tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-64661833203307351962024-03-18T19:30:19.318-07:00Introibo Ad Altare DeiThe World as Seen from a Traditionalist Catholic PerspectiveIntroibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.comBlogger663125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-33475245766263636062024-03-18T04:37:00.000-07:002024-03-18T05:22:14.353-07:00Can Mindfulness Be Catholic? <p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv4LKZxGwoTLz9sIwNi6hYeGAD-RJyp8Jxh5MTkiy4a-ovhVybX0TmQ9iX3tPFIzH3ip7bxkGJRQqphZhe0cHnTR400ErpO1KAI6c4R1d6JPCOe-VVQJwYgupP08L8KBYNtic59do8HCrCsBqLLGkVcToYPITMwv_FmPkDwUolIeSpC79tFar0vdj91po/s800/Meditationmindfulpagan.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="551" data-original-width="800" height="220" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv4LKZxGwoTLz9sIwNi6hYeGAD-RJyp8Jxh5MTkiy4a-ovhVybX0TmQ9iX3tPFIzH3ip7bxkGJRQqphZhe0cHnTR400ErpO1KAI6c4R1d6JPCOe-VVQJwYgupP08L8KBYNtic59do8HCrCsBqLLGkVcToYPITMwv_FmPkDwUolIeSpC79tFar0vdj91po/s320/Meditationmindfulpagan.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div>The Vatican II sect is pushing a new (and decidedly pagan/occult) practice; "Catholic Mindfulness." The dangers of this movement cannot be understated. <b><i><u>Mindfulness</u></i></b>, for those who may be unaware, is a pagan and occult practice that can open up the practitioner to demonic obsession/possession. (<i>Demonic obsession</i> is demonic influence from outside of the obsessed person, as opposed to controlling the person's body in possession).<p></p><p>Those pushing this misnamed practice are not merely Vatican II sect clerics, but highly educated laymen who think mindfulness can be adapted to Catholicism. This post will show the inherent danger and occult nature of mindfulness, and how it cannot be "made Catholic." If you know anyone in the Vatican II sect who practices this alleged "Catholic Mindfulness," pass on this information to them, and hopefully they will stop. <span style="color: red;">N.B. I have cultivated my information on mindfulness from many sources besides those explicitly mentioned. I give full attribution for the information to all those sources and take no credit except for condensing the information into a readable, terse post---<b><i>Introibo</i></b></span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Mindfulness and Its Pagan Origin</u></b></p><p style="text-align: left;">Mindfulness is usually marketed, explicitly or implicitly, as the key to peace, happiness, and even "Catholic" spiritual advancement. “Be present” or “Be in the moment” have become common unquestioned bits of folk wisdom. Online and print magazines almost never lack a blurb or an article having to do with being mindful. Insurance company materials promote mindfulness, pictures of it abound online, its on television programs, and whole companies exist based on it. As of January 2024 there are (literally) thousands of "mindfulness meditation" apps. </p><p style="text-align: left;">According to one source:</p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">Mindfulness is a word used to describe "the basic human ability to be fully present, aware of where we are and what we’re doing, and not overly reactive or overwhelmed by what’s going on around us."...</span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">But the road to mindfulness is, evidently, paved with gold. According to the Wall Street Journal story, the industry exceeds the millions -- and that the combination of "studio classes, workshops, books, online courses and apps ... is worth about $1.2 billion and growing."</span></p><p style="text-align: left;">(See blog.hubspot.com/marketing/million-dollar-mindfulness-meditation-apps?fbclid=IwAR3fGRrRCC6_9F7zCVY9nS-52814b4NLaagXrv9Lp1AAAowbQgJzLPJsOiE). </p><p style="text-align: left;">Traditionalists can no longer afford the luxury of being uninformed about mindfulness meditation. As a result of most people seeing meditation merely as a form of relaxation, it has masked its true nature and sparked the interest of researchers who would ordinarily avoid the occult. Clinical psychologist Dr. Gordon Boals, who has taught at Princeton and Rutgers universities, points out:</p><p><span style="color: red;">Viewing meditation as a relaxation technique has had a number of consequences. One result has been to make meditation seem more familiar and acceptable to the Western public so that subjects are willing to learn and practice it and researchers and psychotherapists are interested in experimenting with it. Another outcome is that therapists have been able to find a variety of ways of using it as a therapeutic technique. If meditation is relaxation, it should serve as an antidote to anxiety. </span>(See “Toward a Cognitive Reconceptualization of Meditation,” <i>The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology</i>, vol. 10, no, 2, 1983, p. 146). </p><p>Mindfulness is pagan, coming from Buddhism. Standard Buddhist texts claim that in our normal state of mind we misperceive and misunderstand ourselves (our true nature) and our world (its true nature). The purpose of meditation is to correct these false perceptions and to replace them with a true perception of reality, which is mystically induced by the procedures involved. This is why all forms of mindfulness meditation involve the deliberate cultivation of altered states of consciousness. The "truth" according to Buddhism, is that there is no self, and the goal of the mindfulness is to "become One with the universe." </p><p>Mindfulness, and other forms of Eastern meditation, teach you to observe your breath; this is done so that you eventually become conscious of the breath as something being done, not you doing it. You are to realize that observing the breath means that it is not you observing, but rather the “witness.” This “witness” is the Buddha nature/mind, which is the impersonal principle of existence and which is all that truly exists. Meditation is practiced to deconstruct the sense of one’s individual identity and self:</p><p><span style="color: red;">The state of awareness that we are practicing when we mediate is called the witnessing state or the witness. In a typical meditation practice, we sit still and focus our awareness on a single object, such as counting our breath or repeating a mantra. As soon as we become aware that our mind has wandered off in thought, we just notice that, and return our awareness to our focus object. When we do this, we are practicing being in witnessing awareness. In other words, we are practicing being the witnessing part of our mind watching the thinking part of our mind repeatedly get carried away in thought.</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">Remember we learned that “subject” is something I identify as me, and “object” is something I identify as not me. “Subject” is what’s on the inside of my face looking out, and “object” is everything on the outside of my face that my subjective self is looking at. In our average everyday waking state of consciousness, we experience our individual self – our body, thinking mind, and feelings – as subject. And we experience everyone and everything outside of our individual body and mind as objects.</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">When we meditate, we are practicing a shift in our awareness. We are practicing being the witness “watching” temporary thoughts come and go in our minds, and temporary feelings and sensations come and go in our bodies. In other words, we are temporarily making our entire individual self – our entire body and thinking mind – into an object in a larger witnessing awareness. When we do this, we are temporarily shifting our subjective sense of self – our identity – from our gross body and thinking mind to the Witness.</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">When we aren’t doing something like meditating – when we’re back in our everyday waking state of consciousness – it isn’t that the Witness is somehow gone. Witnessing awareness is always present, but since we identify only with the thinking part of our mind as our “self,” we don’t usually notice that the Witness is there, or experience it as our “self.”</span></p><p>(See integralhealthresources.com/integral-health-2/the-four-quadrants/the-witness). </p><p>The basic worldview of the East is<i><b><u> pantheism</u></b></i>, the belief that in some sense all of reality is ultimately One and Divine. In bringing their false religions to the West, many people adopt another (yet similar) worldview known as <b><i><u>panentheism</u></i></b> (the belief that God is "in" all things). Panentheism recognizes God and the world as distinct concepts, but then holds that God is the spirit or "divine energy" or "mind" that fills and pervades and expresses itself in the world. On this view God and the world are interdependent, needing each other to form a complete reality. Thus the standard analogy for panentheism is the idea that a human being is both a spirit (or mind) and a body, with neither doing anything without the other. <b><i><u>God is not a personal Creator of the world</u></i></b>, but the divine potential of the world and of each one of us. Most people in Western culture could not clearly distinguish pantheism from panentheism, and in most contexts the difference is of little practical significance. Pantheism and its related errors were infallibly condemned by the Vatican Council of 1870. </p><p>The goal of the mindfulness practitioner is to unify himself/herself with the "Divine-self" or "God-Self." Through mindfulness, the person tries to lose contact with the conscious mind <b><i><u>for an altered state of consciousness (ASC).</u></i></b> This disassociation is meant to allow a person to become "one" with "the Divine." <b><i><u>Even those who do not get to such altered states, have unwittingly opened themselves up to a decidedly pagan worldview and possible demon possession</u></i></b>. The idea of being "divine" is the opposite of Christianity which tells us we are sinners in need of Redemption by the God-Man Jesus Christ.</p><p>So how did an obviously pagan practice, used also by occultists to make contact with "the spirit world" become accepted by mainstream occupations and organizations? That question will be answered next.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Making Mindfulness Mainstream</u></b></p><p style="text-align: left;">The re-packaging of mindfulness was accomplished primarily through the work of two men, Thich Nhat Hanh (d. 2022), a Buddhist monk, and his disciple, Dr. Jon Kabat-Zinn (b. 1944).</p><p style="text-align: left;"><b>1. Thich Nhat Hanh</b>, according to his website:</p><p><span style="color: red;">...was a global spiritual leader, poet, and peace activist, revered throughout the world for his powerful teachings and bestselling writings on mindfulness and peace. His key teaching was that, through mindfulness, we can learn to live happily in the present moment—the only way to truly develop peace, both in one’s self and in the world. Thich Nhat Hanh published over 100 titles on meditation, mindfulness, and engaged Buddhism, as well as poems, children’s stories, and commentaries on ancient Buddhist texts. He sold over five million books in the United States alone...</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">Thich Nhat Hanh was a pioneer in bringing Buddhism to the West, founding eleven monasteries and dozens of practice centers in the United States, Asia, and Europe, as well as over 1,000 local mindfulness practice communities, known as ‘sanghas.’ <b><i><u>He built a thriving community of over 600 monks and nuns worldwide, who, together with his tens of thousands of lay students, apply his teachings on mindfulness, peace-making, and community-building in schools, workplaces, businesses – and even prisons – throughout the world</u></i></b>. </span>(See thichnhathanhfoundation.org/thich-nhat-hanh; Emphasis mine). </p><p>He flourished thanks to Vatican II's damnable doctrine on "religious liberty." He wasted no time propagating religious indifferentism. In his best-selling book,<u> Living Buddha, Living Christ </u>(1995), Thich Nhat Hanh pronounces that “when you believe, for example, that yours is the only way for humankind, millions of people might be killed because of that idea” (pp. 92-93). He also claims that if we believe that Christianity alone provides the way of salvation “this attitude excludes dialogue and fosters religious intolerance and discrimination.” (pg. 193).</p><p>He wrote, “I do not think there is that much difference between Christians and Buddhists. Most of the boundaries we have created between our two traditions are artificial. Truth has no boundaries” (pg. 154). Although Hanh does not offer a comprehensive theory concerning the unity of all religions, he attempts to show that Jesus’ and Buddha’s teachings agree and that “when you are a truly happy Christian, you are also a Buddhist. And vice versa” (pg. 197). </p><p>In attempting to show the blasphemous "spiritual brotherhood" of Jesus and Buddha, Hanh explains that the Christian practice of Holy Communion is really an exercise in “mindfulness” (!) By this he means the Buddhist practice of reflecting on the interconnection of all things or what he calls “interbeing.” Everything is a part of something else, and nothing stands alone. So Hanh tells us that “the miracle happens…because we eat and drink in mindfulness….If we allow ourselves to touch our bread deeply, we become reborn, because our bread is life itself. Eating it deeply, we touch the sun, the clouds, the earth, and everything in the cosmos. We touch life, we touch the kingdom of God” (pgs. 30-31).</p><p><b>2. Dr. Jon Kabat-Zinn</b> was raised a non-practicing Jew. He became attracted to Buddhism and studied under Hahn, becoming a Buddhist himself. Kabat-Zinn's doctorate is in molecular biology. A practicing Buddhist (sometimes he disavows he practices Buddhism) and board member of the<i> Mind and Life Institute</i>, an organization dedicated to “exploring the relationship of science and Buddhism as ways to better understand the nature of reality,” Kabat-Zinn always believed his "karmic assignment" (purpose in life) was to find a way to bring his dharma practice (Buddhist practice) together with his scientific pursuits to create "one unified whole."</p><p>While on a Buddhist retreat, he had a vision in which he “saw” a way to do this, through a program he would later call the<b><i><u> Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction</u></i></b> (MBSR) program. This program was designed to be a patient-centered approach which could be used in hospital settings to treat persons with PTSD and other stress/anxiety disorders. However, with the core of the program being intensive training in mindfulness meditation, he knew these Buddhist roots would make many people nervous and so he “bent over backward” to find ways to employ the program without revealing its Buddhist underpinnings. </p><p>The answer was to make it all about "stress reduction" and throw in scientific verbiage. There has been a great effort on the part of "alternative treatment practitioners" to emphasize <b><i><u>stress in the culture</u></i></b>, which then allows them to advocate their particular remedies for it. Mindfulness therapy is now extensively used in psychology and psychotherapy. However, Christian prayer and meditation is a definite non-starter, even though going to Church has been shown in a recent study to lower blood pressure (See nyulangone.org/news/the-wall-street-journal-new-study-shows-going-church-can-lower-blood-pressure). </p><p>In an interview with the <i>Los Angeles Times, </i>Kabat-Zinn stated:</p><p><span style="color: red;">“<b><i><u>Mindfulness, the heart of Buddhist meditation</u></i></b>, is at the core of being able to live life as if it really matters.<b><i><u> It has nothing to do with Buddhism</u></i></b>. It has to do with freedom,” Kabat-Zinn said in a telephone interview from Lexington, Mass. “Mindfulness is so powerful that <b><i><u>the fact that it comes out of Buddhism is irrelevant..."</u></i></b></span></p><p><span style="color: red;">Kabat-Zinn is reluctant to use the word “spiritual” to describe the approach to healthy living that he promotes, characterizing it instead as being “grounded in common sense.”</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">“You don’t have to have a belief system or faith of one kind or another,” he said. <b><i><u>“It’s not in conflict with faith. It’s about a profound connection with the universe … within a faith tradition or outside of any faith tradition..."</u></i></b></span></p><p><span style="color: red;">Kabat-Zinn says anything resembling religious vocabulary can be anathema to many people. He prefers to <b><i><u>use a vocabulary that doesn’t exclude anybody.</u></i></b></span></p><p><span style="color: red;">“I don’t have to use the word ‘spiritual,’” he said. “Part of it is the power of silence and stillness. And part of that power is the power of healing that happens when you move from the domain of doing to being.<b><i><u> It’s transformative</u></i></b>..."</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">“It’s about people waking up, <b><i><u>not being confined by any belief system</u></i></b>,” he said. “Awareness is bigger than a belief system.”</span> (See latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-oct-02-la-me-1002-beliefs-meditation-20101002-story.html; Emphasis mine). </p><p>So mindfulness is "the heart of Buddhist meditation," yet "it has nothing to do with Buddhism" and the fact that it comes from Buddhism is "irrelevant." Got all that? The altered states of consciousness (ASCs) that mindfulness meditation typically develops, tend to result in a radically restructured, and false, view of self and society. Characteristically, one ends up thinking that the material universe is a dream or an illusion and that one’s true nature is one essence with God. This is, in principle, Buddhist teaching. </p><p>Moreover, trance states and ASCs have been traditionally associated with the occult world, demonism, and other forms of spirit contact, such as shamanism, witchcraft, neo-paganism, magic ritual, Satanism, mediums, and yoga. Whether one is a short- or long- term practitioner, mindfulness meditation is designed to change one’s view of “self” and the world by altering one’s consciousness. This is opening oneself to demonic influence. </p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Mindfulness and the Vatican II Sect</u></b></p><p style="text-align: left;">"Catholic Mindfulness" is pushed by members of the Vatican II sect, but none more prestigious than Dr. Greg Bottaro. According to his website:</p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">Dr. Greg Bottaro is a Catholic psychologist, founder of the CatholicPsych Institute and developer of the CatholicPsych Model of Applied Personalism (CPMAP).Before he was married, he spent 4 years as a Franciscan Friar under the mentorship of Fr. Benedict Groeschel. He's now married with 7 kids under 10. </span>(See catholicpsych.com/bio). </p><p style="text-align: left;">Bottaro insists that mindfulness can be "Catholic." A blogger, Laura Eppen, also a Vatican II sect member, agrees:</p><p><span style="color: red;">Dr. Greg challenges a common misconception concerning practicing mindfulness as a faithful Catholic by comparing it to breathing or tea-drinking. </span></p><p><span style="color: red;">“Mindfulness doesn’t lend itself to already needing to defend itself,” he explains, “People say we shouldn’t use that word, but actually the word mindfulness is not implicating an Eastern practice in itself anyway, any more than tea-drinking is... but if you're drinking tea as part of a Buddhist ceremony or a Hindu ceremony, then that’s something we would not want to do as Catholics. But we’re not going to say, ‘Well then, stop drinking tea.’” </span></p><p>(See theyoungcatholicwoman.com/archivescollection/understanding-catholic-mindfulness-with-dr-greg-bottaro-part-1). Bottaro is correct that tea drinking is not inherently Buddhist. However, his protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, mindfulness, unlike tea, is inexorably tied to paganism/occultism.</p><p>Miss Eppen puts her finger on why mindfulness is considered Catholic---the heretical teachings of Vatican II:</p><p> <span style="color: red;">Perhaps the most common criticism of mindfulness is that it is a Buddhist or non-Christian practice and thus, not suitable for faithful Catholics. It’s helpful here to begin by understanding the Catholic Church’s stance on relating to other religions.</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">In 1965, Pope Paul VI wrote about this relationship in his Declaration on The Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra aetate): </span></p><p><span style="color: red;">Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing “ways,” comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">It is fair and just to say that mindfulness falls under the category of a “good thing” since, although it has foundations in Buddhism, it is not an exclusive practice of Buddhism. </span>(<i>Ibid</i>).</p><p>The false ecclesiology of Vatican II places a separation between "the Church of Christ" and the Catholic Church. They are no longer one and the same. The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church in its fullness because it has all the "elements" of the Church of Christ. However, the Church of Christ subsists elsewhere, depending on how many "elements" of truth the sect has; to have all elements is best, but having only some is good too, and leads to salvation. Therefore, we can get "good elements" from something that has "foundations in Buddhism." </p><p>Again, Miss Eppen:</p><p><span style="color: red;">When critically evaluating the usefulness of new schools of prayer or thought, Dr. Greg is adamant that understanding what exactly it is we are talking about is crucial for healthy dialogue and practice. <b><i><u>He agrees with this definition of mindfulness from John Kabat-Zin,</u></i></b> innovator of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR): “[Mindfulness is] the awareness that arises from paying attention on purpose in the present moment, non-judgmentally.” Kabat-Zinn also encourages people to see that Buddhism doesn’t own mindfulness, just as Sir Isaac Newton doesn’t own gravity, simply because he identified it. Mindfulness as a concept and practice may have been identified elsewhere, but it has an integral place that fits in accordance with Catholic teaching, prayer, and the call to holiness. In fact, <b><i><u>many saints have practiced mindfulness devoutly</u></i></b> throughout their lives under different names. </span></p><p><span style="color: red;">There are other schools of thought about prayer and meditation that share similarities to mindfulness practice, such as Brother Lawrence’s’ <u>The Practice of the Presence of God</u> and Fr. Jean-Pierre de Cassade’s <u>Abandonment to Divine Providence</u>. And when asked whether mindfulness is different, Dr. Greg states, “It’s not necessarily that it’s different. It’s just that <b><i><u>I find those approaches to be a bit incomplete, where it's just the spiritual focus</u></i></b>–and that's really important. But I would also say that Kabat-Zinn would be incomplete in that it’s only the psychological focus. So, the thing that’s kind of missing is the combination and the integration of both and that's what I'm trying to provide with <i><b>The Mindful Catholic</b></i> and with the program that I have.”</span> (<i>Ibid; </i>Emphasis mine). </p><p>Here, Bottaro agrees with the pagan definition of Kobat-Zinn, and pompously sees the spiritual classic of Fr. de Cassade as "incomplete." No saint has ever practiced the nonsense pushed by Bottaro. In mindfulness, the practitioner spends his time in meditation attempting to control his or her awareness, trying to maintain it upon either a single point, the rhythm of his breathing, or whatever is most prominent in his consciousness. You are even to remain nonjudgmental toward any thoughts and impulses that come to mind. Bottaro makes use of paying attention to breathing, etc. exactly like a pagan/occult practitioner. In Catholic meditation, you relinquish control to Almighty God, the opposite of mindfulness. This was taught by St. Teresa of Avila, who describes four distinct stages of prayer that the faithful Christian may experience in the course of one’s lifetime.</p><p>Bottaro is pushing occult/pagan mindfulness as "Catholic," and leading souls into danger. </p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Conclusion</u></b></p><p style="text-align: left;">There is no such thing as "Catholic Mindfulness" anymore than there can be "Catholic Atheism." One excludes the other of necessity. Mindfulness leads to ASCs, the acceptance of a pantheistic worldview, and demonic activity. Occultist Laeh Garfield who channels "spirit helpers," writes in <u>Companion in Spirit: A Guide to Working with Your Spirit Helpers</u> [1984], pg. 34, “[Mindfulness] Meditation simultaneously calms you down, uplifts you and sharpens your awareness, <b><i><u>so that discarnate teachers can come through to you with the messages they convey</u></i></b>.” (Emphasis mine).</p><p style="text-align: left;"> There is also evidence that such meditation can be bad for your mental health. (See verywellhealth.com/mindfulness-can-be-harmful-researchers-say-5186740). Learn to pray from the spiritual masters, such as St. Ignatius of Loyola, or St. John of the Cross. Engage in "Catholic Mindfulness" at the risk of your mental health and endangering your soul.</p>Introibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-68326320405680467932024-03-11T04:21:00.000-07:002024-03-11T04:21:13.192-07:00The Novus Ordo, The Abomination of Desolation, And The Prophet Daniel<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSg_rNAmSvW1lC1YH9SZJINsISBKNzXllWfvVoXjTU2tpN0EjstsGtXd3Om70UpLgLwrcwuvu-iyV8Sh7ClvH3zTNJHUCsytgaAAY4CSE0-_WStkhlSjcsEtyBDFl09QQEMk7eXjPZqRKaEaLrnfCT-p4QoZY9p4y8wnuN6eJL2GNB1vDBI_z9e8Y8PCQ/s1024/priest-delivers-mass-ceremony-d8aa50-1024.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="690" data-original-width="1024" height="216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSg_rNAmSvW1lC1YH9SZJINsISBKNzXllWfvVoXjTU2tpN0EjstsGtXd3Om70UpLgLwrcwuvu-iyV8Sh7ClvH3zTNJHUCsytgaAAY4CSE0-_WStkhlSjcsEtyBDFl09QQEMk7eXjPZqRKaEaLrnfCT-p4QoZY9p4y8wnuN6eJL2GNB1vDBI_z9e8Y8PCQ/s320/priest-delivers-mass-ceremony-d8aa50-1024.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">To My Readers: This week I introduce to you a new guest poster:<i style="font-weight: bold;"> Mr. Dominic Caggeso. </i>Dominic applied to be a guest poster, and he has both the orthodoxy and writing ability to make great posts! He resides here in the United States with his wife and children. They left the Vatican II sect and became Traditionalists in 2016. I can't thank Dominic enough for giving me a much needed respite. He will be posting here, once per month, if I get positive feedback from the readership this week. Please feel free to make comments or ask questions, and Dominic will answer. If you have a specific question or comment addressed to me, I will answer as always, but it will take me longer to get back to you this week.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">God bless you all, my dear readers---<b><i>Introibo</i></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><u>The Novus Ordo, the Abomination of Desolation, and the Prophet Daniel</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><i>By Dominic Caggeso</i></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-style: italic; text-align: center;"><br /></div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Hindsight is 20/20. The further the Second Vatican Council drifts into history, the clearer it becomes in our mind's eye. We are separate and away from it now, having clearly articulated its errors for decades. However, imagine that instead of drifting into the past, the Second Vatican Council was approaching on the future’s horizon. Imagine what it was like for Catholics of the past who felt the evil winds blowing and sensed the powers of Hell gathering. Pious Catholic writers from the 18th and 19th centuries looked into the future and foresaw dark events, wondering how much and what kind of damage awaited the Church. Those Catholics were anticipating something horrible. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">A child who goes to the doctor, knowing he will receive a shot, turns his head away and grits his teeth, wondering if every little poke or prod was the anticipated and dreaded needle. Was that it? How about that? Then, suddenly, the shot is given, and the child no longer has any doubt. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">How many Catholics from distant centuries studied the Sacred Scriptures and wondered about the Great Apostasy foretold in 2 Thessalonians or the abomination of desolation that Our Lord foretells in the Gospel of St. Matthew? What would it have been like for them as they watched various apostasies unfold throughout history? They would have asked themselves; “Was this particular schism the abomination?” “Was that heresy the Great Apostasy?” Then suddenly, the "shot is given," and the child knows! After it occurs, there is no more wondering. Ah! It was the Second Vatican Council; that was it! Can more significant damage have been done to the Church? Surely, the Second Vatican Council was the Great Apostasy! But in that post-conciliar fog, what exactly constitutes the abomination of desolation? </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">How many abominations have we witnessed in our holy places since the Second Vatican Council? Their numbers are uncountable, occurring daily for decades in basilicas, cathedrals, parish churches and chapels worldwide. The abominations vary by type as well. There are abominations of heresy, apostasy, liturgy, immodesty, immorality, etc. Any one of these abominations is sufficient for outrage and righteous indignance.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Collectively and over the years, sedevacantists have been subtly testing out an idea with each other. I have heard this idea in sermons, podcasts and YouTube videos. Over the decades, an idea has risen to the surface, like oil and water that separate when mixed. The idea, the assertion: the Novus Ordo is the abomination of desolation. The statement is made, and nobody blinks. I don't think there is any sedevacantist today who would object. Some might say that perhaps it is not THE abomination that Our Lord is warning us about. But at the same time, our experience as Catholics leaves us with an unspoken question: What could be worse than the Novus Ordo?</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">I want to convey with confidence that the Novus Ordo rite is actually THE abomination of desolation, in the fullest sense. To demonstrate this, I want to shift the perspective slightly and examine it from another angle. There is more certainty in this claim than we might initially realize! To demonstrate the solidity of this assertion, let's start with the term itself: abomination of desolation. The first hurdle is to define the abomination of desolation and see if the Novus Ordo rite meets the criteria.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Being a term from Sacred Scripture, it is deliberately chosen. The word "abomination" comes from the Latin <b>abōminārī</b>, meaning to detest. Thus, an abomination is a detestable thing. The word "desolation" clearly means destruction and emptiness. When these two words are joined into one term, "abomination of desolation," we are given a meaning of something repulsive that will cause destruction and emptiness. That resonates very well with lived experience. The meaning of this term is fully compatible with the Novus Ordo rite. There is emptiness and destruction in dioceses and parishes worldwide. It is directly due to the changes from the Second Vatican Council, especially the new invalid rite of Paul VI. I doubt any sedevacantist would disagree much so far. We seem to have cleared the first hurdle.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">The next logical step is to see where the term "abomination of desolation" occurs in Sacred Scripture. After all, Our Lord told us to flee when we see the abomination of desolation, as prophesied by Daniel. He directs us to return to the Old Testament and see what the Prophet Daniel wrote about it. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><i>When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand.</i></b> (Matthew 24:15)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">This seems easy enough to anyone who has not yet studied the Book of Daniel. But, for anyone who has sat down with a hot cup of tea and thoughtfully analyzed the Book of Daniel, the realization soon dawns that this task is not simple! The prophecies in the Book of Daniel are famously mysterious and seemingly incomprehensible. So, let's briefly lay the Book of Daniel to the side. We'll come back to it a bit later. There is still another place in the Old Testament where the term "abomination of desolation" occurs, which is 1 Machabees. The footnotes in the Douay-Rheims Bible for the Book of Daniel reference the Books of Machabees specifically concerning the abomination of desolation. Therefore, we are on firm ground to look for clues there.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">The Books of the Machabees open with the conquest of Alexander the Great. He conquered the Persian Empire in the 300s BC, after which the Greeks dominated the ancient world. I like how the Book of 1 Machabees 1 states that “the earth was quiet before him,” such a vivid description.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><i><b>1Now it came to pass, after that Alexander the son of Philip the Macedonian, who first reigned in Greece, coming out of the land of Cethim, had overthrown Darius king of the Persians and Medes: 2 He fought many battles, and took the strong holds of all, and slew the kings of the earth: 3 And he went through even to the ends of the earth, and took the spoils of many nations: and the earth was quiet before him </b></i>(1 Machabees 1: 1-3)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">After Alexander’s death, his empire was split among his generals. The new Greek Seleucid kingdom took over Jerusalem, which, before Alexander’s conquest, was a city-state in the Persian Empire. If you remember, the Persian King Cyrus allowed the Jews to return from their exile, rebuild the temple, practice their religion, and live by their own laws in Jerusalem. They were still part of the Persian Empire and loyal to the Persian King, but they were self-governing in their little city-state. This small detail is relevant, so please excuse me for this brief digression. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">What happened next was horrifying for the Jews! In the Books of the Machabees, the evil Greek Seleucid King, Antiochus IV, arrogantly desecrated the temple. He dismantled the whole temple religious system from the very heart of Jerusalem. Consider this summary of events.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">1. He appointed two usurper “high priests,” Jason and Menelaus. The text tells us that Jason was “no priest” (1 Machabees 4:13). Menelaus went on to dispose of or sell the holy vessels from the temple.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">2. After Alexander’s conquest, the Greeks governed the ancient world and spread their culture, language, and religion far and wide. The name given for this process is Hellenization, a process in which the ancient world conformed to the Greeks. Hellenization infected Jerusalem, tempting Jews to embrace the modern ways of the Greeks. Par Rapport to the rest of the ancient world, the Jews seemed to be backward, outdated, and culturally insignificant. There was tremendous pressure on the Jews to conform. For those who valued the opinions of men, this pressure was insupportable. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">3. In this context, Antiochus IV arrogantly entered the temple and assumed religious authority. He banned the traditional Jewish temple sacrifice. He stripped the temple of its ornaments and beauty. He placed a new second altar over and against the altar of God. He banned the practice of Jewish laws and traditions. He persecuted anyone who followed the Law of Moses. For these actions and many others, he is known as the “Changer of Times, Laws, and Seasons,” as mentioned in the Book of Daniel. As shown below, the footnotes from the Douay Rheims Bible for Daniel 7:8 confirm this.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><i>And he shall speak words against the High One, and shall crush the saints of the most High: and he shall think himself able to change times and laws, and they shall be delivered into his hand until a time, and times, and half a time</i></b> (Daniel 7:25)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><i>[8] "Another little horn": This is commonly understood of Antichrist. It may also be applied to that great persecutor Antiochus Epiphanes, as a figure of Antichrist. </i></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">4. The blasphemous capstone for the devilish deeds of Antiochus IV was setting up the abominable idol of desolation and sacrificing to it on the new second altar.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><i><b>On the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred and forty-fifth year, king Antiochus set up the abominable idol of desolation upon the altar of God</b></i> (1 Machabees 1:57)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><i><b>And on the five and twentieth day of the month they sacrificed upon the altar of the idol that was over against the altar of God.</b></i> (1 Machabees 1:62)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">5. To spread his “revisions” of the Jewish religion throughout the land, he built new Greek altars around Juda.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Wow! Are there any readers who don’t see the clear parallels to the Second Vatican Council in the above summary? They leap off the page, especially for those who have come out of the Novus Ordo and into Traditional Catholicism. Nonetheless, indulge me to list out the parallels. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">1. As explicitly stated in the sacred text, Jason and Menelaus were usurper high priests. They were both Jews, but were Hellenizing Jews, who wanted to update the Jewish religion to be like the Greeks. Menelaus disposed of the sacred vessels. Similarly, both John XXIII and Paul VI were usurpers. They were both Italian, like Jason and Menelaus were Jews. Paul VI disposed of the Papal Tiara in 1964 and gave the papal ring to the United Nations in 1965, just as Menelaus gave away or sold the sacred vessels.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">2. Pope St. Pius X identified Modernism as the synthesis of all heresies. The world was changing in the 1950s after World War II, and there was growing pressure on Catholics to “get with the times.” The Modernists took this opportunity for “aggiornamento” to update the Church and bring it into the modern world. Compare this to the Hellenization that was occurring in the ancient world.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">3. In this context, Paul VI introduced the Novus Ordo rite on April 3, 1969. He outlawed the Tridentine Mass and mandated that the Novus Ordo be exclusively used in all churches by November 28, 1971 (this date comes from an article by Fr. Cekada). Churches were stripped of their statues and other pious Catholic art. A new second “altar” was erected worldwide in every Catholic Church. All this happened in the Books of the Machabees! In 1978, John Paul II emerged from the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica. Unlike his predecessors, he was not Italian. By comparison, Antiochus was a foreigner, but his two predecessors, Jason and Menelaus, were Jews. Antiochus IV changed times, laws, and seasons, as did John Paul II change cannon law, the catechism, updated the Lateran Treaty, gave new mysteries of the Rosary, gave the new “devotion” of Sister Faustina, etc.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">4. The capstone evil of the Second Vatican Council is the blasphemous and invalid fake “Mass” of the Novus Ordo on the new second “altar.” Thus the Novus Ordo is directly comparable to the abomination of desolation!</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">5. Just as Antiochus built new Greek altars around Juda, new modern churches also sprang up designed explicitly for the Novus Ordo. These new churches often were built with Greek-style amphitheater seating. None of these new churches had a Catholic altar, only the new second “altar.”</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">These are some of the direct, one to one correspondences between the Books of the Machabees and the Second Vatican Council / Novus Ordo! Given the scriptural connections between the abomination of desolation prophecies in the Book of Daniel and the Books of the Machabees, the above similarities can hardly be viewed as insignificant. Especially because Our Lord specifically told us to look in the Book of Daniel to understand the abomination of desolation! The conclusion emerges that the Novus Ordo rite is THE abomination of desolation. He that readeth let him understand.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">To add some icing on this cake, consider the following similarities as well:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Before the Books of the Machabees, Jerusalem was a city-state in the Persian Empire, where the Jews could live by religious laws and self-govern. After its creation in 1929, the city-state of Vatican City could do exactly the same.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">The reaction of devout Jews to the abomination of desolation was to flee to the hill country of Juda, to the town of Modin. From there, they launched the Machabean Uprising. Likewise, the reaction of devout Catholics (especially those called to the priesthood) was to flee to the Alps (the mountains) to the seminary of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The famous nine sedevacantist priests all have history there! Does this not bring to mind the words of Christ yet again?</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><i>15When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand. </i></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><i>16Then they that are in Judea, let them <u>flee to the mountains</u>:</i></b> (Matthew 24:15-16)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><u>Conclusion</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">If you are convinced that the Novus Ordo is THE abomination of desolation, then consider taking another look at the prophecies in the Book of Daniel. What if the implementation dates of the Novus Ordo rite could be a starting place to interpret the prophecy of Daniel 9. After all, the prophecy of Daniel 9 explicitly mentions the abomination of desolation and intrinsic to the prophecy is a time-table of events. If we know that the Novus Ordo is the abomination of desolation, then it is logical that it would be revealed in Biblical prophecy. We can explore that in my next article, God willing. </div></div>Introibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.com59tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-91777258636535738652024-03-04T03:58:00.000-08:002024-03-04T03:58:02.618-08:00Contending For The Faith---Part 25<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpCyFh9PcH5tESVkFBiDRBrxJOFv0YFQNFivwPFfra4Ny2wYpCFd44a_fBPTWhQ2fXkZd3fx67p8jACq7Bt7_QSmfckbCftV-XdGGWLyuZEFoZOcPX1h8ei2jvdwlFzBzfDO-5S6mqvUlkVHnQycwxsiR0HZl_Yc1Y9p_OvYCjcI33CX2jbpNpntzknfg/s960/Contending%20For%20The%20Faith.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="960" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpCyFh9PcH5tESVkFBiDRBrxJOFv0YFQNFivwPFfra4Ny2wYpCFd44a_fBPTWhQ2fXkZd3fx67p8jACq7Bt7_QSmfckbCftV-XdGGWLyuZEFoZOcPX1h8ei2jvdwlFzBzfDO-5S6mqvUlkVHnQycwxsiR0HZl_Yc1Y9p_OvYCjcI33CX2jbpNpntzknfg/s320/Contending%20For%20The%20Faith.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you<b><i><u> to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints."</u></i></b> [Emphasis mine]. <b><i>Contending For The Faith</i></b> is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e., the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month. This is the next installment.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:</span></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="color: red;">The existence and attributes of God</span></li><li><span style="color: red;">The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all </span></li><li><span style="color: red;">The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church</span></li><li><span style="color: red;">The truth of Catholic moral teaching</span></li><li><span style="color: red;">The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II </span></li></ul></div><div><span style="color: red;">In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Countering the Sophistry of the Dimond Brothers</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Last week's post ("The Dimonds, Ensoulment, And Baptism Of Desire') was a critique of a video put out by Fred and Bobby Dimond who go by the names of "Brother Michael" and "Brother Peter," respectively. They run the "Most Holy Family Monastery" (MHFM) in Fillmore, New York; an organization not recognized by the Vatican II sect, nor is it recognized by Traditionalist clergy such as the SSPV and CMRI. They run a website (vaticancatholic.com) which, ironically, has nothing to do with either the Vatican or Catholicism.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The Dimonds claim to infamy is in spreading the heresy that only the Sacrament of Baptism using water can save someone, and that dogmatic Church teaching on Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB) are actually heresies. This heresy is referred to as "Feeneyism," so named after the excommunicated Jesuit, Leonard Feeney (1897-1978), who was solemnly excommunicated by Pope Pius XII in 1953 for heresy (not "disobedience" as his followers falsely claim). Feeney founded a cult and abused children, having them raised "communally" by married couples who became "brothers" and "nuns" without papal permission and in open violation of Canon Law, Natural Law and Divine Law. (To read more about Feeney, please see my post: introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/03/a-sickness-of-soul.html). </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Much to my surprise, Bobby Dimond himself ("Brother Peter") submitted comments to my post, which I published and gave a response in an Addendum to the post. He came back again. I published his comments and, once more, replied in an Addendum (no. II). Yet a third time he comes back, and a third Addendum. Like a horror movie vampire that can't be killed and keeps returning, Bobby sends what he claims will be his "final" comments. I had no more time to spare and had fallen behind in my work, so I'm keeping my promise to publish whatever he sends by putting his comments both in the comments section of last week's post, and in the body of this post. