace it back to the late 19th century. Besides, they argue, bishops and censors couldn't review all theological books, and Imprimaturs were being given out which should not have been. Hence, you cannot cite any approved theologians without them being called "Modernists." All are unreliable and full of error. 

First, let it be noted that not all approved theologians hold the same degree of authority. Doctors of the Church, have all their writings examined in the most minute detail for anything that might go against Church teaching, or even be perceived as such. The pope, exercising his full Apostolic Authority after the long investigation, declares the theologian a Doctor of the Church based on (a) the excellence of his teachings and (b) his unwavering orthodoxy on every point of theology. 

For example, the Sacred Penitentiary, in answer to a query of the Archbishop of Besancon, and dated July 5, 1831 (under Pope Gregory XVI) had this to say:

Question: May a professor of sacred theology safely hold and teach the opinions that Blessed Alphonsus Ligouri teaches in his moral theology?

Response of the Sacred Penitentiary: Yes, yet those who follow the opinions handed down by other approved authors should not be considered blameworthy. 

(The answer was approved by His Holiness on July 21, 1831).

Here's one of St. Alphonsus' teachings:

It is de fide that men may be also be saved through baptism of desire — from the chapter Apostolicam, de presb. non bapt. and from the Council of Trent, where it is said that no one can be saved ‘without the washing of regeneration or the desire for it’.(See Theologia Moralis, [1909] 3:96-7). 

Yet, Fred and Bobby say that St. Alphonsus "made a mistake." Apparently so did all the theologians who examined his works for years checking it for the slightest error, and Pope Gregory XVI who gave final approval and declared him a Doctor of the Church. The theologians at the Sacred Penitentiary also gave a wrong answer about his works, and Pope Gregory made another "mistake" in approving it. 

Moreover, the Sacred Penitentiary says opinions of other "approved authors" may be used. The term "author" used to describe a theologian, denotes the very best of the best--short of being a Doctor of the Church. These authors have, in addition to all the basic requirements to be a theologian, a full professorship at a Pontifical University, authorship of  a multi-volume manual in dogmatic or moral theology that is considered an outstanding contribution in its field, and  have it used in seminaries and universities throughout the world. The Church uses these authors to form Her priests, and their works are inspected by the hierarchy the world over (including the Roman Pontiff) to check that there are no errors. 

Therefore, while a theologian who just wrote one or two papers for a theology journal might "slip under the radar," there is no chance of an author being a Modernist writer disseminating heresy. While it is true that individual theologians are not infallible, theologians as a corporate body are protected from error, as they are part of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM). The extraordinary Magisterium declared the UOM to be equally infallible during the Vatican Council of 1870. 

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

(A Manual of Catholic Theology, pg. 83; Emphasis mine). 

The followers of Fred and Bobby will say, "You are using a Modernist theologian to prove theologians are not Modernist." The objection fails miserably. Scheeben was an author of the highest caliber and his works were endorsed and promoted by Pope Pius XI himself:

MATTHIAS JOSEPH SCHEEBEN (1835–1888) was a German priest and scholar whose theology points to the inner coherence of the Christian faith and its supernatural mysteries. Notable in his own time, Scheeben later received praise from Pope Pius XI, who in 1935 encouraged study of the late theologian’s works, reflecting: “The entire theology of Scheeben bears the stamp of a pious ascetical theology.” 

Carl Feckes, Scheeben's successor at the Cologne seminary, named him "the greatest Mariologist of our time." 

(See philpapers.org/rec/KOOOSP-3#:~:text=In%201935%2C%20during%20the%20centenary,much%20praised%2C%20but%20seldom%20read; and See also stpaulcenter.com/emmaus-academic/handbook-of-catholic-dogmatics-3; Emphasis mine)

If Scheeben was a Modernist heretic spreading error, and Pope Pius XI encouraged the study of those works, Pius would be spreading Modernist heresy and  be himself a heretic. According to Doctor of the Church St. Alphonsus Liguori, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See Verita della Fede, Pt. III, Ch. VIII, 9-10). 

Finally, Fred and Bobby (with no ecclesiastical education and training, and whose highest level of secular education is high school), found errors in the works of an approved author!  In an article entitled, The Revealing Heresies in Msgr. Van Noort's Pre-Vatican II Dogmatic Theology Manual, the theologian is attacked for his position on (what else?) "Outside the Church No Salvation." 

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

The flawed Dimonds write, Many supporters of BOD actually argue and believe that theology manuals and texts, if they were produced by ‘approved’ priests and/or bishops in ‘good standing’ prior to Vatican II, are necessarily safe or reflective of sound Catholic teaching.  They are quite wrong.  They don’t understand what the Magisterium is and what it is not, when it is exercised and when it is not.  Unless a theology manual is simply repeating what the Magisterium has already taught, the conclusions found in it are not protected or guaranteed by the Magisterium.  Moreover, the power of the Magisterium is not exercised when such works are approved by bishops, or even by popes in a non-solemn or universal way. Their proof? Their own ipse dixit since they reject the UOM. It has been amply demonstrated that Fred and Bobby are the ones who  don’t understand what the Magisterium is and what it is not, when it is exercised and when it is not. 

Their attack on theologian Van Noort:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suffice it to say, the Dimonds are clueless and Van Noort is brilliantly Catholic! I will not address all the other alleged heresies of Van Noort, as it is clear his opponents don't understand the topics upon which they write.

I will end this section with the most impressive CV of author Van Noort:

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

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

Nevertheless, no one found errors in Van Noort until Fred and Bobby looked it over. If that wasn't such a sad statement, it would be funny. 

Married Couples Must Have as Many Children as Physically Possible

Yes, Fred and Bobby think that to make use of the infertile period (sometimes called "Natural Family Planning" but which, more correctly, I shall deem "periodic abstinence" [PA]) by married couples is sinful contraception. The question I shall now address:

Is Periodic Continence The Same As Artificial Contraception and Thereby Evil?

Periodic Abstinence (or "PA" as above) is the practice of purposefully limiting the marital act to sterile periods. Feeneyites, and others who hold to the absurd idea that PA is the moral equivalent of contraception, fail to make various distinctions. First and foremost, they reject the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM). The unanimous teachings of the approved theologians is to be discarded, and only private interpretations of ex cathedra statements is to be believed. They fall under the condemnation of Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors:

CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #22:The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church.

The UOM is equally infallible to the Extraordinary Magisterium. Nevertheless, we are bound in conscience to believe e.g., teachings of papal encyclicals, decrees of Roman Congregations, etc., with reverential acceptance. Pope Pius IX taught in Tuas Libenter :

"But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantage to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should realize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure."

The Church has always held artificial contraception to be intrinsically evil. Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii:
"But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious." (para. #54; Emphasis mine).

The dogma of the Indefectibility of the Church guarantees that the Church cannot give to Her members that which is evil or erroneous. Hence, if PA was equivalent to artificial contraception, it would indeed be against both the Natural Law and Divine Positive Law. The Church would be incapable of sanctioning PA if it were intrinsically evil. Yet, as will be shown below, the Church has sanctioned PA, therefore it is not the equivalent of artificial contraception, nor in any sense "intrinsically evil."

1. Three Times the Holy Office of the Sacred Penitentiary Approved PA
The Sacred Penitentiary, the official Church body that decides definitively questions of morality, especially as they pertain to the sacrament of Penance, rendered three decisions on PA under three different popes.

March 2, 1853. During the reign of Pope Pius IX, the Sacred Penitentiary was asked, "Should those spouses be reprehended who make use of marriage only on those days when (in the opinion of some doctors) conception is impossible?"

Reply of the Sacred Penitentiary: "After mature examination, we have decided that such spouses should not be disturbed [or disquieted], provided they do nothing that impedes generation."

This gives the lie to the Feeneyite who claimed Pope Pius IX condemned PA.

June 16, 1880. During the reign of Pope Leo XIII, two pertinent questions were submitted to the Sacred Penitentiary:
1. Whether married couples may have intercourse during such sterile periods without committing mortal or venial sin?
2. Whether the confessor may suggest such a procedure either to the wife who detests the onanism (i.e., "withdrawal") of her husband but cannot correct him; or to either spouse who shrinks from having numerous children?

Reply of the Sacred Penitentiary: "Married couples who use their marriage right in the aforesaid manner are not to be disturbed, and the confessor may suggest the opinion in question, cautiously however, to those married people whom he has tried in vain by other means to dissuade from the detestable crime of onanism."

June 20, 1932. Under Pope Pius XI, the Sacred Penitentiary was asked, "Whether the practice is licit in itself by which spouses who, for just and grave causes, wish to avoid offspring in a morally upright way, abstain from the use of marriage – by mutual consent and with upright motives – except on those days which, according to certain recent [medical] theories, conception is impossible for natural reasons."

Reply of the Sacred Penitentiary: "Provided for by the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary of June 16, 1880." [It reaffirmed the 1880 decision in full].

2. The Teachings of the approved theologians give the green light to PA
The decisions of the Sacred Penitentiary should end the matter. However, we also have the testimony of the approved theologians who teach in favor of PA. None of them were ever censured for their teachings. Had PA been against Natural and Divine positive Law, the popes would have an obligation to condemn those teachings and the theologians who taught them. What good is a Magisterium that can't teach and allows error to go unchecked? The Church would be allowing Her children to believe and practice something evil; but the Indefectibility of the Church will not allow such. Here is a sampling of some of the major approved theologians (authors) of the 20th century before Vatican II:

According to theologian Jone:
 "Abstaining from intercourse during this [infertile] period has come to be known as the Rhythm Method of Birth Control [later NFP]. For a proportionate reason and with the mutual consent of husband and wife it is lawful intentionally to practice periodic continence, i.e., restrict intercourse to those times when conception is impossible...[it is subject to three conditions] (1) Both parties must freely agree to the restrictions it involves; (2)The practice must not constitute an occasion of sin, especially the sin of incontinence; (3) There must be a proportionately grave reason for not having children, at least for the time being." ( See Moral Theology, [1961], pg. 542).

According to theologian Prummer:
"To make use of the so-called safe period has been declared lawful..." (See Handbook of Moral Theology, [1955], pg. 413).

According to theologians McHugh and Callan:
"(b) If birth control refers to a means of family limitation, it is lawful when that means is continence or abstinence from marital relations, not if it is onanism or the use of mechanical or chemical means to prevent conception." (See Moral Theology, [1930], 2:604; Emphasis in original).

The primary theologian who drafted the monumental encyclical Casti Connubii (1930), which condemned artificial contraception, was Fr. Arthur Vermeersch. The encyclical was a response the the Anglican sect which became the first denomination calling itself "Christian" to allow artificial contraception among married couples. I mention Vermeersch because one of the biggest complaints by MHFM supporters against PA is that the intention and purpose of PA is the same as artificial contraception.

Let us remember that the intrinsic end of an action is that which tends towards it's very nature. (For example, almsgiving has the intrinsic purpose of giving relief to one in need). Extrinsic motives don't change the nature of an action. For example, someone might engage in the act of almsgiving to flaunt his wealth and to receive praise from people rather than caring for the poor. However, the nature of the act is unaffected--the poor do indeed obtain relief. (See e.g., theologian Prummer, Ibid, pg. 5).

Vermeersch and canonist Bouscaren, in What is Marriage?(1932), a catechism based on Casti Connubii, point out:
"As long as the [marital] act takes place normally it remains objectively directed towards its primary end, which is generation; and since, according to the maxim that the purpose of the law is not within the matter of the law (finis legis non cadit sub legem), there is no obligation, while observing the law, to intend the end for which it was promulgated, it follows that the act is not necessarily vitiated by deliberately choosing a certain time with the intention of avoiding conception. (pg. 44; Emphasis mine)

Who better would understand the intent of the encyclical than the theologian who wrote it under the direction of Pope Pius XI? However, is it the purpose of marriage to have as many children as physically possible? In a word: No. This will be discussed in the next section.

3. The Practice of the Church
That the Church has not "defined" marriage as a Sacrament meant only and exclusively to be used as a vehicle by which the marital act must produce as many children as physically possible is proven by: (a) the fact that the Church does not prohibit couples past their fertile years from engaging in the marital act, and (b) She has never condemned or prohibited senior citizens (e.g., a 70 year old widower and a 68 year old widow) from getting married even though it is obvious the union cannot produce any children.