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Bobby has done a great service by commenting. First, it shows that by God's grace, this blog is having an effect in combating Feeneyism. Bobby's claim to the contrary, he wouldn't be coming here to comment unless it was having such an effect. I have had readers comment that they were Feeneyites until they started reading this blog, <b><i>Deo gratias</i></b>. Secondly, he has given me a unique opportunity to show the sophistry he employs that has led (and continues to lead) countless people into heresy, and imperils their eternal souls. The first part of this post deals with how Bobby and his brother "argue" and twist Church teaching to fit their heresy. In similar manner, the Jehovah's Witnesses sect first decides what they want to believe, and then they twist selected verses of the Bible out of context to "prove" their made up belief correct. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The second part will focus on Bobby's "final" comments to me, and it should be painfully apparent how he is manipulating<b><i> Church teaching</i></b> to fit <b><i>his own teaching</i></b>. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"> <b><u>The False Foundations of Bobby's Feeneyism</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>I. An Incorrect Understanding of the Magisterium</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">While claiming that no one else has a correct understanding besides them, the Dimonds can be definitively shown to be the ones in error. (Although I will be addressing Bobby Dimond from this point on, everything said of him applies equally to his brother, Fred Dimond). If you peruse MHFM website, you will see that for Bobby the only teachings that "really count" are (the few) <i><b>ex cathedra</b></i> (infallible) pronouncements of the Extraordinary Magisterium whether issued by the pope alone (i.e., the Apostolic Constitution <i>Munificentissimus Deus</i>, in which Pope Pius XII decreed the dogma of the Assumption of Mary) or by an Ecumenical Council approved by the pope (e.g., The Council of Trent's <i>Canons Concerning Justification</i>). For Bobby, these decrees are the rule of faith, and the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) is not really infallible unless it coincides with the Extraordinary Magisterium.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Remember the definitions of the Extraordinary and Ordinary Magisterium:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>What is the Magisterium? </b>According to theologian Parente, it is "the power conferred by Christ upon His Church and strengthened with the charism of infallibility, by which the teaching Church (<i>Ecclesia docens</i>) is constituted as the unique depository and authentic interpreter of divine revelation to be proposed authoritatively to men as the object of faith for their eternal salvation." (See <u>Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology,</u> The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee, [1951], pg. 170). Therefore, the Church is Divinely appointed to teach all necessary truths of faith to people, free from error, in order that they may attain Heaven. "Magisterium" comes from the Latin<b><i> magister </i></b>or "teacher." Christ told His Apostles "Go therefore, teach ye all nations..."(St. Matthew 28:19).<br /><br /><b>What constitutes the Magisterium?</b> According to theologian Van Noort: "The subject-matter of divine- Catholic faith are all those truths proposed by the Church's Magisterium for our belief as divinely revealed...<b><i><u>The principle laid down above is contained almost verbatim in this declaration of the [First] Vatican Council</u></i></b>: 'Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, e<b><i><u>ither by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium, proposes for belief as having been Divinely-revealed.</u></i></b>' [Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith]" (See <u>Dogmatic Theology</u>, Newman Press 3:220-221[1960]; words in brackets and emphasis are mine).<br /><br />The Magisterium, therefore, is expressed <b><i><u>either solemnly or in an ordinary and universal way</u></i></b>. This is clear from both Church history and the dogmatic decree of the First Vatican Council (1870). The former exercise of the Church's teaching authority is called the<b><i> Solemn or Extraordinary Magisterium</i></b> (ex cathedra pronouncements of popes and Ecumenical Councils) and the latter is called the <b><i>Universal and Ordinary Magisterium </i></b>("UOM"). <b><i><u>Both are equally infallible.</u></i></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><i><u><br /></u></i></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><i>(a) So, we know that the UOM is equally infallible from the Extraordinary Magisterium.</i></b> </div><div style="text-align: left;"><b> Proof:</b> "Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or IN HER ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL TEACHING POWER [Magisterium], to be believed as divinely revealed." Vatican Council I, <i>Dogmatic Constitution on the Faith</i> (1870), DZ 1792; Emphasis mine.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><i>(b) </i></b><b>The universal and constant agreement of the theologians that something belongs to the faith is not a case of some erudite priests or bishops who can be wrong, nor is it a fallacious appeal to authority. <i>It is how the Church teaches us free from error. It is the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) at work.</i></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><i><br /></i></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Proof: "For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith." Pope Pius IX, <i>Tuas Libenter</i> (1863),DZ 1683 (Emphasis mine)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The immediate objection from Bobby will be that <i>Tuas Libenter </i>isn't infallible, and the letter wasn't addressed to the whole Church. This is his incorrect understanding for all to see. As theologian Van Noort explains: "Clearly if a truth is capable of being declared an object of Divine-Catholic faith through the force of this ordinary and universal teaching, there is required such a proposal is unmistakably definitive........<b><i><u>The major signs of such a proposal are these: that the truth be taught throughout the world in popular catechisms, or even more importantly, be taught by the universal and constant agreement of theologians as belonging to faith.</u></i></b>" (Van Noort, <i>Ibid</i>, pg. 222; Emphasis mine).</div><br />Bobby rejects the infallibility of the UOM as dogmatically defined by the Vatican Council in 1870. If catechisms and the unanimous teachings of the theologians contradict<i><u><b> his</b></u></i><b><i><u> private interpretation </u></i></b>of some <i>ex cathedra</i> pronouncement, the UOM must be discarded--he thereby rejects the definition of the Council, making him a heretic. <div><br /></div><div>The objection that <i>Tuas Libentur </i>does not command consent is proven wrong, as Pope Pius IX cites this very letter of his in the <i>Syllabus of Errors:</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>CONDEMNED ERROR #22:</i></div><div><span style="color: red;">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. — Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, “<i>Tuas libenter</i>,” Dec. 21, 1863</span><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: left;">The Magisterium teaches us. However, Bobby does not (at least in practice) let himself be taught by the UOM. Before I was an attorney, I was a science teacher. I would check student answers against my answer key to see what they got correct and wrong on an exam. This is grading. That's what Bobby does. Check the UOM for error against the Extraordinary Magisterium, as if you grade the UOM by the <i>ex cathedra</i> decrees, when both are equally infallible and cannot contradict each other.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"> <b>II. Bobby is Supremely Unqualified in the Judgements he Makes</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Someday, we may see a picture of Bobby next to the word<b><i> ultracrepidarian</i></b> in the dictionary. An ultracrepidarian is a person who "expresses opinions on matters outside the scope of one's knowledge or expertise." If you cite the teachings of the approved theologians, Bobby will intone, "Theologians are not infallible." (Sound familiar?).</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div><div><b>What, exactly, constitutes an approved theologian of the Church?</b> The book by Fr. Reginald-Maria Schultes OP,<u> De Ecclesia Catholica: Praelectiones Apologeticae</u> [Apologetic Lectures on the Catholic Church], 2nd. ed., Paris: Lethielleux 1931, was used by priest-students studying for doctoral degrees at Pontifical Universities. Fr. Schultes himself taught at the world-renowned Angelicum University. A theologian is thus defined by him (and recognized by the Church) as "learned men who after the time of the Church Fathers scientifically taught sacred doctrine in the Church."</div><div><br /></div><div> The pre-Vatican II theologians were all clerics (i.e., priests and bishops) who received either a <b><i>Doctorate in Sacred Theology</i></b> (STD) or a <b><i>Doctorate in Canon Law</i></b> (JCD). The latter are known as canonists and apply the proper theological principles to the Sacred Canons to ascertain the correct meaning and application of each Canon to each unique situation. Every theologian had to defend and publish a dissertation before the Board of Examiners of a Pontifical University, and it had to bear an <i>Imprimatur</i> and <i>Nihil Obstat</i> declaring the work free from all error against faith and morals. The breadth and depth of theological knowledge enjoyed by theologians was vastly superior to both laymen and the average priest or bishop because of the excellence of their training.</div><div><br /></div><div>Theologians are said to be "approved" at least insofar as (a) they manifest a certain eminence in doctrine in their writings and (b) display orthodoxy at least to the extent recognized by the Church that their writings are used by the faithful and the theological schools, with the knowledge of (and with no opposition from) the Magisterium of the Church. (See, e.g,. theologian Salaverri, <u>Sacrae Theologiae Summa, IB</u>, [1955]). The doctorate may only be dispensed by the Roman Pontiff if the cleric is found by the Vicar of Christ to be highly proficient in both Canon Law and Sacred Theology; such is the case with bishops as well (See 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 331; see also canonists Abbo and Hannon, <u>The Sacred Canons</u>, [1952], 1:357-358). </div><div><br /></div><div>Theologians <b><i><u>demonstrate, and do not determine</u></i></b> Catholic doctrine. Theologians do not determine whether some doctrine is <i>de fide</i> or some other theological note, like "certain." They merely demonstrate, or manifest, or give witness, that a particular doctrine is Church teaching and to what degree. They prove their assertions with convincing arguments, so that when theologians reach an objective, morally unanimous consensus, we must accept such conclusions as belonging to the Faith. According to Schultes (cited above), theologians are witnesses not only to whether a doctrine is defined, but also to its meaning. </div><div><br /></div><div>Theologian Fenton's <u>The Concept of Sacred Theology</u> makes clear that Councils, encyclicals, etc., are the raw data the theologian uses for his work. Theology is not simply quoting Church documents, any more than law is not simply quoting the Supreme Court. According to theologian Scheeben:</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to theologians, <b><i><u>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.</u></i></b> 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.'" </span>(Scheeben, <u>A Manual of Catholic Theology</u>, 1:83; Emphasis mine).</div><div><br /></div><div><u><b>Bobby Dimond: Arrogance and Incompetence on Steroids</b></u></div><div>Bobby and his brother Fred have no ecclesiastical education or training, and no secular education beyond high school. Yet, Bobby will tell you that when St. Alphonsus Liguori (a DOCTOR of the Church, whose theological status is far superior than ordinary theologians) taught BOD, he replies that the saint and Doctor of the Church made "innocent mistakes" about the subject. Likewise, there is an entire article on Bobby's website in which he picks out "the errors" of theologian Van Noort, one of the greatest theologians of the 20th century. (See vaticancatholic.com/revealing-heresies-msgr-van-noorts-dogmatic-theology-manual). </div><div><br /></div><div>St. Alphonsus Liguori, a canonized saint and Doctor of the Church wrote in <u>Moral Theology</u>, Book 6, Section II (About Baptism and Confirmation), Chapter 1 (On Baptism), page 310, no. 96: "Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called "of wind" ["flaminis"] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind ["flamen"]. Now it is "de fide" that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon <i>Apostolicam, "de presbytero non baptizato"</i> and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved 'without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.'"</div><div><br /></div><div>When Pope Gregory XVI canonized St. Alphonsus on May 26, 1839, the Bull of Canonization declared his works could be read "without the least fear of finding the smallest error." Moreover, when someone is being considered as a Doctor of the Church, myriad theologians and bishops go over everything he wrote to detect errors. Why? Because their works will be held out for other theologians to use as an exemplary standard. The pope, guided by the Holy Ghost, will then declare him a Doctor. No pope, bishop, or theologian was ever able to pick out the "innocent mistakes" until Bobby came along! </div><div><br /></div><div>Moreover, he knows the state of one's soul. St. Alphonsus made "innocent mistakes" (not very innocent if they lead people into heresy) yet other theologians are heretical. Ostensibly the argument is that since St. Alphonsus was canonized, he could not have been guilty of heresy. However, that argument fails miserably. What about <u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">before</u> his canonization? Wouldn't they have discovered these "mistakes" and stopped the canonization process? </div><div><br /></div><div>Any Feeneyite reading this may say, "What about<b><i> Introibo</i></b>, the author of the blog? He was a science teacher who became a lawyer; how does that qualify him to make theological judgements?" Answer: (a) That doesn't qualify me, and (b) thankfully, I'm not doing what Bobby does. I wouldn't even have this blog, but for the state of sedevacante. I take what the Church has always taught, and try to make sound, valid arguments about how to try and make the best Catholic way through these times. I do NOT "pick out heresies" from approved theologians, find "innocent mistakes" in the works of Doctors of the Church, and "damn to Hell" anyone who disagrees. Big difference.</div><div><br /></div><div>Finally, the use of experts applies in all areas of life. Rhetorical question: If you need medical help, do you see an educated and trained medical doctor, or some man with a high school diploma who read some medical books and fancies himself a physician? Hopefully, it's the former, unless you want to wind up as a cadaver. If you act that way as regards to your physical life, how much more important is your immortal soul? Do you want to trust the teachings of the approved theologians who are an extension of the Magisterium, or will you trust in Bobby Dimond?</div><div><br /></div><div><b>III. Selective and Hypocritical Use of Sources</b></div><div>Bobby will cite to a source when it suits his needs. Theologians are not infallible, unless they agree with him on a point, and then they are cited. This goes back to (I) above, a wrong understanding of the Magisterium. Here's an except from an article on the MHFM website denying Mary her title Co-Redemptorix:</div><div><br /></div><div><div><span style="color: red;"><b><i><u>While the catechism is not infallible, it reiterates the truth that was solemnly defined in the aforementioned councils.</u></i></b></span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part III: The Decalogue – First Commandment – Thou Shalt not Have Strange Gods, etc. – Objections Answered: “True, there is but one Mediator, Christ the Lord, who alone has reconciled us to the heavenly Father through His blood, and who, having obtained eternal redemption, and having entered once into the holies, ceases not to intercede for us.” (Tan Books, p. 372) </span>(See vaticancatholic.com/mary-co-redemptrix-co-redeemer; Emphasis mine). </div></div><div><br /></div><div>Bobby thinks that the Church can lead people into error and evil via Catechisms approved to teach the faithful, unless it reiterates what was infallibly taught <b><i>ex cathedra</i></b> prior. Many things a catechism teaches were not defined <i><b>ex cathedra</b></i> prior to its publication. So which of these parts are acceptable? How can you ever trust the Catechism the Church gave the faithful to use? Bobby Dimond will tell you! He and Fred are the "recognize and resistors" of pre-Vatican teaching for their Feeneyite followers. </div><div><br /></div><div>Bobby also knows the state of the soul of any given individual. Anyone who disagrees with him is a "liar" (his favorite word), and a 'heretic," unless you "make an innocent mistake" like St. Alphonsus. He also knows the fate of the departed, whether they're in Heaven or Hell. (I wonder if it's a Feeneyite version of the horror movie <i>The Sixth Sense, </i>"I see dead people!"). He can also discern demonic possession based on " demonic facial movements"--(See vaticancatholic.com/dr-james-white-and-demons). </div><div><br /></div><div>Follow Bobby Dimond and his brother Fred at the risk of your soul</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Bobby's "Final Comments"</u></b></div></div><div style="text-align: left;">Please see the Addendums to last week's post if you want complete context as to these comments. Remember what I wrote above when reading what Bobby wrote. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>Bobby Dimond's comment will be in black font, with my response underneath in<span style="color: red;"> red font.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div>Bobby writes: One would think that after I refuted your misrepresentations, lies, and the blatantly false translation which you backed in the most arrogant fashion, you might be humbled and less arrogant. But no, you have a bad spirit. You should also apologize to me for unleashing a torrent of absurd insults when you were the one who was (once again) proven totally wrong. Now it’s even more clear why you insist upon remaining anonymous.</div><div><br /></div><div>Reply: <span style="color: red;">Notice Bobby's projection of his faults onto others. It is he and his brother who misrepresent Church teaching. It is Bobby the ultracrepidarian who thinks he can "find heresies" in approved theologians and "innocent mistakes" in the work of St. Alphonsus. Actually, it's more than arrogance; it's delusional. The epithets are in every comment--"liar" as per usual--and, of course, all are bad-willed. Yet HE demands an apology! However, one of my readers affirms that Bobby never wrote that one should not attend <i>Una Cum</i> because of the false pope's name, but for <b><i><u>other reasons</u></i></b>. It is also true they go against Church teaching regarding periodic continence ("NFP") but do not condemn marital pleasure. For those two items I do (and have in the last post) honestly apologize. Not for anything else. Unlike Bobby, I realize I'm not infallible.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">As I have not heard back from my translator, I will stipulate his translation is more accurate, but that is not dispositive and avails him nothing. Yet, Bobby's translation of the Latin in Canon 1 is clearly wrong and I was right. That makes a big difference. Will he admit his error? (Rhetorical question).</span></div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div>Bobby writes: I’ll make a few concluding points (and then I must move on). With regard Abbo and Hannon and canon 1, you are wrong and their citation doesn’t prove anything for you. All it shows is that they believed that ‘baptism of desire’ is a true teaching that applies to the Oriental Church. Yes, we know; and they were wrong. The refutation of the argument you are making was covered in the video, but I’ll state it again here briefly in a slightly different manner. It is rather simple. Canon 1 makes it clear that something doesn’t bind the Oriental Church from its mere inclusion in the Code. Rather, there must be something about “the nature itself of the thing” that attaches to the Oriental Church. Thus, the applicability to the Oriental Church comes from “the nature itself of the thing”, NOT FROM INCLUSION IN THE CODE. Well, error/false doctrine doesn’t have a nature that applies to the Oriental Church (or to anyone). Error does not apply to or bind anyone. THIS IS THE KEY POINT. </div><div><br /></div><div>Reply: <span style="color: red;">Notice; canonists Abbo and Hannon <b><i><u>are wrong</u></i></b> as to the interpretation of Canon 1. Bobby concedes the eminent canonists believed in BOD and that it applied to the Oriental Church, but they were wrong. Why? <u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">They are "wrong" because Bobby said so. </u> He claims that it must be "in the nature of the thing"--and the nature of BOD is error/false doctrine. Abbo and Hannon with their advanced ecclesiastical training and education, writing subject to the Magisterium checking them, and the Church allowing their writings to be taught in the seminaries--<b><i><u>are all wrong</u></i></b>. Only Bobby gets it right. </span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Once more: At 28 minutes into the video, they claim that the exception for "by their nature" does not apply to Baptism of Desire, because those words in Latin <i style="font-weight: bold;">quae ex ipsa rei natura, </i>"from the nature itself--the thing" means that only dogmatic decrees repeated by the Code from e.g., the Vatican Council of 1870, would the apply to the Oriental Church, and only then be universal. Wrong!</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">According to canonists Abbo and Hannon commenting on Canon 1:</span></div><div><span style="color: red;">"(b) by way of exception, the Orientals are bound by the laws of the Code:</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">1. <i style="font-weight: bold;">ex ipsa rei natura, </i>when the laws involve matters of Faith (7) or refer to or interpret the Divine or the Natural law (8)"</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Footnote #7 gives examples of Canons which involve matters of Faith and bind the Oriental Rites as well as the Latin Rite: "<span>7. E.g., can. 107, 218, 737, 831." </span>(See <u>The Sacred Canons</u>, [1952], 1:5)</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">What does Canon 737, specifically enumerated by Abbo and Hannon, teach? </span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Canon 737 states, "<span>Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, <b><i><u>actually or at least in desire</u></i></b>, is necessary for all for salvation..."</span>(Emphasis mine).</span></div><div><span style="color: red;">The canonists teach that: "<span>As Canon 737 notes, men can be saved by the desire of baptism, if it involves a perfect conversion to God through perfect contrition and a love of God above all things. <u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">This is a matter of Faith.</u> " </span>(<i>Ibid, </i>pgs. 744-745; Emphasis mine). Therefore, Canon 737, teaches BOD is binding on all Rites, because it is a matter of Faith. </span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Canon 107 deals with the distinction between laity and clergy being of Divine Law. Canon 218 deals with the Supremacy of the Roman Pontiff being of Faith, and Canon 831 deals with the fixing of the manual stipend. Are these really of Faith and bind the whole Church? How can we trust Abbo and Hannon who were "wrong" about BOD? Answer: Bobby will tell you! Fillmore, New York is the New Rome with Fred and Bobby as the new Co-Pontiffs of their Feeneyite Fiefdom. </span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Now, take out your "Extraordinary Magisterium checklist" and see if the Canons comport with some <i><b>ex cathedra</b></i> decision prior. Well, bad news for Bobby. On pg. 745 of Abbo and Hannon, when they declare BOD as a matter of Faith, footnote 3 cites the reason as The Council of Trent's <i>Decree on Justification</i>.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><div><span style="color: red;">"Decree on Justification - (Session 6, Chapter 4):</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"> "In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of the 'adoption of the Sons' (Rom. 8:15) of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, (<i>sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto</i>) as it is written: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter in the kingdom of God"<b><i><u> (John 3:5)"</u></i></b></span></div></div><div><b><i><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></i></b></div><div><span style="color: red;">The Council of Trent is cited in support of BOD being a matter of faith binding the whole Church in a decree that expressly mentions St. John 3:5. I hope you can appreciate the wonderful irony of this all. Bobby is (gasp!!) A JOHN 3:5 MOCKER!! He twists what it really means as taught by the Church.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Wait: Bobby says "desire" really means "intent to receive, " even when all Church authorities don't interpret it that way. Does "desire" mean "intends to receive"?</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">No. In Trent's Decree on Penance and Extreme Unction, we read:</span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">"The Synod [Trent] teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament [Penance] be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, <b><u><i>i</i></u></b><u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">s not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein"</u> </span>(Emphasis mine)</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">We have a teaching on "Penance by desire." Later, the Decree states,</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">"This Sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated."</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><span style="color: red;">The Council of Trent says here that the sacrament of penance is necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen after baptism, <b><i><u>as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated</u></i></b>. However, it is very clear that Trent admits that a man can receive <b><i><u>the effect of the sacrament of Penance by desire, before actually receiving the sacrament itself.</u></i></b><br /><br />Thus, if one wishes to hold that baptism by water is necessary in such a way that the effect of baptism cannot be received before the sacrament itself, one must also hold that the same thing is true of Penance. <b><i><u>Otherwise, it would not be true</u></i></b> that the sacrament of penance is necessary after sinning <u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">just as the sacrament of baptism before being baptized.</u></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"><br /></u></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span>Bobby writes: ‘Baptism of desire’ is an error, a novelty, which contradicts the Church’s dogmatic teaching on John 3:5 (and other truths on Church membership, subjection to the Roman Pontiff, Church unity, etc.). Therefore, it does not have a nature that applies to the Oriental Church (or to anyone). People like you will reply by stating: no, ‘baptism of desire’ is a true teaching and therefore applies to the Oriental Church. You are wrong, but to show that it’s true (not false), and therefore applicable to the Oriental Church “from the nature itself of the thing” (not from inclusion in the Code), you have to prove it from something other than the Code (because, as per canon 1, mere inclusion in the Code does not make something binding on the Oriental Church). But you cannot show that ‘baptism of desire’ is true and applicable to the Oriental Church from things outside the Code.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span>Reply: <span style="color: red;">So, BOD is an "error" and a "NOVELTY"? </span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">Well, Abbo and Hannon cited the<b><i><u> Council of Trent.</u></i></b> How about Pope St. Pius V?</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span><div><span style="color: red;"><i>Ex omnibus afflictionibus</i>, October 1, 1567:</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"> <b><i><u> Condemned</u></i></b> the following erroneous propositions of Michael du Bay:</span></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="color: red;">Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a "pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned" (1 Tim. 1:5) can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins.</span></li><li><span style="color: red;">That charity which is the fullness of the law is not always connected with the remission of sins.</span></li><li><span style="color: red;">A catechumen lives justly and rightly and holily, and observes the commandments of God, and fulfills the law through charity, which is only received in the laver of Baptism, before the remission of sins has been obtained.</span></li></ul><div><span style="color: red;">Yet these propositions would have to be<b><i><u> maintained</u></i></b> by Bobby if there is no BOD. He stands condemned by Pope St. Pius V.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Let's go back further: Is a 13th century teaching a "novelty," Bobby?</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><div><span style="color: red;"><u>Summa</u>, <i><b>Article 1, Part III, Q. 68:</b></i></span></div><div><span style="color: red;"> "I answer that, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"> "Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that worketh by charity, whereby God, Whose power is not yet tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: 'I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the graces he prayed for.' "</span></div></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Still "novel"? Ok, how about St. Augustine (354- 430):</span></div></div><div><div><u><span style="color: red;">City of God</span></u></div><div><span style="color: red;"> "I do not hesitate to place the Catholic catechumen, who is burning with the love of God, before the baptized heretic... The centurion Cornelius, before Baptism, was better than Simon [Magus], who had been baptized. For Cornelius, even before Baptism, was filled with the Holy Ghost, while Simon, after Baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit" (<i><b>De Bapt. C. Donat</b></i>., IV 21).</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"> "Baptism is administered invisibly to one whom not contempt of religion but death excludes." (Denzinger 388).</span></div></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">That novelty has been around a very long time, Bobby. <u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">These proof are also outside the Code of Canon Law. </u> Checkmate. However, let us continue so Bobby doesn't make another "irrefutable video" and claim not everything was answered because his brilliance stumps everyone.</span></div><div><br /></div><div>Bobby writes: On the contrary, we can show that it’s false. Thus, your argument fails. It’s logically refuted. God protected the Church from teaching the false doctrine of baptism of desire when canon 1 disclaimed that all of its canons were universally binding.</div></span><div><br /></div><div>You also proved my entire point about the Code. After I refuted your significant error (and actually your sophistical distortion) about canon 748, you reluctantly conceded (another defeat for you) that the Code’s law in canon 747 is based on a belief in immediate ensoulment. Yet, you don’t believe that immediate ensoulment is binding and absolutely true. For example, you stated:</div><div><br /></div><div>YOU STATED: “That immediate animation is thereby taught by the Code such that it is infallible or even settled; DENIED [BY YOU].”</div><div><br /></div><div>YOU STATED: “Immediate ensoulment is “COMMONLY” (not definitively) accepted.”</div><div><br /></div><div>Let me spell it out for you, John 3:5 mocking heretic: if you admit that the Code’s law in canon 747 is not based on something necessarily true and binding, you are admitting that the Code’s law in canon 747 (about who should be baptized) could be wrong, false or bad. The only way that the law in canon 747 of the Code is spotless is if immediate ensoulment is NECESSARILY TRUE. Got it? The fact that some theologians of the time didn’t think immediate ensoulment was settled is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that immediate ensoulment is INTIMATELY BOUND TO THE CODE’S LAW IN CANON 747. Also, it doesn’t help you to say that the Code is just adopting the “safer or more probable course”. If it’s infallible in all of its canons, then its laws connected with faith must be based on the certainly correct position, not one that could be incorrect. But you don’t believe that canon 747 proves that immediate ensoulment is necessarily true and binding. With that admission YOU DEMOLISH your entire article and prove my point.</div><div><br /></div><div>Reply: <span style="color: red;">Nope. A universal or general disciplinary law can be infallible yet not immutable. Theologian Van Noort explains:</span></div><div><span style="color: red;">"[The Church] <b><i>can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.</i></b></span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><span>The Church's infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the <i><b>mutability </b></i>of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circumstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification." </span>(<u>Dogmatic Theology</u>, [1956], 2:115; Emphasis in original).</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">The Code cannot be at odds with Faith or morality, but the Canons can change and still be infallible in not giving error or evil. To be safer (because of the now majority opinion of immediate ensoulment) we will baptize as if it were true. It was admitted by theologians in 1918 that the Code was NOT deciding the issue of ensoulment. Proof:</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">From the 1918 <i>Irish Ecclesiastical Review</i>, December issue, theologian O'Donnell writes:</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">"There are some, of course, who still claim that the ancient hypothesis [delayed ensoulment] is correct. They think everything is best explained on the supposition that, at the beginning of life, the vegetative soul comes first, then the sentient, and finally the rational; and that at the end of life, they depart in the inverse order. With the merits of the discussion, the practical moralist has little concern. He is satisfied in knowing that the doubts in favor of the theory [delayed ensoulment] are so slight that they have been completely disregarded in the Canon already quoted (747). And if pressed further, he will reply that if, notwithstanding these doubts, he is sometimes obliged to confer Extreme Unction after the human soul would 'appear' to have departed, so, again notwithstanding these doubts, he is obliged to confer baptism before 'common sense' would declare that the human soul has come into existence. <b><i><u>In other words, he accepts a high degree of probability as a sufficient standard, and acts accordingly</u></i></b>." (pg. 498; Emphasis mine). </span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">What part of "high degree of probability" don't you get? The Code takes the safer course without settling anything. Remember that this citation was written the very year the Code took effect, by a theologian examining the meaning of those Canons. Theologians McCarthy and Carol likewise confirm that immediate and delayed animation are opinions, with immediate animation being the common one replacing delayed animation. If canon law settled the matter, the Magisterium under true popes would have censured anything to the contrary.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span>Bobby writes: </span>For if what’s intimately connected to canon 747 isn’t necessarily true or absolutely binding, then the Code is fallible and the same principle could apply to other canons. That’s called a defeater argument, one you made against yourself in your own words by your own admissions.</div><div>In our video we also proved that the Code is fallible because canon 1239 on giving burial to unbaptized catechumens certainly contradicts the Church’s infallible teaching and traditional law that Catholics are not permitted to hold communion after death with the unbaptized and with those who were not in the Church’s communion during life. That is the Church’s traditional, universal and infallible law (approved by various popes, etc.), which is connected to the divine law. That teaching/law of the Church outweighs the fallible Code’s 20th century novelty. We proved that in our video. End of debate.</div><div><br /></div><div>Reply: <span style="color: red;">As demonstrated above, no canonist/theologian believed that adopting the safer course based on majority opinion of the theologians makes the Code fallible. Since it's not being decisive, and adopting a safer course, it is not injurious in any way. Likewise, Canon 1239. Not every catechumen necessarily dies with BOD. They may lose the faith or commit mortal sin prior to death in the internal forum and be lost. Therefore, you can deny them burial or grant them burial as you may choose to favor either side. As Abbo and Hannon clearly teach, "The reason for this rule [Christian burial for catechumens] is that they are<b><i><u> justly supposed</u></i></b> to have met death united to Christ through baptism of desire."(See <u>The Sacred Canons</u>, [1952], 2:439; Emphasis mine). You have a just reason to suppose they died with BOD, not that every single catechumen so dies. </span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Oh yes, it is the end of the debate Bobby. Guess who was shown to be unqualified, incompetent, and imputing bad will on anyone who dares to disagree with him? (Psst.. it's either me or you..and it wasn't me). </span></div><div><br /></div><div>Bobby writes: There are many other points in our video that refute your false position and your false understanding of Church teaching (Decretals of Gregory IX, etc.). Anyone can watch the video. We have carefully addressed and refuted all of the ‘best arguments’ your side brings up. But you cannot even begin to address ours. Indeed, if you had to face cross examination about our arguments (on John 3:5, Church membership, the grace of baptism, etc.), it would be clear within a short period of time that your position is false and contradictory (and that you are, of course, a liar). You also accept the heresy that souls can be saved in false religions. No saint in Church history believed what you heretics do about salvation (i.e. that souls can be saved in false religions, which is the position of the CMRI, Sanborn’s fake sede group, etc.). Finally, below is the Church’s dogmatic teaching on John 3:5 (which you reject and mock). One day you will have to face the One who taught this dogma (the Truth Himself). Barring a conversion, it won’t go well for you. You will be condemned. This dogmatic definition proves that the Church teaches that John 3:5 is a dogma without exception.</div><div><br /></div><div>Reply: <span style="color: red;">Once again we see the self-congratulatory, reason-challenged Bobby throwing out his favorite invective from his (limited) vocabulary ("liar, liar, pants on fire"!). However, who is lying now? I do not (and never have) believed that souls can be saved in false religions. Will YOU apologize, or does that duty not apply to YOU, Bobby? </span></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>A Video You Must See</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Bobby writes: Council of Trent, Sess. 5 on Original Sin, ex cathedra: “Unless a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.”</div><div><br /></div><div>Also, people should see the short video we did on this particular dogmatic statement in Sess. 5 of Trent. It quotes a prominent pre-Vatican II theologian who admitted that the aforementioned passage in Sess. 5 of Trent was, in his view, one of the only dogmatic definitions in Church history about a particular passage of Scripture. In other words, the words of Jesus Christ in John 3:5 are a dogma that all Catholics must profess without exception. That trumps the fallible Code, and it refutes your position. But the problem with people like you is that you don’t believe in papal infallibility. You believe only in man, which is why you’ve adopted a completely false understanding of the Magisterium (as our video proves without any doubt). You don’t believe and profess, but rather condemn, the Church’s teaching that everyone must be born again of water and the Spirit to be saved. You reject and mock the Church’s highest teaching and the words of Jesus Christ. Goodbye.</div><div><br /></div><div>John 3:5 Defined As A Dogma At Trent, Theologian Admits</div><div><br /></div><div>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vkvk3r2zPtE</div><div><br /></div><div>John 3:5 Mockers Stumped (1917 Code, Delayed Ensoulment, “Baptism Of Desire”)</div><div><br /></div><div>Reply: <span style="color: red;">The cherry-picked Magisterium of Bobby Dimond will be decisively demonstrated. The video he cites (and made with his brother) "John 3:5 Defined As A Dogma At Trent, Theologian Admits" is a slam dunk against MHFM. In it, Bobby cites theologian Cartechini in <u>De Valore Notarum Theologicarum</u>. Bobby praises the theological work (rightly) but says it "contains some problematic statements" (at 2:15-2:18 into the approx. 7:15 video). Bobby is incorrect that it is only to be found in Latin. It is also available in an Italian language edition, <u>D'ALL OPINIONE AL DOMMA</u>. </span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Bobby tells us how the great Cartechini bears witness to St. John 3:5 and that it necessitates belief in baptism by water only. It's bye-bye BOD and BOB. Or is it? Bobby never mentions what the "problematic statements" are in the manual. The translation (let's see if Bobby can escape this one) in both Latin and Italian are as follows:</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">"...joining the Church is necessary for salvation and yet one can be saved even if one explicitly knows nothing about the Church; baptism is necessary for all and confession for those who have sinned mortally after baptism and yet by an act of contrition and love one remits present and original sin..."</span></div><div><span style="color: red;">(Tradibooks Edition, pgs. 69-70). That's theologian Cartechini teaching Baptism of Desire, folks. </span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Wouldn't the very same theologian who "admits" St. John 3:5 has no exceptions to water also know that BOD is heretical? Now, was that heretical or was it just "an innocent mistake"? Better ask Bobby, he can discern the state of souls, past and present. If the manual of Cartechini is heretical, how can you trust anything it says?</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><ol style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="color: red;">Ask Bobby Dimond; he's the Magisterium and cannot be wrong.</span></li><li><span style="color: red;">Let Bobby get out his "handy-dandy Extraordinary Magisterium Checklist" containing snippets from Denzinger.</span></li><li><span style="color: red;">Bobby will tell you what parts of any given theological work (from manuals to catechisms) are heretical, erroneous, or dogmatically true, all dependent upon how the part in question comports with his private interpretation of those declarations of the Extraordinary Magisterium. </span></li><li><span style="color: red;">If you think he's wrong, see #1 directly above and believe him or else you are a lying, no good, low-down, John 3:5 mocking, heretical dupe of Satan heading straight for Hell (and your mother wears army boots too, so there!)</span></li></ol><div><span style="color: red;">While those of us who believe in the teaching of the Church on BOD and BOB are "liars" and "heretics," the great theologians and Doctors of the Church make "innocent mistakes, " despite the fact that they are approved by the Church <b><i><u>precisely because of the excellence of their teachings and orthodoxy.</u></i></b> No pope, no bishop, no one for hundreds of years caught and condemned these heretical teachings. They were even published in approved Catechisms distributed to the faithful worldwide without objection. Then came Leonard Feeney, and his spiritually sick theological descendants, Fred and Bobby Dimond. </span></div></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">At 6:46 of the video, Bobby quotes theologian Ott. Another "problematic statement" appears in that manual:</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><div><span style="color: red;">Theologian Ott: "Baptism by water is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation" (See <u>Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma</u>, [1955], pg. 356).</span></div><div><span style="color: red;">On the same page:"In case of emergency Baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire or Baptism by blood." Oops! Is Ott (a) heretical, (b) a theologian who makes "innocent mistakes" or (c) mentally unstable to the point he makes glaring contradictory statements on the same page? Better ask Bobby. </span></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Conclusion</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">I can't express how happy I am that Bobby Dimond came here and commented, allowing for a complete and total exposure of the Feeneyite sophistry. I give Bobby credit for reading my blog and hopefully learning things that, with the grace of God, will effectuate his conversion. Bobby and Fred really need our prayers, and they are always in my intentions. One of the reasons Fred and Bobby get into heresy is beautifully expressed by---theologian Cartechini:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">"The purpose of theological systems is to coordinate already established truths and to prepare for the acquisition of new conclusions. For our domains often have several aspects that might seem contrary, and heresy consists precisely in denying one that it seems cannot be reconciled with the other." </div></div></div></div><p></p></div>Introibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-8847671689205697502024-02-26T04:18:00.000-08:002024-02-29T20:16:47.859-08:00The Dimonds, Ensoulment, And Baptism Of Desire<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBUfTEtGddObue9L-2nZxTWIoB-Te2JFBKAEEzo7YVPQ9ovTPVRIHA6DAwdUAcc_sjuvufmgSEMYgR3tEGyYYk9wraG4wMHPmBhUzS7W1Js5fydz4X63W2tYvKvu-vVsFpU4Btj34TcaY_KAPxsAVfKroN8OKbal94AGkkfc1Oc65nmrL0auzCgDe0Qko/s480/ensoulment.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="411" data-original-width="480" height="274" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBUfTEtGddObue9L-2nZxTWIoB-Te2JFBKAEEzo7YVPQ9ovTPVRIHA6DAwdUAcc_sjuvufmgSEMYgR3tEGyYYk9wraG4wMHPmBhUzS7W1Js5fydz4X63W2tYvKvu-vVsFpU4Btj34TcaY_KAPxsAVfKroN8OKbal94AGkkfc1Oc65nmrL0auzCgDe0Qko/s320/ensoulment.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><span style="color: red;">To My Readers: This week's post is co-authored by my good friend, <b>Mr. Steven Speray</b>. I highly recommend his blog <i style="font-weight: bold;">Catholicism in a Nutshell </i>(stevensperay.wordpress.com). I thank Steve for his co-authorship which cuts my time spent writing/researching considerably while maintaining what I hope you will agree is a high quality post. The post is attributable to us both equally. </span><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">God bless you all, my dear readers---<b><i>Introibo</i></b></span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>The Dimonds, Ensoulment, and Baptism of Desire (BOD)</u></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><i>By Steven Speray and Introibo</i></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><i><br /></i></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">The ersatz Benedictine monastery known as <i>The Most Holy Family Monastery</i>, run by the malevolent heretics, Fred and Bobby Dimond, have made another misleading and heretical video entitled: <i>John 3:5 Mockers Stumped (1917 Code, Delayed Ensoulment, “Baptism Of Desire." ). </i></div><div style="text-align: left;">(See endtimes.video/ensoulment-1917-code-canon-law-infallibility). <p></p></div><div style="text-align: left;">The video once more exposes the Dimonds to be not only heretics, but the very epithet they enjoy calling others---<b><i>liars</i></b>. Fred and Bobby remind me of Jehovah's Witnesses (JW). The JWs are most well-known by their firm opposition to blood transfusions, even when someone's life depends on such. The Watchtower Society, which are the leaders of JWs, will never bend on this teaching, since they fear a total loss of credibility, and many of their adherents will most surely leave the sect. Likewise, Fred and Bobby have pretended to be Traditionalist Catholics while championing---at all costs--- the Feeneyite heresy which denies Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB). </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">While claiming that Traditionalist Catholics don't understand the Magisterium and when infallibility applies, the Dimonds have amply demonstrated they are the ones who are <b><i><u>either clueless or purposely deceptive.</u> </i></b>The video begins with a discussion of ensoulment (i.e., when does God create and infuse the soul into the human body). The crux of their argument runs thus:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) teaches delayed ensoulment.</li><li>The Roman Ritual provides that an unborn baby[deformed, abnormal fetuses] that is delivered and looks "monstrous" may be denied baptism unless there is doubt about it not being human and ensouled</li><li>The 1917 Code of Canon Law requires such a fetus to be baptized conditionally</li><li>The Code corrected past practice</li><li>Yet, if past practice was infallible by the UOM, that means Canon Law--and its teaching on BOD--is not infallible. It teaches heresy just as in the case of the monstrous fetuses</li></ul><div>Why isn't Canon Law infallible? They argue:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The Church is infallible in truly universal disciplinary laws</li><li>However, in order to be universal it must apply to each and every Catholic without exception</li><li>Canon 1 of the 1917 Code limits its scope to the Latin Rite alone, therefore it is not universal since it does not include the Eastern (or "Oriental") Rites. It also states that only things apply to the Oriental Rites are those which do so " by their nature." That phrase references things that are already dogma and has binding force "by their nature"</li><li>Therefore, Canon Law is not infallible, and teaches the heresy of BOD</li></ul><div><br /></div>Each of their errors will be examined below.</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>The UOM Does Not Teach Delayed Ensoulment</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">What, exactly, is ensoulment? It is the moment at which God infuses the rational soul into the developing human being in the womb. There are those theologians who believe in<b style="font-style: italic;"> immediate animation, </b>(the soul is infused at the first moment of biological fertilization), and those who teach <b style="font-style: italic;">delayed animation </b>(the soul is infused at some point after fertilization, but prior to birth). According to the 1913 <u>Catholic Encyclopedia</u>:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><b><i><u>It was long debated</u></i></b> among the learned at what period of gestation the human embryo begins to be animated by the rational, spiritual soul, which elevates man above all other species of the animal creation and survives the body to live forever. The keenest mind among the ancient philosophers, Aristotle, had conjectured that the future child was endowed at conception with a principle of only vegetative life, which was exchanged after a few days for an animal soul, and was not succeeded by a rational soul till later; his followers said on the fortieth day for a male, and the eightieth for a female, child. The authority of his great name and the want of definite knowledge to the contrary caused this theory <b><i><u>to be generally accepted </u></i></b>up to recent times. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;">The Church has never defined, by the extraordinary or Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM), when ensoulment takes place. Fred and Bobby rely on a citation to St. Alphonsus Liguori in which he claimed delayed ensoulment "...is universally accepted that the soul is not infused into the body until the latter is formed..." (From <u>Theologia Moralis</u>). </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Let's remember what constitutes the UOM:</div><div style="text-align: left;">The UOM is explained according to theologian Scheeben: <span style="color: red;">The Criteria, or means of knowing Catholic truth may be easily gathered from the principles...nearly all set forth in the Brief <b><i>Tuas Libenter</i></b>, addressed by Pius IX to the Archbishop of Munich.</span> (See <u>A Manual of Catholic Theology</u> 1:89). Pope Pius IX wrote, <span style="color: red;"><b><i><u>For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.</u></i></b></span> (See <i>Tuas Libenter</i> [1863], DZ 1683; Emphasis mine).</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Now, if at any time all theologians taught delayed ensoulment as belonging to the Faith, it would be a dogma. Well, St. Alphonsus claimed it was "universally accepted" at his time, so does that not prove it? That it was universally held by scientists and medical doctors of the time CONCEDED; that it was held universally by all theologians at the time of St. Alphonsus, DENIED. St. Alphonsus holds delayed animation as certain. However, he writes: <span style="color: red;">We must first state proposition 35 of those condemned by Pope Innocent XI, which said: "It seems probable that every fetus, so long as it is in utero, lacks a rational soul and then first begins to have the same when it is born; and consequently homicide is not committed in any abortion." <b><i><u>Conversely, some [theologians] wrongly said that the fetus in the first instant in which it is conceived is animated.</u></i></b>.. </span>(See <u>Theologia Moralis</u>, 2:435). Pope Innocent XI (died 1689) was within 100 years of St. Alphonsus (died 1787) with no major theological developments, so there was disagreement as to the theology of ensoulment. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">To those who would assert otherwise, theologian McCarthy teaches:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">We add here, to forestall an objection, that even if it were proven beyond all reasonable doubt, that, for a period of time after conception, the human fetus, while biologically vital, is not endowed with a rational soul, it would still remain true that the direct abortion of this non-animated fetus, if there be such, would be intrinsically wrong and forbidden by the law of nature. We consider that <b><i><u>the weight of probability is in favor of the theory of immediate animation.</u></i></b> Even those who take the other view will at least admit that <b><i><u>their theory of mediate animation is not proven beyond reasonable doubt</u></i></b>, and, therefore, that the fetus </span><b style="color: red; font-style: italic;">may </b>[Emphasis on the word "may" in original]<span style="color: red;"> be animated from the moment of conception. </span>(See <u>Problems in Theology, Volume II: The Commandments</u>, [1958], pg. 141; Emphasis mine except where noted). </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Hence, if delayed ensoulment had ever been decided, theologian McCarthy wouldn't be calling it a "theory" it would be settled dogma. Nevertheless, even if, <b><i>ad arguendo</i></b>, delayed ("mediate")animation was dogma by reason of the UOM--it doesn't help the case of Fred and Bobby Dimond one bit, as will be explained later in this post. N.B. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception settles nothing for as theologian Carol writes in 1957:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><b><i><u>At precisely what stage of fetal development the soul is created and infused by God has always provided theologians with material for subtle discussion</u></i></b>, but modern writers </span>[theologians]<span style="color: red;"> commonly favor the opinion that it takes place at the very first moment of fecundation. The definition of the Immaculate Conception offers no intimation as to the official teaching of the Church on the point. </span> </div><div style="text-align: left;">(See <u>Mariology</u>, [1957], 2:120). Further proof that the time of ensoulment was never defined by the UOM. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>The Roman Ritual and 1917 Code of Canon Law</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Fred and Bobby cite the Roman Ritual of 1614 regarding baptizing a deformed fetus:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">A monster that fails to exhibit a human appearance ought not to be baptized, but if there is any doubt about this, let it be baptized under the following condition, 'If you are human...'</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"> Next, they cite canonist Woywood:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">...the Canon [748] about the misformed fetus is likewise taken from that source [Roman Ritual]. Here the Code corrects the Ritual, which distinguished between 'monstra' that have a human form and those that do not have that form. It is generally admitted today that a woman can give birth to no other than a human being, however deformed that infant may be, even to the extent of resembling an animal rather than a human being. <u>A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law</u>, 1957, pp. 376-377</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;">Fred and Bobby opine that this is a change not in discipline but in faith because it deals with when to baptize a fetus, and therefore the time of ensoulment must be immediate. Let's see what Canon 748 actually says:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">Canon 748. <b><i><u>Deformed or abnormal fetuses should be baptized at least under condition</u></i></b>; if there is doubt as to whether there is one or several humans, one should be baptized absolutely, the others under condition. </span>(Emphasis mine)</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;">The Code does not "correct" the Ritual in the sense that it was wrong, but <b><i><u>to bring it in line with the (now majority) theological opinion of immediate animation and takes the safer course. </u></i></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">The Ritual said if there was "ANY" doubt as to human form, the fetus is baptized conditionally. The Code wants all CONDITIONALLY baptized in all cases to be safe. If it were a change in belief (teaching immediate animation) <b><i><u>the baptism would need to be done absolutely, not conditionally.</u></i></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;">The Canon is merely disciplinary, and even if delayed (mediate) animation were infallible by reason of the UOM, it changes nothing, other than taking a safer course. Not all theologians who taught delayed animation were unanimous on 40 days for a male soul and 80 days for a female. St. Alphonsus (cited above) names theologians who taught different times. The Dimonds "argument" stands firmly refuted.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>What Constitutes a Universal Disciplinary Law?</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Fred and Bobby think that to be "truly universal" a disciplinary law it must apply to "each and every Catholic" without exception to be infallible. Is this true? </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>1. The Church is infallible in Her universal disciplinary laws.</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Proof:</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>According to theologian Van Noort, "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the <b><i>direction of Christian worship and Christian living</i></b>." (See <u>Dogmatic Theology</u>, 2: 114-115; Emphasis mine). </div><div><br /></div><div>According to theologian Herrmann:</div><div>"The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. <b><i><u>Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments</u></i></b>…. If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from Her divine mission, which would be impossible."</div><div>(<u>Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae</u>, Vol. 1, p. 258; Emphasis mine)</div><div><br /></div><div>Pope Gregory XVI teaches: "[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. <b><i><u>In this discipline the administration of sacred rites</u></i></b>, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced." (See <b><i>Mirari Vos</i></b>, para. #9; Emphasis mine).</div><div><br /></div><div>Liturgical laws are therefore covered by the Church's infallibility. However, if what Fred and Bobby say is true, <u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">there were never any universal disciplinary laws concerning the liturgy (nor could there be).</u> There has never been a liturgical law that applies in all Rites, since there are many different Rites with different liturgies. The Roman Rite (Latin Rite) liturgical laws do not apply to the Maronite Rite, or any Oriental Rite. The converse is also true. So why would liturgical laws be specifically mentioned as protected by infallibility, when (as per Fred and Bobby) they don't apply to all Rites? </div><div><br /></div><div>Answer: According to the eminent canonist Buscaren: <span style="color: red;">A general </span>[universal]<span style="color: red;"> law is one which is not limited to a particular territory; it is a universal law of the Church. <b><i><u>This does not mean it is binding on all Catholics.</u></i></b> It may be enacted for a special class of persons, or for certain particular circumstances.</span> (See <u>Canon Law: A Text and Commentary</u> [1951], pg. 27). Therefore, "universality" means "pertaining to all members of a Rite throughout the world," and not just in a particular territory.<b><i><u> The 1917 Code is therefore universal.</u></i></b></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>2. The Ultimate stake through the heart of Fred and Bobby's "Argument."</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Fred and Bobby claim Canon 1 of the Code makes it clear that it is not "universal" since it does not bind the Eastern (Oriental) Rites. That was just refuted. Canon 1 states:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 18px;"><span style="color: red;">Although in the Code of canon law the discipline of the Oriental Church is frequently referenced, nevertheless, this [Code] applies only to the Latin Church and does not bind the Oriental, unless it treats of things that, by their nature, apply to the Oriental.</span> (Emphasis mine). </span></p></div><div>At 28 minutes into the video, they claim that the exception for "by their nature" does not apply to Baptism of Desire, because those words in Latin <i style="font-weight: bold;">quae ex ipsa rei natura, </i>"from the nature itself--the thing" means that only dogmatic decrees repeated by the Code from e.g., the Vatican Council of 1870, would the apply to the Oriental Church, and only then be universal. Wrong!</div><div><br /></div><div>According to canonists Abbo and Hannon commenting on Canon 1:</div><div><span style="color: red;">(b) by way of exception, the Orientals are bound by the laws of the Code:</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">1. <i style="font-weight: bold;">ex ipsa rei natura, </i>when the laws involve matters of Faith (7) or refer to or interpret the Divine or the Natural law (8)</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div>Footnote #7 gives examples of Canons which involve matters of Faith and bind the Oriental Rites as well as the Latin Rite: <span style="color: red;">7. E.g., can. 107, 218, 737, 831. </span>(See <u>The Sacred Canons</u>, [1952], 1:5)</div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div>What does Canon 737, specifically enumerated by Abbo and Hannon, teach? </div><div>Canon 737 states, <span style="color: red;">Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, <b><i><u>actually or at least in desire</u></i></b>, is necessary for all for salvation...</span>(Emphasis mine).</div><div>The canonists teach that: <span style="color: red;">As Canon 737 notes, men can be saved by the desire of baptism, if it involves a perfect conversion to God through perfect contrition and a love of God above all things. <u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">This is a matter of Faith.</u> </span>(<i>Ibid, </i>pgs. 744-745; Emphasis mine). Therefore, Canon 737, teaches BOD is binding on all Rites, because it is a matter of Faith. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Summary</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Fred and Bobby get it all wrong! No surprise there. Far from being "stumped" by their "argument," the refutation was very simple and straightforward. The video goes on to tell falsehoods about Mario Derksen of <b><i>Novus Ordo Watch</i></b> (highly recommended website) and other nonsense. Indeed, it is Fred and Bobby Dimond who don't understand the Magisterium and application of infallibility.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">A universal or general disciplinary law can be infallible yet not immutable. Theologian Van Noort explains:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">[The Church] <b><i>can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would be by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls.</i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">The Church's infallibility in disciplinary matters, when understood in this way, harmonizes beautifully with the <i><b>mutability </b></i>of even universal laws. For a law, even though it be thoroughly consonant with revealed truth, can, given a change in circumstances, become less timely or even useless, so that prudence may dictate its abrogation or modification. </span>(<u>Dogmatic Theology</u>, [1956], 2:115; Emphasis in original).</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The UOM never at any point taught delayed ensoulment. It is undecided by the Church.</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Even if delayed animation were decided, it does nothing to help the Dimond's argument. The Code merely made a disciplinary change to bring it more in line with the now majority opinion, and take a safer course. This would be the case even if delayed ensoulment were true, since the exact time of ensoulment was never agreed upon, even by theologians who taught mediate animation.</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The Code is a universal disciplinary law and is protected by infallibility. <b><i>Universal</i></b> means it is not limited to a particular territory, not that it binds all Catholics in all Rites. If that were not true, there would be no liturgical laws that are protected from error, which is demonstrably false.</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Canon 1 makes an exception that canons which involve matters of faith bind all Rites. Such a Canon is Canon 737 which teaches BOD. </li></ul></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span><b><u>Conclusion</u></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span><b><u><br /></u></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;">The Feeneyites can never stop clutching at straws in trying to save face with their recycled and ridiculous "arguments" against BOD and BOB. This post will end with some links to Steven Speray's blog where he has refuted the Dimonds:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Systematically Debunking the Dimond Brothers on BOD (Part One):</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"> stevensperay.wordpress.com/2013/07/16/systematically-debunking-the-dimond-brothers-on-baptism-of-desire-part-1</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Systematically Debunking the Dimond Brothers on BOD (Part Two):</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">stevensperay.wordpress.com/2013/07/18/systematically-debunking-the-dimond-brothers-on-baptism-of-desire-part-2</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Systematically Debunking the Dimond Brothers on BOD (Part Three):</b></div><div>stevensperay.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/systematically-debunking-the-dimond-brothers-on-baptism-of-desire-part-3</div><div><br /></div><div><b>The Absurdities of Feeneyism:</b></div><div>stevensperay.wordpress.com/2020/05/30/the-absurdities-of-feeneyism/</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Addendum: A Response to Bobby Dimond</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">To My Readers: I received a response to this post from Bobby Dimond himself (aka "Brother Peter"). I published his comment below and in his short response he calls me a "liar" (directly or using synonymous words/phrases) no less than seven times. That's all he and his brother Fred ever do--hurl kindergarten playground insults. I nevertheless thank him for responding so I can show my readership that he and his brother are the ones who continuously and brazenly distort church teaching to fit their heresy, i.e., THEY LIE. I pray for their conversion and I ask all of you to do the same. They are leading countless souls into the Feeneyite heresy. They will have much to account for at Judgement. God pity them.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">God bless you all, my dear readers---<b><i>Introibo</i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;">Bobby Dimond's comment will be in black font, with my response underneath in <span style="color: red;">red font</span>. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Bobby writes: This is a pathetic article, with glaring errors, lies and deception throughout. But that’s typical coming from you. You are indeed a total sophist, and your errors can be refuted very quickly. Your article refutes nothing and contains your characteristic dishonesty.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Response:<span style="color: red;"> A sophomoric rant. Bold assertion with nothing to back it up. The real liar as will be shown here, is Bobby. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Bobby writes: First, you BLATANTLY LIE near the beginning when you write:</div><div><br /></div><div>“The crux of their argument runs thus: The Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) teaches delayed ensoulment.”</div><div><br /></div><div>You claim that we believe that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium taught delayed ensoulment. No, we didn’t say that. In fact, we said exactly the opposite, as anyone who watches the video can see. Did you even watch the video? We said that IF YOU ADHERE to the arguments typically advanced for ‘BOD’, then you would have to hold that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium taught delayed ensoulment. Are you capable of understanding the difference? Why do you lie? You blatantly misrepresent our position at the outset of this terrible piece. That’s because you don’t have the truth. You are, in fact, of your father, the Devil.</div><div><br /></div><div>Response: <span style="color: red;">Bobby has never heard of how real arguments are advanced. I never said, "This is what the Dimonds believe" but it is the crux of your ARGUMENT that IF the UOM taught delayed ensoulment, THEN this would follow. So, yes, I'm more than capable of understanding the difference, and it's a shame you can't understand what I was presenting as YOUR FORMULATED ARGUMENT, not what YOU BELIEVE. I apologize for giving a Feeneyite more credit for intelligence than he deserves. </span></div><div><br /></div><div>Bobby writes: You then make a huge blunder. You wrote: “If it were a change in belief (teaching immediate animation) the baptism would need to be done absolutely, not conditionally.”</div><div><br /></div><div>You didn’t pay attention, you don’t know what you are talking about, and you missed canon 747. Canon 748 refers to baptizing them “at least conditionally” because there it’s including the cases in which the fetus is doubtfully alive. But canon 747 states that AT WHATEVER TIME an aborted fetus is born, it is to be baptized ABSOLUTELY if unquestionably found to be alive or conditionally if there is a doubt! Got it? That’s a change from the Roman Ritual, which would not baptize those fetuses, either conditionally or absolutely, if they resembled beasts. That’s also why the Wernz-Vidal commentary (which you purposely ignored because it destroys your article) said that the effective reason behind canon 747 is belief in immediate ensoulment, which “is required to be held” (teneda). They clearly considered immediately ensoulment to be (at least) a secondary object of infallibility to which people are bound, and they taught that one must abandon the previous position of the doctors. In connection with the other points in our video, that demonstrates that the issue of delayed ensoulment is certainly connected with faith. We proved that in our video with many points, demolishing the claims in this article.</div><div><br /></div><div>Reply:<span style="color: red;"> Here, Bobby is probably relying on the hope that no one has access to Wernz-Vidal, which is written in Latin. I have access to it, and it does not say what he claims. <u>Ius Canonicum</u>, Volume I, [1934], pg. 38 reads: III... cuius praescripti efficax ratio habetur in sententia hodie communitur recepta et, relictis aliis doctorumantiquorum opininibus, tenenda, quod foetus humanus a primo conceptionis momento anima rationali informatur. Translation: the effective reason for the provisions [of Canon 747] is found <b><i><u>in the common opinion received today</u></i></b> and, leaving aside the other opinions of the doctors of antiquity, to be held, that the human fetus is formed from the first moment of conception by a rational soul. (Emphasis mine). </span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Note to Bobby: THE COMMON OPINION is in immediate animation. Wernz-Vidal did NOT call it definitive, which would be the case if it were infallible by virtue of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM). It reads "to be held"--not held as "a matter of Faith" as canonists Abbo and Hannon teach about Baptism of Desire in Canon 737. <span> </span>See <u>The Sacred Canons</u>, [1952], 1:744-745, cited in the post above. Please, Bobby, don't tell us the "real meaning" of Latin words; we all know how well that worked out for you with <i style="font-weight: bold;">quae ex ipsa rei natura </i><span>in Canon 1 and how Abbo and Hannon completely refute that false meaning you gratuitously assigned to it.</span><span> It's bad enough you</span><i style="font-weight: bold;"> </i><span>call yourself a "Benedictine" so don't falsely claim the title of "Latin scholar." You and your brother have no education higher than high school, yet you "know more" than Doctors of the Church (like St. Alphonsus Liguori) who "didn't understand things" as well as you and Fred. Pathetic.</span></span></div><div><span><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span style="color: red;">You state that "They clearly considered immediately ensoulment to be (at least) a secondary object of infallibility to which people are bound, and they taught that one must abandon the previous position of the doctors." Definitive teachings are called by theologians <b><i><u>definitive tenenda</u></i></b> (Latin for “to be held definitively”). The word you're looking for (and which is nowhere in the text) is <u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">definitive</u>. </span></span></div><div><span><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span style="color: red;">Who's lying now, Bobby? Canon Law was <b><i><u>taking the safer course</u></i></b>, given the status of the common opinion, as I stated in the post. Theologians McCarthy and Carol likewise confirm that immediate and delayed animation are <b><i><u>opinions</u></i></b>, with immediate animation being the common one replacing delayed animation. If canon law settled the matter, the Magisterium under true popes would have censured anything to the contrary.</span></span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Bobby writes: The rest of your article is just bluster and assertions, all refuted by the facts in our video. You also ignored what we proved about the Decretals of Gregory IX, the fact that the Catechism of Trent taught delayed ensoulment, and more. You are pathetic. You are truly John 3:5 mocking heretics, who accept the heresy that souls can be saved in false religions, and you are on the road to Hell.</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Reply:<span style="color: red;"> Bluster? The fact that Abbo and Hannon show that Canon 737 applies to the entire Church--all Rites--and therefore, by Bobby's own standard of "universal," makes BOD a universal disciplinary law, and infallible? We call that in argumentation and logic a <b><i><u>rebutting defeater</u></i></b> for your argument. If you want Steve Speray and I to rip the rest of your assertion apart, just let me know, Bobby. </span></span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div>Bobby writes: It’s easy to see why you remain anonymous. You don’t want to be held accountable for your terrible argumentation and outright lies.</div><div><br /></div><div>Reply:<span style="color: red;"> I'm anonymous because I have a real career, Bobby. I can't endanger my family and friends to retribution from others due to my writing. Steve Speray is co-author and does not remain anonymous. I'm sure he would love for you to "hold him accountable" as he demolishes you.</span></div><div><br /></div><div>Bobby writes: For example, on a separate matter, you repeatedly claimed that we now hold it’s a mortal sin for anyone to attend an una cum Mass. We have not made that statement. But you misrepresent us anyway because that’s what you do. You lie.</div><div><br /></div><div>Reply:<span style="color: red;"> My readers see who the liar is now (and it isn't me or Steve Speray). It is very easy for Bobby to redact material on his website and call "liar." The Dimonds used to attend a Vatican II sect Eastern Rite, but now they don't. They claimed that you could attend SSPV and CMRI Masses ("Masses of heretics" according to them) as long as you don't contribute money. Bobby and Fred no longer say that's tenable. If they redacted their <i>Una Cum</i> stance--fine. However, why don't they attend SSPX if it's OK? </span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">Praying for the conversion of Bobby and Fred Dimond, </span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><b><i><span style="color: red;">---Introibo</span></i></b></div><div><b><i><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></i></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><span><u>Addendum II: A Rejoinder to Bobby Dimond's Response to My First Addendum</u></span></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">To My Readers: Bobby Dimond, the Feeneyite "Benedictine," sent a two-part comment in response to my Addendum yesterday. It has been said that the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. Bobby continues to call names--"liar" and synonymous terms and phrases being his favorite invective. He continues to harp upon Wernz-Vidal as if it means what he thinks it says and is dispositive. Bobby, whose highest level of education is a high school diploma and has no ecclesiastical training or education, sees fit to fancy himself an expert in Latin. His qualifications in that area are no better than his claim of being a "Benedictine." </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">I'm grateful that he has given me the opportunity to, once more, expose him as the heretic he is, and show everyone why Feeneyites have, in the words of Steven Speray, "a sickness of soul."</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">God bless you all, my dear readers---<b><i>Introibo</i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span>Bobby Dimond's comment will be in black font, with my response underneath in <span style="color: red;">red font</span>.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span>Bobby writes: First, I don’t read your blog, except when it comes to our attention that you have lied about us. Not many people read your blog, and no one should. I commented on this article because it came to our attention that you lied about us again. That’s why I’m here, and I won’t be here long. You really don’t deserve further responses, even though I could continue to correct your errors and misrepresentations. Anyone can see the truth in our video. Your constant mockery and attempted ad hominem attacks are just an attempt to veil the weakness of your arguments and divert from your many lies and misrepresentations. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span>Reply: <span style="color: red;">It "comes to your attention" when you read my blog. Excellent! That means there are Feeneyites that read it and alert you, so they are getting the truth. In the end, the truth wins out, and they, by the grace of God, will become Catholics! Two of my readers informed me they were Feeneyites until they started reading my blog. I believe you do read my blog because it's way more interesting then the drivel you write, and I don't repeat the same nonsense <b><i>ad nauseum</i></b>. I have hope for your conversion, Bobby. "Not many people read your blog." I get over 1K readers a day, so it's not much given 7 billion people, but even one soul converted and saved by God through this blog is priceless. My readers are also the BEST. (Quality over quantity). </span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">As to "correcting my errors and misrepresentations," two conditions would have to obtain: (a) I would actually have to make errors and misrepresentations, and (b) you would have to be intelligent enough to understand Catholic theology and use logical thinking to spot any such errors. Since neither condition is satisfied, there's nothing for you to do. Ever. Telling the truth is not "<i><b>ad hominem</b></i>," Bobby. <b><i>It is a fact</i></b> that you have no ecclesiastical training or education, and no secular education beyond high school. Ditto for Fred. Yet, you understand Church teaching on BOD better than the Doctors of the Church and you have an article "exposing" the "heresies" of theologian Van Noort:</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">(vaticancatholic.com/revealing-heresies-msgr-van-noorts-dogmatic-theology-manual). </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">Here is Van Noort's CV:</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span><div><span style="color: red;">"VAN NOORT, GERARD</span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Theologian; b. Hageveld, Holland, May 10, 1861; d. Amsterdam, Sept. 15, 1946. He 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, <u>Tractatus apologetici et dogmatici</u> (Leyden 1898–1908).<b><i><u> 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</u></i></b>. It was brought up to date by J. P. Verhaar, also of the Warmond faculty, and in an English edition (for the first three volumes) by John J. Castelot and William R. Murphy. 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 in 1930 and in 1934 Pius XI appointed him a domestic prelate." (See encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/van-noort-gerard; Emphasis mine). </span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Imagine having his theology manual "use[d] all over the world" under true popes and bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction, and none of them picked up on his errors. He was allowed to teach in the seminary as a Professor of Dogmatic Theology under Pope Leo XIII and Pope St. Pius X. Yet, where these clerical giants failed, Bobby Dimond found heresies! The second coming of Aquinas lives in upstate New York. I never would have guessed.</span></div><div><br /></div><div>Bobby writes: Here, again, is what you stated:</div><div><br /></div><div>“The crux of THEIR ARGUMENT runs thus: The Universal and Ordinary Magisterium (UOM) teaches delayed ensoulment.”</div><div><br /></div><div>This is a lie. Our argument was never that the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium teaches delayed ensoulment. But you deliberately presented it that way to confuse people and make it look like we are inconsistent and wrong. That’s a sin, for which you will be held accountable before God. </div><div><br /></div><div>Reply: <span style="color: red;">Once more, I never said, "This is what the Dimonds believe" but it is<b><i><u> the crux of your ARGUMENT</u></i></b> that IF the UOM taught delayed ensoulment, THEN this would follow. Not belief, argumentation. I commit no sin because you seemingly can't grasp what I wrote.</span> </div><div><br /></div><div>Bobby writes: It’s similar to how you LIED about us when you wrote that we believe: “An Una Cum Mass is one of the most evil sins you can commit”. Again, that’s totally untrue. You made it up. We have never said that attendance at an una cum Mass is a mortal sin for the reason that the Mass is una cum. You also lied about us when you falsely claimed that we consider pleasure in the marital act to be sinful. No, we don’t. You presented us as holding that extreme view because you are a liar and you tried to destroy our reputation. It’s very bad activity. You lie a lot, and you have lied about us many times. If you receive Holy Communion, it’s a sacrilege because you are definitely in mortal sin for those lies alone (in addition to your other problems).</div><div><br /></div><div>Reply: <span style="color: red;">Wow, Bobby! You know the state of my soul. Amazing. How do you know I didn't just make an "innocent mistake" like St. Alphonsus did with regard to BOD? What about theologian Van Noort who taught BOD? Innocent mistake and in Heaven, or lying heretic damned to Hell? What about canonists Abbo and Hannon? Innocent mistake, lying heretics? Do you receive private revelations from God as to the state of a person's soul? Tell you what. I'm a reasonable man. IF you really didn't write those things about <i><b>Una Cum</b></i> and marital pleasure, I retract them and apologize. Am I still in mortal sin? You do tell married couples that they cannot use periodic continence, as taught by the Church, and trouble consciences needlessly. (See vaticancatholic.com/natural-family-planning-nfp). You also deny the Blessed Virgin Mary her title "Co-Redemptrix" calling it "contrary to Catholic teaching" even while popes used the title. (See vaticancatholic.com/natural-family-planning-nfp). You are, undeniably, a Feeneyite heretic. I don't have to lie to make you look evil and heretical. You do a great job just as you are. You told a terrible lie about Mario Derksen of NOW. </span></div><div><br /></div><div>Bobby writes: Second, with regard to the Wernz-Vidal citation: stop pretending. You only know about it because you saw it in our video, and your ‘translation’ is just an attempt to slightly alter ours. However, in the process you made a significant mistake and revealed that you don’t know what you are talking about. I highly doubt that you could correctly translate even a small part of the passage on your own. Your attempted rendering of the passage was this:</div><div><br /></div><div>YOUR ATTEMPTED MODIFICATION OF OUR TRANSLATION: “the effective reason for the provisions [of Canon 747] is found in the common opinion received today and, leaving aside the other opinions of the doctors of antiquity, to be held, that the human fetus is formed from the first moment of conception by a rational soul.”</div><div><br /></div><div>The passage doesn’t actually say “provisions” (plural), as you render it. It uses the genitive singular “praescripti”, agreeing with “cuius” (meaning “of which prescription”). The genitive plural (which is not used) would be “praescriptorum”. That’s why our translation more accurately rendered it as: “prescription”. Second (and more significantly), your erred in trying to modify the end of our translation (simply in an attempt to make it look like you weren’t relying on our translation, when you were). You rendered the passage as saying: “the human fetus is formed”. But the Latin is informatur, which means “is informed”. That’s a significant difference in this context. By obscuring (in your faulty translation) the essential distinction made by the proponents of delayed ensoulment between the moment the fetus is formed and the moment it is informed [by a soul], the counter-position of the proponents of immediate ensoulment is also obscured (in your faulty translation). So, in your attempt to pretend that you were not relying on our translation, you failed and exposed the fact that you don’t understand Latin (while you arrogantly pretend that you do)! You are a phony to the core. It’s remarkable how God allows heretics like you to fall into the pit they have dug for themselves. (I wonder if you will even post this response.)</div><div><br /></div><div>Next, the word ‘tenenda’ is a gerundive meaning ‘to be held’, for which ‘required to be held’ is a perfectly fine English translation. A gerundive expresses obligation. Wernz-Vidal don’t need to use the word ‘definitively’ to express the obligation to adhere to the position. In fact, in the definition of papal infallibility basically the same gerundive is used (tenendam, in the accusative case). There it clearly refers to a matter that must be held definitively.</div><div><br /></div><div>Reply: <span style="color: red;">Yes, I publish anything you send and will rip it apart with joy. I used Google Translate, because I'm not a Latinist, and unlike you, I know when I'm not an expert in a given field. I obtained Wernz-Vidal and had a Latinist (graduate degree in Latin) give the exact translation after your assertion that your translation was correct and mine was wrong. Here it is:</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">"The legally effective guiding principle of that precept is regarded, TODAY IN THE COMMONLY RECEIVED OPINION AND IN THE OTHER INHERITED OPINIONS OF THE OLD DOCTORS, as one that must be held, because the human fetus is informed with a rational soul from the first moment of conception." </span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Got that, Bobby? Let me spell it out for you:</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="color: red;">Immediate ensoulment is a <b><i><u>commonly received opinion</u></i></b></span></li><li><span style="color: red;"><u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">It was also in the other opinions of Doctors prior.</u> Hence, it was never taught by the UOM as infallible</span></li><li><span style="color: red;">"Must be held" because it is the safer course due to the common opinion, not "definitive tenenda." The definition of papal infallibility need not use "definitive" since it was (obviously) <i><b>ex cathedra</b></i></span></li></ul><div>Bobby writes: Also, we showed the Latin in the video. Thus, when you write that we are “probably relying on the hope that no one has access to Wernz-Vidal”, you are once again displaying your extremely childish dishonesty and bluster. According to your nonsense, we don’t want people to know it was written in Latin when WE ARE THE ONES who presented the original Latin to thousands of people (including you, who doesn’t understand Latin). Anyone of good will can see through your utter phoniness and insincerity. And your attempt to modify our translation even slightly resulted in failure.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>Reply: <span style="color: red;">Uh, showing the pages in a video that can't be copied and examined is not really "presenting the Latin," now is it? My translation, just given, comes from a Latinist with an advanced graduate degree. I dare another Latinist with a degree to prove that translation faulty.</span></div><div><br /></div><div>Bobby writes: Moreover, you are missing the point (perhaps deliberately). Wernz-Vidal explicitly state that belief in immediate ensoulment is THE REASON BEHIND canon 747. That’s beyond dispute.</div><div><br /></div><div>Wernz-Vidal: “The effective reason for this prescription [canon 747] is found in the position commonly accepted today and – leaving aside the different opinions of the doctors of old – required to be held [tenenda], that the human fetus is informed by a rational soul from the first moment of its conception.”