To those who object that married couples are required to have as many children as physically possible (usually citing St. Catherine of Sienna who was the 25th of 25 children), the Church teaches no such thing. Married couples should be generous and have many children. However, God's plan is different for each couple. According to theologian John O'Brien, "Contrary to the impression that prevails in some quarters, there is no obligation on any couple to beget any specific number of children, much less to give birth to the largest number possible." (See Lawful Birth Control, [1934], pgs. 61-62).

The proper principle is to use the sacrament of Matrimony as God intended; to bring the man and woman closer to each other and closer to Him; begetting children insofar as the couple may be able to do so under their circumstances in life.

Conclusion

This was a long but necessary post. The Dimond brothers have a whole host of errors they spread in addition to their denial of BOD and BOB. Their crazed followers will make the strangest comments, just to spread error. One of their followers commented that "Ozzy Osbourne is in Hell," on a post that never mention the late singer or anything even remotely related. (While I'm not optimistic about the fate of Osbourne who led a wicked life, without a special revelation from God, no one can say for certain he is damned). 

The Dimonds are the Westboro Baptists of Feeneyism. As the severity of errors surpasses that of most Feeneyites, we should start calling the heretics who follow them Dimondites.

Conspiracies, Traditionalists, And Vatican II

 

Nothing is what it seems to be. Consider the following:

• All classical and medieval literature is a forgery produced after the Renaissance. Troy, Jerusalem, Constantinople and London were originally one and the same place, and King Arthur was a Russian prince. The Old and New Testaments describe the same events. Jesus did exist but was also the Prophet Elijah and Pope Gregory VII rolled into one and lived in the 11th century in what is now Istanbul

• The Earth is not a globe, it is flat. Space agencies, especially NASA, are engaged in a massive effort to conceal the true nature of our planet

• There are no nuclear weapons. No atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki; it was an elaborate hoax

• The 1969 Moon landing was a hoax. One of the astronauts even admitted it

• The world is secretly manipulated by the English monarchy. They are behind all illicit drug operations. The ultimate goal is to start a nuclear war between the United States and Russia that will decimate most of the world's population. They will then re-colonize the survivors for English rule

• Giovanni Montini was a true Catholic and a true pope (Paul VI). Vatican II became evil after the real Pope Paul VI was kidnapped by Freemasons and locked away in the basement of St. Peter's Basilica. A Freemasonic agent then underwent enormous plastic surgeries to look just like him, and the fake Paul VI governed the Church to try and destroy Her

The "facts" above are what some groups of people actually believe. Like the blockbuster 1999 movie The Matrix, it's as if the entire world is manufactured and only an enlightened few realize what's going on. It's astounding how many otherwise intelligent people fall for bizarre nonsense. I haven't even touched on other conspiracies such as "Hitler was a good Catholic who was just misunderstood," and "all modern medicine is bad." 

To be certain, conspiracies are real. There's even the crime of conspiracy, as spelled out in New York's Penal Code:

Section 1500.00 Conspiracy in the Sixth Degree.

A person is guilty of conspiracy in the sixth degree when, with intent that conduct constituting a crime be performed, he agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct. Conspiracy in the sixth degree is a class B misdemeanor.

The dictionary defines a conspiracy as a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. Yet not all conspiracies are true. We need to be able to distinguish between them. At this point you may be asking why am I writing a post on conspiracies. Haven't I often stated that whether or not you believe in something like Bigfoot's existence is being hidden by the government, or that Elvis faked his death 48 years ago, has nothing to do with the Faith, therefore such beliefs need not be discussed? I found the need for this post for three reasons.

First, it can endanger your faith. I knew a Traditionalist that fell for a whacky conspiracy theory that Jesus Christ wasn't real, but an invention of the Jews to weaken the Roman Empire with "turn the other cheek" morality. He became an atheist. Luckily, by God's grace, he saw the errors and returned to the One True Church. It's another reason I don't get caught up in making apparitions the focus of faith (they are not). I believe in all approved apparitions, but I refuse to get into arguments over the "real meaning" of alleged messages, and the cover-up conspiracies which almost inevitably follow.

Second, it makes the sedevacantist position seem implausibly strange and dissuades others from converting. When some Traditionalists talk about, e.g., the flat Earth, most people will dismiss whatever they have to say about Vatican II as "kooky," just like their other ideas. 

Third, some conspiracy theories are discussed as "dogma."  Geocentrism and a literal six- day Creation are said by some to be "dogmatic," while heliocentrism and the Big Bang Theory are a plot by atheist scientists to undermine the faith. If you choose to believe in geocentrism and/or a literal six days of Creation, you can do so and be a good Catholic, but such belief is not dogmatic or required in any way. 

The first part of my analysis will focus on how to distinguish a false from a plausibly true conspiracy. The second part will explain why Vatican II as a Robber Council (and sedevacantism) are not a "crazy conspiracy theory" as our enemies like to claim. 

   True or False Conspiracy?

Real conspiracies do exist. I will name two. There was a cover-up by tobacco companies to hide the proof that their product was unsafe and was linked to cancer. From The Washington Post:

In these boxes [of documents], Minnesota lawyers found evidence that tobacco companies had known for decades that smoking caused cancer, that nicotine was addictive and could be manipulated, and that filter and “light” cigarettes were not safer. The files revealed that tobacco companies targeted children and conspired to hide damaging evidence in ways that a federal court declared to be racketeering. Though the original documents dated to Minnesota’s 1994 lawsuit, they were released to the public in 1998 under a settlement between the state and five tobacco companies just before the case went to a jury. (See washingtonpost.com/outlook/minnesota-tobacco-document-depository/2021/08/25/cdc1ecfc-050c-11ec-a654-900a78538242_story.html). 

In 1973, L. Ron Hubbard's cult of Scientology conspired to infiltrate the U.S. government to purge unfavorable records about Scientology and its founder. It was uncovered by the FBI. (See e.g., medium.com/@osirisuap/operation-snow-white-and-the-modern-ufo-narrative-the-complex-interplay-of-scientology-8d1badc1ebd4). 

Questions to Ask Yourself in Evaluating a Conspiracy Theory

1. What evidence exists?

In the true instances cited above, there were leaked records at first in regards to tobacco, and a few Scientology operatives spoke with the FBI. In false conspiracies, the evidence is one or more of the following:

• anecdotal 
• based on one or more "experts" (who may or may not be truly considered such)
• incomplete because "the powers-that-be are covering it up"
• purposefully twisted out of context

Examples:

"My uncle fought in World War II and he said no atom bombs were dropped on Japan." (Pure anecdotal speculation which proves nothing)

"Robert Sungenis is an expert in physics and knows the Earth is the center of the universe." (Sungenis holds no doctorate in physics and makes fundamental scientific errors. He is also not a theologian.)

"There's lots of evidence that Paul VI was an imposter. The Masons destroyed it all." (So how did you get this esoteric information?)

"Buzz Aldrin publicly admitted the astronauts never went to the moon." 

(Pure hogwash. His quote was taken out of context; See fullfact.org/online/buzz-aldrin-moon-landing-fake/#:~:text=We%20have%20written%20about%20this,things%20need%20more%20money%20too.%E2%80%9D)

2. What evidence contradicts the conspiracy? Has said evidence been debunked?

A commenter claimed in a prior post claimed that nuclear weapons are not real and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were "carpet bombed;" there were no atom bombs. Other than his uncle's ipse dixit, he provided no evidence. Moreover, he would need to show that the proof for atomic bombings is false, to wit: There is the eyewitness account of Fr. Siemes. There's scientific proof of black rain. There is detailed medical accounts of radiation sickness. The hibakusha, the videos, the Manhattan project, etc. all need to be refuted. The usual response from a believer in a false conspiracy is that the counterevidence is "faked" (offering no proof of such), and you are benighted for believing "mainstream narratives" (yet they offer no proof for truth of the assertions of their "non-mainstream" sources/narratives other than they are "not mainstream"). 

3. Does the conspiracy involve everyone, and only a chosen few have knowledge?

Do you realize how many people would have to be in on a plot to:

• fake the six moon landings?
• hide the cabal of English operatives plotting WWIII?
• fake all of history?
• keep a fictitious story of a spherical Earth for centuries?
• fake nuclear weaponry for 80 years?

Yet the "gnostic few" know better; they have the secret. 

4, What is the main source for the conspiracy?

"Our Lady of Bayside said..." an apparition (esp. one not approved by the Church), should never be the main or sole source for an alleged conspiracy.

Before moving on to the next section, I would like to let you know about the six conspiracies I listed at the beginning of this post.

The first conspiracy theory is the "New Chronology" conspiracy. It has two brilliant mathematicians and former World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov as proponents. This proves that just because you are very intelligent or an expert, you are in no way immune from believing something whacky and false. 

(See e.g., telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/1311163/Email-from-Russia.html).

The second conspiracy theory is from the Flat Earth Society.

The third conspiracy theory is from a commenter on a prior post. Some Flat Earthers believe this also.

The fourth conspiracy is from many moon landing conspiracy theories that can be found on the Internet. 

The fifth conspiracy theory was from the followers of Lyndon LaRouche (1922-2019), who started a strange political movement. (See Dope, Inc., [1978] by LaRouche follower David P. Goldman.).

The sixth conspiracy theory is from the Palmar de Troya cult. Clemente Dominguez (later "Pope" Gregory XVII) claimed to have  seen an apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary. She allegedly told him the "real Pope Paul VI" was held prisoner by the Freemasons and replaced with a double who underwent plastic surgery. Any other "proof"? Sure! If you look carefully at pictures of Montini pre- and post- January 1964, you will see the Masons made one mistake---the ears of the evil double were crooked, unlike pictures before 1964. If that's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I don't know what would count as such.

Is the Rejection of Vatican II based on a False Conspiracy Theory?

In a word: NO! There were Masons and Modernists trying to change and destroy the Church for a long time. Satan, their master, has been doing so since Christ founded His One True Church. The Alta Vendita, and any other sources lay bare the goals of the Masons. The Modernists make it clear in their censured writings that they want to turn the Church into a broad and liberal Protestantism. That's lots of proof. The Pontiffs have written about their machinations:

If the right hand of God had not given Us strength, We would have drowned as the result of the terrible conspiracy of impious men. (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, para. #1)

Some of you may perchance wonder that the war against the Catholic Church extends so widely. Indeed each of you knows well the nature, zeal, and intention of sects, whether called Masonic or some other name. When he compares them with the nature, purpose, and amplitude of the conflict waged nearly everywhere against the Church, he cannot doubt but that the present calamity must be attributed to their deceits and machinations for the most part. For from these the synagogue of Satan is formed which draws up its forces, advances its standards, and joins battle against the Church of Christ. (Pope Pius IX, Esti Multa, para. #28). 

The Roman Pontiffs Our predecessors, in their incessant watchfulness over the safety of the Christian people, were prompt in detecting the presence and the purpose of this capital enemy immediately it sprang into the light instead of hiding as a dark conspiracy; and, moreover, they took occasion with true foresight to give, as it were on their guard, and not allow themselves to be caught by the devices and snares laid out to deceive them. (Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus, para. #4). 

A third powerful factor in the diffusion of Communism is the conspiracy of silence on the part of a large section of the non-Catholic press of the world. We say conspiracy, because it is impossible otherwise to explain how a press usually so eager to exploit even the little daily incidents of life has been able to remain silent for so long about the horrors perpetrated in Russia, in Mexico and even in a great part of Spain; and that it should have relatively so little to say concerning a world organization as vast as Russian Communism. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, para. #18). 

Unlike false conspiracies, there were many Modernists and Masons among the clergy, substantiated by multiple lines of evidence. There are those who try and demonstrate that pre-Vatican II teachings can be reconciled with post-Vatican II teachings. They have been consistently refuted. The conspiracy did not involve all Catholic clergy, and the contradictions to pre-conciliar dogma, championed by the Modernists, is there for all to see. The main source confirming a conspiracy are the authoritative teachings of the true popes. It passes all the criteria above. 