</div><div><br /></div><div>Thus, the Code’s law (in canon 747) is BASED ON A BELIEF IN IMMEDIATE ENSOULMENT. Got it? That fact refutes your whole article. Indeed, when you argue that one is free to reject immediate ensoulment, you are arguing that one doesn’t need to take the position of the Code. Do you realize that you have thereby refuted yourself and proven our point? </div><div><br /></div><div>Reply: <span style="color: red;">That the safer course is taken because of advances in science and medicine made immediate animation THE COMMON OPINION, CONCEDED. That immediate animation is thereby taught by the Code such that it is infallible<b><i> or even settled;</i></b> DENIED. </span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Proof:</span></div><div><span style="color: red;">From the 1918 <i>Irish Ecclesiastical Review</i>, December issue, theologian O'Donnell writes:</span></div><div><span style="color: red;">"There are some, of course, who still claim that the ancient hypothesis [delayed ensoulment] is correct. They think everything is best explained on the supposition that, at the beginning of life, the vegetative soul comes first, then the sentient, and finally the rational; and that at the end of life, they depart in the inverse order. With the merits of the discussion, the practical moralist has little concern. He is satisfied in knowing that the doubts in favor of the theory [delayed ensoulment] are so slight that they have been completely disregarded in the Canon already quoted (747). And if pressed further, he will reply that if, notwithstanding these doubts, he is sometimes obliged to confer Extreme Unction after the human soul would 'appear' to have departed, so, again notwithstanding these doubts, he is obliged to confer baptism before 'common sense' would declare that the human soul has come into existence. <b><i><u>In other words, he accepts a high degree of probability as a sufficient standard, and acts accordingly</u></i></b>." (pg. 498; Emphasis mine). </span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">What part of "high degree of probability" don't you get? The Code takes the safer course without settling anything. Remember that this citation was written the very year the Code took effect, by a theologian examining the meaning of those Canons. Theologians McCarthy and Carol likewise confirm that immediate and delayed animation are opinions, with immediate animation being the common one replacing delayed animation. If canon law settled the matter, the Magisterium under true popes would have censured anything to the contrary.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">There is nothing I wrote that is self-defeating.</span></div><div><br /></div><div>Bobby writes: By making that argument, you admit that the Code could be wrong in a canon. It also means that the Code advanced a position on immediate ensoulment which is contrary to the Catechism of Trent, St. Alphonsus, the Roman Ritual, etc. This proves our point about the limits of infallibility. Also, it is people like you who accuse the Church’s universal and traditional law (e.g. on not giving Church burial to the unbaptized) of being in error, as our video proves. You also accuse the Church’s universal professions of faith (and its dogmatic teaching on John 3:5) of being heretical. There’s really nothing else to say to you. You are a liar and a fool who, as I’ve just shown, doesn’t know what he’s talking about.</div><div><br /></div><div>Reply:<span style="color: red;"> I have shown the true meaning of the Canon, and it isn't wrong. I'm more than amused when you state that "Catechisms can contain error," and "theologians like St. Alphonsus can be wrong," when they teach BOD, yet you do not hesitate to cite them when it suits your purpose. YOU--Bobby and Fred Dimond--will tell people when something is true or not. YOU are the pseudo-Magisterium of Feeneyism. </span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">I think I've amply demonstrated who is lying, incompetent, and a fool (and it's not me):</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="color: red;">Your translation of <i style="font-weight: bold;">quae ex ipsa rei natura </i><span>in Canon 1 REFUTED by Canonists Abbo and Hannon</span></span></li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span><span style="color: red;">Your translation and interpretation of Canon 747 REFUTED by a Latinist and by theologians O'Donnell, McCarthy, and Carol</span></span></li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span><span style="color: red;">Your opinion on when Canon Law applies to all Rites is DEMONSTRATED TO APPLY TO CANON 737 by Abbo and Hannon, which makes it a UNIVERSAL AND INFALLIBLE DISCIPLINARY LAW USING YOUR OWN [INVENTED] STANDARD. <b><i><u>It is you who have refuted yourself</u></i></b></span></span></li></ul><div><span style="color: red;">Bobby, please feel free to keep reading (I'm sure you do!) and ask your followers to do the same. I'll be happy to continue to show your "reason-challenged" arguments to be fallacious and contrary to Church teaching. In the battle of wits, you come unarmed. Hopefully, by my prayers and those of my faithful readers, you will convert to the One True Church and abandon Feeneyism before you die. If (God forbid!) you die as an obdurate heretic you will remain <b><i><u>extra ecclesiam</u></i></b> where we know there is <u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">nulla salus</u>. </span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Praying for you always, Bobby (and Fred), </span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">---<b><i>Introibo</i></b></span></div></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Addendum III: Bobby Dimond the "Latinist" and "Theologian" Returns for More</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">To My Readers: Bobby Dimond just won't stop. He's out to try and save face. He does not answer my arguments concerning Canon 1, or the teachings of the theologians. Now, he claims superiority in Latin, and hangs everything on a single passage of Wernz-Vidal, even though it is not dispositive. I hope all reading can see how incredibly theologically bankrupt is the teaching of Bobby Dimond--and all Feeneyites. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;">Bobby Dimond's comment will be in black font, with my response underneath in <span style="color: red;">red font.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>Bobby writes: Wow, I think it’s providential that you have continued to attempt to respond to me, for with each new response you just further expose your ignorance and errors (and that you are, in fact, a buffoon). </div><div><br /></div><div>Reply: <span style="color: red;">It sure is Divine Providence! You keep reading and coming back for more. That’s an excellent opportunity for me to further show your heresy and bring people (by the Grace of God) into the One True Church. You know you look bad, so you keep coming back hoping to repair the damage, yet it just keeps getting worse for you. Maybe slink away and do another “crushing video” as inept as the instant case.</span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">Calling me a “buffoon.” Excellent, Bobby. It’s a step up from your usual “Liar, liar, pants on fire!” Now that you’re trying to get educated, perhaps you’d like to try an insult of a higher level to improve your vocabulary. Next time I write something you don’t like, try telling me, “Oh, yeah? Your mother wears army boots!” (Just trying to help you out, Bobby). </span></div><div><br /></div><div>Bobby writes: You initially pretended like you understood the Latin of Wernz-Vidal (which was not true), but after I corrected your erroneous attempt to translate part of the passage, you admitted that you used ‘Google translate’.</div><div><br /></div><div>Reply:<span style="color: red;"> Nope. I never stated that I understood Latin as an expert. Please cite me where I wrote such. You ASSUME that. You make a lot of false assumptions, Bobby. I did take two years of Latin as an undergrad and some lessons with my spiritual fater, Fr. Gommar DePauw, JCD. He held a Master’s in Latin besides his Doctorate in Canon Law. I would never consider myself “an expert” or “Latinist” on that basis. It would be laughable, and I have no ego to appease. I know the areas of knowledge in which I do have expertise and those in which I do not. </span></div><div><br /></div><div>Bobby writes: Unlike you, I read Latin on a regular basis. I have also received some high-level instruction in Latin, and I have been consulting with an expert in Latin (who attended the University of Cambridge) for over ten years.</div><div><br /></div><div>Reply: <span style="color: red;">You “read Latin on a regular basis”! Bravo, Bobby. I go fishing, but that doesn’t make me Jacque Cousteau. You received “high-level instruction.” That must be some high school you attended. Harvard High? Your expert in Latin “attended” (not graduated) Cambridge for over ten years. Most people graduate in 4. Says a lot about both the consultant and the one getting the consultation. </span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">There’s a big difference between reading and comprehending. Remember the Latin quae ex ipsa rei natura, Bobby? Let me refresh your memory. You claim Canon 1 of the Code of Canon Law makes it clear that it is not "universal" since it does not bind the Eastern (Oriental) Rites. Canon 1 states:</span></div><div><span style="color: red;">"Although in the Code of canon law the discipline of the Oriental Church is frequently referenced, nevertheless, this [Code] applies only to the Latin Church and does not bind the Oriental, unless it treats of things that, BY THEIR NATURE, apply to the Oriental." (Emphasis mine). Even you admit that a Universal disciplinary law—if it applies to all Catholics in all Rites, is infallible.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;"> At 28 minutes into the video, they claim that the exception for "by their nature" does not apply to Baptism of Desire, because those words in Latin <b><i><u>quae ex ipsa rei natura</u></i></b>, "from the nature itself--the thing" means that only dogmatic decrees repeated by the Code from e.g., the Vatican Council of 1870, would the apply to the Oriental Church, and only then be universal. Wrong!</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">According to canonists Abbo and Hannon commenting on Canon 1:</span></div><div><span style="color: red;">(b) by way of exception, the Orientals are bound by the laws of the Code:</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">"1. ex ipsa rei natura, when the laws involve matters of Faith (7) or refer to or interpret the Divine or the Natural law (8)"</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Footnote #7 gives examples of Canons which involve matters of Faith and bind the Oriental Rites as well as the Latin Rite: "7. E.g., can. 107, 218, 737, 831". (See <u>The Sacred Canons</u>, [1952], 1:5)</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">What does Canon 737, specifically enumerated by Abbo and Hannon, teach? </span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Canon 737 states, Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, <b><i><u>actually or at least in desire</u></i></b>, is necessary for all for salvation...(Emphasis mine).</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">The canonists teach that: As Canon 737 notes, <b><i><u>men can be saved by the desire of baptism</u></i></b>, if it involves a perfect conversion to God through perfect contrition and a love of God above all things. <b><i><u>This is a matter of Faith.</u></i></b> (Ibid, pgs. 744-745; Emphasis mine). Therefore, Canon 737, teaches BOD is binding on all Rites, because it is <b><i>a matter of Faith.</i></b> </span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Your translation of <b><i><u> quae ex ipsa rei natura</u></i></b> in Canon 1 REFUTED by Canonists Abbo and Hannon, whose work is <b><i><u>written in English</u></i></b>. The fact that Abbo and Hannon show that Canon 737 applies to the entire Church--all Rites--and therefore,<b><i><u> by Bobby's own standard of "universal," makes BOD a universal disciplinary law, and infallible.</u></i></b> We call that in argumentation and logic<b><i><u> a rebutting defeater</u></i></b> for your argument.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Now, YOU are going to teach ME the “real meaning” of Latin, when you’ve amply demonstrated how inept you are and don’t have a good grasp on English, your native tongue? Then again, you know enough to pick out the “heresies” of theologian Van Noort, and the “innocent mistakes” of St. Alphonsus Liguori. That’s some incredible high school you attended, Bobby. Tell me, why didn’t your Cambridge consultant get that phrase in Canon 1 correct? Why didn’t you? </span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">You refute yourself—game, set, match! Feeneyites lose! Therefore, the discussion on Wernz-Vidal is moot, yet I shall press on, lest Bobby claims “I proved you wrong with my “correct” Latin translation and you couldn’t answer.” Yawn. </span></div><div><br /></div><div>Bobby writes: Here’s the Latin text:</div><div><br /></div><div>LATIN: Cuius praescripti efficax ratio habetur in sententia hodie communiter recepta et, relictis aliis doctorum antiquorum opinionibus, tenenda, quod foetus humanus a primo conceptionis momento anima rationali informatur.</div><div><br /></div><div>Here’s a proper translation (as posted in our video):</div><div><br /></div><div>PROPER TRANSLATION: The effective reason for this prescription is found in the position commonly accepted today and – leaving aside [relictis] the different opinions of the doctors of old – required to be held [tenenda], that the human fetus is informed by a rational soul from the first moment of its conception.</div><div><br /></div><div>Reply:<span style="color: red;"> I have sent your comment to my Latinist. I will publish what he says, as a postscript here in Addendum III. However, by using YOUR translation—it changes NOTHING. </span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">“The effective reason for this prescription is found in the position COMMONLY ACCEPTED today and – leaving aside [relictis] the different opinions of the doctors of old – required to be held [tenenda], that the human fetus is informed by a rational soul from the first moment of its conception”</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Immediate ensoulment is “COMMONLY” (not definitively) accepted. TENENDA—it does not say definitive tenenda. Definitive teachings are called by theologians definitive tenenda (Latin for “to be held definitively”). The word you're looking for (and which is nowhere in the text) is definitive. </span></div><div><br /></div><div>Bobby writes: YOUR ‘EXPERT’S’ FAULTY TRANSLATION:</div><div><br /></div><div>The legally effective guiding principle of that precept is regarded, TODAY IN THE COMMONLY RECEIVED OPINION AND IN THE OTHER INHERITED OPINIONS OF THE OLD DOCTORS, as one that must be held, BECAUSE the human fetus is informed with a rational soul from the first moment of conception.</div><div><br /></div><div>• First, your consultant mistranslates ‘relictis’ as ‘inherited’. ‘Relicitis’ here is a perfect passive participle of relinquo, which means ‘leave aside’ or ‘abandon’. It’s part of an ablative absolute clause (relictis aliis doctorum antiquorum opinionibus), meaning: “with the other opinions of the ancient doctors having been left aside or abandoned”. It is not a further prepositional phrase governed by 'in', for had that been the case the 'in' would need to be repeated. Wernz-Vidal use ‘aliis’ to contrast the ‘other’ or ‘different’ opinions of the ancients (i.e. delayed ensoulment) with the position commonly accepted today (immediate ensoulment). Wernz-Vidal are obviously saying that the opinions of the ancient doctors on delayed ensoulment are no longer held (abandoned, left aside). To say that they are being ‘inherited’ (as per your consultant’s mistranslation) is clearly wrong and makes no sense; for delayed ensoulment, not immediate ensoulment, was the dominant position among the ancients. Your consultant fails to understand the obvious and essential distinction being made by Wernz-Vidal between what was believed in the past (delayed ensoulment) and what is believed today (immediate ensoulment).</div><div><br /></div><div>Second, he mistranslates quod as ‘because’ rather than ‘that’, failing to understand that in ecclesiastical Latin this conjunction is frequently employed in a non-classical manner to introduce an indirect statement (as is the case here, where it expands appositionally on the nature of the aforementioned sententia).</div><div><br /></div><div>• Third, what HE WRITES is essentially this: “This opinion (held today as well as in the past) must be maintained because it is actually not an opinion but a fact!” What kind of person would argue his case in that illogical manner?! That’s obviously not what Wernz-Vidal said.</div><div><br /></div><div>Reply:<span style="color: red;"> Bobby, I’m going to teach you a new word today. The word is “ultracrepidarian.” That means “ a person who expresses opinions on matters outside the scope of their knowledge or expertise.” You are an arrogant, pseudo-educated dolt who has no ecclesiastical education or training and no secular education above high school. YET, (a) you can correct the “innocent mistakes” of St. Alphonsus Liguori, which no pope, bishop, or theologian was able to detect. You find the “heresies” in the writings of one of the greatest theologians of the 20th century, Monsignor Van Noort. Now, you allegedly read some Latin and have a consultant which allows you to show the “real meaning” of Canon Law. Tell that to canonists Abbo and Hannon. </span></div><div><br /></div><div>Bobby writes: So, you’ve totally embarrassed yourself by presenting this and arrogantly committing yourself to this. I also decided to share your consultant’s “translation” with the aforementioned Latin expert (who studied Latin at Cambridge). He called the translation that you have presented and endorsed (from your consultant) “laughable”. He fully agreed with me that you and your consultant are wrong. You trusted the wrong person. It’s emblematic of how your faulty understanding of the Magisterium is based on trust in man and not in God. Jeremiah 17:5- “Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength.”</div><div><br /></div><div>Reply: <span style="color: red;">Um, I’ve embarrassed myself? I’m arrogant? Did you forget how you were confuted definitively by Abbo and Hannon concerning Canon 1? By the way, Bobby, aren’t you trusting your consultant as correct and mine wrong? Isn’t he a man also? That would make Jeremiah 17:5 apply equally to YOU. Perhaps you should go back to that incredible high school and take basic logic. Can you say, “self-refuting”? I knew you could (apologies to Mr. Roger’s Neighborhood).</span></div><div><br /></div><div>Bobby writes: Barring a conversion, your trust in man (rather than in God) will result in your eternal demise. You even “dared” people to prove the translation faulty. I just did, and any honest and competent expert in Latin will confirm that I’m correct.</div><div><br /></div><div>Reply: <span style="color: red;">(a) Even **IF** your translation were correct, I demonstrated it does you no good. Theologians O'Donnell, McCarthy, and Carol show this to be the case in regards to the Canon. (b) I’m hoping my Latinist will reply, and if wrong, nothing changes, as it is not dispositive as I’ve stated and SHOWN WHY. I look forward to a “Latinist battle” if he stands firm and explains himself.</span></div><div><br /></div><div>Bobby writes: Perhaps even the individual you consulted will acknowledge that ‘relictis’ here doesn’t mean ‘inherited’, and that there’s an obvious distinction being made between the former position (delayed ensoulment) and the current position (immediate ensoulment). I’m not saying that he doesn’t know any Latin, but he’s clearly wrong here. We have saved all of this.</div><div><br /></div><div>Reply:<span style="color: red;"> You saved it. Yea! Did you save Abbo and Hannon with your confuted translation of Canon 1? </span></div><div><br /></div><div>Bobby writes: It’s noteworthy that the garbage you publish (such as what I just refuted) is what Mario of ‘NOW’ links to. He links to nonsense and lies. I wonder if you give him money, and if perhaps that’s the only or main reason he sometimes links to your trash and lies? If so, that would be additionally revealing about his character. I hope you keep your promise to post all of my responses. You also owe it to your few readers to correct your blatant misrepresentation of the text.</div><div><br /></div><div>Reply: <span style="color: red;">Translation (no expert needed): “Introibo, your mother wears army boots!” What was it you said about how bad it is for someone to use ad hominem? Finally, I retract nothing unless and until I hear back from my Latinist. Will you take back your faulty translation of “quae ex ipsa rei natura” or does the duty of retracting errors not apply to you? </span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Bobby, you know I have more than just a few readers, and that you’ve lost some Feeneyite followers due to God working through my blog; that’s why you keep coming back trying to save face. That’s Ok. A bruised ego is a hurtful thing, and you need to feel better. I keep praying for you and your brother Fred to convert. </span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Please feel free to come back and read some more (hopefully with comprehension). Hope springs eternal.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">May Christ and His Blessed Mother lead Fred and you into all truth.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><b><i>---Introibo</i></b> </span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span><b><u>Final Addendum: Bobby Just Can't Quit Reading This Awesome Blog</u></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">To My Readers: Bobby comes back for the fourth (and what he claims to be the "final" time). In keeping with my promise, I will publish what he wrote in the comments here. It will also be the subject of Monday's post "Contending For The Faith"---Countering the Sophistry of the Dimonds." I will print it there as well. I will publish Bobby's "final" comments, along with my post, simultaneously, on Monday.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">Unlike Bobby and Fred Dimond, I have a real career as an attorney and I'm falling behind in my work. This is a heads-up to all that I will gladly keep my promise to always publish what they send to me, and prevent Bobby from saying, "That lying, evil, heretical, John 3:5 mocking, arrogant, two-faced, good-for-nothing, buffoon, <b><i>Introibo</i></b> (whose mother wears army boots) can't answer my crushing, super-intelligent, amazing, purely Catholic and irrefutable final comments! I win! I decimated him!" </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">You good people who read here know what I mean. Therefore, <b><i>let it be known publicly that I will publish Bobby Dimond's comments in Monday's post along with my response to him. I will also publish them on this post as well on Monday. Promise kept! </i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">Monday's post will be a very good one (for my readers, but not for Bobby). So, stay tuned folks, and get ready for an extra good read on Monday.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">God bless you all, my dear readers---<b><i>Introibo</i></b></span></div></div></span></div></div></div>Introibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.com123tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-851276544566396832024-02-19T00:11:00.000-08:002024-02-19T00:30:11.508-08:00A Sedevacantist Primer<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjU2_tO7e6IJrCMBbs9wGgc9pdgfM39gBcWh6wIJUcv-MwZFDfPp21Dm3RTPYVN5nCV5SkLqG9ztfC1cnhqUoGB-8tts-hvUSCDSSBOYcwcwK0cvqgTfCnnyRVJD5CKLnx59iXcEn8nPAbuQPHyHwDX1EsxO9rQxkQ38uwk2h7qmyVzg2Zmml502Byr868/s916/sedevantism%201958.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="916" data-original-width="578" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjU2_tO7e6IJrCMBbs9wGgc9pdgfM39gBcWh6wIJUcv-MwZFDfPp21Dm3RTPYVN5nCV5SkLqG9ztfC1cnhqUoGB-8tts-hvUSCDSSBOYcwcwK0cvqgTfCnnyRVJD5CKLnx59iXcEn8nPAbuQPHyHwDX1EsxO9rQxkQ38uwk2h7qmyVzg2Zmml502Byr868/s320/sedevantism%201958.png" width="202" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Since the December 18, 2023 publication of <b style="font-style: italic;"> Fiducia Supplicans, </b>the "Recognize and Resistors" (R&R) as well as Vatican II sect apologists, have been doing incredible feats of mental gymnastics to avoid the inescapable conclusion of sedevacantism. <i>Fiducia Supplicans (FS) </i>allows Vatican II sect "priests" to "bless" couples who are not married according to Church teaching; fornicators, adulterers, and sodomites. The arguments employed by the R&R, and Vatican II sect apologists, show a either (a) culpable ignorance or (b) willful deception regarding authentic Church teaching on the papacy. The claptrap I've read on the Internet and "X" convinced me that Traditionalists need to get back to the theological basics regarding the office of the papacy and topics related to the vacancy of the erstwhile Holy See. The former NYC teacher in me was reminded of a truism: If you get the basics of any discipline wrong, you can't expect to get anything else correct about it. If a student can't understand addition and subtraction, don't expect him to learn multiplication and division. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">May this post be a resource to those who want a "refresher" in sedevacantism, and to help refute those who defend the (non) papacy of the Argentinian apostate, Jorge Bergoglio. You may want to show this to well-meaning members of the sect or the SSPX who need accurate information on the sedevacantist position. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><u>First Principle: A Heretic Cannot Remain In (or Attain) The Papacy</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The Church has always taught that the pope, as a private theologian, can profess heresy and fall from office immediately by Divine Law:</div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Proof: </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b>Doctor of the Church St Alphonsus Liguori:</b> "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate."<u>Oeuvres Completes</u> 9:232.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b>Theologian Iragui:</b> "...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."</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">(See <u>Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae</u>. Madrid: Ediciones Studium [1959], pg. 371). </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b>Canonist Badii:</b> "A publicly heretical pope would no longer be a member of the Church; for this reason, he could no longer be its head."( See <u>Institutiones Iuris Canonici</u>. Florence: Fiorentina [1921], pgs. 160, 165). </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b>Theologian Prummer:</b> "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 <u>Ius Canonicum</u>. Rome: Gregorian [1943], 2:453). </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b>1917 Code of Canon Law: Canon 188, section 4: "</b>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.” </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">N.B. Theologian McDevitt writes:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">"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<u> The Renunciation of an Ecclesiastical Office</u>, [1946], pg. 139).</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">The great canonist Ayrinhac taught in his <u>General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law,</u>:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><i>Loss of Ecclesiastical Offices. Canons 185-191</i> “...applies to all offices, the lowest and the highest, not excepting the Supreme Pontificate.” (p. 346). </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>Heretics cannot attain the papacy</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Canon 188 simply restates that a heretic is barred by<b><i><u> Divine Law</u></i></b> 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.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">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.<b><i><u> Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded.</u></i></b>" (<u>Institutiones</u> 1:312; Emphasis mine)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">According to Wernz-Vidal: "Those capable of being validly elected are <b><i><u>all who are not prohibited by divine law </u></i></b>or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law… <b><i><u>Those who are barred as incapable of being validly elected</u></i></b> are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, <b><i><u>heretics, schismatics</u></i></b>…" (<u>Jus Canonicum</u> 1:415; Emphasis mine).</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Bergoglio was a heretic much prior to his alleged "election" in 2013. According to the Anti-Deformation League: "Cardinal Bergoglio maintained a close relationship with the Jewish community in Argentina. <b><i><u>He has celebrated various Jewish holidays with the Argentinian Jewish community, including Chanukah where he lit a candle on the menorah</u></i></b>, attended a Buenos Aires synagogue for Slichot, a pre-Rosh Hashana service, the Jewish New Year, as well as a commemoration of Kristallnacht, the wave of violent Nazi attacks against Jews before World War II." (See https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-congratulates-new-pope-francis; Emphasis mine).</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">"Cardinal" Bergoglio also participated in an ecumenical service wherein a Protestant minister "laid hands on him" as a religious action: "...then-Cardinal Bergoglio—metropolitan archbishop of Buenos Aires, primate of the Catholic Church in Argentina, and president of the Argentinian Bishops’ Conference—is kneeling, head bowed, between Father Raniero Cantalamessa and Catholic Charismatic leader Matteo Calisi,<b><i><u> with Evangelical Pastor Carlos Mraida extending his hand toward the cardinal’s head, as the people invoke the Holy Spirit over him.</u></i></b>" (See http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2014/09/05/francis-ecumenism-and-the-common-witness-to-christ/; Emphasis mine).</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Participating in false religious worship, according to the approved canonists and theologians, is a manifestation of heresy and/or apostasy. According to theologian Merkelbach, external heresy consists not only in what someone says, but also dictis vel factis, that is "signs, deeds, and the omission of deeds." (See theologian Merkelbach, <u>Summa Theologiae Moralis</u>, 1:746.)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Therefore, Traditionalists don't reject Bergoglio because he lost his office, but because he never could have obtained it in the first place! The Church does indeed teach loss of papal office through profession of heresy, but we need not even go down that path. Bergoglio was a heretic barred by Divine Law from ever becoming pope. Moreover, this is not a case of "Bergoglio acting badly," but one of a manifest heretic incapable of obtaining the office.</div></div></div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I would be remiss if I didn't also mention the decree of Pope Paul IV, <i><b>Cum ex Apostolatus Officio</b></i> of 1559. The pontiff decreed that if ever it should ever appear that someone who was elected Roman Pontiff had beforehand "deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into any heresy," his election, even with the agreement and unanimous consent of all the cardinals would be "null, legally invalid and void."</div><br /><p></p><div style="text-align: center;"><u><b>Second Principle: Notorious and Contumacious Heresy Defined</b></u></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>Heresy is defined as "A teaching which is directly contradictory to a truth revealed by God and proposed to the faithful as such by the Church." (See theologian Parente, <u>Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology</u>, Bruce Publishing Company, [1951], pg. 123). </div><div><br /></div><div>All humanity outside the Church can be divided into five (5) broad categories in relation to the Church:</div><div><br /></div><div><b>1. Infidels.</b> These are humans who have never been baptized. The very name "infidel" comes from the Latin "not of the Faith." To not be of the faith means never to have been validly baptized. Under this heading belong the heathens, Jews, Mohammedans, those who profess to be Christian but don't have valid baptism, and unbaptized atheists, agnostics, and deists. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>2. Schismatics.</b> Schismatics preserve their faith in revealed Truth, but refuse obedience to the pope, or reject communion with the Catholic faithful. In the strict sense, schismatics don't sin against the faith, but against obedience and charity. They are subdivided into (a) pure schism and (b) mixed schism. Pure schism is very rare today. Mixed schism applies to the Eastern sects and the so-called Old Catholic sect, because they deny one or more truths of divine and Catholic faith (e.g., the divine origin and primacy of the papacy, the Immaculate Conception, etc.) Practically speaking they are heretics today, precisely because of their denial of one or more truths of faith.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>3. Apostates.</b> These are those, whom having had valid Baptism in the True Church, completely abandon the faith to become Jews , Mohammedans, or abandon faith for atheism/agnosticism. They reject ALL of the Church, not just obedience due to Her (pure schism), or one (some) dogmas (heretics). </div><div><br /></div><div><b>4. Formal Heretics</b>. These are former Catholics who have denied one or more truths of divine and Catholic faith. A truth is "divine" when it is contained in the deposit of Revelation ending with the death of the last Apostle (St. John) in the year 100 AD. It is "Catholic" when proposed for belief to the faithful by the Magisterium (either extraordinarily through definition ex cathedra by a pope or Ecumenical Council approved by the pope; or from the teaching of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium as explained by the First Vatican Council in 1870). </div><div><br /></div><div><b>5. Material Heretics.</b> These are validly baptized people who were brought up in a non-Catholic sect (prior to the age of reason they were Catholic, but are not considered formal heretics since they never made the conscious choice to deny a dogma when they started being raised in the non-Catholic sect), or converted directly as an adult to a non-Catholic sect from e.g., Judaism, etc. Material heretics must be in good faith to be truly classified as such, but they are outside the Church, nevertheless. </div><div><br /></div><div>All of the above classes of people are outside the Church. Technically, there are material and formal pure schismatics too. Heresy is both a sin and a "delict" (<b><i><u>crime</u></i></b> in Canon Law). Since the pope is above Canon Law, the <b><i><u>crime</u></i></b> of heresy does not apply. However, it is the<b><i><u> sin</u></i></b> of heresy that causes the loss of office by divine law. Heresy is a <b><i><u>sin </u></i></b>that places one outside the Church. You deny both the divine origin of a revealed truth and the infallibility of the Magisterium that proposed it. (All the above, except where noted, was condensed from theologian MacKenzie, <u>The Delict of Heresy in its Commission, Penalization, Absolution</u>, CUA Press, [1932], pgs. 15-18).</div><div><br /></div><div>Theologian Berry nicely summarizes, "Manifest heretics and schismatics are excluded from membership in the Church. Heretics separate themselves from the unity of faith and worship; schismatics from the unity of government, and both reject the authority of the Church. <b><i><u>So far as exclusion from the Church is concerned, it matters not whether the heresy or schism be formal or material</u></i></b>. Those born and reared in heresy or schism may be sincere in their belief and practice yet they publicly and willingly reject the Church and attach themselves to sects opposed to her. They are not guilty of sin in the matter, but <b><i><u>they are not members of the Church</u></i></b>. For this reason, the Church makes no distinction between formal and material heresy when receiving converts into her fold." (See Rev. E. Sylvester Berry, <u>The Church of Christ </u>[St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1927], p. 226; Emphasis added). </div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Heresy and Loss of Papal Office</u></b></div><div><div>The great saint, theologian, and Doctor of the Church Robert Bellarmine teaches, "A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be pope and head of the Church, just as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church <span style="color: red;">[precisely because he is no longer the pope!---<i><b>Introibo</b></i>]</span> All the early Fathers are unanimous in teaching that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction. St. Cyprian, in particular, laid great stress on this point." (See <u>De Romano Pontifice,</u> II:30)</div><div><br /></div><div> 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 <i>as above</i>).</div><div><br /></div><div>How is heresy made manifest? According to theologian MacKenzie, "Words are the ordinary, but not the only means of communication. Complete externalization of thought may exist in signs, acts, or omissions." (<u>Delict</u>, pg.35) Let's break it down:</div><div><br /></div><div><div><b>(a) Words.</b> A dogma may be denied by a contradictory or contrary statement. For example, it is a dogma that "The Roman Catholic Church is the One True Church, outside of which there is no salvation." The contradictory statement negates it--"The Roman Catholic Church is NOT the One True Church, outside of which there is no salvation." A contrary statement is not a direct negation, but it goes against the dogma. Hence, Vatican II was heretical when it stated in <b><i>Unitatis Redintegratio,</i></b> para.#3 that Christ uses non-Catholic sects as a "means of salvation." It is heretical because if you can obtain salvation by being a Lutheran, then there is salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>(b) Acts.</b> Think of "Saint" John Paul II kissing the Koran which denies the Trinity and Divinity of Christ. Remember above, Bergoglio ("Pope" Francis), celebrating Chanukah with the Jews in 2012 when still a "cardinal." (Query: Since JPII is a "saint," is that Koran he kissed a second class relic to be venerated by the faithful?). </div><div><br /></div><div><b>(c) Omissions.</b> Think of Bergoglio hiding his crucifix from the Jews and failing to try and convert them.</div><div><br /></div><div>Heretics are incapable of keeping or attaining to papal office. In the case of one validly elected pope, should he fall into heresy as a private theologian, he falls from office. In the case of a manifest heretic prior to "election," he fails to attain the office. According to canonist Baldii: "Barred as incapable of being validly elected [pope] are the following: women, children who have not reached the age of reason, those suffering from habitual insanity, the unbaptized, <b><i><u>heretics and schismatics</u></i></b>..." (See <u>Institutiones Iuris Canonici</u> [1921]; Emphasis mine).</div><div><br /></div><div>What if the pope doesn't realize what he's saying is heresy, or if people take it the wrong way? Does that exempt him from loss of office? The answer is a resounding <b><u>NO.</u></b></div><div><b><u><br /></u></b></div><div>The Divine Law demands that the pope must, in the external forum (publicly), demonstrate that he knows and believes in the truths of the Catholic Faith. It is not required that he must have internal knowledge or intention to be heretical. If he denies even one dogma, he must be considered non-Catholic and a non-member of the Church, who can no longer be the head of the Church to which he does not belong. Again, according to MacKenzie, "The very commission of any act which signifies heresy...gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity..<b><i><u>.Excusing circumstances have to be proven in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action gave rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist.</u></i></b>" (See Delict, pg. 35--Emphasis mine). </div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Who are you to judge the pope a heretic?</u></b></div><div>A famous R&R "boogeyman": Sedevacantism "judges" the pope. As a procedural matter the R&R is correct, "The First See is judged by no one" as Canon 1556 of the 1917 Code clearly states. As explained by canonist Cappello, "Immunity of the Roman Pontiff. 'The First See is judged by no one.' (Canon 1556). This concerns the Apostolic See or the Roman Pontiff who by the divine law itself enjoys full and absolute immunity." (See <u>Summa Juris Canonici</u> 3:19.) However, a pope who becomes a manifest heretic loses his office by DIVINE LAW, and an apostate, like Bergoglio, cannot attain the office. This is the teaching of all pre-Vatican II canonists and theologians. (To name but a few, Van Noort, Coronata, Dorsch, Iragui, Prümmer, Regatillo, Salaverri, and Zubizarreta). Sedevacantists depose no one, we just recognize a fact that has already happened.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>It's not really heresy.</u></b></div><div>Another objection frequently advanced is that no matter what the alleged "pope" does, it's <b><i><u>not really</u></i></b> heresy. For example, JP II kissed the Koran, and Bergoglio was praying with Jews to show respect and try and convert them. Ah, no. Vatican II to which Montini (Paul VI) to Bergoglio (Francis) adhere, is full of heresy. What does Vatican II really teach about false non-Christian religions? In <i style="font-weight: bold;">Nostra Aetate, </i>para. #2, we read:</div><div><div><span style="color: red;">Thus, in Hinduism men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an unspent fruitfulness of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek release from the anguish of our condition through ascetical practices or deep meditation or a loving, trusting flight toward God. Buddhism in its multiple forms acknowledges the radical insufficiency of this shifting world. It teaches a path by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, can either reach a state of absolute freedom or attain supreme enlightenment by their own efforts or by higher assistance.</span></div></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div>Both of these false, pagan religions are based on the HERESY of pantheism, i.e., the false doctrine that the universe and God are one and the same substance. This contradicts the INFALLIBLE teaching of the Vatican Council of 1870:</div><div><span style="color: red;">CANON 3. If anyone says that God and all things possess one and the same substance and essence: let him be anathema.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div>There is no "loving, trusting flight towards" the True God which is denied by pantheism. </div></div></div><div><br /></div><div>However, the root of all the Modernist heresy in Vatican II--from which all the others derive, directly or indirectly--is the false ecclesiology. <i style="font-weight: bold;">Lumen Gentium </i>para. #8:</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">This is the <b><i><u>one Church of Christ </u></i></b>which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Savior, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth" This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, <b><i><u>subsists in the Catholic Church</u></i></b>, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although <b><i><u>many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. </u></i></b>These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div>Always, from 33AD until November 21, 1964, it was dogma that the Church of Christ was identical to the Roman Catholic Church. The new ecclesiology teaches there is a "Church of Christ" not identical to the RC Church, but "subsists" there in its fulness because She has all the "elements" of the Church of Christ. However, the Church of Christ can subsist in other sects (more or less) according to how many "elements of truth" they possess. To have all the elements is best, but to have just some is OK too and leads to salvation. Hence, <i>Nostra Aetate </i>can praise the "elements of truth" in Buddhism and Hinduism. The end result: universalism--all are saved regardless of religion. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Traditional v. Modernist Ecclesiology</u></b></div><div>Vatican II and its "popes" teach contrary to everything before:</div><div><b>Wojtyla (JPII):</b></div><div><span style="color: red;">All the baptized are in Christ's Church. </span>(<i style="font-weight: bold;">Ut Unum Sint, </i>para. #42).</div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><b>Pope Pius XII:</b></div><div><span style="color: red;">Only those are really to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith and who have not had the misfortune of withdrawing from the body or for grave faults been cut off by legitimate authority. </span>(<i style="font-weight: bold;">Mystici Corporis, </i>para. #22). </div><div><br /></div><div><b>Vatican II:</b></div><div><span style="color: red;">The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter.</span> (<i style="font-weight: bold;">Lumen Gentium, </i>#15).</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Pope Leo XIII:</b></div><div><span style="color: red;">The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.</span></div><div>(<i style="font-weight: bold;">Satis Cognitum, </i>para. #9).</div><div><br /></div><div>I could literally multiply these examples much more, but this suffices to show that Traditional and Modernist (Vatican II) understanding of the nature of the Church are <i style="font-weight: bold;">contradictory. </i>Both cannot be true. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Can't you "recognize and resist" like St. Paul did to St. Peter?</u></b></div><div>Short answer: NO. The only pope discussed in the Bible is St. Peter, so we are dealing with a limited number of historical examples, to say the least. The fraternal correction of St. Peter by St. Paul is recorded in Galatians 2:11-14. According to theologian Suarez: "I therefore respond to the objection that fraternal correction to the Supreme Pontiff is fitting, insofar as it is a duty of charity, and as such it is proven that this may take place as someone greater by someone lesser, and as a Prelate is corrected by his subject, <b><i><u>as Paul acted towards Peter</u></i></b>… Thus the Pontiff may be respectfully corrected and admonished, first alone, if his crime be secret, and then before a few others, if the matter and necessity require it. But what follows, 'tell the church, 'has no place here, because the term 'Church' means not the body of the Church, but [an offender’s] Prelate.… Because the pope has no superior Prelate, such a denunciation has no place in his case. Rather since he himself is the Pastor of the whole Church, the Church is sufficiently 'told' of his sin when it is told to the Pope himself." (See <u>De Immunitate Ecclesiastica</u> 4:6.12; Emphasis mine).</div><div><br /></div><div>The whole idea that you can "denounce and resist" a pope (in matters of Faith, morals, or universal disciplinary laws) is unsupported. One CAN legitimately refuse a personal order of the pope to do something immoral (e.g., go kill one of my enemies, etc.)</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Third Principle: An Interregnum of Many Years is Compatible with Indefectibility and Perpetual Successors of St. Peter</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>According to<b> theologian Dorsch:</b> "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [<i>vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet</i>]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…</div><div>Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate. These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [<i>perennitas autem physica personis principis</i>] is not so strictly necessary." (<u>de Ecclesia</u> 2:196–7; Emphasis mine).