However, I will not go into any of this in detail, and the reason is simple. No conspiracy is necessary to show Vatican II as a Robber Council and the Vatican II sect it spawned as a false religion.  

The Effect Proves the Cause

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.

Vatican II was convoked by Angelo Roncalli, the man known to the world as "Pope" John XXIII. Just as a cause is known by its effects (e.g., the fine-tuning of the universe points to the transcendent God Who created it), Roncalli did things which no true pope, protected by the Holy Ghost, could do. For a complete analysis of John XXIII, see my post:
 The Case Against Roncalli: introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-case-against-roncalli.html

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. 

Solid Catholic Theology

The Church has always taught that the pope, as a private theologian, can profess heresy and fall from office immediately by Divine Law:

Proof: 

Doctor of the Church St Alphonsus Liguori: "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate."Oeuvres Completes 9:232.

Theologian Iragui: "...theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if he should fall into manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could neither be called its visible head."

(See Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Studium [1959], pg. 371). 

Canonist Badii: "A publicly heretical pope would no longer be a member of the Church; for this reason, he could no longer be its head."( See Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Florence: Fiorentina [1921], pgs. 160, 165). 

Theologian Prummer: "Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact [ipso facto] is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church....A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church."(See Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian [1943],  2:453). 

1917 Code of Canon Law: Canon 188, section 4: "There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) publicly defects from the Catholic faith.” 

N.B. Theologian McDevitt writes:

"The defection of faith must be public. It is to be noted immediately that adherence to or inscription in a non-Catholic sect is not required to constitute the publicity that the canon demands." (See The Renunciation of an Ecclesiastical Office, [1946], pg. 139).

The great canonist Ayrinhac taught in his General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law,:

Loss of Ecclesiastical Offices. Canons 185-191 “...applies to all offices, the lowest and the highest, not excepting the Supreme Pontificate.” (p. 346). 

Heretics cannot attain the papacy

Canon 188 simply restates 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).

Notice that no citation here mentions (or requires) the existence of a conspiracy.

Conclusion

Conspiracies have happened and continue to take place. However, all conspiracy theories are not true; especially when those theories make it seem as though the entire world is fictitious and nothing is as it appears. Use reasoning skills to see how an alleged conspiracy holds up to critical thinking. 

Modernists and Masons have been proven to plot against the Church, yet we know Vatican II to be false wholly apart from any conspiracy. If you still want to believe the Earth is flat and the center of the universe, you can do so and still be a Traditionalist Catholic. Just please don't (a) tell others they must believe it and don't (b) share it with others unless/until they know you well. These conspiracy theories will only make obtaining converts very difficult, and make an already complicated position (sedevacantism) seem crazy to those who don't understand both the facts and theology behind it. 

The Nature And Institution Of Baptism And The Vice Of Gluttony

 

To My Readers: This week, John Gregory writes about the importance of Baptism, and the deadly sin of gluttony. 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

The Nature And Institution Of Baptism And The Vice Of Gluttony

By John Gregory

Dogmatic Subject: Baptism: Its Nature and Institution.—And all in Moses were baptized, in the cloud and in the sea (1 Corinthians 10: 2).—Go you also into my vineyard, and I will give you what shall be just (Matthew 20: 4).

 

Definition of Baptism

 

With regard to the definition of Baptism although many can be given from sacred writers, nevertheless that which may be gathered from the words of our Lord recorded in John, and of the Apostle to the Ephesians, appears the most appropriate and suitable. Unless, says our Lord, a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God; (John 3: 5) and, speaking of the Church, the Apostle says, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. (Ephesians 5: 26) Thus it follows that Baptism may be rightly and accurately defined: The Sacrament of regeneration by water in the word.  By nature we are born from Adam children of wrath, but by Baptism we are regenerated in Christ, children of mercy. (Ephesians 2: 3) For He gave power to men to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name, who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1: 12, 13)

 

Constituent Elements of Baptism

 

But define Baptism as we may, the faithful are to be informed that this Sacrament consists of ablution, accompanied necessarily, according to the institution of our Lord, by certain solemn words.  This is the uniform doctrine of the holy Fathers, as is proved by the following most explicit testimony of Saint Augustine: The word is joined to the element, and it becomes a Sacrament.

 

It is all the more necessary to impress this on the minds of the faithful lest they fall into the common error of thinking that the baptismal water, preserved in the sacred font, constitutes the Sacrament.  The Sacrament of Baptism can be said to exist only when we actually apply the water to someone by way of ablution, while using the words appointed by our Lord.

 

Matter of Baptism

 

Now since we said above, when treating of the Sacraments in general, that every Sacrament consists of matter and form, it is therefore necessary that pastors point out what constitutes each of these in Baptism.  The matter, then, or element of this Sacrament, is any sort of natural water, which is simply and without qualification commonly called water, be it sea water, river water, water from a pond, well or fountain.

 

Form of Baptism

 

Pastors should teach, in clear, unambiguous language, intelligible to every capacity, that the true and essential form of Baptism is: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  For so it was delivered by our Lord and Saviour when, as we read in Saint Matthew He gave to His Apostles the command: Going, . . . teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (Matthew 28: 19)

 

By the word baptizing, the Catholic Church, instructed from above, most justly understood that the form of the Sacrament should express the action of the minister; and this takes place when he pronounces the words, I baptize thee.

 

Besides the minister of the Sacrament, the person to be baptized and the principal efficient cause of Baptism should be mentioned.  The pronoun thee, and the distinctive names of the Divine Persons are therefore added.  Thus the complete form of the Sacrament is expressed in the words already mentioned: I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

 

Baptism is the work not of the Son alone, of whom Saint John says, He it is that baptizeth (John 1: 33) but of the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity together.  By saying, however, in the name, not in the names, we distinctly declare that in the Trinity there is but one Nature and Godhead.  The word name is here referred not to the Persons, but to the Divine Essence, virtue and power, which are one and the same in Three Persons.

 

ESSENTIAL AND NON-ESSENTIAL WORDS OF THE FORM

 

It is, however, to be observed that of the words contained in this form, which we have shown to be the complete and perfect one, some are absolutely necessary, so that the omission of them renders the valid administration of the Sacrament impossible; while others on the contrary, are not so essential as to affect its validity.

 

Of the latter kind is the word ego (I), the force of which is included in the word baptizo (I baptize).  Nay more, the Greek Church, adopting a different manner of expressing the form, and being of opinion that it is unnecessary to make mention of the minister, omits the pronoun altogether.  The form universally used in the Greek Church is: Let this servant of Christ be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.  It appears, however, from the decision and definition of the Council of Florence, that those who use this form administer the Sacraments validly, because the words sufficiently express what is essential to the validity of Baptism, that is, the ablution which then takes place.

 

BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF CHRIST

 

If at any time the Apostles baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ only, (Acts 2: 38; 8: 2) we can be sure they did so by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, in order, in the infancy of the Church, to render their preaching more illustrious by the name of Jesus Christ, and to proclaim more effectually His divine and infinite power.  If, however, we examine the matter more closely, we shall find that such a form omits nothing which the Saviour Himself commands to be observed; for he who mentions Jesus Christ implies the Person of the Father, by whom, and that of the Holy Ghost, in whom, He was anointed.

 

And yet, the use of this form by the Apostles seems rather doubtful if we accept the opinions of Ambrose and Basil, holy Fathers eminent for sanctity and authority, who interpret baptism in the name of Jesus Christ to mean the Baptism instituted by Christ our Lord, as distinguished from that of John, and who say that the Apostles did not depart from the ordinary and usual form which comprises the distinct names of the Three Persons. [Justin Martyr (Apol. I. 61) says that Christians were baptized in the name of the entire Trinity] Paul also, in his Epistle to the Galatians, seems to have expressed himself in a similar manner, when he says: As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ, meaning that they were baptized in the faith of Christ, but with no other form than that which the same Saviour our Lord had commanded to be observed.

 

Administration of Baptism

 

What has been said on the matter and form, which are required for the essence of the Sacrament, will be found sufficient for the instruction of the faithful; but as in the administration of the Sacrament the legitimate manner of ablution should also be observed, pastors should teach the doctrine of this point also.

 

They should briefly explain that, according to the common custom and practice of the Church, Baptism may be administered in three ways,—by immersion, infusion or aspersion.

 

Whichever of these rites be observed, we must believe that Baptism is rightly administered.  For in Baptism water is used to signify the spiritual ablution which it accomplishes, and on this account Baptism is called by the Apostle a laver. (Ephesians 5: 26)  Now this ablution is not more really accomplished by immersion, which was for a considerable time the practice in the early ages of the Church, than by infusion, which we now see in general use, or by aspersion, which there is reason to believe was the manner in which Peter baptized, when on one day he converted and gave Baptism to about three thousand souls. (Acts 2: 41)

 

It is a matter of indifference whether the ablution be performed once or thrice.  For it is evident from the Epistle of Saint Gregory the Great to Leander that Baptism was formerly and may still be validly administered in the Church in either way.  The faithful, however, should follow the practice of the particular Church to which they belong.

 

Pastors should be particularly careful to observe that the baptismal ablution is not to be applied indifferently to any part of the body, but principally to the head, which is the seat of all the internal and external senses; and also that he who baptizes is to pronounce the sacramental words which constitute the form, not before or after, but when performing the ablution.

 

Institution of Baptism

 

When these things have been explained, it will also be expedient to teach and remind the faithful that, in common with the other Sacraments, Baptism was instituted by Christ the Lord.  On this subject the pastor should frequently teach and point out that there are two different periods of time which relate to Baptism—one the period of its institution by the Redeemer; the other, the establishment of the law regarding its reception.

 

BAPTISM INSTITUTED AT CHRIST’S BAPTISM

 

With regard to the former, it is clear that this Sacrament was instituted by our Lord when, having been baptized by John, He gave to water the power of sanctifying.  Saint Gregory Nazianzen and Saint Augustine testify that to water was there imparted the power of regenerating to spiritual life.  In another place Saint Augustine says: From the moment that Christ is immersed in water, water washes away all sins.  And again: The Lord is baptized, not because He had need to be cleansed, but in order that, by the contact of His pure flesh, He might purify the waters and impart to them the power of cleansing.

 

A very strong argument to prove that Baptism was then instituted by our Lord might be afforded by the fact the most Holy Trinity, in whose name Baptism is conferred, manifested Its divine presence on that occasion.  The voice of the Father was heard, the Person of the Son was present, the Holy Ghost descended in the form of a dove; and the heavens, into which we are enabled to enter by Baptism, were thrown open.

 

Should anyone desire to know how our Lord has endowed water with a virtue so great, so divine, this indeed transcends the power of the human understanding.  Yet this we can know, that when our Lord was baptized, water, by contact with His most holy and pure body, was consecrated to the salutary use of Baptism, in such a way, however, that, although instituted before the Passion, we must believe that this Sacrament derives all its virtue and efficacy from the Passion, which is the consummation, as it were, of all the actions of Christ.

 

BAPTISM MADE OBLIGATORY AFTER CHRIST’S RESURRECTION

 

The second period to be distinguished, that is, the time when the law of Baptism was made, also admits of no doubt.  Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, (Matthew 28: 19) the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.

 

This is inferred from the authority of the Prince of the Apostles when he says: Who hath regenerated us into a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead; (1 Peter 1: 3) and also from what Paul says of the Church: He delivered himself up for it: that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life. (Ephesians 5: 25, 26) By both Apostles the obligation of Baptism seems to be referred to the time which followed the death of our Lord.  Hence we can have no doubt that the words of the Saviour: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, (John 3: 5) refer also to the same time which was to follow after His Passion.