</div><div><br /></div><div>The most probable way of restoring the papacy is an "imperfect General Council." Some pre-Vatican II theologians pondered such a Council in the absence of cardinals. Indeed, <b>theologian Van Noort</b> pondered it as late as 1956 (See <u>Dogmatic Theology</u> 2: 276).</div><div><br /></div><div> <b>Theologian Cajetan </b>wrote: "...by exception and by supplementary manner this power [electing a pope], corresponds to the Church and to the Council, either by absence of Cardinal Electors, or because they are doubtful, or the election itself is uncertain, as it happened at the time of the schism." (See<u> De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii</u>)</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Theologian Billot</b> wrote: "When it would be necessary to proceed with the election, if it is impossible to follow the regulations of papal law, as was the case during the Great Western Schism, one can accept, without difficulty, that the power of election could be transferred to a...Council...Because natural law prescribes that, in such cases, the power of a superior is passed to the immediate inferior because this is absolutely necessary for the survival of the society and to avoid the tribulations of extreme need." (See <u>De Ecclesia Christi</u>).</div><div><br /></div><div><div>It has been established at the Vatican Council of 1870 that <b><i><u>the papacy</u></i></b> must last until the end <b><i><u>but not that there must always be a living pontiff on the Throne of St. Peter.</u></i></b> Furthermore, <b><i><u>having a long interregnum is not inconsistent with having perpetual successors.</u></i></b> There is a possibility of an end of the papal interregnum before the end of the world. According to theologian O'Reilly, one of the most orthodox and erudite theologians of the 19th century, in his 1882 book (written a scant twelve years after the Vatican Council), entitled<u> The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays</u>, he brings home this important point. On page 287, he writes in reference to the Great Western Schism:</div><div><br /></div><div>"There had been anti-popes before from time to time, but never for such a continuance... nor ever with such a following...</div><div>The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. <b><i>They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation.</i></b> Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. </div><div><br /></div><div><i><b>Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. </b></i></div><div><br /></div><div>We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. <b><i>But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree."</i></b> (Emphasis mine).</div></div><div><br /></div><div>So an interregnum of a long duration does nothing to affect the monarchial constitution of the One True Church. </div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>Sedevacantism means the Church defected and the Gates of Hell Prevailed?</u></b></div><div>Ironically, it is precisely because the Church cannot defect and the Gates of Hell cannot prevail, that I am a sedevacantist. The R&R and Vatican II apologists believe the pope can teach heresy and give evil to the Church---the logical corollary of defending Bergoglio. According to their false idea, a pope can be in error or evil as long as not speaking infallibly (<i>ex cathedra</i>). However, this is not Indefectibility.</div><div><div> According to theologian Herrmann:</div><div><br /></div><div>"The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…. If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible."</div><div>(<u>Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae</u>, 1:258) </div><div><br /></div><div>Here's what Pope Leo had to say about the papacy:</div><div><br /></div><div>"Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed.<b><i><u> He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own</u></i></b>." (See<i><b> Satis Cognitum</b></i>, para. # 9; Emphasis mine). </div><div><br /></div><div>"For He who is the Spirit of Truth, inasmuch as He proceedeth both from the Father, who is the eternally True, and from the Son, who is the substantial Truth, receiveth from each both His essence and the fullness of all truth. <b><i><u>This truth He communicates to His Church, guarding her by His all powerful help from ever falling into error, and aiding her to foster daily more and more the germs of divine doctrine and to make them fruitful for the welfare of the peoples. And since the welfare of the peoples,</u></i></b> for which the Church was established, absolutely requires that this office should be continued for all time, the Holy Ghost perpetually supplies life and strength to preserve and increase the Church. “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you for ever, the Spirit of Truth” (John xiv., 16, 17)." (See <b><i>Divinum Illud</i></b>, para. # 5; Emphasis mine).</div></div><div><br /></div><div>Therefore, Indefectibility makes certain that the pope cannot give the Church heresy or evil. However, heresy and evil have been given to the Church. (If not, there would be nothing to resist or to try and explain away). There are only two conclusions that can be drawn:</div><div><br /></div><div><b>1. Vatican II was a legitimate Ecumenical Council. Roncalli through Francis were legitimate popes and heresy/evil were given to the Church. Result? The Church defected and the Gates of Hell prevailed. </b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>2. Despite appearances to the contrary, Vatican II was not a legitimate Ecumenical Council, nor were Roncalli through Francis real popes. They either fell from office or never attained the papacy by the profession of heresy as a private theologian. Result? The Church did not defect and the Gates of Hell have not prevailed. The Vatican II sect is a heretical, man-made religion, and the One True Church continues with Traditionalists. </b></div><div><br /></div><div>According to theologian Berry, "The prophesies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition of the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be<b><i> lying wonders</i></b> in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church." (See Berry, <u>The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise </u>, [1927], pg.119; Emphasis in original). It should also be noted that the Vatican II "popes" are not "antipopes." An antipope is one whom is elected in opposition to a true pope as a rival claimant (See <u>A Concise Catholic Dictionary</u>, [1943], pg. 36). Roncalli to Bergoglio are "false popes."</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Conclusion</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">The false principles of the R&R camp (a heretic can be pope, we can resist a pope by picking and choosing what we think is correct, strange and unsupported notions about the nature of the papacy, and misunderstandings of theological and canonical concepts) all exist in one kind or another throughout the movement. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">By failing (or refusing) to understand the true principles that ground sedevacantism, and using false principles to assert their position of "recognize and resist" the "pope," these people are keeping others in union with the Argentinian apostate and his evil sect. As to Vatican II sect apologists, this is exactly what they want. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Remember the sobering words of the prophet Hosea, "My people are destroyed <b><i><u>for lack of knowledge:</u></i></b> because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children." (Hosea 4:6; Emphasis mine). </div></div></div>Introibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-28234192486099251162024-02-12T04:10:00.000-08:002024-02-12T04:10:30.185-08:00The Four Temperaments --Introduction<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijoj8GZYiysTwyoAUz1uDldv060RP7ty0ymt0aQHNCyb6lK3f1w8BS8nl3fgdCGobTNXvRPVAN-0PK7Jh_xroI4imkUO_IV3K0dW1wR0gECzzcDZ9nCg0i4rRqmv2bSc-cOlzBzoZxz0NcoNmZFQrrxNwXjEwk9vV5gq2a-fDMvRFGvMtrNl1P1poBhag/s450/the-four-temperaments-phlegmatic-sanguine-melancholic-choleric_u-l-q1hcvff0.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="338" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijoj8GZYiysTwyoAUz1uDldv060RP7ty0ymt0aQHNCyb6lK3f1w8BS8nl3fgdCGobTNXvRPVAN-0PK7Jh_xroI4imkUO_IV3K0dW1wR0gECzzcDZ9nCg0i4rRqmv2bSc-cOlzBzoZxz0NcoNmZFQrrxNwXjEwk9vV5gq2a-fDMvRFGvMtrNl1P1poBhag/s320/the-four-temperaments-phlegmatic-sanguine-melancholic-choleric_u-l-q1hcvff0.jpg" width="240" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">To My Readers: I have received several requests for a post on the Four Temperaments. This week's post is an introduction to this most important and interesting topic. I will follow-up with other posts so that by the end of 2024, I will have done some justice to presenting the Four Temperaments. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">I want to acknowledge that I take no credit for the posts on this topic. My primary sources will be from theologian Schagemann and his work entitled <u>Manual of Self-Knowledge and Christian Perfection</u> (1913). Also, the work of theologian Hock <u>The Four Temperaments</u> (1934) will be used throughout this series of posts, with various other sources. I take <b><i>absolutely no credit whatsoever</i></b> for the content of this post (or the ones on this topic to follow). All I did was condense the material of these theologians into a terse post that hopefully will be advantageous for those looking for information, but without time to read an entire book or two from the pre-Vatican II era on the subject. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">***SPECIAL NOTICE*** In addition to my workload, which has always been quite demanding, I now have to travel for some of my cases given to me this year. As I type these words, I'm going to be spending most of the week in another state, and going to several locations there. All this coupled with my duties to my family, my religious duties, and the responsibility I owe to the eleemosynary organizations which I help lead, leaves ever less time for this blog. Indeed, I would have reduced my posts to two Mondays a month if it hadn't been for my incredibly generous and intelligent guest poster, <i style="font-weight: bold;">Lee. </i>His writing has been a godsend. <i style="font-weight: bold;">Lee </i>is also a family man, with a busy job, and religious duties. He can only do so much. <i style="font-weight: bold;">Joanna From Poland</i> is also invaluable to me. She has been an excellent guest poster, and I owe her many thanks. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">I would also be remiss if I didn't mention my former guest poster, <i style="font-weight: bold;">A Simple Man</i>, a young professional whose time was stretched so thin, he could no longer contribute. I thank him for all his hard work, and wish him only the very best. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><b>I am wondering if any of my readers would like to be a guest poster for this blog. </b>It would help me tremendously in ensuring that there is one Traditionalist Catholic post published every Monday. If you:</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="color: red;">Are a Traditionalist Catholic who holds the sedevacantist position and the Integral Catholic Faith</span></li><li><span style="color: red;">Accept Pope Pius XII as the last true pope of the Roman Catholic Church</span></li><li><span style="color: red;">Have a talent for (and enjoy) writing on Catholic topics</span></li><li><span style="color: red;">Can contribute <i><u>at least</u></i> one post every <b><u><i>two months</i></u></b> (<b><i><u>once a month</u></i></b> would be ideal)</span></li></ul><div><span style="color: red;">...then I hope you would consider being a guest poster. If you fit the description above and want to apply, please send me your name and email address via the comments. I promise not to publish it, and to keep your identity in strictest confidence. I will contact you with an email that protects my identity. We can communicate from there. If I feel you would be an asset to this blog, you may publish here under your name, or choose to remain completely anonymous like I do. </span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">There is no money or tangible benefits involved. However, you have a chance to make an incredible impact on people during this time of Great Apostasy. You may even make a convert or two! Your good works pay nothing here, but your "retirement benefits" will be (literally) out of this world! I will continue posting every Monday for as long as I can, but without additional help, I may have to (unfortunately) reduce my postings to twice a month.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">God bless you all, my dear readers---<b><i>Introibo</i></b></span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>The Four Temperaments (Introduction)</u></b></div></div><p></p><div><div>The<b><i> four temperaments</i></b> originated thousands of years ago. Hippocrates, the first to develop the theory, defined the four temperaments according to four types of fluids of the body:</div><div><div><b><i>Choleric</i></b>: yellow bile from the liver.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><i>Sanguine</i></b>: blood from the heart.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><i>Melancholic</i></b>: black bile from the kidneys.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><i>Phlegmatic</i></b>: phlegm from the lungs.</div></div></div><div><br /></div><div>What, exactly, is a "temperament"? It is the disposition of human reactions, and very telling of how people should approach the spiritual life. </div><div><br /></div><div>One of the most reliable means of learning to know oneself is the study of the temperaments. For if a man knows and understands his temperament, he can learn easily to direct and control himself. If he is able to discern the temperament of others, he can better understand and help them. If we consider the reaction of various persons to the same experience, we will find that it is different in every one of them; it may be quick and lasting, or slow but lasting; or it may be quick but of short duration, or slow and of short duration. This manner of reaction, or the different degrees of excitability, is what we call "temperament." There are four temperaments: the <b><i><u>choleric</u></i></b>, the <b><i><u>melancholic</u></i></b>, the <b><i><u>sanguine</u></i></b>, and the <b><i><u>phlegmatic</u></i></b>.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>The sanguine temperament is marked by quick but shallow, superficial excitability; the choleric by quick but strong and lasting; the melancholic temperament by slow but deep; the phlegmatic by slow but shallow excitability. The first two are also called extroverts, outgoing; the last two are introverts or reserved. Temperament, then, <b><i><u>is a Fundamental Disposition of the soul</u></i></b>, which manifests itself whenever an impression is made upon the mind, be that impression caused by thought -by thinking about something or by representation through the imagination -or by external stimuli. </div><div><br /></div><div>Knowledge of the temperament of any person supplies the answer to the questions: How does this person deport himself? How does he feel moved to action whenever something impresses him strongly? For instance, how does he react, when he is praised or rebuked, when he is offended, when he feels sympathy for or aversion against somebody? Or, to use another example, how does be act if in a storm, or in a dark forest, or on a dark night the thought of imminent danger comes to him?</div><div><br /></div><div>The following queries should be asked:</div><div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Is the person under the influence of such impressions, thoughts, or facts, quickly and vehemently excited, or only slowly and superficially? </li><li>Does the person under such influences feel inclined to act at once, quickly, in order to oppose the impression; or does he feel more inclined to remain calm and to wait? </li><li>Does the excitement of the soul last for a long time or only for a moment? Does the impression continue, so that at the recollection of such impression the excitement is renewed? Or does he conquer such excitement speedily and easily, so that the remembrance of it does not produce a new excitement?</li></ul>The answers will be telling. The <b><i><u>choleric person</u></i></b> is quickly and vehemently excited by any impression made; he tends to react immediately, and the impression lasts a long time and easily induces new excitement. The <b><i><u>person of sanguine temperament</u></i></b>, like the choleric, is quickly and strongly excited by the slightest impression, and tends to react immediately, but the impression does not last; it soon fades away. The<b><i><u> melancholic individual</u></i></b> is at first only slightly excited by any impression received; a reaction does not set in at all or only after some time. But the impression remains deeply rooted, especially if new impressions of the same kind are repeated. <b><i><u>The phlegmatic person</u></i></b> is only slightly excited by any impression made upon him; he has scarcely any inclination to react, and the impression vanishes quickly. The choleric and sanguine temperaments are active, the melancholic and phlegmatic temperaments are passive.</div><div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>The Knowledge of Temperaments is Very Important</u></b></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>It may be difficult in many cases to decide upon the temperament of any particular person; still we should not permit ourselves to be discouraged in the attempt to understand our own temperament and that of those persons with whom we live or with whom we come often into contact, for the advantages of such insight are very great. To know the temperaments of our fellow men helps us to understand them better, treat them more correctly, bear with them more patiently. These are evidently advantages for social life which can hardly be appreciated enough.</div><div><br /></div><div>A choleric person is won by quiet explanation of reasons and motives; whereas by harsh commands he is embittered, hardened, driven to strong-headed resistance. A melancholic person is made suspicious and reticent by a rude word or an unfriendly mien, by continuous kind treatment, on the contrary, he is made pliable, trusting, affectionate. The choleric person can be relied upon, but with a sanguine person we can hardly count even upon his apparently serious promises. Without a knowledge of the temperaments of our fellow men we will treat them often wrongly, to their and to our own disadvantage.</div><div><br /></div><div>With a knowledge of the temperaments, one bears with fellow men more patiently. If one knows that their defects are the consequence of their temperament, he excuses them more readily and will not so easily be excited or angered by them. He remains quiet, for instance, even if a choleric is severe, sharp-edged, impetuous, or obstinate. And if a melancholic person is slow, hesitating, undecided; if he does not speak much and even if he says awkwardly the little he has to say; or if a sanguine person is very talkative, light-minded, and frivolous; if a phlegmatic cannot be aroused from his usual indifference, he does not become irritated.</div><div><br /></div><div>It is of the greatest benefit furthermore to recognize fully one’s own temperament. Only if one knows it, can he judge correctly himself, his moods, his peculiarities, his past life. An elderly gentleman, of wide experience in the spiritual life, who happened to read the following treatise on temperaments said: “I have never learned to know myself so well, as I find myself depicted in these lines, because nobody dared to tell me the truth so plainly as these lines have done.”</div><div><br /></div><div><div>If one knows one’s own temperament, he can work out his own perfection with greater assurance, because finally the whole effort toward self-perfection consists in the perfection of the good and in the combating of the evil dispositions. Thus the choleric will have to conquer, in the first place, his obstinacy, his anger, his pride; the melancholic, his lack of courage and his dread of suffering; the sanguine, his talkativeness, his inconsistency; the phlegmatic, his sloth, his lack of energy. </div><div><br /></div><div>The person who knows himself will become more humble, realizing that many good traits which he considered to be virtues are merely good dispositions and the natural result of his temperament, rather than acquired virtues. Consequently, the choleric will judge more humbly of his strong will, his energy, and his fearlessness; the sanguine of his cheerfulness, of his facility to get along well with difficult persons; the melancholic will judge more humbly about his sympathy for others, about his love for solitude and prayer; the phlegmatic about his good nature and his repose of mind.</div><div><br /></div></div><div>The temperament is innate in each person, therefore it cannot be exchanged for another temperament. But man can and must cultivate and perfect the good elements of his temperament and combat and eradicate the evil ones. Every temperament is in itself good and with each one man can do good and work out his salvation. It is, therefore, imprudent and ungrateful to wish to have another temperament. “All the spirits shall praise the Lord” (Ps. 150:6).</div><div><br /></div></div></div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><u>Conclusion</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This brief introduction to the Four Temperaments explains what they are in general, and why it's important to know about temperaments--especially one's own. To find out your temperament, there are several online tests that are easy to take. Know your temperament. Each of the Four Temperaments will have a post dedicated to it. Temperament is distinct from personality. While personality refers to the entirety of a person’s behavior, emotions, and thought patterns, a temperament more specifically refers to our natural preferences and tendencies; it especially refers to how people react to things. Our temperament is not an excuse for our sins or flaws. When we are uncharitable to others or seem stuck in certain patterns of sin, we can’t shrug and say, “That’s just how I am,” and never try to change.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Each temperament has particular strengths and weaknesses. But the strengths can deepen, and the weaknesses can recede, all according to God's grace in us. <span style="color: red;">But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.' Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me.</span> (2 Corinthians 12:9).</div><p></p>Introibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.com38tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-84870907208334293172024-02-05T04:26:00.000-08:002024-02-08T18:45:03.636-08:00Contending For The Faith---Part 24<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLknmAujxHmnyc82rKLfGJO7D2Y8zpXMyTy4THRbFY5E_tC50O2PBO14Uh7oMShH6NtkaKsHcK6gOKrKzd-sOK3nMSPWwkBHG4xiFXojLkePRgRGNPm-DhZ87s5isTA6kgbKLxOnTn-x8_k_EjJB5aCDl4wZRG1fAOw7P6phpe_LIGn1gG2ORMyZXAwtM/s960/Contending%20For%20The%20Faith.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="960" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLknmAujxHmnyc82rKLfGJO7D2Y8zpXMyTy4THRbFY5E_tC50O2PBO14Uh7oMShH6NtkaKsHcK6gOKrKzd-sOK3nMSPWwkBHG4xiFXojLkePRgRGNPm-DhZ87s5isTA6kgbKLxOnTn-x8_k_EjJB5aCDl4wZRG1fAOw7P6phpe_LIGn1gG2ORMyZXAwtM/s320/Contending%20For%20The%20Faith.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you <b><i><u>to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints</u></i></b>." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e., the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month. This is the next installment.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="color: red;">The existence and attributes of God</span></li><li><span style="color: red;">The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all </span></li><li><span style="color: red;">The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church</span></li><li><span style="color: red;">The truth of Catholic moral teaching</span></li><li><span style="color: red;">The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II </span></li></ul></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.</span></div></div><p style="text-align: center;"><b><u>"Personal" Morality and Nonsense Questions</u></b></p><p style="text-align: left;">I decided to tackle two issues that often come up in apologetics. With the heretical <i><b>Fiducia supplicans </b></i>("Supplicating Trust") allowing sodomite couples (as well as fornicating and adulterous heterosexual couples) to be "blessed," I have heard the drivel that nothing can really be sinful "as long as you're not hurting anyone." This false idea will be dealt with first. Second, I overheard an atheist challenging someone who believed in God, "So tell me, if God is all-powerful [omnipotent], can He make a rock so big He can't lift it?" The upshot was if God cannot lift the rock, he can't do everything. If God cannot make the rock, He still cannot do everything since He can't lift it. Therefore, God (allegedly) can't do everything and is no all-powerful.</p><p style="text-align: left;">These questions, meant to sound erudite, are nonsense that prove nothing. It will be the second issue I will address this week. <span style="color: red;">(N.B. I take no credit for the information in this post. I have collected much apologetic materials over the years in the Philosophy of Religion, both books and online, far too numerous to list. All credit to those authors. I only take credit for compiling the information into a terse and readable post which I hope can be useful.---<i style="font-weight: bold;">Introibo</i>). </span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><u>"As Long As You're Not Hurting Anyone, It's OK"</u></b></p><p style="text-align: left;"> God has given us the Ten Commandments to be meticulously observed. The Magisterium of Holy Mother Church tells us exactly what people must do (and refrain from doing) regarding each of those Commandments. Furthermore, the Natural Law, written on the hearts of all human beings, allows us to know what's right and wrong on many aspects of morality even apart from the Church.</p><p style="text-align: left;">When you tell someone something is wrong (especially sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments) they will tell you that nothing is wrong as long as no one is getting hurt. People object because they’ve been told virtue is out of vogue, to be dismissed as a relic of the Dark Ages. Modern society actually uses<b><i><u> four tactics </u></i></b>to wiggle out of morality:</p><p><b><u>1. It rejects morals as antiquated</u></b>.</p><p>Virtue and vice, righteousness and sin are old-fashioned. We’ve progressed beyond the primitive level of people in biblical times. Yet no one reading the Bible and the morning paper side by side would ever claim this, for they both describe the same dynamics.</p><p><b><u>2. It replaces virtue with “values.”</u> </b>The vocabulary of virtue has suffered a serious downgrade. Originally, we were supposed to value what was valuable—not trash. When Plato spoke of “the good,” or the priest expounded on “sin,” there was general agreement that good and evil are meaningful categories, and that words about good and evil are connected with a real moral world. Not now. Instead of actions and lifestyle choices being good or evil, they become subjective “values”—which are private. People often say, “Virtues may be real for you, but they aren’t for me.” Educators, media pundits, film stars, and Bergoglio's "priests" have all bought into this attack on virtue. They seem to be terrified of being thought judgmental or bigoted, and are quick to parrot the vocabulary of the world.</p><p><u><b>3. It separates private life from the public sphere.</b></u></p><p>Modern society naively imagines that one’s private character shouldn’t be taken into account when it comes to one’s public life. Yet surely someone who has made thousands of little compromises is more likely, given something of importance to do (like run a company or a nation), to make a few big compromises. Further, a man who betrays his wife (adultery) may think little of selling out those who trust him to do what is right.</p><p><u><b>4. Most importantly, any behavior is acceptable if you are not "hurting anyone."</b></u></p><p>At first this sounds somewhat reasonable. “Leave me alone—I’m not hurting anyone.” However, is this true? Moral choices affect everyone. Virtue has a leavening effect through society. Vice, like pollution, diminishes the quality of life for all us. Further, while all sins are not equal, all sins are serious, from the venial sins to mortal sins. People may be horrified by murder, but ironically, what about abortion? What does the average person think of fornication? How about slander, or disrespect? All sin is a violation of God’s Will, and is destructive.</p><p>Let's see the falsity of "any action is good as long as I'm not hurting anyone," with some examples:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>A person may think, “I’m not hurting anyone by throwing this trash on the ground.” But is littering harmless? We all pay: collectively by higher taxes, or aesthetically by being forced to behold ugliness in place of natural beauty. </li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Now consider gluttony. Are there any victims besides the gourmand? Yes; higher health premiums affect us all.</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>All crimes, from tax evasion to bank robbery, drive up the cost of living, even if it wasn’t my bank that was robbed.</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Indulging in porn assures the victimization of a steady stream of young women (and men and even children). </li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Even if a drunk isn’t driving, his poor judgment still affects others: absenteeism in effect lowers our wages (others have to work harder to cover him); he probably uses more than his fair share of health care, too.</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Gossip may seem trivial, but it unfairly affects how we view and interact with third parties. </li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Academic cheating lowers educational standards, and confirms the cheater in patterns that may continue in the workplace.</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Materialism—the Church calls it greed—feeds consumerism, which often furthers the exploitation of workers in the developing world.</li></ul><p></p><p>Sin twists our character, saps our moral strength and integrity, and weakens our love for others. Sin affects the individual, but it also has social consequences, like alienation. Until now, I've listed only temporal/material consequences, so even those who scoff at "organized religion" can understand.</p><p>However, the most serious consequence of sin, is weakening (venial) or destroying (mortal) our life and friendship with God. No one wakes up one day and decides to rob a bank and take illicit drugs. Those little unchecked venial sins, lead to more venial sins, until mortal sin is committed; the greatest evil there is in the world. The consequence of mortal sin is eternal torment in Hell, unless the person sincerely repents (or converts if not Traditionalist Catholic) with contrition prior to the moment of death. Even if someone doesn't believe this to be true, it is objectively true nonetheless. The secular examples above should be enough to make your point to an atheist or agnostic. </p><p><b><u>Responding to Common Slogans</u></b></p><p><b><u>1.“It’s my choice.”</u></b> I agree. Everyone should take choices seriously, and all should be glad other people recognize their choices are up to them. However, not all choices are good and you must consider all consequences. These leads to the second slogan. Ultimately, all sin is between each person and God. Most sin affects other people, directly or indirectly. However, since every sin is an offense against God, it’s simply not true that poor moral choices don’t hurt anyone else.</p><p><br /></p><p><b><u>2. "Who are you to judge?"</u></b></p><p>I'm not judging. God judges, and we can and should apply the principles of morality to the actions of others in the external forum. God alone will judge guilt or innocence in the internal forum. It may be hard to believe in this age of Bergoglio, but sin also affects others, even if it is committed in private. Sin diminishes our capacity to love. It erodes character. Like certain beverages and medications, it influences judgment. Sooner or later somebody is going to be hurt. </p><p><span style="color: red;">The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.</span> (Galatians 5:19-26).</p><p><br /></p><p style="text-align: center;"> <b><u>Responding to "Nonsense Questions" About God</u></b></p><p>Now, I will address some trick questions skeptics use to “prove” that the concept of God is illogical. Skeptics call them “contradictions;" but they are really nonsense upon examination. The questions are usually like these: </p><p>If there’s really a God . . . </p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li> could he create loud silence? </li><li>could he make a square circle? </li><li>could he make a rock so heavy that even He couldn’t lift it?</li></ul><p></p><div>In each case, the skeptic expects an answer of "no." (The answer is no.) However, the skeptic will then declare that God isn’t all-powerful, since He is unable to accomplish these tasks. The all-powerful God is mere fiction.</div><div><div><br /></div><div>Let's examine the first nonsense question: Can God make a loud silence? Loud silence is impossible by definition, since "loud silence" isn’t silent. How can non-silence be silence? Unless one tinkers with definitions, or subverts logic, the combination is absolutely impossible. The concept is incoherent. Loud silence could be reworded “non-silent silence.” That would violate the simple law of identity (A = A). The revised query becomes: Could God create non-silent silence?</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Put this way, the question is exposed for what it is: a trick. The same goes for the square circle. How about the impossibly heavy rock? It’s another nonsense question. An infinitely powerful God could move any rock—granted. But he could not exceed his own infinite powers in creating an even more infinite chunk of stone, for this would require that "infinity > infinity" which is mathematically/logically impossible.</div><div><br /></div><div>Therefore, it is not that the rock can't be made, but rather that the very terms of the question render it jabberwocky. You have not really "asked" anything. It reminds me of the pagan Buddhists who ask themselves "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" as they meditate. The fact is that "omnipotent" does NOT mean "the ability to do anything at all." God cannot do anything that contradicts His Nature. </div><div><br /></div><div>Therefore, God cannot lie. <span style="color: red;">That by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have the strongest comfort, who have fled for refuge to hold fast the hope set before us.</span> (Hebrews 6:18). So if ever someone asks you a question like these, take a moment. Think about what kind of question it is. It may well be a nonsense question, one that once reworded turns out to be meaningless.</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Conclusion</u></b></div></div></div><div style="text-align: left;">Even sins that people commit in private have both public and eternal consequences. "Blessing" sodomites gives this wretched sin an aura of legitimacy; that it's not so bad, and "Who am I to judge?" Likewise, there are atheists and agnostics who consider themselves wise, and attempt to disprove God with nonsense, worshipping only themselves and doing as they please. The two ideas go together. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div><span style="color: red;">Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. </span>(Romans 1:22-25).</div></div>Introibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.com19tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-1985957616268999642024-01-29T04:26:00.000-08:002024-02-01T19:38:57.802-08:00Human Origin<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikyMoZVhuUls0pEPFICS1Q81EhUvUKZPt6NxUtaO1qjgNcQTzmbhgDDP2YDLcCQJx2p8w-_4T4wP8EL0Ndjs-06GUQG1PXtqx8VrtQ-p0itvgOWL33kw2Qc6L1isbWo8UorlXQIg_mMcsaO2vh4yYtA7T2frtjBmo0mDlYjQxFt1meWdXHqLHuw-E3Des/s1024/Creation%20of%20Man.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="662" data-original-width="1024" height="207" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikyMoZVhuUls0pEPFICS1Q81EhUvUKZPt6NxUtaO1qjgNcQTzmbhgDDP2YDLcCQJx2p8w-_4T4wP8EL0Ndjs-06GUQG1PXtqx8VrtQ-p0itvgOWL33kw2Qc6L1isbWo8UorlXQIg_mMcsaO2vh4yYtA7T2frtjBmo0mDlYjQxFt1meWdXHqLHuw-E3Des/s320/Creation%20of%20Man.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div>I have noticed a trend among Traditionalists (especially Gen Z) to take positions that<b><i><u> seem</u></i></b> traditional and Catholic, but are actually Protestant. To really understand what the Church teaches requires one to do the research and see what the Church <b><i><u>actually pronounced</u></i></b> on any given topic, and not what a person<b><i><u> thinks</u></i></b> the Church teaches. The way to do this is to investigate the teachings of the approved theologians, whose job it is to explain what the Church teaches, what tenets are permissible to hold, and what theological beliefs stand condemned. The fact that the Church promulgates catechisms is further proof that Magisterial documents are not self-evident in meaning. Why issue <u>The Catechism of the Council of Trent </u>when you could just read the canons and decrees of the Council? <p></p><p>The Church uses technical terms in Latin and the true sense is not always apparent by just "reading the document." There is also a danger inherent in reacting against what <b><i><u>appears</u></i></b> to be Modernist. The arch-heretic Leonard Feeney was right in condemning a false and un-Catholic notion of Baptism of Desire that some clergy were teaching in the 1940s. However, instead of correcting them by reaffirming the Catholic truth of Baptism of Desire, he heretically denied it existed. </p><p>The subject of this post is the origin of the First Man, Adam. Many Traditionalist Catholics (and "conservative" Vatican II sect members) read the Bible literally in every verse, like a Fundamentalist Protestant. This is in reaction to the Modernist exegetes who reduce the Bible to little more than a collection of fairy tales stripped of any and all historical and supernatural character. This causes them to make false assertions, like claiming you <u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">must</u> believe the universe was created in exactly six days, and each day lasting exactly 24 hours in duration. This is the position of the "conservative" Vatican II sect members who run the <i>Kolbe Center. </i>They also teach the body of Adam was not developed, geocentrism is true, and a 6,000 year-old Earth are all "dogma." (See kolbecenter.org).</p><p>The point of contention to be addressed here concerns <b><i><u>the denial that a Catholic may believe that the body of the First Man was the result of any type of development.</u></i></b> Cries of "evolution," and "blasphemy" will abound. Yet what the Church teaches is not what these new "Catholic fundamentalists" insist you must believe. My purpose here is to show what <b><i><u>may</u></i></b> (not <b><i><u>must</u></i></b>) be believed, and what may not. I leave it to the reader to do further research and draw their own conclusion as to what their position will be within the limitations set forth by Holy Mother Church. </p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><u>The Role of Theologians</u></b></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">I have written about the role of theologians several times before. It is very important to understand, so I reproduce the role of the theologians once more. If your realize their importance, you can ship this section--<b><i>-Introibo</i></b></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><b>What, exactly, constitutes an approved theologian of the Church?</b> </p><p style="text-align: left;">The book by Fr. Reginald-Maria Schultes OP, De <u>Ecclesia Catholica: Praelectiones Apologeticae</u> [Apologetic Lectures on the Catholic Church], 2nd. ed., Paris: Lethielleux 1931, was used by priest-students studying for doctoral degrees at Pontifical Universities. Fr. Schultes himself taught at the world-renowned Angelicum University. A theologian is thus defined by him (and recognized by the Church) as "learned men who after the time of the Church Fathers scientifically taught sacred doctrine in the Church."</p><p>The pre-Vatican II theologians were all clerics (i.e., priests and bishops) who received either a <b><i>Doctorate in Sacred Theology</i></b> (STD) or a<b><i> Doctorate in Canon Law</i></b> (JCD). The latter are known as <i>canonists</i> and apply the proper theological principles to the Sacred Canons to ascertain the correct meaning and application of each Canon to each unique situation. Every theologian had to defend and publish a dissertation before the Board of Examiners of a Pontifical University, and it had to bear an <i>Imprimatur</i> and <i>Nihil Obstat</i> declaring the work free from all error against faith and morals. The breadth and depth of theological knowledge enjoyed by theologians was vastly superior to both laymen and the average priest or bishop because of the excellence of their training.</p><p>Theologians are said to be "approved" at least insofar as (a) they manifest a certain eminence in doctrine in their writings and (b) display orthodoxy at least to the extent recognized by the Church that their writings are used by the faithful and the theological schools, with the knowledge of (and with no opposition from) the Magisterium of the Church. (See, e.g,. theologian Salaverri,<u> Sacrae Theologiae Summa, IB</u>, [1955]). The doctorate may only be dispensed by the Roman Pontiff if the cleric is found by the Vicar of Christ to be highly proficient in both Canon Law and Sacred Theology; such is the case with bishops as well (See 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 331; see also canonists Abbo and Hannon, <u>The Sacred Canons</u>, [1952], 1:357-358). </p><p>Theologians <b><i><u>demonstrate, and do not determine</u></i></b> Catholic doctrine. Theologians do not determine whether some doctrine is <i>de fide</i> or some other theological note, like "certain." They merely demonstrate, or manifest, or give witness, that a particular doctrine is Church teaching and to what degree. They prove their assertions with convincing arguments, so that when theologians reach an objective, morally unanimous consensus, we must accept such conclusions as belonging to the Faith. According to Schultes (cited above), theologians are witnesses not only to whether a doctrine is defined, <b><i><u>but also to its meaning</u></i></b>. </p><p></p><p>Theologian Fenton's <u>The Concept of Sacred Theology</u> makes clear that Councils, encyclicals, etc., are the raw data the theologian uses for his work. Theology is not simply quoting Church documents, any more than law is not simply quoting the Supreme Court. </p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><u>The Teaching of the Church on Biblical Interpretation Regarding Genesis</u></b></p><p style="text-align: left;">When it comes to "the plain meaning" of Scripture, those untrained in Catholic exegesis fall into serious errors. According to the eminent theologian Van Noort:</p><p><span style="color: red;">Furthermore, even in those truths which the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium unmistakably inculcates, there is sometimes room for questioning whether all the elements of that teaching are meant to be inculcated with equal force. For example, the following doctrines have always been unmistakably proposed by the Ordinary Magisterium: that God created our first parents by forming their bodies from the slime of the Earth and from the rib of the man; that Adam sinned in tasting the forbidden fruit at the urging of the serpent; that God in punishment for mankind's sins caused a deluge over the entire Earth; that Christ will come one day as the Judge upon the clouds of Heaven, etc.</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">Do you think that the definitive intention of the Magisterium bears with equal force upon the <b><i>mode</i></b> of the bodily formation and on the <b><i>very fact</i></b> of creation? With equal force upon upon the external description of the sin of our first parents and upon <b><i>the sin itself</i></b>? With equal force upon the universality of the flood and upon the <b><i>manifestation of Divine Justice</i></b>? With equal force upon the <b><i>circumstances</i></b> of the heavenly spectacle and upon the<b><i> actual return </i></b>of the Judge? Even upon a priori grounds an affirmative answer would have little probability to it, seeing that the circumstances described contribute either nothing at all or very little to religion. Actually, if one checks history, he will find <b><i><u>at least a number of the circumstances enumerated have been called into doubt by one or another of the Fathers of the Church, or by excellent theologians, without their teaching ever being considered in the slightest heretical...</u></i></b></span></p><p><span style="color: red;">Actually the immense flowering of Catholic biblical research during the past fifty years has done much to eliminate unnecessary bewilderment on the part of the ordinary Bible reader trying to reconcile his own reading of the "obvious" meaning of Scripture with the findings of modern science. <b><i><u>This bewilderment has been caused by an almost total ignorance of what is meant by "scriptural inerrancy," "inspiration," and "revelation." </u></i></b></span></p><p><span style="color: red;">It has been further nurtured by a failure to enter sympathetically into the mentality of the ancient Semitic world, a lack of knowledge of ancient languages and history, a total unawareness of literary genres, and<b><i><u> a lack of theological insight into what in the Bible pertains to "matters of faith and morals" and what is merely "accidentally inspired."</u></i></b> </span></p><p><span style="color: red;"><b><i><u>Such readers, lacking both biblical and theological training, when coming across ancient cosmological viewpoints, unconsciously reflected by the sacred writers, have taken such viewpoints to be revelation by God on matters of science</u></i></b>. Hence, a whole rash of unnecessary problems, concordism and the like.</span> (See<u> Dogmatic Theology</u>, 3:223-225 [1960 English edition]; Emphasis <i style="font-weight: bold;">in bold and italics from the original text--</i><u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">bold, italicized, and underlined</u> is mine. N.B. Theologian Van Noort died in 1946. His original Latin edition was published with full ecclesiastical approbation prior to his death). </p><p>In reference to true biblical scholars, Pope Pius XII condemns those who would oppose them simply because they propose a new solution to a difficulty:</p><p><span style="color: red;">Let all other sons of the Church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice, but also with the greatest charity; <b><i><u>all, moreover, should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected.</u></i></b></span> (See <i style="font-weight: bold;">Divino Afflante Spiritu </i>[1943]; Emphasis mine). </p><p><b><u>Several Principles of Interpretation</u></b></p><p>The Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1909, affirmed that Genesis teaches the following facts about creation which are to be accepted by all Catholics. The decree was promulgated by Pope St. Pius X.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: red;">...the creation of all things which was accomplished by God at the beginning of time; the special creation of man; the formation of the first woman from man; the unity of the human race; the original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice, integrity, and immortality; the divine command laid upon man to prove his obedience; the transgression of that divine command at the instigation of the devil under the form of a serpent; the fall of our first parents from their primitive state of innocence; and the promise of a future Redeemer. </span>(See <i><b>Acta Apostolis Sedis</b></i>, 1 [1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission], pages 567-69).</p><p><i style="font-weight: bold;">Day of Rest (Genesis 2:3): </i><span style="color: red;">Moses employed a period of a week for the Creation to impress upon the Jews the fact that the seventh day of the week was holy and a day of rest. Catholic exegetes</span> [interpreters]<span style="color: red;"> are unanimous in rejecting the old theory that God accomplished everything in the space of six twenty-four hour periods. </span>(See theologian Cevetello, <u>Getting to Know the Bible</u>, [1957], pg. 64).</p><p>On June 30, 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission (as above) issued a decree answering eight (8) questions about the Book of Genesis. The decree was approved by His Holiness, Pope St. Pius X, Foe of Modernism. The answers to the first three questions upholds the overall historical character of the first three chapters of Genesis, however the last two questions are instructive as to the mind of the Church in Biblical exegesis ("interpretation"). </p><p><span style="color: red;">Question # 7: "Whether, since it was not the intention of the sacred author, when writing the first chapter of Genesis, to teach us in a scientific manner the innermost nature of visible things, and to present the complete order of creation but rather to furnish his people with a popular account, such as the common parlance of that age allowed, one, namely, adopted to the senses and to man's intelligence, we are strictly and always bound, when interpreting these chapters to seek for scientific exactitude of expression?" </span>Answer:<b><i><u><span style="color: red;"> In the negative.</span></u></i></b></p><p><span style="color: red;">Question # 8: "Whether the word yom ('day'), which is used in the first chapter of Genesis to describe and distinguish the six days, may be taken in its strict sense as the natural day, or in a less strict sense as signifying a certain space of time; and whether free discussion of this question is permitted to interpreters?" </span>Answer: <b><i><u><span style="color: red;">In the affirmative.</span></u></i></b></p><p>We see that in the response to question # 7, we are not bound to treat Genesis as some sort of science textbook. Question # 8 clearly shows that we are not bound to believe in six literal days of 24 hours each in the creation account as theologian Cevetello notes. God created the universe in six <b><i><u>yom</u></i></b>, or <b><i><u>time periods</u></i></b>, the exact duration of which<b><i><u> may be</u></i></b> much more than 24 hours. Nor is it<b><i><u> necessary</u></i></b> to believe in a 6,000 year old Earth. Modern science and Genesis do not contradict each other.</p><p><i style="font-weight: bold;">Formation of Eve (Genesis 2:21-22): </i><span style="color: red;">According to a decree of the</span> [Pontifical] <span style="color: red;">Biblical Commission, the doctrine of the formation of the first Woman from Man must be maintained. However, the exact way in which it took place remains a mystery about which you are able to say nothing; for only that One knows who was responsible for Creation. </span>(See Cevetello, <i style="font-weight: bold;">Ibid, </i>pgs. 65-66). </p><p>From the above we can know the Church teaches us as truth:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>the Creation of the world<b><i> ex nihil</i></b> (out of nothing) by God at the beginning of space-time</li><li>the special creation of the First Man</li><li>the special creation of the First Woman from the First Man</li><li>the souls of human beings are created immediately <b><i>ex nihil</i></b> by God</li><li>the entire human race descends from a single man and a single woman; our First Parents</li><li>our First Parents were in a state of Original Justice and by disobedience brought us Original Sin</li><li>Original Sin is passed down by being a descendant of the First Man (Adam)</li><li>Original Sin came about at the instigation of Satan</li><li>God promised to send a Redeemer Who is the Lord Jesus Christ</li></ul><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Did Pope Pius XII Make a Mistake in Allowing Study on the Possible Evolution of the Human Body of Adam?</u></b></p><p style="text-align: left;">Those who think the idea that the body of Adam was formed from pre-existing living matter and developed to receive a soul is heretical, denounce Pope Pius XII for allowing it to be studied, as he wrote in his encyclical <i>Humani Generis </i>of 1950. They usually advance three lines of argumentation:</p><p style="text-align: left;">1. His Holiness was wrong to allow the study of a subject that was settled, much like Montini (Paul VI) was wrong to allow study on the morality of artificial contraception; The Church Fathers were unanimous against the idea of evolution of the body.</p><p style="text-align: left;">2. It was only permitting study, and in no way gives any real credence to the idea of the evolution of the body, which is from godless Darwinian scientists.</p><p style="text-align: left;">3. The idea of evolution of the first human body is of recent development under the influence of Modernism. It would necessitate death existing before the Fall of Adam which is absurd.</p><p style="text-align: left;"><b><i>On The Contrary:</i></b></p><p style="text-align: left;"><b>Response to #1: </b>The subject was NOT settled, the Church never having pronounced on the subject, and there was vigorous debate between theologians. The Kolbe Center, run by "conservative" members of the Vatican II sect, will twist the decisions on the Pontifical Biblical Commission to make it fit their Protestant interpretation of every word of Genesis being literal.</p><p style="text-align: left;">The Kolbe Center claims none of the Fathers held that the universe is ancient, so that opinion is not permissible. (Tell that to Pope St. Pius X!). The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in question six of its decision of 1909, says that we should follow the example of the Fathers in making allegorical and prophetical interpretations, after having determined the literal and historical sense. This means that it is perfectly acceptable to make <b><i><u>allegorical interpretations</u></i></b>, not that we have to follow the Fathers in all of their interpretations. The Commission declared:</p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">...in interpreting those passages of these chapters</span> [of Genesis]<span style="color: red;"> that the Fathers and Doctors have interpreted in divers ways without leaving anything definite or certain, it is permitted, subject to the judgment of the Church and the analogy of faith, to follow and defend that opinion which each one has prudently found correct. </span></p><p style="text-align: left;">There is Magisterial authority that the Fathers<u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"> do not present a doctrinally-binding, unanimous consensus on the first chapters of Genesis.</u> The Kolbe Center and like-minded Traditionalists claim a binding consensus of the Fathers on a plethora of biblical teachings. Yet, in his encyclical <i>Divino Afflante Spiritu, </i>Pope Pius XII taught:</p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">...there are but <b><i><u>few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous.</u></i></b> There remain therefore many things, and of the greatest importance, in the discussion and exposition of which the skill and genius of Catholic commentators may and ought to be freely exercised, so that each may contribute his part to the advantage of all, to the continued progress of the sacred doctrine and to the defense and honor of the Church. </span>(para. #47; Emphasis mine).</p><p style="text-align: left;">Pope Pius XII also teaches that the first chapters of Genesis are not among those "few texts" settled by the Fathers of the Church:</p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">Moreover we may rightly and deservedly hope that our time also can contribute something towards the deeper and more accurate interpretation of Sacred Scripture. For not a few things, especially in matters pertaining to history, were scarcely at all or not fully explained by the commentators of past ages, since they lacked almost all the information which was needed for their clearer exposition. <b><i><u>How difficult for the Fathers themselves, and indeed well nigh unintelligible, were certain passages is shown, among other things, by the oft-repeated efforts of many of them to explain the first chapters of Genesis</u></i></b>;...</span>(<i>Ibid, </i>para. #31; Emphasis mine). </p><p style="text-align: left;">Therefore, to analogize the study of the development of the first human body to Montini's allowing study on the subject of birth control is fallacious because birth control<b><i><u> is</u></i></b> settled, but not the mode of the production of Adam's body. </p><p style="text-align: left;"><b>Response to #2:</b></p><p style="text-align: left;">We must first distinguish and reject Darwinian evolution ("DE"). DE assumes as its dogma that change must be unguided and without purpose. It rules out a priori the existence of God. It also excludes in principle the idea of a sudden origin of a new kind of living thing through non-living material (slime of the Earth), or through multiple simultaneous mutation, or through large-scale reorganizations of cells, or any other event that could take place only through the presence of a Designer/Creator God. God can choose to work gradually or instantaneously, it is up to Him. Romans 11:34 reminds us: "For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been His counselor?" DE is to be rejected. That is godless, not the idea that God permitted and guided the development of the first human body. </p><p style="text-align: left;">The study was permitted because it is an open question. There is no definitive teaching. Pope Pius XII <b><i><u>does not endorse the development of the human body, butt neither does he censure it or disapprove of it in any way</u></i></b>. Hence, the study of the question. </p><p style="text-align: left;"><b>Response to #3:</b></p><p style="text-align: left;">The idea of the development of the human body is by no means recent, as the teachings of the theologians will demonstrate. Does the Church forbid the idea that death of animals and plants only happened after the Fall?<b><i><u> No</u></i></b>. The argument against bodily development is that there would be death involved with plants and brutes prior to Original Sin. Original Sin brought human death, conceded; that it brought death of plants and animals; denied.</p><p>Going back as far as 1847, a Protestant geologist, Edward Hitchcock, wisely saw nothing wrong with positing non-human death before Adam and Eve. He wrote:</p><p><span style="color: red;">Not only geology,but zoology and comparative anatomy, teach us that death among the inferior animals did not result from the Fall of Man, but from the original constitution given them by their Creator. One large class of animals, the carnivores, have organs expressly intended for destroying other classes for food.</span> [Even herbivores] <span style="color: red;">must have destroyed a multitude of insects, of which several species inhabit almost every species of plant,</span> [not to mention the destruction of] <span style="color: red;">millions of animalcula</span> [microscopic organisms], <span style="color: red;">which abound in many of the fluids which animals drink, and even in the air which they breathe.</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">In short, death could not be excluded from the world, without an entire change in the constitution and course of nature; and such a change we have no reason to suppose, from the Mosaic</span> [Genesis] <span style="color: red;">account, took place when man fell.</span> (See Hitchcock, <u>Elementary Geology</u>, 8th edition [1847], p. 299ff). </p><p><u><b>What Pope Pius XII actually taught:</b></u></p><p><span style="color: red;">...the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, <b><i><u>in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter -- for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. </u></i></b> However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church…</span></p><p></p><p><span style="color: red;"><b><i><u>When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.</u></i></b> Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.</span> (See <i>Humani Generis</i> para. #36 & 37; Emphasis mine).</p><p>The pope did not rule out the creation of the body through evolution and he upheld the necessity of the belief in the immediate creation of the soul by God, as well as the necessary rejection of polygenism.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><u>The Teaching of the Church</u></b></p><p style="text-align: left;">The approved theologians are clear that the opinion of a human body that developed and was not created immediately <b><i><u>can be</u></i></b> (<b><i><u>not must be</u></i></b>) held:</p><p style="text-align: left;">Theologian Sagues:</p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">But whether with regard to his </span>[Adam] <span style="color: red;">body he is in some way from a brute (but not without the special intervention of God) is an <b><i>open</i></b> question, which has not yet been clearly and certainly explained by the investigations of natural science, and which will have to be solved with certainty perhaps in the future with the help of faith and guided by revelation. </span>(See <u>Sacrae Theologiae Summa IIB</u>, [1955], pg.236; Emphasis in original). </p><p style="text-align: left;">Theologian Hunter (d. 1896):</p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">Others think it possible that close study of the visible world, which we have called a divinely composed commentary upon the Written Word <b><i><u>may possibly give good ground for believing that the apparent meaning of the Mosaic narrative is not the true meaning, and that the body of the first Man was prepared by the operation of natural causes, without any extraordinary action of God.</u></i></b> These therefore suspend their judgement, and await further light upon the subject, whether it come to them by a pronouncement of the Church, or by the progress of natural science. </span>(See <u>Outlines of Dogmatic Theology</u>, [1895], pg. 420; Emphasis mine). </p><p style="text-align: left;">According to theologian Tanquerey (d.1932):</p><span style="color: red;">It is <i>de fide</i> that our first parents in regard to body and in regard to soul were created by God: it is certain that their souls were created immediately by God; the opinion, once common, which asserts that even man’s body was formed immediately by God has now fallen into controversy…As long as the spiritual origin of the human soul is correctly preserved, the differences of body between man and ape do not oppose the origin of the human body from animality…</span><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span><div><span style="color: red;">The reasons for and against it</span>[development of the body of Adam]<span style="color: red;">, we shall explain.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">The obvious meaning of the narrative in Genesis is that Adam's body was formed from the slime of the Earth, that is, from inorganic matter, but not from the body of some brute...</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><b><i>On the contrary</i></b>, if the nature of the narrative is considered to be <i style="font-weight: bold;">popular </i><b><i>historic, employing</i></b> metaphors then in use among the Semites, slime can thus be metaphorically understood to signify only the material or or physico-chemical elements from which Man's body is constituted, whether they still be inanimate and inorganic, or whether they be already ordered and living in an animal organism. In other words, the sacred author intended only to teach this: Man has been created by God of matter and of spirit--without affirming anything concerning the form or the manner of being of this matter. </span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">This interpretation seems to be entirely in conformity with the principles set forth by Leo XIII in the Encyclical <i>Providentissimus, </i>and repeated by Pius XII in the Encyclical <i>Divino Afflante Spiritu, </i>namely: the sacred authors do not give a properly or peculiarly scientific teaching, but "they describe and treat these very things either according to a certain manner of translation, or as the common speech reported them in those times."</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">The nearly unanimous interpretation of the Fathers and of the ancient Theologians, excepting Origen, Cajetan, and a few others, favors the opinion of the immediate production of the human body.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><i style="font-weight: bold;">On the contrary, </i>we must understand that the Fathers and ancient Theologians <b style="font-style: italic;">only repeat the words of Sacred Scripture.</b> A dispute had not arisen regarding the manner of forming the human body; this dispute they had no intentions in any way of settling. Wherefore it is apparent that <i style="font-weight: bold;">they do not propose as a doctrine of faith </i>the immediate formation of the body by God from the slime of the Earth in opposition to the mediate formation. </span>(See <u>A Manual of Dogmatic Theology</u>, [1959] English edition, 1:394-398; Emphasis in original).</div><div><br />Theologian Ott says similarly:<br /><span style="color: red;">The soul of the first man was created immediately by God out of nothing. As regards the body, its immediate formation from inorganic stuff by God <b><i><u>cannot be maintained with certainty</u></i></b>. <b><i><u>Fundamentally, the possibility exists that God breathed the spiritual soul into an organic stuff, that is, into an originally animal body…</u></i></b></span><br /><br /><span style="color: red;">The Encyclical<i> Humani Generis</i> of Pius XII (1950) lays down that the question of the origin of the human body is open to free research by natural scientists and theologians…</span><br /><br /><span style="color: red;">Against… the view of certain modern scientists, according to which the various races are derived from several separated stems (polygenism), the Church teaches that the first human beings, Adam and Eve, are the progenitors of the whole human race (monogenism). <u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">The teaching of the unity of the human race is not, indeed, a dogma, but it is a necessary pre-supposition of the dogma of Original Sin and Redemption</u> </span>(See <u>Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma</u>, [1955], pgs. 94-96; Emphasis mine).</div><div><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Conclusion</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">It has been demonstrated that the formation of the human body by God through the development of pre-existing living matter <b><i><u>may be believed</u></i></b>. You need not believe it, but you can. If you want to believe in geocentrism, a 6,000 year-old Earth, a literal Creation of six days lasting twenty-four hours each, and the formation of Adam's body from slime--you certainly can believe that. The problem arises when the Kolbe Center, and certain Traditionalists maintain these beliefs are "dogma" which must be believed. The formation of Adam's body through progressive development is possible. The approved theologians explain how there is no unanimous consent of the Fathers on this matter, and it was never settled by the Magisterium.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The Kolbe Center would have us believe that the approved theologians taught open heresy in their theological manuals, written under the careful watch of the Magisterium, and they were never censured or corrected in any way. Those who maintain only a literal interpretation of Genesis is possible, are either culpably ignorant of Church teaching, or fall into the same error as the "recognize and resist" movement. Who decides what is permitted to be believed? Ultimately, each individual. The individual decides when there is unanimous consent of the Fathers and what Scripture means, not the Magisterium (unless the individual happens to agree). Like Protestants, everyone picks and chooses what to believe by private interpretation. A true Traditionalist realizes that the Church tells us what is permissible to believe, for "He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me." (St. Luke 10:16). </div></div></div>Introibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.com57tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-7005840620370013902024-01-22T04:25:00.000-08:002024-01-22T04:25:06.551-08:00Beware Of "Smudging" <p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIhjKuRScm7gq_rEnNRPxAoTKXdbQGzfJoBj5dG7sLHa63McoHqNF23eAWKLEZWj3VRWx3Cn660UD-oxLR7lEWluVi_-X6dSqLxD6VoS7K6iBW-elxH4ZR7ICZoWA-H60ACCJjTWzh_yxikGNDSpM6olAQS27rK1wWy2p8WJ7HpUMugdZblalYb83hJ3k/s800/Smudging.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="533" data-original-width="800" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIhjKuRScm7gq_rEnNRPxAoTKXdbQGzfJoBj5dG7sLHa63McoHqNF23eAWKLEZWj3VRWx3Cn660UD-oxLR7lEWluVi_-X6dSqLxD6VoS7K6iBW-elxH4ZR7ICZoWA-H60ACCJjTWzh_yxikGNDSpM6olAQS27rK1wWy2p8WJ7HpUMugdZblalYb83hJ3k/s320/Smudging.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Recently, a colleague of mine was placing an order for <b><i><u>sage</u></i></b>. According to several online and book sources, sage; <span style="color: red;"><i><b>Salvia officinalis</b></i>, the common sage or sage, is a perennial, evergreen subshrub, with woody stems, grayish leaves, and blue to purplish flowers. It is a member of the mint family <b><i>Lamiaceae</i></b> and native to the Mediterranean region, though it has been naturalized in many places throughout the world.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Sage has an impressive list of medicinal uses, all backed up by medical and scientific research. According to the <i style="font-weight: bold;">Medical News Today </i>website, sage can:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b>1. Improve cognitive function and protect against dementia.</b></div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">[Sage can]<span style="color: red;">positively impact cognitive skills and protect against neurological disorders.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">The study author maintains that:</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">“In vitro, animal and preliminary human studies have supported the evidence of Salvia plants to enhance cognitive skills and guard against neurodegenerative disorders.”</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b>2. Reduce blood sugar levels and bad cholesterol.</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">One study saw 40 people with diabetes and high cholesterol take sage leaf extract for 3 months.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">At the end of the trial, the participants had lower fasting glucose, lower average glucose levels over a 3-month period, and lower total cholesterol, triglyceride, and levels of harmful cholesterol. However, the participants had increased levels of HDL or “good” cholesterol.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">The researchers concluded:</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">“[Sage] leaves may be safe and have anti-hyperglycemic and lipid-profile-improving effects in hyperlipidemic type 2 diabetic patients.”</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b>3. Acts as an anti-inflammatory.</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">Although more evidence is needed to confirm this benefit, certain compounds in sage appear to have an anti-inflammatory action. One study investigated the effects of a range of these compounds on the inflammatory response in gingival fibroblasts. These are a common type of cell found in the connective tissue of the gums.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b>4. Helps maintain good nutrition and health overall. </b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">Sage contains a wealth of nutrients and vitamins. However, since it is normally consumed in such small amounts, sage does not provide significant amounts of calories, carbohydrate, protein, or fiber.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">(See medicalnewstoday.com/articles/266480#risks).</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">I asked my colleague if he drank sage tea, and what benefits he experienced. He gushed about all the health and wellness benefits especially if you use it to "smudge." He would burn the sage and inhale the fumes to "focus his good energy," and dispel "negative energies" from his house. I immediately knew that it was used for an occult purpose (so-called "life-energy" is a sure sign of the occult). </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">This post is the result of my research, and a warning to those who would use something legitimate (sage) for an illegitimate (occult) purpose, that is poison to the soul. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><u>What is Smudging?</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Smudging is an occult practice, often not seen as one because: (a) there are many good and legitimate uses of sage, and (b) it appears in many otherwise reputable places not in connection with the occult.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">A wellness resort and spa endorses smudging and has written the following:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">The art of smudging is an ancient<b><i><u> spiritual ritual</u></i></b> for purification, dispelling negative energy and improving mood and can easily be incorporated into your weekly routine or meditative practice.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">Sage: The Latin word for sage, <i>salvia</i>, stems from the word, heal. Other qualities believed to be associated with sage when burned are wisdom, clarity, and<b><i><u> increased spiritual awareness</u></i></b>.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">Palo Santo: Spanish for “holy wood”, Palo Santo is a sacred tree which grows in select parts of South America and is a natural insect repellant. It has been used for centuries by <b><i><u>shamans in ritual prayer, ceremonies and healing</u></i></b>, known for its grounding and focusing effect which can enhance creativity, productivity and increase good fortune.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">Desert Rose: A symbol of clarity of the mind and excellent meditation stone. </span>(Emphasis mine)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">It continues describing a Smudging Ritual:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">•<span style="color: red;"> Smudging is the ritual of cleaning the energy of a physical space, object or person. If you have a meditation ritual, you can burn Sage or Palo Santo before your practice. This will help prepare your energy and mind for meditation and allow you to more easily connect.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Other items are burned, but almost always, it's sage. What "energy" is there and how is it "cleaned"? Occultic mumbo-jumbo. The meditation is occult also, like yoga, which the spa has at different times.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">• First you start with a simple intention of focusing on clearing the negative energy out of your space and mind.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">More nonsense on "energy."</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">• Once you have your intention in mind, light the Sage or Palo Santo and hold at a 45 degree angle pointing the tip down towards the flame. Allow it to burn for 30 seconds and then blow it out.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Like "make a wish and blow out the candle" but with an occult intention.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">• Place it on any heat-proof burning surface like an abalone shell, a traditional vessel used by Indigenous American people that represents the element of water.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Here there is reference to the pagan practices of Native American Indian shamanic practices.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">• If left to rest the stick will smoulder and release smoke for approximately 5 mins. If used for smudging, walk around the room, space, object or person, fanning the smoke over its entirety, whilst focusing on cleansing and clearing negative energy.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Exactly what is being cleansed, and how is burning sage accomplishing it?</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">• Once you’ve finished smudging and removed the negative energy, you must push positive energy into the space to maintain balance. To do this, declare your intention out loud or silently in your head.</span></div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">You must "push positive energy" by declaring your intention to...who??</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The pagan/occult concept should be clear. The spa ends with advice on "when to smudge:"</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">Before you go to bed after a long day around people</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">• Before and after a you’ve had guests at your home</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">• When you move into a new home</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">• When you begin a new job</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">• When you start your own business</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">• Before and after a healing session</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">• Before meditation</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">• After any illness</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">• After an argument / conflict</span></div></div></div></div><p>It's an occult panacea! (See civanacarefree.com/cleansing-your-space-smudging-ritual).</p><p><br /></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Smudging: A Pagan/Occult Ritual That Invites Evil</u></b></p><p style="text-align: left;">Smudging, is <b><i>shamanic</i></b>; that is, it has been practiced by pagan shamans ("medicine men" who practice divination and sorcery) especially among Native American tribes for spiritual or supernatural purposes, and it is common in the modern Wicca (witchcraft). </p><p style="text-align: left;">According to one source:</p><p><span style="color: red;">Smudging is the common name given to the indigenous American tradition known as<b><i><u> the Sacred Smoke Bowl Blessing.</u></i></b> This is a<b><i><u> powerful spiritual cleansing technique which calls upon the spirits of various sacred plants to drive away negative energy and to restore balance to an individual, a group, a space, or all three. </u></i></b> This tradition has been a part of the <b><i><u>spirituality of indigenous Americans for thousands of years, and now this cleansing ritual is available to anyone who is willing to give it a try. The ritual is very simple and very empowering, and you don't need a lot of expensive equipment to start doing it in your own home.</u></i></b></span></p><p><span style="color: red;">Perhaps you are wondering why smudging is effective? It is because<b><i><u> it allows you to effect the world of subtle spiritual energies using the spirits of various powerful, healing plants. If you have ever worked with yoga or meditation, you will understand that your body, and indeed, the spaces that you occupy, vibrate with invisible energy currents that can be strongly effected by outside forces, both physical and spiritual.</u></i></b></span></p><p><span style="color: red;">Smudging allows you to wash away all the emotional and spiritual negativity that gathers in your body and your space over time. It's a little bit like taking a spiritual shower! The effects of smudging can be very effective, often banishing stress almost instantly and providing energy and peace. Smudging can also help your body and space to adjust to the healing rhythms of the seasonal cycle. More than anything, though, smudging can turn your space, and your body, into a peaceful, beautiful temple in which you can rejuvenate yourself and fine happiness. </span>(See spiritualscents.com/t-art_What_Is_Smudging.aspx; Emphasis mine). </p><p>It therefore calls on spirits. These spirits are not the good angels. The belief that there is negative energy affecting us that can be cleansed or cleared away is part of the pagan view of unnamed and unquantifiable energy, a core occult principle. Diagnosing health and emotional problems is usually done by tuning in to (or feeling) a person’s “energy,” and treating such problems is through affecting the “energy” or “energy field” of the subtle body with various pagan/occult methods, or by applying a supposed "healing energy" from an outside source (however, these methods and explanations are often disguised with scientific sounding language). There is no credible basis for these beliefs; they are absolutely occult and medicinal quackery. </p><p><b><u>An Occult Mockery of Incense</u></b></p><p>From an article in <i>The American Ecclesiastical Review, </i>an article by Andrew W. Case (1944; pgs. 451-458) has this to say about the Church's use of incense (and which smudging is an occult mockery):<i> </i></p><p><span style="color: red;">The use of incense is connected primarily with the physical aspects of the sense of smell. Perfumes, pleasant odors of any sort, are agreeable to men. In ancient times they were offered to important individuals and often diffused over the roads on which they journeyed, or, as an accompaniment of food and wine, used at banquets. It was only natural to suppose that the same delectable odors would be acceptable to gods on the same principle as that by which foods which men preferred were offered to them. As men were honored with incense, to the Deity a similar honor was paid. Thus it is quite understandable that the rising smoke should be regarded as the vehicle of prayer.</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">As God commanded Moses to place incense "before the tabernacle of the testimony," so, as a sacramental, the Church prescribes its use in her ceremonials, although, as previously stated, its use was unknown during the first four centuries. Protestants, excepting the high church Anglicans who use it, declare that since the old laws were abrogated by Christ and that since the use of incense was not a primitive Christian practice, its use in Christian worship is invalidated. Then too they frequently contend that the Church in using incense has copied a pagan practice.</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">At first glance it does seem strange that the early Christians did not burn incense, particularly in light of the prophecy in Malachias which seems to point to its continued use in the new dispensation. "For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts" (Mal. 1:11). Furthermore it might seem strange, this neglect of the use of incense among the early Christians, when one recalls that it was one of the three offerings of the Magi at the birth of our Lord.</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">The fact that it was a Jewish usage may have tended to cause Christians to neglect it for so long, but what was probably a more powerful deterrent was its use among pagans and the common practice during the persecutions, particularly of the first century, of insisting that Christians should offer a few grains of incense on the altar of the Emperor as a mark of their renunciation of their faith. When apostates yielded in this way they were called Thurificati. Thus incense was anathema to the early Christians because of its association with paganism as well as Judaism and was not adopted into the Church's liturgy until paganism was dying out in Rome. In the light of the foregoing it is illogical to contend that the Church has copied a pagan practice.</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">It is not definitely known when this sacramental was introduced into the services of the Church. Its common employment in the Jewish temple and the New Testament references would suggest an early familiarity with it. St. Luke wrote: "And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense. And there appeared to them an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense" (Luke 1: 10). In Apocalypse 8: 4 we read: "And the smoke of the incense which came with the prayers of the saints ascended up before God out of the angel's hand."</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">The Catholic Encyclopedia states that "the earliest authentic reference to its use in the service of the Church is found in Pseudo-Dionysius," and Brightman's Eastern Liturgies says that its use is referred to in the Liturgies of Sts. James and Mark which, in their present form, are not older than the 5th century. Indeed, almost all the venerable Eastern liturgies attest to its use in the Mass, especially at the Offeratory. A seventh century Roman Ordo mentions that it was employed on Good Friday and in the procession of the bishop to the altar. A church in Antioch was presented with a thurible by a Persian king about the year 594.</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">During the later persecutions incense was used to honor the martyrs. As their bodies were carried to the catacombs or the crypts of the early churches for burial, small urns of incense burned in niches along the way. Later the gums and spices were burned in vessels suspended from chains and it is thought that from these evolved the swinging censers as we know them today. This custom may account for the practice of placing a few grains of frankincense with the relics of martyrs when they are entombed in altars.</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">In the Roman rite incense is burned at solemn high Mass, solemn blessings, functions, choral offices, processions and absolutions for the dead. There are two cases when it is used but not burned — the five grains put into the Pascal candle and, as mentioned before, the grains put into the sepulchre of consecrated altars.</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">At Mass it is blessed before it is burned. Before the Introit the priest blesses it, saying: "Mayest thou be blessed by Him in Whose honor thou art to be burnt. Amen." Between the Offering of the Chalice and the Lavabo the priest again blesses the incense, saying: "By the intercession of blessed Michael the Archangel, who standeth at the right hand of the altar of incense, and of all His elect, may the Lord vouchsafe to bless this incense, and to receive it for an odor of sweetness. Through Christ our Lord. Amen." The sweet odor of the burning confection rising heavenward is a natural symbol of prayer ascending to God. "Let my prayer be directed as incense in Thy sight, the lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice," sings David (Psalm 140: 2). Indeed these words form a portion of the prayer said by the priest as he incenses the altar...</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">In all the years man has discovered no finer odor for our Lord than that which emanates from the substance of the incense tree. "Mayest thou be blessed by Him in Whose honor thou art to be burned," says the priest. The tears of a wounded tree are twice blessed in the Mass. Twice blessed therefore is the creature of nature which, being wounded, gives up its fragrant tears in honor of Him who wept over Jerusalem; in honor of Him who was wounded and shed His precious blood for the whole world; in honor of Him whose unbounded love extends to all nature. All nature in turn serves Him, but the tears of olibanum are twice blessed.</span></p><p>The use of incense in the occult smudging ritual is completely different, since it allegedly has properties that can clear or cleanse supposed negative energies (or evil spirits) and/or bring “balance.” This is ascribing supernatural powers to a substance and/or to the ritual involved using it, but the basis for this belief rests on beliefs in unverified, unseen “energies" and "spirits." To burn sage, believing it has power to actually effect a change beyond fragrance, is to enter an occult worldview and call upon demons ("energies;" "spirits"). </p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Conclusion</u></b></p><p>Smudging is usually done with smudge sticks, bundles of herbs that can be purchased or made with sage, cedar, sweetgrass, lavender, etc. During the smudging ceremony of a home, the person smudging is encouraged to focus his or her energy and control breathing. After the smudge stick is lit with a candle, the person waves the smudge stick in the air, often wafting the smoke with a feather, and walks around the house starting at the front door and moving clockwise. Extra attention is paid to the corners of rooms (which supposedly accumulate stagnant energy). Once the entire house has been ritually cleansed, the smudge stick is extinguished at the front door. Some people leave the smudge stick outside the front door, thinking it has protective power.</p><p>Some people also smudge themselves by directing the smoke around their body and through their aura. This is thought to cleanse them of negative or stagnant energy. Auras are the occult concept that human beings and other living things emanate subtle energy fields or fields of light, surrounding us like bubbles of power.</p><p>There is nothing inherently wrong with burning incense or using herbs to beautify the fragrance of one’s home, but that is not what smudging is about. As with all occult teachings, there is no medical or scientific evidence for its use, and it contradicts Church teaching. God is the one to whom we turn for help and protection, not spirits and energies. Want to be protected from evil? Use the approved sacramentals of the Church, like Holy Water, the St. Benedict crucifix medal, the Five-Fold Scapular, etc. Pray the rosary, pray to St. Michael the Archangel, and stay close to the Mass and sacraments.</p><p>"Be subject therefore to God, but resist the devil, and he will fly from you." (St. James 4:7). </p>Introibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-29363052329523059322024-01-15T04:29:00.000-08:002024-01-15T04:29:29.099-08:00St. Anthony's Shrine<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVaE8WAScUL4CofEPLK8xadq5E-rhsKfn_27ynQGoPRvne2lqmRfvjd7MBiUQQ1JXeWaMxm33vraBuVrjXYp6jErFkFVpA5AayHmz733BKhusN5uSfwT0_a3dhFIL9Vk7aWNlkeTKQNAHqkHkIZWFfhyTTPWWpHXa4MCEHwR2v8NWH5wkPKnqkYuTCyVs/s1023/stAnthony.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1023" data-original-width="617" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVaE8WAScUL4CofEPLK8xadq5E-rhsKfn_27ynQGoPRvne2lqmRfvjd7MBiUQQ1JXeWaMxm33vraBuVrjXYp6jErFkFVpA5AayHmz733BKhusN5uSfwT0_a3dhFIL9Vk7aWNlkeTKQNAHqkHkIZWFfhyTTPWWpHXa4MCEHwR2v8NWH5wkPKnqkYuTCyVs/s320/stAnthony.jpg" width="193" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><span style="color: red;">To My Readers: This week, my guest poster <b><i>Lee</i></b>, tells about a magnificent shrine here in the United States! I thank him for giving me a chance to catch up on my work, while providing high quality material for this blog. Feel free to ask questions and make comments for<b><i> Lee</i></b> to answer. If you have a comment or question specifically for me, I will answer as always, but it will take me longer to do so this week.</span><p></p><p><span style="color: red;">God bless you all, my dear readers--<b><i>-Introibo</i></b></span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><u>St. Anthony's Shrine</u></b></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><i>By Lee</i></b></p><p>Throughout history, relics have carefully been preserved to commemorate those who came before us. Relics, whether they be that of saints or instruments of Christ's passion are not just used as tokens of honor, but in many cases, objects that produce miraculous effects. In the Old Testament we read in 2 Kings 13:20-21 that when Elisha died and was buried that some people burying another dead man cast the body into the grave of Elisha for fear of being raided by the Moabites. As soon as the body touched the bones of Elisha, the dead man came back to life and rose to his feet. In the New Testament, we also read in the gospel of St. Matthew 9:20-22 where a woman had a hemorrhage problem, touched the hem of Christ's garment, and was healed and in Acts 19:11-12 how God worked extraordinary miracles through St. Paul by the use of his handkerchiefs or cloths which had touched his skin, which when applied to the sick cured them of their diseases and evil spirits departed from them.</p><p>In the Holy Mass when a priest completes the prayers at the foot of the altar, the first prayers that come out of his mouth as he ascends to the altar are:<b><i> Aufer a nobis, quaesumus, Domine, iniquitates nostras ut ad Sancta sanctorum puris mereamur mentibus introire. Per Christum Dominum nostrum.Oramus te. Domine, per merita Sanctorum tuorum, quorum reliquiae hic sunt, et omnium Sanctorum: ut indulgere digneris omnia peccata mea</i></b>. Translation: Take away from us our iniquities, O Lord, we beseech You, that we may enter with pure minds into the Holy of Holies. Through Christ our Lord. We beseech You, O Lord, by the merits of <b><i><u>Your Saints whose relics lie here</u></i></b>, and of all the Saints, deign in your mercy to pardon me all my sins.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><u>The Man Who Made It Possible</u></b></p><p>Recognizing the historical and spiritual importance of relics, Fr. Suitbert Mollinger, a priest from the Civil War era, had a goal to start a shrine in the once industrious city of Pittsburgh PA, where he was stationed as a priest for three local churches.