 

The effects of the sacrament are remission of sin, remission of all punishment due to sin, grace of regeneration, infused virtues and incorporation with Christ, character of Christian, opening the gates of heaven. (Catechism of Trent – COT)

 

After Baptism we should like to keep our souls unspotted.  Sins of the flesh, the reason why most souls go to Hell, are the result, in no small part by:

 

THE VICE OF GLUTTONY

 

Everyone that striveth for the master, refraineth himself from all things: and they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible one (1 Corinthians 9: 25)

 

Intemperance is carefully to be avoided. I fed them to the full, says the Prophet, and they committed adultery. (Jeremias 5: 7) An overloaded stomach begets impurity.  This our Lord intimates in these words: Take heed to yourselves, lest perhaps your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness. (Luke 21: 34) Be not drunk with wine, says the Apostle, wherein is luxury. (Ephesians 5: 18) (COT p. 437)

 

MORTIFICATION

 

The body is to be mortified and the sensual appetites to be repressed not only by fasting, and particularly, by the fasts instituted by the Church, but also by watching, pious pilgrimages, and other works of austerity.  By these and similar observances is the virtue of temperance chiefly manifested.  In connection with this subject Saint Paul, writing to the Corinthians says: I chastise my body and bring it into subjection, lest, perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway.  And in another place he says: Make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscence. (1 Corinthians 5: 27; Romans 13: 14) (COT p. 439)

 

FASTING AND ALMSDEEDS SHOULD BE JOINED TO PRAYER

 

To prayer let us unite fasting and almsdeeds.  Fasting is most intimately connected with prayer.  For the mind of one who is filled with food and drink is so borne down as not to be able to raise itself to the contemplation of God, or even to understand what prayer means.

 

Almsdeeds have also an intimate connection with prayer.  For what claim has he to the virtue of charity, who, possessing the means of affording relief to those who depend on the assistance of others, refuses help to his neighbor and brother?  How can he, whose heart is devoid of charity, demand assistance from God unless, while imploring the pardon of his sins, he at the same time humbly beg of God to grant him the virtue of charity?

 

This triple remedy was, therefore, appointed by God to aid man in the attainment of salvation.  For by sin we offend God, wrong our neighbor, or injure ourselves.  The wrath of God we appease by pious prayer; our offences against man we redeem by almsdeeds; the stains of our own lives we wash away by fasting.  Each of these remedies, it is true, is applicable to every sort of sin; they are, however, peculiarly adapted to those three which we have specially mentioned.  (COT p. 500)

 

The COT teaches us that the Our Father is also a remedy against gluttony:

 

WE ASK THAT WE MAY NOT YIELD TO OUR OWN INORDINATE DESIRES

 

When we say, Thy will be done, we express our detestation of the works of the flesh, of which the Apostle writes: The works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, lust, etc.; (Galatians 5: 19) if you live according to the flesh you shall die. (Romans 8: 13) We also beg of God not to suffer us to yield to the suggestions of sensual appetite, of our lusts, of our infirmities, but to govern our will by His will.

 

The sensualist, whose every thought and care is absorbed in the transient things of this world, is estranged from the will of God.  Borne along by the tide of passion, he indulges his licentious appetites.  In this gratification he places all his happiness, and considers that man happy who obtains whatever he desires.  We, on the contrary, beseech God in the language of the Apostle that we make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscence, (Romans 13: 14) but that His will be done.

 

We are not easily induced to entreat God not to satisfy our inordinate desires.  This disposition of soul is difficult of attainment, and by offering such a prayer we seem in some sort to hate ourselves.  To those who are slaves to the flesh such conduct appears folly; but be it ours cheerfully to incur the imputation of folly for the sake of Christ who has said: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself. (Matthew 16: 24; Luke 9: 23) This is especially so since we know that it is much better to desire what is right and just, than to obtain what is opposed to reason and religion and to the laws of God.  Unquestionably the condition of the man who attains the gratification of his rash and inordinate desires is less enviable than that of him who does not obtain the object of his pious prayers. (COT p. 534 - 535)

 

To reinforce and expand up this I should like to quote from A Companion to the Summa, Volume 3, by Walter Farrell, O.P., S.T.D., S.T.M.:

 

Roots of freedom: Proximate and remote source

We have missed the intimate interrelation between purity and humanity.  In some mysterious way we have overlooked the obvious fact that since human life is a reasonable life and human activity is a rational activity, of course human passion is passion under reason.  The name of the supreme passion under reason is its defense in the name of purely physical considerations is itself an attack on the humanity and freedom of man. 

Internal and external

The key to the whole situation is spirituality.  The proximate sources of man’s freedom are his soul, his intellect and his will behind them stands the sole possible author of spiritual substance, the infinitely powerful God.  Because a man is spiritual he has liberty; because he is spiritual that liberty has eternal significance.  That is, the use or the abuse of liberty is for eternity, for the spiritual, as incorruptible, exists for eternal ends.

A man’s will or intellect cannot be handcuffed.  As long as he remains a spiritual being with reason in control, he can never be enslaved.  He possesses an internal liberty much more important than any external, civic freedom: an emperor, after all, can be a slave to himself, while a slave can be completely master of himself, can be most free.  External liberty is as perilous a thing as a heart worn on one’s sleeve; it can be lost, whereas internal liberty can only be surrendered.  No force, intrigue, trickery can take it away from us.  And this is precisely the liberty over which purity maintains such a jealous guard.

It is unfortunate that men and women today are inclined to look upon the fight for purity as a little abstract and academic.   Like so many moral questions, it apparently has no immediate pertinence to individual life.  A man instantly and vigorously resists an attack on his property, his children, his wife; but an attack on virtue is different.  Here he considers himself off to one side, to a spectator not greatly interested in the winner of the argument. The thing is important, for these questions have a profound personal significance for every individual.  The drastic consequences of modern attacks on the spiritual soul, the intellect and the will of man, the bitter attacks on God, are much more serious than any physical attack on a man himself, his family or his property.  This attack on the realm of the spiritual is not so much a matter of beating a man to the ground as of disemboweling him.

Surely what threatens the spiritual and rational in a man threatens his freedom, for it is precisely upon that spiritual foundation that he builds his claim to freedom.  When the body, the sense appetite, and the world of the present take precedence over the soul, the will and the world of eternity, man is no longer free. He is a slave; that is, he is no longer a man.

In this material of temperance there are three serious threats to the sovereignty of man’s reason.  The threats are extremely serious because the material is so extremely necessary that nature attaches to it the greatest sense rewards, lest its primary ends be overlooked or neglected.  To take care of the possible sorties against his reason from this material, man is equipped with a garrison of virtues specially equipped for this kind of enemy and this type of warfare.  There are only three in that garrison—abstinence, sobriety and chastity—but their fighting qualities more than make up for their numbers.

Still these three are not enemies of man’s nature, not even of his sensitive nature.  They can be rightly understood only when they are seen as guardians and protectors of man and his nature.  Their presence in a man has exactly the effect of a well-disciplined garrison in a stronghold of restless subjects.  They prevent mob-rule within a man and turn the violently restless energies of his passions to the common good of the man himself.  Understand, this is not a question of using these subjects as a tyrannous master might use slaves merely for his own end.  Reason is not working against the passions; it allows, indeed, insists upon their attainment of their own proper ends.  Those proper ends of the passions, with their rich contributions to the welfare of the whole man, are defeated and trampled underfoot by the rioting of the mob of undisciplined passions.

The garrison protecting freedom:

From the abuse of food—abstinence; Its nature

If it were a virtue merely to abstain from food, then by implication, the taking of food would be sinful.  It is this sort of absurdity that is somehow wrapped up in the defense and attack of the modern negative “protectors” of liberty.  A man can and does refuse food; perhaps because he has no appetite or is starving himself to death.  Neither case involves a question of abstinence; the whole point of the virtue is the note of reason it insists upon in the use of food.  The man who gives up coffee as a penance, even though it makes life miserable for his family, is not an abstinent man; neither is the ascetical tyro who stays up night after night praying only to fall asleep over his work during the day.  These things are unreasonable so they cannot be virtuous.  The virtue of abstinence is in operation only when the bounds of reason are carefully observed; its precise work is to restrain man’s use of food to reasonable limits.

Its act—fasting; Purposes

Abstinence holds a man back from abusing food.  Fasting, an act of abstinence, goes a step further and holds a man back from what might very well be eaten without any abuse whatever.  Again we must insist that this is not a condemnation of food.  Eating enough certainly cannot be anything but a cause of joy, except perhaps to a grateful beggar to whom the experience is astonishing in its novelty.  To refuse to eat what is no more than enough, if it is to be virtuous must be reasonable; and it can be reasonable only because it is aimed at ends higher than its immediate purpose.

If I have a healthy appetite for a bit of steak, an entirely reasonable amount in entirely reasonable circumstances, yet I refuse to eat it, then I have some explaining to do.  If the refusal was for no reason whatever it would be an act of insanity; if it proceeded from a conviction that food itself is evil and to be avoided, then it would be vicious; but if it is for some higher end, like training the soul or satisfying for sins, it might well be virtuous.

We get a realistically concrete view of the higher ends of fasting by looking back to the first week of any Lent.  After a few days of highly successful mortification, we have a definite sense of satisfaction, of pride in ourselves, of highly human accomplishment.  You see, we have been fully in control.  That is the really solid basis of that sense of satisfaction and superiority over our old selves.  We are being super-eminently human and we know it.  We are experiencing something of the joy of being human.

To recognize those high ends in detail no more is necessary than to see them. By fasting we let our appetites know beyond any doubt that reason is the head of this household; and by that very fact, we give our appetites invaluable practice in subjection.  This practice is important, for it is always important for a man to be rational, to have his reason in control.  Going up a step higher, fasting is clearly a kind of restitution.  Every sin is a stolen pleasure, for every sin is at least an overindulgence of will; fasting surrenders a legitimate pleasure, thus both satisfying for the debt of sin and impressing us with the true nature of sin.  We cannot fast very long and not realize that no one ever gets anything out of sin, not even a pickpocket or a bank robber; everything that apparently comes out of it must be given back, even though that restitution take all of an eternity.

Looking at fasting on a still higher plane, it is not hard to see in it a disposition to contemplation.  In the old public school schedule, a singing class was held immediately after lunch.  The schedule was good, however bad the singing might be; for surely it would not be as bad as the thinking turned out on a full stomach.  Whatever the physical background may be, psychologically it is sure that full satisfaction of the appetite for food makes the mind dull; it is apt to act like a puppy, crawl off to some warm corner and go to sleep.  Thus monastic fasts are not idle gestures of melancholy or of distaste for the pleasures of sense.  The primary business of monastic life is always contemplation, and fasting is an excellent disposition for it.  The evening meal in a Dominican House of Studies is usually light; from September to Easter it is extraordinarily light.  It is not coincidence that the most fruitful periods of study are the morning (after a positively feather-weight breakfast) and the evening or, as far as that goes, the rest of the night.  There may be elements of discomfort; but, after all, a monastery does not exist for comfort but for contemplation.  The very discomfort becomes eminently reasonable as a means to the higher ends of truth.

Let us summarize the Angelic Doctor’s teaching on vice of gluttony with the help of our friend Monsignor Glenn in his “A Tour of the Summa”.

GLUTTONY

 

1. Gluttony is excess in eating and drinking.  It is an immoderate indulgence in the delights of the palate.  Gluttony is therefore inordinate, therefore unreasonable, therefore an evil.

 

2. Gluttony is usually not a serious sin, bit it could be such a sin.  It would be a mortal sin in a person so given to the delights of eating and drinking that he is ready to abandon, virtue, and God himself, to obtain this pleasure.

 

3. Gluttony is a sin of the flesh, a carnal sin.  Hence, in itself, it is not as great a sin as a spiritual sin or a sin of malice.

 

5. Gluttony denotes inordinate desire in eating and drinking. It shows itself in the avidity with which a person indulges his appetite; in his love of delicate and expensive foods; in the importance he attaches to the discerning of fine qualities in foods, vintages, cookery; in voraciousness or greediness; in eating or drinking too much. Saint Isidore says that a gluttonous person is excessive in what, when, how, and how much he eats and drinks.

A capital sin is a source-sin; a spring, large or small, from which flow many evil streams. Now gluttony leads readily to other sins, for it indulges pleasure of the flesh which is the most alluring of all pleasures.  Gluttony is, therefore, a capital sin.

 

6. Gluttony leads to inordinate fleshly delight, to dullness of mind injudiciousness of speech, to levity of conduct, and to uncleanness. (A Tour of the Summa by Monsignor Glenn)

 

Conclusion

Let us clear our minds, and dull our inclination to sin through prayer, fasting and almsdeeds.