</p><p>Fr. Mollinger was the sixth of eight children born of Francois and Dorothea Mollinger in the Netherlands in 1828. The children were all raised Catholic because of their devout mother despite their father being Protestant. Having a vocation to the priesthood, Suitbert moved to the United States for his studies before being ordained in the 1850's.</p><p>Bishop Young of Erie PA incardinated him into his diocese on April 20th 1859 and assigned him to Brookville in Jefferson County as pastor of Immaculate Conception Parish. Because of extensive duties in the mission churches, Father was not in agreement with Bishop Young on some matters up for question and consequently made the decision to join the Diocese of Pittsburgh PA with granted permission.</p><p>He was made the first pastor of St. Alphonsus Church in Wexford, founded by the Redemptorists. The parish was composed of Irish and German farmers. Additionally, he also served a mission church a short distance away in Perrysville. Construction was begun on a church building there, and the cornerstone for the new St. Teresa’s was laid by Bishop Domenec. Father worked at St. Alphonsus and Perrysville for over two years before his assignment as pastor of Most Holy Name Parish on Troy Hill. During this time Most Holy Name of Jesus, as well as St. Joseph’s Church in Manchester, was a mission of St. Mary’s, the Benedictine Parish on the North Side. Here he continued his duties starting in 1868.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Father Mollinger's Relics and Chapel</u></b></p><p>When Father Mollinger arrived in 1868, he brought with him from his earlier years his own collection of relics. Later his collection grew due to the European politics of his time. Italy and Germany were fighting for unification. The Italian resurgence attempted to unify Italy when the Papal States were annexed. Under the anti-Catholic revolutionaries Giuseppi Mazzini, Count Cavour, and Giuseppi Garibaldi this was accomplished. Over a period of 10 years between 1860 and 1870, the pontifical soldiers were defeated and the Church lost the Papal States. Monasteries were destroyed and relics were lost, later appearing in pawn shops and other obscure places. </p><p>Father Mollinger was able to recover many of them on his own, as well as through contacts such as Father Hyacinth Epp, a Franciscan provincial who traveled to Europe. Meanwhile, in Germany, the Kulturkampf (cultural struggle) began under Otto Van Bismarck. Distrust towards Roman Catholics was a common doctrine among the liberals of the 19th century. The Kulturkampf was a political struggle between the Catholic Church and the Imperial German government. The main concern was state control of educational and ecclesiastical appointments. Bishops and priests were imprisoned and sees were left vacant. Many felt that precious reliquaries were insecure and thus were sent away from Germany from desecration. Father Mollinger was able to obtain many of them.</p><p>Father Mollinger had traveled to Europe in 1880 to bring back more relics. When he returned, he approached the Church committee with a proposal to build s bigger church where his relics would be kept. Realizing that the parish could not afford the expense of a new building, the committee voted against his proposal. Father Mollinger decided that he would finance a chapel with his private funds. The cornerstone was laid on the feast of St. Anthony, June 13, 1882, and exactly one year later the chapel was dedicated. As it stands, there are more than 5,000 relics in Saint Anthony Chapel, with 800 encased with 525 accompanying documents.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><u>The Chapel Draws Attention</u></b></p><p>Many visitors came to Troy Hill and Most Holy Name Parish during the late 1870s because of Father Mollinger’s work. As his collection kept increasing, crowds of people constantly came to Troy Hill for different reasons, and especially for the Corpus Christi processions and the feast of St. Anthony. <i>The Pittsburgh Catholic</i> reported that on June 13, 1888, a crowd estimated around 6,000 gathered around the chapel in the morning for the 10:30 a.m. Solemn High Mass. From 1888 until 1892 crowds of people continued to inundate Troy Hill. The August 31, 1889, edition of the Pittsburgh Catholic states there was an astoundingly large crowd. In June of 1892, the work of the enlargement of the chapel was completed. It now measured 125 feet long and 50 feet wide. Inside which are still seen to this day, beautiful wood-carved life-size stations were imported from Germany; new stained-glass windows were put in; the marble for the altar was imported from Rome; a new organ and new bells were installed, and additional fresco work was done by Adolph Steubner.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Father Mollinger's Last Years</u></b></p><p>Father Mollinger suffered chronic rheumatism during the 1880s. He also suffered from edema and had to contend with an old rupture, which gave him much trouble. Two prominent physicians, Dr. King and Dr. Peach, attended him frequently. During the last two years of his life, he had great difficulty sleeping. Those close to him knew that he did not have long to live.<b> (The following material comes from the journal kept by the School Sisters of Notre Dame at Most Holy Name Convent. We are not sure which sister wrote this account.)</b></p><p><span style="color: red;">On June 13, 1890, on the feast of Saint Anthony, there was an extraordinary number of people here. Six thousand, as some newspapers reported, attended on that day. Already several days before, all places of lodging were overcrowded. On the eve of the feast, no more rooms, public or private, were available even for great sums of money. People who came from far away had to spend the night in our schoolyard and on the church steps. Rev. Suitbert G. Mollinger, for longer periods of time, had half the church filled with the sick, whom he blessed daily, and spoke to each one individually and recommended medicine for them. </span></p><p><span style="color: red;">On the day before the feast, and already some days before, the rooms downstairs, where he usually received the sick, were too small, so that he took them to the classrooms where he tended to them not only during the day but into the night until eleven and twelve o’clock. In consequence of this exertion, Rev. S.G. Mollinger became very ill. He had an attack of the dropsy. The doctors feared for his life. On July 14, he traveled to Atlantic City in hopes of being cured by the ocean air. But he improved only very slowly. When, however, he felt a little better, he pursued even there, in Atlantic City, his favorite occupation, blessing the sick in the same church where he celebrated holy Mass. </span></p><p><span style="color: red;">On August 18, 1890, Rev. S.G. Mollinger returned home, but his health had not improved. He was so weak, that he could not even walk by himself from the carriage into the house. On August 31, we celebrated First Holy Communion for 41 girls and 39 boys, a greater number than ever before in our parish, Rev. S.G. Mollinger did not attend the celebration, he was too ill. In the afternoon, after the services the Communicants went to the rectory where they received their Communion pictures. On Sept. 2, our school started again. On the first day, nearly 60 children entered. The magnificent Saint Anthony Chapel had just been completed, but not yet consecrated. On June 11, 1892, our Rev. S.G. Mollinger had been with the Most Rev. Bishop to ask permission for celebrating Holy Mass on the Feast. Since the existing altar of the chapel had been consecrated many years ago permission was granted. Rev. S.G. Mollinger was overjoyed. </span></p><p><span style="color: red;">On June 12, he asked for two Sisters to help him with the decoration of the chapel and the altars. All afternoon, he and the Sisters and several men were busy decorating. He sent for the most beautiful natural flowers and green plants. Rev. S.G. Mollinger did most himself. In the evening, the chapel was most beautiful. Rev. Mollinger couldn't sleep all night. Finally, at 4 o’clock, he arose and at 5 o’clock he celebrated Holy Mass and gave Holy Communion to several of the sick. At 8 o’clock, he was still sitting in OU1" yard when he called me to himself and said to me, how beautiful his chapel was, and that during Holy Mass he had seen St. Anthony who told him to take good care of himself. Several times he called me over and had something to tell me. It seemed as if he had a premonition that he should see me for the last time. </span></p><p><span style="color: red;">At 9 o’clock, he felt already very ill. As every year, very many sick people were here from all over. Hundreds stood in front of the church and in the street, as the crowd was too large to fit into the church. As every year, Rev. Mollinger wanted to bless the sick after the High Mass. But because he felt already very ill, he took along Rev. C. Laengst, his best and faithful friend. While he was blessing the sick, he felt worse. After he had finished, he had to be assisted into the house. They had to let him lie on the floor, so intense were his pains. On June 14, they called Dr. King who diagnosed his condition as very dangerous, and consulted with three other doctors. On June 15, the doctors decided on one last means to save his life, an operation. But it was too late. Rev. S.G. Mollinger died at 2:00 p.m. on June 15,1892. His burial took place on June 18 at Most Holy Name Cemetery. </span></p><p>Father Mollinger died peacefully with a crucifix in his hand on June 15, 1892. His earthly remains were laid to rest on June 18, 1892, at Most Holy Name of Jesus Cemetery, on Mt. Troy Road; his chapel stands to this day as a monument to his devotion and good works.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Church Teaching on Relics</u></b></p><p>The remains of a saint or a belonging of Christ or His holy mother are divided into three categories:</p><p>1. First-class relics are parts of the body of a saint or an instrument of Christ's passion.</p><p>2. Second-class relics are objects sanctified by close contact with saints, such as articles of clothing, objects used in life or in the case of a martyr, the instruments of his torture.</p><p>3. Third-class relics are objects or cloths touched to either a first or second class relic.</p><p>The veneration of relics goes back to the early Church, even since Apostolic times. By the fourth century, when Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, putting an end to the persecution of Christians, the monuments built over the graves of the martyrs were transformed into magnificent sanctuaries and basilicas. When churches were erected apart from the tombs of martyrs, the remains of one or the other of the martyrs were transferred and enshrined within the altars. This gave rise this practice even unto modern times where a saint's relic is enclosed on a flat stone in the center of the altar. </p><p>Even Constantine's own mother St. Helen was well known for identifying the relics of the true cross by applying a sick woman to all three crosses and once the woman touched the true cross, was healed. While relics have demonstrated miracles and are associated with profound veneration, St. Jerome instructed that, "We do not worship, we do not adore for fear that we should bow down to the creature rather than to the Creator, but we venerate relics of the martyrs in order the better adore Him whose martyrs they are." Adding to that St. Cyril of Alexandria writes, "We by no means consider the holy martyrs to be gods, nor are we wont to bow down before them adoringly, but only relatively and reverentially."</p><p>During the Crusades relics were marketed and rated for there value. In 1204, with the taking of Constantinople, a great number of relics were captured and Antioch, Jerusalem, and Edessa were successfully sacked. Relics were sent back to enrich the churches and cathedrals. Crusaders were more interested in the possession of relics, than their commercial value. Fake relics were also multiplied in increasing numbers, both by enterprising charlatans along with theft for an exchange of those captured. In 1274, the Second Council of Lyons prohibited the veneration of new relics without the permission of the Roman Pontiff. Shortly after the Council's declarations, Bishop Quivil of Exeter wrote this: "We command the prohibition to be carefully observed by all, and decree that no person shall expose relics for sale, and that neither stones, nor fountains, trees, wood, or garments shall in any way be venerated on account of dreams or on fictitious grounds."</p><p>From there to a couple centuries later, the Protestant revolters, such as John Wycliffe to Martin Luther made their criticisms of relics, making the claims that it was idolatry or that it was an invention of the Church to detract from Sacred Scripture. </p><p>In response to such nonsense, the Council of Trent later declared:</p><p><span style="color: red;">The holy council commands all bishops and others who hold the office of teaching and have charge of the<i><b> cura animarum</b></i>, that in accordance with the usage of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, received from the primitive times of the Christian religion, and with the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers and the decrees of sacred councils, they above all instruct the faithful diligently in matters relating to intercession and invocation of the saints,<b><i><u> the veneration of relics</u></i></b>, and the legitimate use of images, teaching them that the saints who reign together with Christ offer up their prayers to God for men, that it is good and beneficial suppliantly to invoke them and to have recourse to their prayers, assistance and support in order to obtain favors from God through His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our redeemer and savior; 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, or that it is foolish to pray vocally or mentally to those who reign in heaven. </span></p><p><span style="color: red;">Also, that <b><i><u>the holy bodies of the holy martyrs and of others living with Christ</u></i></b>, which were the living members of Christ and the temple the Holy Ghost, to be awakened by Him to eternal life and to be glorified, are to be venerated by the faithful, through which many benefits are bestowed by God on men,<b><i><u> so that those who maintain that veneration and honor are not due to the relics of the saints, or that these and other memorials are honored by the faithful without profit, and that the places dedicated to the memory of the saints for the purpose of obtaining their aid are visited in vain, are to be utterly condemned,</u></i></b> as the Church has already long since condemned and now again condemns them.</span></p><p><span style="color: red;"> Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints are to be placed and retained especially in the churches, and that due honor and veneration is to be given them; not, however, that any divinity or virtue is believed to be in them by reason of which they are to be venerated, or that something is to be asked of them, or that trust is to be placed in images, as was done of old by the Gentiles who placed their hope in idols; but because the honor which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which they represent, so that by means of the images which we kiss and before which we uncover the head and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ and venerate the saints whose likeness they bear. That is what was defined by the decrees of the councils, especially of the Second Council of Nicaea, against the opponents of images.</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">Moreover, let the bishops diligently teach that by means of the stories of the mysteries of our redemption portrayed in paintings and other representations the people are instructed and confirmed in the articles of faith, which ought to be borne in mind and constantly reflected upon; also that great profit is derived from all holy images, not only because the people are thereby reminded of the benefits and gifts bestowed on them by Christ, but also because through the saints the miracles of God and salutary examples are set before the eyes of the faithful, so that they may give God thanks for those things, may fashion their own life and conduct in imitation of the saints and be moved to adore and love God and cultivate piety. </span></p><p><span style="color: red;"><b><i><u>But if anyone should teach or maintain anything contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema</u></i></b>. If any abuses shall have found their way into these holy and salutary observances, the holy council desires earnestly that they be completely removed, so that no representation of false doctrines and such as might be the occasion of grave error to the uneducated be exhibited. And if at times it happens, when this is beneficial to the illiterate, that the stories and narratives of the Holy Scriptures are portrayed and exhibited, the people should be instructed that not for that reason is the divinity represented in picture as if it can be seen with bodily eyes or expressed in colors or figures. Furthermore, in the invocation of the saints, <b><i><u>the veneration of relics</u></i></b>, and the sacred use of images, all superstition shall be removed, all filthy quest for gain eliminated, and all lasciviousness avoided, so that images shall not be painted and adorned with a seductive charm, or the celebration of saints and the visitation of relics be perverted by the people into boisterous festivities and drunkenness, as if the festivals in honor of the saints are to be celebrated with revelry and with no sense of decency.</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">Finally, such zeal and care should be exhibited by the bishops with regard to these things that nothing may appear that is disorderly or unbecoming and confusedly arranged, nothing that is profane, nothing disrespectful, since holiness becometh the house of God. That these things may be the more faithfully observed, the holy council decrees that no one is permitted to erect or cause to be erected in any place or church, howsoever exempt, any unusual image unless it has been approved by the bishop; also that no new miracles be accepted and <b><i><u>no relics recognized unless they have been investigated and approved by the same bishop, who, as soon as he has obtained any knowledge of such matters, shall, after consulting theologians and other pious men, act thereon as he shall judge consonant with truth and piety.</u></i></b></span></p><p><span style="color: red;">But if any doubtful or grave abuse is to be eradicated, or if indeed any graver question concerning these matters should arise, the bishop, before he settles the controversy, shall await the decision of the metropolitan and of the bishops of the province in a provincial synod; so, however, that nothing new or anything that has not hitherto been in use in the Church, shall be decided upon without having first consulted the most holy Roman pontiff.</span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Conclusion</u></b></p><p>If anybody ever happens to be passing through Pittsburgh PA, St. Anthony's chapel is a must stop. Be forewarned that when visiting, hours are limited from 12-3 every day except Friday, so plan accordingly. Its unique history, along with its enormous collection should be an inspiration to Catholics and hopefully the conversion of non-Catholics. Despite being in the hands of the Vatican II religion, I would still consider this place very holy.</p><p></p><p>On another note, while this article was specifically about St. Anthony's shrine, the neighboring state of Ohio also can boast of a shrine like it. Having the second largest shrine of relics in America is that of Mariah Stine, located in the central western corner of the state. It has 1,200 relics, with an addition of 5 relics of the true cross. Instead of being located in the middle of the city such as St. Anthony's this place is tucked away in a farming area. The hours of operation are normal business hours (generally speaking) along with a gift shop, museum, outdoor stations with a small chapel. </p>Introibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.com22tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-61264936359356277972024-01-08T02:52:00.000-08:002024-01-08T14:33:26.410-08:00Severity Isn't Sanctity<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1KNmfulg9xUfPFozhvwMywKmOkk6fhVyd8357kwbb-1HOBzah6gt3TTzjaxTYSAonQCMSMAbPDO_hXmNiWdMORBv68InZ4ps_ovctAOHLoh2JccUQxdgdhJDhwa-hbW5t4wma1YJbWfihcMZr1pgwykQoC1jhuOEHG05priI2qc2eaVAfDgydUcN9Cro/s3296/Saint_Simeon_Stylites_the_elder._Wellcome_V0017502.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3296" data-original-width="2427" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1KNmfulg9xUfPFozhvwMywKmOkk6fhVyd8357kwbb-1HOBzah6gt3TTzjaxTYSAonQCMSMAbPDO_hXmNiWdMORBv68InZ4ps_ovctAOHLoh2JccUQxdgdhJDhwa-hbW5t4wma1YJbWfihcMZr1pgwykQoC1jhuOEHG05priI2qc2eaVAfDgydUcN9Cro/s320/Saint_Simeon_Stylites_the_elder._Wellcome_V0017502.jpg" width="236" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">One of the most unusual saints of the Church was St. Simeon Stylites the Elder. <u>The Catholic Encyclopedia</u> of 1913 has this to say about him:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"> <span style="color: red;">Simeon the Elder, was born about 388 at Sisan, near the northern border of Syria. After beginning life as a shepherd boy, he entered a monastery before the age of sixteen, and from the first gave himself up to the practice of an austerity so extreme and to all appearance so extravagant, that his brethren judged him, perhaps not unwisely, to be unsuited to any form of community life. Being forced to quit them he shut himself up for three years in a hut at Tell-Neschin, where for the first time he passed the whole of Lent without eating or drinking. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">This afterwards became his regular practice, and he combined it with the mortification of standing continually upright so long as his limbs would sustain him. In his later days he was able to stand thus on his column without support for the whole period of the fast. After three years in his hut, Simeon sought a rocky eminence in the desert and compelled himself to remain a prisoner within a narrow space less than twenty yards in diameter. But crowds of pilgrims invaded the desert to seek him out, asking his counsel or his prayers, and leaving him insufficient time for his own devotions. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">This at last determined him to adopt a new way of life. </span><span style="color: red;">Simeon had a pillar erected with a small platform at the top, and upon this he determined to take up his abode until death released him. At first the pillar was little more than nine feet high, but it was subsequently replaced by others, the last in the series being apparently over fifty feet from the ground.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Many Traditionalists make the mistake of equating <b><i><u>severity of mortification</u></i></b> with <b><i><u>holiness</u></i></b>. They believe that more austere your live your life, the more holy you become; this is false. Certain Catholics of certain temperaments may reach sanctity with such mortification, but only very rarely and usually under strict supervision by a spiritual director. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This idea equating being holy with being strict has another dangerous consequence. Some people of the "recognize and resist" (R&R) crowd will use this notion to "prove" past popes were "liberal" and introduced practices harmful to the Church. The reason these practices were allegedly "harmful" was because they were not as strict as before.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I came across a blog entitled <i>A Catholic Life, </i>run by a man named Matthew who is a "conservative" member of the Vatican II sect and a a Third Order Dominican from Chicago who considers himself "an expert on Catholicism." The post was entitled, <i>How St. Pius X & the 1917 Code of Canon Law Liberalized Fasting, Abstinence, and Holy Days of Obligation. </i>It may be read in full here:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">acatholiclife.blogspot.com/2021/04/how-st-pius-x-1917-code-of-canon-law.html.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">In his conclusion to that post, he writes:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">Saints are not perfect. While we can certainly praise many of St. Pius X's actions, it would be imprudent to endorse all of them - and conversely to always dismiss any modern churchmen by the fact that they are not from before Vatican II. Discernment and critical thinking is necessary with anything. <b><i><u>As it concerns Holy Days of Obligation, fasting, and abstinence, St. Pius X introduced liberal practices that only accelerated the collapse of Catholic practices.</u></i></b> The practices in place under St. Pius X are shadows of former times, and those practices were weakened quickly so that by 1962 they were even weaker! </span>(Emphasis mine). </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">That saints are not perfect, I concede. That a true pope can "introduce practices that accelerate the collapse of Catholic practices," I deny. It would mean that Pope St. Pius X, introduced "liberal" practices that were not truly Catholic. However, this is impossible. </div><p></p><div>According to theologian Van Noort, "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church..<b><i><u>.it can never sanction a universal law which would be at odds with faith or morality or would by its very nature conducive to the injury of souls</u></i></b>...The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the direction of <b><i><u>Christian worship</u></i></b> and Christian living." (See<u> Dogmatic Theology</u>, 2: 114-115; Emphasis mine).</div><div><br /></div><div>According to theologian Hermann, "The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either <b><i><u>external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…</u></i></b>" ( See <u>Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae </u>1:258; Emphasis mine).</div><div><br /></div><div>Therefore, to be infallible in this sense means that the Church cannot give that which is erroneous, evil, or an incentive to impiety. It does not mean that once a certain ceremony or practice has been adopted by the Church it cannot change; rather, the new ceremony or practice will also be infallibly guaranteed to be free from error, evil, and impiety. Logical corollary: If the Pian changes involving Holy Days of Obligation, fasting, and abstinence were approved by a true pope (Pope St. Pius X), then it must be just good, holy, and Catholic as it was prior to those changes. </div><div><br /></div><div>The logical corollary to Matthew's position is that, if a true pope can introduce things in the Church that lead to/accelerate the "collapse of Catholic practices," and can still be a true pope (and a saint), the same would hold for Roncalli (John XXIII) through Bergoglio (Francis). </div><div><br /></div><div>This post will address the error that "severity = sanctity."</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>In Defense of Pope St. Pius X</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Matthew's post opens thus:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><div><span style="color: red;">Pope St. Pius X is regarded as a champion by traditionalists for good reasons. There is no doubting his personal sanctity and the motivations that inspired some of his actions (e.g., lowering the age for First Holy Communion and recommending frequent - even daily - reception of our Lord in Holy Communion). His crusade against modernism and his actions for the liberty of the Church and for the spread of Christ's reign are certainly praiseworthy.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">But we who have the luxury of seeing how history unfolded can observe how this holy pope's actions in regards to holy days of obligation, fasting, and abstinence sadly led to a collapse of Catholic practice. We would do well to keep the practices before St. Pius X, which had already been eroded by dispensations and changes for several centuries. St. Pius X merely helped accelerate this erosion.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div>At issue in "accelerating the collapse of Catholic practice" (allegedly going on for centuries under many preceding true popes), is Pope St. Pius X's<i><b> Supremi disciplinæ</b></i> in 1911 which reduced the number of Holy Days of Obligation in the Universal Church, and relaxed the laws of abstinence and fasting. The 1917 Code of Canon Law (begun under St. Pius and promulgated when finished under Pope Benedict XV) is also a universal disciplinary law of the Church and protected by the Holy Ghost from giving anything evil or erroneous to the Church. It incorporated changes to those same topics and is also the subject of Matthew's scorn.</div><div><br /></div><div>Why did Pope St. Pius X make such changes? Were the changes non-Catholic, or a danger to the Faith? There is a book written by theologian Hilling in German that addresses these questions. Published in 1912, it is entitled <u>The Reforms of Pope Pius X : In the Field of Canon Law Legislation</u>. (I had it translated from German to English). Here's what he wrote regarding these reforms just one year after they were made:</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">The Church's ordinance of feast days is an important subject of religious duties, which, like annual confession and communion, are included in the catalog of the commandments of the Church. It was therefore to be expected from the outset that the general revision of canon law would also deal with the question of feast days. A well-founded reason to improve the existing ordinance of feast days was given in particular by the fact that (1) the great differences in the ecclesiastical disciplinary regulations in the individual countries were felt to be increasingly burdensome as a result of modern transportation conditions and (2) the industrial and economic situation of the present day, namely the increase in prices for living expenses, made it desirable in many regions to reduce the number of feast days. As a result, the Holy See has repeatedly received requests to reduce the number of official feasts, especially in recent years.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Pope Pius X therefore <b><i><u>felt compelled to take account of the needs of the times and the wishes of the bishops in the motu proprio "Supremi disciplinae" of July 2, 1911</u></i></b>, and to reduce the number of feast days. Having <b><i><u>previously sought the advice of the Congregation of Cardinals for the Codification of Canon Law,</u></i></b> he made the following provisions...</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">The most important provision of the <i>motu proprio</i> "Supremi disciplinae" is undoubtedly the reduction of the ecclesiastical order of feast days to the eight feast days mentioned... In my opinion, it cannot be denied that the selection of the feasts which will henceforth be valid according to universal law has been made with a careful and happy hand. Of the feast days of the Lord, of course, Holy Easter (Sunday), Ascension Day and Pentecost (Sunday) form the iron foundation of the ecclesiastical year, which has probably never been thought to be diminished. In addition, the feasts of the Circumcision and the Transfiguration of the Lord were retained. <u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Presumably, civic reasons were decisive for the preservation of the first and historical reasons for the second. Both motives are important enough to be approved by everyone.</u>...</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><b><i><u><br /></u></i></b></span></div><div><div style="color: red;">It is probably the fate of all great reform undertakings that <b><i><u>they arouse fierce opposition from their enemies, but are sometimes received with some astonishment by their friends and supporters</u></i></b>,<b><i><u> and sometimes celebrated with exaggerated enthusiasm.</u></i></b> This experience was also confirmed anew with the reform laws of Pius X. <b><i><u>The battle that has been waged by the faithless sons of the Catholic Church and the outside representatives of unbelief and religious liberalism against the powerful proclamations of the Apostolic See is still raging with all its strength</u></i></b>. On the other hand, the <b><i><u>antagonisms among Catholics, who, although all on the ground of the papal decrees, have nevertheless criticized some of the practical measures, have fortunately been mitigated</u></i></b>. </div><div style="color: red;"><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">In the interest of a happy implementation of the papal reform provisions, it is to be hoped that all fearful and anxious minds will regard the new regulations of our Holy Father with love and benevolence. </span>(pgs. 196-198; Emphasis mine). </div><div><br /></div><div>Theologian Hilling outlines all the changes decreed by Pope St. Pius. He includes the following principles to fully understand the import of papal decrees:</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">Bishop Adolf Bertram of Hildesheim recommended the following rules of conduct to his diocese, which also apply to other dioceses, and deserve to be heeded. "When new noise arises about papal decrees, keep the following rules in future. First: above all, <b><i><u>we must have the sure, correct text in faithful translation.</u></i></b> Secondly, <b><i><u>we must know what prompted the Holy Father to issue new decrees</u></i></b>, <b><i><u>and what the purpose of his decree is when interpreted intelligently</u></i></b>. Thirdly, <b><i><u>wait and see what practical application your bishops give to the decrees</u></i></b>. - Act according to these sound principles. Refuse to believe all inflammatory attacks. Confront them with the awareness of your Christian dignity...<b><i><u>Above all this, keep your confident trust in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whose assistance is promised to the pastoral office of our Church for all times!</u></i></b>"</span>(<i><b>Ibid</b></i>; Emphasis mine).</div><div><br /></div><div>We see that the pope, after careful deliberation and consultation with cardinals/theologians, amended the Holy Days and fasting/abstinence rules to comport with the spiritual and civil needs of Catholics. Needing to work more due to secularization, and needing strength to work, His Holiness did what was needed under the protection of the Holy Ghost. Remember too, that the pope was not forbidding anyone from attending Mass on any given day, nor was he<b><i><u> prohibiting</u></i></b> anyone from voluntarily fasting and abstaining from meat. If I were able to go to Mass daily, I would do so out of love of my Lord Jesus Christ and to receive Him in Holy Communion, not because it is a sin. Imagine the problems and burdening of consciences if the Church had required daily Mass attendance under pain of mortal sin. </div><div><br /></div><div>The wisdom of Bishop Bertram can likewise be seen in applying those wise principles to a true pope (exonerating any charges of error or evil) and a false pope like Bergoglio, which serves to prove his non-papacy. </div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Pope Pius XII on Fasting</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Pope Pius XII (r. 1939-1958) bore the brunt of unjust criticism of his reforms in the 1950s. While this was the first time I saw Pope St. Pius X excoriated, Pope Pius XII is routinely on the receiving end of harsh criticism for his Holy Week changes and shortening of the Eucharistic fast from midnight before Communion, to three hours. Hopefully, everyone can now see how unfounded those charges are, and how absurd is the allegation that the reforms of Pope St. Pius X "led to" the changes that became Vatican II. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Pope Pius XII allowed for evening Mass to accommodate those needing to work in an ever more secularized world. To keep the Eucharistic Fast from midnight until Mass at 8pm, would require someone to go without food for approximately 21 hours. Most people could not sustain such a fast without serious hardship on their daily work and causing physical health issues. That wise mitigated fast is there to be used, but if someone wants to fast from midnight (and can physically do so) they certainly can. To suggest this "led to" Montini's one hour "fast" where you can walk up to the Vatican II sect "Eucharistic minister" on a Saturday evening (while belching up your dinner) to get a cracker placed in your hand and chew it like cud is absurd. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The correct view on fasting was given by Pope Pius XII on Nov. 2, 1950, in an address to the Cardinals and Bishops present in Rome for the solemn proclamation of the Assumption.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">In order to react against this lack of restraint </span>[lack of the spirit of sacrifice and mortification]<span style="color: red;">, We exhort and urge all and every one to freely take up the spiritual warfare under the banner of Christian mortification and of the generous desire to go beyond what is strictly prescribed by the moral law—each one <b><i><u>according to his strength</u></i></b>, <b><i><u>according to the invitations of God’s grace</u></i></b>, <b><i><u>according to what his work allows him to do</u></i></b></span>. (Emphasis mine). </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Fasting is only a means of sanctification when united to the spirit of charity. If you're only fasting because it is a sin not to do so, you are lukewarm in the practice of the Faith. What did Jesus Christ say about being lukewarm? <span style="color: red;">So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to vomit you out of my mouth. </span>(Apocalypse 3:16). </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Here's what the Church Fathers said about fasting:</div><div style="text-align: left;">St. Cesariaus of Arles wrote:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">Fasting is good, almsgiving is better… If one cannot fast, almsgiving is sufficient… But fasting without almsgiving is no good, unless one be too poor to give; in which case the good will suffices</span></div><div style="color: red; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration: underline;"><br /></div></div></div><div>Pope St. Gregory the Great writes in his <i>Regula pastoralis:</i></div><div><span style="color: red;">Fasting is recommended only because of the other virtues which accompany it; hence Joel says: "sanctify your fast"… Those who fast, therefore, should be warned that their abstinence will be pleasing to God, only if they give to the poor the food of which they deprive themselves.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Conclusion</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">It is against both Catholic teaching (and common sense) to attack the reforms of a true pope. When fasting and abstaining, always do it with charity. Severity is not sanctity. As a matter of fact, Pope St. Pius X recommended to us <b><i><u>the easiest way to get to Heaven:</u></i></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><i><u><br /></u></i></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">Holy Communion is the shortest and safest way to Heaven. There are others: innocence, but that is for little children; penance, but we are afraid of it; generous endurance of trials of life, but when they come we weep and ask to be delivered. <b><i><u>The surest, easiest, shortest way is the Eucharist</u></i></b>.</span> (Emphasis mine).</div>Introibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.com33tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-21403420547730822562024-01-01T00:06:00.000-08:002024-01-01T00:06:01.284-08:00Contending For The Faith---Part 23<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvfct3VjBkbpCHDBrGv_eeDx4kEIOzxZbKg_KXbsq9Vh8hMGZz0hS2ybD0-lZs0WrtsjFsPGGWgZ4QbHt2horG_q6VMd4R51Nf_SGE1DhoibSqFo_R3De0RMNKuGGhwvje6WfiTAT2dfQbEsYK6LfpQRIT96734Y0j2PAYNHtsKl-a-oTAlujwUAqqAxg/s960/Contending%20For%20The%20Faith.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="960" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvfct3VjBkbpCHDBrGv_eeDx4kEIOzxZbKg_KXbsq9Vh8hMGZz0hS2ybD0-lZs0WrtsjFsPGGWgZ4QbHt2horG_q6VMd4R51Nf_SGE1DhoibSqFo_R3De0RMNKuGGhwvje6WfiTAT2dfQbEsYK6LfpQRIT96734Y0j2PAYNHtsKl-a-oTAlujwUAqqAxg/s320/Contending%20For%20The%20Faith.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to<b><i><u> contend earnestly for the faith</u></i></b> once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e., the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month. This is the next installment.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="color: red;">The existence and attributes of God</span></li><li><span style="color: red;">The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all </span></li><li><span style="color: red;">The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church</span></li><li><span style="color: red;">The truth of Catholic moral teaching</span></li><li><span style="color: red;">The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II </span></li></ul></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone has suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.</span></div></div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><u>The Deception of Kwanzaa</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">In the never-ending attempt to marginalize Christmas (in particular) and Christianity (in general), it is becoming more and more common to see stores and businesses have signs reading "Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, and Happy Kwanzaa." (At least in those places where the Masonic "Season's Greetings" or "Happy Holidays" are not used). Many people see Kwanzaa as a harmless cultural holiday for African-Americans. A good percentage of black people now celebrate <b><i><u>both</u></i></b> Christmas<b><i><u> and</u></i></b> Kwanzaa, which takes place from December 26 to January 1st each year since 1966-1967.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The official Kwanzaa website has this to say:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">As an African American and Pan-African holiday celebrated by millions throughout the world African community, Kwanzaa brings a cultural message which speaks to the best of what it means to be African and human in the fullest sense. Given the profound significance Kwanzaa has for African Americans and indeed, the world African community, it is imperative that an authoritative source and site be made available to give an accurate and expansive account of its origins, concepts, values, symbols and practice...</span>(See officialkwanzaawebsite.org). </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Seems harmless enough. So why bring this up on a series of posts on defending the Faith? The truth about Kwanzaa is dark and evil. Its founder, Maulana Ndabezitha Karenga (b. 1941) is a convicted felon, a racist, a secular humanist, a Marxist, and an anti-Christian bigot who founded the made-up holiday specifically to detract from Christmas. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The actual origin and meaning of Kwanzaa is very different from the sanitized version now sold to African-Americans and the general public by Karenga and the media. The Vatican II sect now officially encourages the celebration of this Marxist/pagan holiday in many of its dioceses. Let this post serve as a warning of the dangers and the real purpose behind Kwanzaa.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">N.B. I despise racism in all its forms; the racism of Karenga being no exception. Let it be known that I am not, nor have ever been, a "white supremist," or "white nationalist." God acknowledges one race--the human race-- for whom He died. I do not believe that any race or nationality is inherently superior to any other. To hate or discriminate against people on the basis of their race or national origin is evil, and I denounce all who do so---<b><i>Introibo</i></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><u>"Krist Kwanzaa"</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Some in the Vatican II sect call Kwanzaa "Krist (Christ) Kwanzaa" to emphasize that Kwanzaa is compatible with Catholicism. Here's what some Dominican nuns in the Vatican II sect have written about Kwanzaa:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">Kwanzaa, celebrated from December 26 to January 1, is a time for families and communities to come together to remember the past and to celebrate African American culture. Created in 1966 by Maulana Ron Karenga, Kwanzaa is an African American and Pan African holiday that incorporates history, values, family, community, and culture. The ideas and concepts of Kwanzaa are expressed in the Swahili language, one of the most widely spoken languages in Africa, according to the National Museum of African American History and Culture.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">Ron Karenga, an active participant in the Black Power Movement in the 1960s, conceived Kwanzaa in the aftermath of the Watts riots in Oakland, California. He described Kwanzaa as a way for African Americans to celebrate themselves and their history. By the end of the 1970s Kwanzaa began to move into mainstream America with the publication of an article in <i>Essence</i> Magazine in 1979, followed by articles in <i>Jet</i> and<i> Ebony</i> Magazines in 1983. The Smithsonian Museum hosted its first Kwanzaa celebration in 1988 while <b><i><u>some school systems, including the Catholic School system in Chicago, began to develop curriculums to teach students about Kwanzaa.</u></i></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">In the 1990s Kwanzaa became more widespread especially when, in 1997, President Bill Clinton gave the first declaration marking the holiday. The United States Post Office issued the first Kwanzaa stamp in 1997 and a second stamp was issued in 2004. Although Kwanzaa is primarily an African American holiday, it is also celebrated outside the United States, especially in Caribbean countries. Kwanzaa is not a religion, <b style="font-style: italic; text-decoration-line: underline;">but was conceived as a nonpolitical and non-religious holiday and it is not a substitute for Christmas.</b> </span>(See adriandominicans.org/Equity-and-Inclusion/black-catholic-project-kwanzaa). </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">These sisters are either culpably ignorant or purposely deceptive, as I will demonstrate below.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><u>Dr. </u></b><span style="text-align: left;"><b><u>Maulana Karenga: Satanic Founder of Kwanzaa</u></b></span></div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Maulana Karenga was born Ronald McKinley Everett in Maryland on July 14, 1941. He was one of 14 children born to a Baptist minister. Everett became a radical black separatist during college, co-founding the "United Slaves (US) Organization" which clashed with the Black Panthers, resulting in armed conflict and often deaths. Everett claimed "US" really meant "US Blacks." (See Hayes, III, Floyd W.; Jeffries, Judson L., "Us Does Not Stand for United Slaves!",<u> Black Power in the Belly of the Beast</u>, [2006], pgs. 74–75). He was a follower of the radical Malcolm X, an avowed Communist.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Everett changed his "white slave name" to the African "Maulana Karenga." In Swahili, "Maulana" translates to "Lord" or "Master" --sometimes used in reference to a deity. "Karenga" means "keeper of tradition." “Maulana” means “Our God” or “Our Lord” in Arabic and is used by Mohammedans to refer to their false moon god "Allah." Karenga was aware of this fact because he speaks fluent Arabic. When one calls Karenga<u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"> Maulana</u>, he is being called “Our God” or “Our Lord.” Therefore, he was blasphemously calling himself "The Lord God, Keeper of [African] Traditions." </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I have read several accounts of Karenga's life, and it has been speculated that he renounced Christ and became a Marxist/secular humanist because he resented his minister-father who spent long-periods of time away from the home and he was starved for attention amidst all his many siblings. Karenga was heavily into drugs, and often became paranoid. During one of these episodes in 1971, he was convinced two of his female followers were trying to poison him. According to the May 14, 1971 <i>Los Angeles Times, </i>here's what happened:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">Deborah Jones, who once was given the Swahili title of an African queen, said she and Gail Davis were whipped with an electrical cord and beaten with a karate baton after being ordered to remove their clothes. She testified that a hot soldering iron was placed in Miss Davis' mouth and placed against Miss Davis' face and that one of her own big toes was tightened in a vise. Karenga, head of US, also put detergent and running hoses in their mouths, she said. They also were hit on the heads with toasters</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"> Karenga was convicted of felony assault and false imprisonment, incurring a sentence of 1 to 10 years in prison. He maintained his conviction was "politically motivated." Intense pressure from black politicians and black activists resulted in his early parole in 1975. He was paroled despite the fact his mental state and fitness to be in society was seriously called into question:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">At his trial, the question of Karenga's sanity arose. The psychiatrist's report stated, “This man now represents a picture which can be considered <b><i><u>both paranoid and schizophrenic with hallucinations and elusions</u></i></b>, inappropriate affect, disorganization, and impaired contact with the environment.” The psychiatrist observed that<b><i><u> Karenga talked to his blanket and imaginary persons and believed that he had been attacked by dive-bombers</u></i></b>. </span>(See <i>The Story of Kwanzaa </i>By J. Lawrence Scholer and the editors of <u>The Dartmouth Review</u>, January 15, 2001; Emphasis mine). </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">To this very day, Karenga does not mention his criminal past, nor does he express any remorse. (You will find no mention of this part of his life on his personal website maulanakarenga.org). He refers to himself, without further explanation, as a "former political prisoner." <i>The Story of Kwanzaa, </i>cited above, relates how after eight years after his parole, California State University at Long Beach made Karenga the head of its Black Studies Department. Karenga had toned down his rhetoric against the United States and abandoned his cultural nationalism for straightforward Marxism. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">As an academic, Karenga has authored various books on such topics as Egyptian art and has guest lectured at Stanford. He had obtained two earned doctorates; one in Political Science in and one in Social Ethics. (Psychosis and high intelligence are not incompatible. Many people with schizophrenia are exceptionally gifted, including Nobel Prize winning mathematician, John Nash, who had a movie based on his life called <i>A Beautiful Mind</i>. See pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25752725). As of 2023, Karenga chairs the Africana Studies Department at California State University, Long Beach.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>The (Not So) Quotable Karenga</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Karenga mimicked Mao Zedong's strategy in making China Communist. Mao’s "Book of Proverbs" (quotes) was known as "The Little Red Book" every Chinese person was expected to keep, carry, and know. Upon joining Karenga's US Organization, the new member received a copy of "The Little Red Book" of Mao to study as an example of the so-called <i>Black Cultural Revolution</i>. Additionally, the members of the US Organization were also given a copy of Karenga’s new book, <u>The Quotable Karenga</u>, dubbed <u>The Little Green Book</u> so that they would know how to respond regarding questions that people might have about the "Black Cultural Revolution." </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Karenga also wrote two other books which, when combined with <u>The Quotable Karenga</u> tells us in his own words his diabolic hatred of Jesus Christ. In 1977, he formulated a set of principles called <i>Kawaida</i>, a Swahili term for<i><b> normal</b></i>. Karenga called on African-Americans to adopt his secular humanism and reject all religion as "mythical." This was expressed in his book <u>Kawaida Theory</u> (1980). His 1977 book about his establishment of Kwanzaa in 1966 entitled<u> Kwanzaa: Origin, Concepts, Practice</u>, gives the lie to his later statements about Kwanzaa not being anti-Christian.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u>Karenga in his own words:</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">The following quotes are from Karenga's works cited directly above.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="color: red;">Belief in spooks </span>[God] <span style="color: red;">who threaten us if we don’t worship them and demand we turn over our destiny and daily lives must be categorized as spookism and condemned.</span></li></ul></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="color: red;">Judeo‐Christian religions deny and diminish human worth, capacity, potential and achievement…I am opposed to this white God…a spook Who threatens us. The missionaries poisoned the Black Man…Baptized him with the same Hocus Pocus that has bound white man to a corrupt religion for centuries. My hope is that those who believe in Holy Water will drown in it.</span></li></ul></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="color: red;">Spookism…is intense emotional commitment to nonhuman-centered principles and practices which place humans at the mercy of invisible and omnipotent forces and thus, deny the right and capacity of humans to shape reality and their future according to their own needs and desires.</span></li></ul></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="color: red;">Kwanzaa is not an imitation, but an alternative, in fact, an oppositional alternative to the spookism, mysticism and non-earth based practices which plague us as a people and encourage our withdrawal from social life rather than our bold confrontation with it</span></li></ul></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="color: red;">Kwanzaa was chosen to give a Black alternative to the existing holiday and give Blacks an opportunity to celebrate themselves and history rather than simply imitate the practice of the dominant society</span></li></ul></div><div>Karenga, a mentally unstable criminal, once had the temerity to blasphemously call into question the sanity of Our Lord. He admired those who have claimed Christ was schizophrenic. When a schizophrenic has a delusion, it’s very often about being God, or fighting Satan, or being the key figure in some enormous geo-political conspiracy. </div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Kwanzaa: A Marxist and Racist Celebration</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Despite Karenga’s contentions to the contrary, he created Kwanzaa with the intent to steer Blacks away from what is believed to be the "white religion" (Christianity) and toward the quasi‐religious celebration of themselves. The "kinara" which holds seven candles for the seven days of Kwanzaa was made by breaking off two holders from a Jewish menorah. Karenga believed blacks were the "real Jews," the "chosen people," and Jews were "devils."</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>The name <i><b>Kwanzaa</b></i> comes from a Swahili phrase, <i><b>matunda ya kwanzaa</b></i>, meaning “first fruits of the harvest.” To create his holiday, Karenga says he drew from African rituals and black national ideology. Each of the seven candles in the Kwanzaa kinara represent seven principles of African Heritage called the <i>Nguzo Saba</i>. They are as follows:</div><div><br /></div><div>1. Umoja meaning “unity.”</div><div>2. Kujichagulia meaning “self-determination.”</div><div>3. Ujima meaning “working together.”</div><div>4. Ujamaa meaning “cooperative economics.”</div><div>5. Nia meaning “purpose.”</div><div>6. Kuumba meaning “creativity.”</div><div>7. Imani meaning “faith” </div><div><br /></div><div>The colors of Kwanzaa are represented in the kinara candles: green represents the fertile land of Africa, black represents the color of the skin of its people, and red represents the blood that was shed in the struggle for freedom. Kwanzaa decorations include colorful art and foods that represent African idealism. Ceremonies consist of showing gratitude to ancestors, drink offerings and feasts, and reading the (made-up) "African pledge" and (invented) "principles of blackness."</div><div><br /></div><div><b><u>The Problems:</u></b></div><div>Karenga himself said:</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">"I created Kwanzaa,” laughed Ron Karenga like a teenager who’s just divulged a deeply held, precious secret. “People think it’s African. But it’s not. I wanted to give black people a holiday of their own. So I came up with Kwanzaa. I said it was African because you know black people in this country wouldn’t celebrate it if they knew it was American. Also, I put it around Christmas because I knew that’s when a lot of bloods (blacks) would be partying! </span>(See nytimes.com/1984/12/26/us/blacks-to-celebrate-african-heritage-holiday.html). Kwanzaa is based on a lie of being "African," when it is the invention of a racist criminal maniac who hates Christ. </div><div><br /></div><div>Black Christians are being deceived to celebrate the amalgamation of Marxist ideology, 1960s‐style radicalism, pseudo‐history, and spiritualized “African” rituals that constitute Kwanzaa. </div><div><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: left;">1. Kwanzaa is a celebration of secular humanism, a worldview in which human values and fulfillment are the focus. The secular humanist proclaims people to be inherently good and moral and insists that we seek strictly secular or irreligious means to solving human problems. The principle of "Imani" or "faith" means "faith in people" not supernatural faith in God.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">2. Kwanzaa’s seven principles teach that people can improve their lives by sheer will and determination without the grace of God. One need look no further than Karenga himself to see how that is seriously wrong.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">3. Swahili is used as a "universal African language," which is factually incorrect. Swahili has little relevance for American blacks. Most slaves were ripped from the shores of West Africa. Swahili is an East African tongue.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">3. To make Kwanzaa seem religious, it is generously sprinkled with religious verbiage taken from pagan African animism. Ceremonies consist of showing gratitude to ancestors, drink offerings and feasts, and reading the "African pledge" and "principles of blackness." <i><b>The Sevenfold Path of Blackness</b></i> is to Think Black, Talk Black, Act Black, Create Black, Buy Black, Vote Black, and Live Black. Drink offerings, or libation, are ritual offerings to a "god" or spirit—in the case of Kwanzaa, they’re offerings to the spirits of dead ancestors--a form of pagan/occult animistic false worship. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">4. The principle of "Ujamaa" or "shared work and wealth" is derived from the socialist ideology that formed the basis of Julius Nyerere's social and economic development policies in Tanzania after it gained independence from Britain in 1961, and was instrumental in the African country forming close links with Mao Zedong's Communist China.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><u>The teachings of Kawaida incorporated into Kwanzaa</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Karenga's idea of<i><b> Kawaida</b></i> (rejecting religion as mythical, as discussed prior in this post) was incorporated into Kwanzaa before he wrote the book on it. Here, are Karenga's ideas as recorded in <u>Subversive Influences in Riots, Looting, and Burning. Hearings, Ninetieth Congress, First [-second] Session: Pt. 3</u>.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Everyone but the Negro has a God that looks like him</li></ul></div><div><br /></div><div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Christianity is a White religion. It has a White God, and any Negro who believes in it is a sick Negro. How can you pray to a White man? If you believe in him it's no wonder you catch so much hell</li></ul></div><div><br /></div><div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Jesus was psychotic. He said if you didn’t believe what He did, you would burn forever</li></ul></div><div><br /></div><div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Worship should be worship to power and retaining that power</li></ul></div><div><br /></div><div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Christians do good because they feared; we do good because we love. They do good because God says so. We do good irrespective of God</li></ul></div><div><br /></div><div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>We must concern ourselves more with the plans for this life, rather than the next life which has its own problems</li></ul></div><div><br /></div><div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>We are God ourselves; therefore, it is not good to be atheistic or agnostic. To be an atheist is to deny our existence and to be an agnostic is to doubt it</li></ul></div><div><br /></div><div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Each man is the God of his own house. Therefore, our Gods belong to our homes, not to our temples. We say we have brought God from the sky and put him in our home</li></ul></div><div><br /></div><div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The time we spent learning about Jesus, we should have spent learning about Blacks</li></ul></div><div><br /></div><div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Christians say everything has to have a beginning until we get to their God</li></ul></div><div><br /></div><div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>If you realize how human Jesus was you’d see he was no God</li></ul></div><div><br /></div><div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Christianity unconsciously teaches self-hatred</li></ul></div><div><br /></div><div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Jesus said, “My blood will wash you white as snow.” Who wants to be white but sick Negroes or worse yet — washed that way by the blood of a dead Jew?</li></ul><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Conclusion</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Kwanzaa is not something Vatican II sect nuns (or anybody else) should celebrate. If you know any African-Americans (esp. Traditionalists) that think Kwanzaa and Christmas are compatible, let them know they have been duped. It is an abomination of Marxism dressed up with animistic "spiritual" principles that despise and stand against Christ and Christianity. Kwanzaa is just an insane criminal's substitute for the truth.</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p></p>Introibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-6572713900449025952023-12-25T00:08:00.000-08:002023-12-25T00:08:40.693-08:00Winning Back The Liturgical Movement<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgriZ0vQe-8UBMfe6usRakJj2iKb80g5AYXoJRtFRQ-QATwLI7YdG_k7th4FVBRDu_ABtCMLzWSIBVgruHGXdTZQUtyAI8FulUrUOKQzPG5SvYqkPkiOhftUBRX9mpwN8y9P_YCrxu0nivnAjjjwln9Noo40zuhYw1KV9AAZF41jFqO1HNQIaQZBMWjTDg/s1024/DomProsperGueranger.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="830" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgriZ0vQe-8UBMfe6usRakJj2iKb80g5AYXoJRtFRQ-QATwLI7YdG_k7th4FVBRDu_ABtCMLzWSIBVgruHGXdTZQUtyAI8FulUrUOKQzPG5SvYqkPkiOhftUBRX9mpwN8y9P_YCrxu0nivnAjjjwln9Noo40zuhYw1KV9AAZF41jFqO1HNQIaQZBMWjTDg/s320/DomProsperGueranger.jpg" width="259" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">To My Readers: Merry Christmas and a Happy, Holy New Year to you all! The year 2023 will end with this post by <i style="font-weight: bold;">Joanna From Poland. </i>It's been awhile since she has done one of her incredible guest posts, and I'm so happy that I get to publish this as 2023 draws to a close. This post is an extremely well-researched look into the<i> Liturgical Movement</i>. I'm sure you will enjoy it as much as I did. My thanks and gratitude to <i style="font-weight: bold;">Joanna From Poland, </i>for having given me the gift of some much needed time off from research and writing during December as the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ approaches.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">Feel free to leave comments for <i style="font-weight: bold;">Joanna From Poland. </i>If you have a specific comment or question for me, I will respond as always, but it will take me a bit longer to reply this week.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">God bless you all, my dear readers---<b><i>Introibo</i></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><u>Winning Back The Liturgical Movement</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><i>By Joanna From Poland</i></b></div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">The phrase<i><b> liturgical movement</b></i> tends to elicit a knee-jerk reaction among Traditionalists. The Holy Week reform promulgated by Pope Pius XII in 1955 is a bone of contention both among Traditionalist and semi-Traditionalist clergy and laity. Obviously, no question of liturgical discipline can be resolved authoritatively with the Chair of Peter being vacant. Disputes among Catholics (and those who believe themselves to be Catholic) are a sad but inevitable consequence of a lack of a true Pope. Nevertheless, Traditionalist should learn to “agree to disagree” charitably on those issues which do not pertain to the teaching of the Church (which is infallible both in solemn pronouncements as well as in her ordinary universal magisterium). </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">No Traditionalist can dispense himself or herself from the duty to educate oneself on the roots of the crisis in the Church. The enemies of the Catholic religion have always benefited from the ignorance and passivity of Catholics. The Liturgical Movement, hijacked by Modernists, which gained impetus in the direction of crass error especially after World War II, is a prime example of a hostile takeover facilitated by the determination of the enemies of Christ and the indifference of those who belonged to His Mystical Body. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Modernists dare to arrogate to themselves the fully orthodox liturgical work of Dom Prosper Guéranger, presenting him as the founder and his research as the cornerstone of their liturgical subversion that eventually resulted in the abominable Novus Ordo service promulgated by Montini on April 3, 1969. In this post I would like to give you the unadulterated profile of Dom Guéranger and his outlook on the liturgy so you may be better equipped to refute the lies peddled by Modernists – the progeny of the anti-liturgical heresy so fiercely fought by the renowned Benedictine of Solesmes.</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; text-align: center;"><span style="color: black;"><b><u>True Champion of Liturgical Renewal</u></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Dom Prosper Louis Pascal Guéranger (1805-1875) belonged to the generation of clergymen who found themselves thirsting after liturgical piety in a land ravaged by anti-Catholic and anti-Roman forces. The illustrious founder of the Benedictine Abbey of Solesmes, France and restorer of monastic life under the ancient Rule of St. Benedict in post-Revolutionary France was devoted to instill in his young Benedictine community “an absolute devotion to the Church and the Pope”. <u>The Catholic Encyclopedia </u>(1910) thus characterizes this tireless lover of the liturgy and loyal son of the Church:</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Being a devout and ardent servant of the Church, Dom Guéranger wished to re-establish more respectful and more filial relations between France and the See of Rome, and his entire life was spent in endeavoring to effect a closer union between the two. With this end in view he set himself to combat, wherever he thought he found its traces, the separatist spirit that had, of old, allied itself with Gallicanism and Jansenism. With a strategic skill which deserves special recognition, Dom Guéranger worked on the principle that to suppress what is wrong, the thing must be replaced, and he labored hard to supplant everywhere whatever reflected the opinion he was fighting. He fought to have the Roman liturgy substituted for the diocesan liturgies, and he live to see his efforts in this line crowned with complete success. </span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">On philosophical ground, he struggled with unwavering hope against Naturalism and Liberalism, which he considered a fatal impediment to the constitution of an unreservedly Christian society. He helped, in a measure, to prepare men’s minds for the definition of the papal infallibility, that brilliant triumph which succeeded the struggle against papal authority so bitterly carried on a century previously by many Gallican and Josephite bishops [Joseph II, German emperor from 1765 to 1790, inspired by the so-called Enlightenment, adopted a Gallican-based policy of limiting ecclesial freedom in his land in favor of the intervention of the State in the affairs of the Church]. (…) </span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">In 1841 [ten years after he embarked on his great work of re-introducing the traditional monastic life to his native France at Solesmes – annotation mine] he began to publish a mystical work by which he hoped to arouse the faithful from their spiritual torpor and to supplant what he deemed the lifeless or erroneous literature that had been produced by the French spiritual writers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.<i style="font-weight: normal;"> L’Année liturgique</i> [French for <i>The Liturgical Year</i>], of which the author was not to finish the long series of fifteen volumes, is probably the one of all Dom Guéranger’s works that best fulfilled the purpose he had in view. Accommodating himself to the development of the liturgical periods of the year, the author labored to familiarize the faithful with the official prayer of the Church by lavishly introducing fragments of the Eastern and Western liturgies, with interpretations and commentaries.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The liturgical landscape in France and other European countries prior to the groundbreaking work begun by Dom Guéranger truly was a spiritual wasteland in which the errors of Jansenism, Gallicanism, and Quietism had wreaked great havoc. </span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Fr. Didier Bonneterre SSPX* (died in 2009), author of<u> The Liturgical Movement</u>. <u>From Dom Guéranger to Annibale Bugnini</u> (published originally in French in 1980), one of the first priests to be ordained for the Society by Abp. Lefebvre in 1977, writes:</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In the eighteenth century, the liturgy had ceased to be a vital force in Catholicism. The liturgy, so admirably restored by St. Pius V, had suffered the repeated assaults of Jansenism and Quietism. The disciples of Jansenius had led the faithful away from the practice of the sacraments. The Quietists, who had claimed to reach God directly, had turned souls away from the liturgy, which is the intermediary determined by the Church between God and ourselves. This was the period when triumphant Gallicanism was composing its diocesan liturgies, which resembled one another only in their anti-Roman character. In Germany, Febronius, Auxiliary Bishop of Treves, was spreading his ideas; in Italy there was the work of Ricci, Bishop of Pistoia – condemned with his council by Pope Pius VI in the bull </span><b><i>Auctorem Fidei</i></b><span style="font-weight: normal;"> on August 28, 1794.</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;">The whole of Europe therefore was floundering in the “anti-liturgical heresy” when the revolution broke out in France. The cult of Catholicism was forbidden, and replaced by that of the goddess of Reason. The Concordat of 1801 restored hope – but only trials for the liturgy! The people had lost the taste for it, the clergy themselves did not like these ceremonies that they no longer really understood, all the more so as the restoration of Catholicism [in France after the Masonic French Revolution] had brought back the many Gallican liturgies. </span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;">But the hope of a real restoration remained possible. Already Chateaubriand, with his works The Genius of Christianity and The Martyrs, had revealed to the French of that time all the marvels of the liturgy of the Middle Ages. A new generation of young people was incited to pore over the manuscripts of antiquity and to discover there ceremonies of which the fragmented liturgies of the time could give no exact idea.</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">*Please note that while Fr. Bonneterre is correct in his description of the liturgical climate in Europe some three hundred years ago, his book obviously favors the false R&R theology espoused by the SSPX, ironically Gallican in its principles, as the SSPX have consistently undermined the prerogatives of those whom they recognize as “Popes." I do not endorse this book as a whole nor do I support any of the R&R ideas contained in it. ---</span><b><i>Joanna From Poland</i></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; text-align: center;"><span style="color: black;"><b><u>Principles of True Liturgical Revival</u></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">At a remarkably young age of twenty-five, Dom Guéranger already set forward the aim of his liturgical activity in his <u>Considerations on the Catholic Liturgy</u>: first of all, to equip the clergy with the understanding of and devotion to the liturgy of Rome. Secondly, he sought to “unite the faithful with the hierarchy when it celebrates the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, administers the sacraments, and celebrates the Divine Office." To achieve the former, Dom Guéranger published<u> The Liturgical Institutions</u>, “a closely argued attack on the neo-Gallican liturgies and a wonderful demonstration of the antiquity and the beauties of the Roman liturgy." To achieve the latter, he devoted his most famous multi-volume work, <u>The Liturgical Year</u>, addressed specifically to the laity. </span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Dom Guéranger and his Benedictine community at Solesmes also managed to restore to its original beauty the inalienable part of the Roman liturgy, namely the Gregorian chant.<u> The Catholic Encyclopedia</u> (1912) writes that the Abbot:</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> set himself the task of resuscitating sound liturgical traditions in France at a time when such were at their lowest ebb. He revived the accent and rhythm of plainsong [per Catholic Encyclopedia, plain chant is ‘the church music of the early Middle Ages, before the advent of polyphony (...) which remained the exclusive music of the Church till the ninth century, when polyphony made its first modest appearance’] which had been lost, and in restoring the true text of the chant he laid down the principle, which has since been always strictly adhered to, that when various manuscripts of different periods and places agreed on a version, there existed the most correct text. (…) The labors of the Solesmes fathers received the highest possible recognition in 1904, when Pope Pius X (Motu Proprio, 25 April, 1904) entrusted particularly to the monks of the French Congregation and to the monastery of Solesmes the work of preparing an official Vatican edition of the Church’s Chant (…).</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; text-align: center;"><span style="color: black;"><b><u>Anti-Liturgical Heresy According to Dom Guéranger</u></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><u>Institutions liturgiques</u> written by Dom Guéranger is probably the most comprehensive exposition of the history of Catholic liturgy by an author of undisputed orthodoxy. Unfortunately, this masterpiece has never been translated into English in its entirety. There is, however, an excerpt of vital importance to Traditionalists today that has been made available on the Internet in English. The excerpt is taken from Vol. 1, Chapter XIV: <i>Anti-liturgical heresy and the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century considered in its relation to the liturgy.</i> The original work in French has been digitalized and is available in a convenient HTML format under this link: https://www.bibliotheque-monastique.ch/bibliotheque/bibliotheque/gueranger/institutions/volume01/volume0114.htm#_Toc126113301.</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Dom Guéranger lists eleven precepts of what he fittingly calls </span><b><i><u>the anti-liturgical heresy</u></i></b><span style="font-weight: normal;"> which have been employed throughout centuries by impious innovators rebelling against the authority of Rome:</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">1. Hatred of Tradition as found in the formulas used in Divine worship, exemplified by Luther and his detestation of everything in the liturgy which does not derive exclusively from Holy Scripture.</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">2. Substitution of formulas of ecclesiastical origin with scriptural readings.</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">3. Fabrication and introduction of new formulas to be used in divine worship.</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">4. Habitual contradiction of the very principles devised by anti-liturgical sectarians, demonstrated in their initial attempt to vindicate the rights of antiquity but leading them to concoct completely novel formulas.</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">5. Expulsion of all the liturgical ceremonies and formulas expressing mysteries.</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">6. Suppression of the mystical element in the liturgy which eradicates the spirit of piety among the clergy and lay people.</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">7. Rejection of the need for intermediaries between God and man (Our Lady and the Saints) under the pretense of giving greater and sole worship due to God.</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">8. Vindication of the use of the vernacular language in the liturgy (stemming from the abolition of any liturgical actions and formulas favoring the sense of mystery).</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">9. Abolition of disciplinary rules imposed on the clergy and laity (the Divine Office, fast and abstinence, genuflections, and other external acts of devotion) aiming at diminishing the sum of public and private prayers.</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">10. Instilling disdain for the Papacy and Rome as the center of authority in the Church into the minds of the faithful.</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">11. Destruction in fact and in principle of the notion of (sacrificial) priesthood.</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Source: http://catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/antigy.htm</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red;"><span style="color: black;">The fact that the above-mentioned rules employed by Protestant deformers in the destruction of the <i style="font-weight: normal;">lex orandi </i>were at work in the Vatican II sect has been confirmed by none other than a Modernist theologian and a liturgical butcher in one of his candid moments. Louis Bouyer (1913-2004), a Lutheran minister received into the Catholic Church in 1944, co-founder of the “conservative” Modernist theological journal <i style="font-weight: normal;">Communio</i> (along with Ratzinger and Urs von Balthasar among others), and one of the key figures in the liturgical mayhem of Vatican II.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red;"><span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red;"><span style="color: black;">Bouyer seems to have earned the reputation of a “good” Modernist among semi-trads due to his criticism of the direction taken by the Vatican II sect in the early post-conciliar years (Bouyer penned <i><b>The Decompostion of Catholicism</b></i> [sic!] in 1969). He would also voice his criticism of Annibale Bugnini. Nevertheless, beware of Greeks bearing gifts. A conservative Modernist is still a Modernist. He may lure you with his nostalgic sentiment for “tradition” only to make the new religion palatable enough for us to remain in it.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red;"><span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red;"><span style="color: black;">The following excerpt – Bouyer’s own recollection of his involvement in the post-Vatican II liturgical deform – is taken from <u>The Memoirs of Louis Bouyer: From Youth and Conversion to Vatican II, the Liturgical Reform</u>, and After published in 2015 by Angelico Press (pp. 123-124) [emphasis in the text below is mine]:</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red;"><span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">What shall I say, after that, about my collaboration, at first, in the Consilium for the reform of the liturgical books, which, after the publication of my <i>Eucharistie</i> and called by Paul VI, I could not evade? I would not like to be too hard on that commission. (…) Unfortunately, on the other hand, a fatal error of judgment placed the theoretical direction of this committee in the hands of a generous and courageous but poorly educated man, Cardinal Lercaro. He was completely incapable of standing up to the maneuvers of the smooth-talking villain, the Neapolitan Vincentian Bugnini, who was not long in proving to be as devoid of culture as he was of simple honesty. Even without that, there was no hope of producing anything of much more value than what could be produced when one was claiming </span><b><i><u>to remake comprehensively in a few months an entire liturgy </u></i></b><span style="font-weight: normal;">that took twenty centuries to develop gradually. </span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">Called specifically to the subcommission charged with the Missal, I was petrified, when I arrived, to discover the plans of a preparatory subcommission (…) in the belief that they would thereby obviate the custom coming from Holland of having Eucharists improvised in a total misunderstanding of the liturgical tradition going back to Christian origins. I cannot succeed in understanding by what aberration these excellent gentlemen, rather good historians and generally reasonable minds, could have made the equally disconcerting suggestion that<b><i><u> the Roman Canon should be dismembered and reconstructed</u></i></b> and<b><i><u> formed other plans supposedly ‘inspired’ by Hippolytus of Rome </u></i></b>but scarcely less harebrained. (…)</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">Ultimately the Roman Canon was more or less respected, and <b><i><u>we managed to produce</u></i></b> three Eucharistic Prayers that, in spite of quite wordy intercessions, retrieve pieces of great <b><i><u>antiquity</u></i></b> and unrivalled theological and euchological </span>[referring to the Church’s liturgical books]<span style="color: red; font-weight: normal;"> richness, out of use since the disappearance of </span><span style="color: red;"><b><i><u>the ancient Gallican rites.</u></i></b></span><span style="color: red; font-weight: normal;"> I am thinking of the anamnesis of the third Eucharistic Prayer and also of what we were able to salvage of a rather successful attempt to adapt a series of phrases from the </span><span style="color: red;"><b><i><u>ancient so-called prayer</u></i></b></span><span style="color: red; font-weight: normal;"> of Saint James to the Roman scheme (…).</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">But, although there was talk of <b><i><u>simplifying the liturgy and of returning it to the primitive models</u></i></b>, what can be said of that<i> actus poenitentialis </i>inspired by Father Jungmann (who was an excellent historian of the Roman Missal . . . but who had never celebrated a solemn Mass in his life!)? The worst thing was an incredible offertory in the Catholic Action, sentimental-workerist style, the work of Father Cellier, who manipulated the despicable Bugnini with arguments tailored to his range of understanding so as to get his production passed despite nearly unanimous opposition.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">Some idea will be given of the deplorable conditions in which this hasty reform was dispatched when I describe how the second Eucharistic Prayer was strung together. Between the indiscriminately archeologizing fanatics who wanted to banish the Sanctus and the intercessions from the Eucharistic Prayer by taking Hippolytus’ Eucharist at it is and others who did not care at all about his alleged Apostolic Tradition but who wanted only some slipshod Mass, Dom Botte and I were<b><i><u> to take charge of piecing together its text so as to work in those elements that were certainly more ancient</u></i></b> – for the next day!</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">By chance I discovered in a text, if not by Hippolytus himself then assuredly in his style, a felicitous phrase on the Holy Spirit that could form a transition of the Vere Sanctus type to the brief epiclesis. Botte, for his part, <b><i><u>made up an intercession </u></i></b>more worthy of Paul Reboux and his ‘in the manner of’ [Reboux was a French writer and humorist, author of literary pastiches of some of the most famous contemporary authors, published under the title<i> In the manner of…</i> ) than of his own knowledge. But I cannot reread that improbable composition without thinking again of the terrace of the Trastevere café where we put the finishing touches on our chore in order to be able to present ourselves with it at the Bronze Gate at the hour appointed by our schoolmasters!</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">I prefer to say nothing or virtually nothing about <u style="font-weight: normal;">the new calendar</u>, the work of a trio of maniacs, <b><i><u>suppressing Septuagesima and the octave of Pentecost </u></i></b>without any serious reason and <b><i><u>tossing three-quarters of the saints out </u></i></b>who knows where, on the basis of their own ideas! Since these three fanatics obstinately refused to change anything in their work and since the pope [Montini] wanted to finish it quickly so as not to let chaos spread, their project was accepted, as outrageous as it was!</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The only element not open to criticism in this new Missal was the enrichment provided above all by the resurrection of a good number of</span><b><i><u> magnificent prefaces recovered from ancient sacramentaries and the expansion of the biblical readings</u></i></b><span style="font-weight: normal;"> (…). I will pass over the number of </span><b><i><u>ancient prayers </u></i></b><span style="font-weight: normal;">for penitential seasons . . . that we were obliged</span><b><i><u> to mutilate so as to empty them as much as possible . . . precisely of anything penitential!</u></i></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The Modernist myth of “restoring the liturgical riches of antiquity” has already been debunked masterfully by Fr. Anthony Cekada (R.I.P.) in </span><b><i><u>The Work of Human Hands: A Theological Critique of The Mass of Paul VI. </u></i></b><span style="font-weight: normal;">Videos chapter overviews made by Fr. Cekada are available for viewing here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDA085477E90AC096.</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The so-called Eucharistic Prayer II, that “improbable composition” rustled up over some pizza at an Italian diner by two Modernists in a rush, has become the law of praying and, consequently, of believing for those trapped in the Novus Ordo religion for the last fifty years. I can attest to the fact that this horrible concoction was used most of the time I attended the Novus Ordo service and was stuck in my mind to such a degree that when some young “priest” dared to say the Modernist-botched Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer I), I felt uneasy, confused, and… bored (and so was the rest of the congregation). </span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; text-align: center;"><span style="color: black;"><b><u>Conclusion</u></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">One of the most favorite stratagems employed by Modernists to justify their glaringly obvious rupture with Catholic doctrine and discipline is to find an apparent precedent to their actions. Their deviousness would surely fail if only Catholics knew enough Church history to expose their thinly-veiled lies. Remember the goals set forward by Dom Guéranger that were to guide the true liturgical movement which he set in motion. Firstly, to give the clergy a thorough knowledge and admiration of the liturgy handed down by centuries of Catholicism, NOT to invent novel forms of worship in the name of going back to uncorrupted primitive Christianity (the alleged corruptive forces being the medieval hierarchy). </span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red;"><span style="color: black;">Secondly, to unite the minds and hearts of the lay people to the mind and heart of the priest offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass <i><b>in persona Christi</b></i> (in the person of Christ) for validity and <b><i>in persona Ecclesiae</i></b> (in the person of the Church) for efficacy, NOT to empower the laity with the exaggerated notion of the “priesthood of all believers”, thus instilling in them the false idea that it is the community that celebrates while the priest is reduced to a role of presider/entertainer/commentator/moderator (cross out the redundant word). </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red;"><span style="color: black;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red;"><span style="color: black;">Dom Guéranger sought to restore the liturgical treasures of the Middle Ages; the Modernists see in that glorious era of Christendom a corruption of the purity of primitive Christianity brought about by the marriage of the altar and the throne and the rise of clericalism in the form of Catholic hierarchy. The liturgical movement infiltrated by Modernists, culminating in Vatican II and the Novus Ordo service of Montini is the actual antithesis of the true liturgical movement begun by Dom Guéranger.</span></div></div>Introibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-26283784172187298562023-12-18T04:24:00.000-08:002023-12-18T15:17:35.998-08:00Pope Pius XII And Technology<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhafXpSKkOinfX3iJr2HR05c0YJ7BimbDwtZeBZDPqBJnWw3AiofVwh6qL7QdLzAUe3LvndcVxpqsBHkejq8t_QUQaFSZaLr-_xPR4y6JhYUeojOg32QtLBzbhW992rHyLe96yo1Za6LcU0M-jAcm6LTWOnkCcA_H2o4OHFML8va3jY39QIhSLGqKEFhtM/s1024/Pope%20Pius%20XII%20%232.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="825" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhafXpSKkOinfX3iJr2HR05c0YJ7BimbDwtZeBZDPqBJnWw3AiofVwh6qL7QdLzAUe3LvndcVxpqsBHkejq8t_QUQaFSZaLr-_xPR4y6JhYUeojOg32QtLBzbhW992rHyLe96yo1Za6LcU0M-jAcm6LTWOnkCcA_H2o4OHFML8va3jY39QIhSLGqKEFhtM/s320/Pope%20Pius%20XII%20%232.jpg" width="258" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I hold Pope Pius XII to have been one of the greatest popes of the Church, and unfortunately, he has had no successor for just over 65 years. His Holiness was (and remains) the object of scorn and derision by those who claim he was "soft on Modernism," and "enabled" the Modernists, leading to the creation of the Vatican II sect. He has been accused of aiding and abetting Hitler, and introducing liturgical changes that "became harmful." I had written a post defending him: (See https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/07/in-defense-of-pope-pius-xii.html). </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth, and is protected by the Holy Ghost from teaching heresy and giving anything evil to the Church. This is true of all popes; the great ones, the good ones, and even the bad ones. However, I have noticed that what separates great popes from the merely good or the (unfortunately) bad ones, is seen in their apparent prescience. This can be detected in popes such as St. Pius V, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, and Pius XII. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">When Pope Pius XII went to Judgement on October 9, 1958, the world was a very different place. Not merely religiously, but technologically. No one was talking about the dangers of AI, the Internet was nonexistent, the phone was attached to the wall, television was pretty new on the scene, and a tablet was medicine you ingested. Most people don't realize that Pope Pius gave many papal addresses on technology during his reign which lasted 19 years,7 months, and seven days. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">There are some Traditionalists who spurn all technology as evil and to be avoided. They have a Luddite mentality one would expect from the heretical Amish, and not Catholics. On the other end of the spectrum, you have Traditionalists who embrace all technology without regard for the real dangers presented. Pope Pius XII spoke as if God granted him a glimpse into the technological world of today, and what he said demonstrated that he understood both the benefits and dangers technology poses, and he approached it with the right attitude, avoiding both total condemnation as well as unrestrained advocacy.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This post will show the wisdom of Pope Pius XII in approaching technology. It is a wisdom we all should embrace. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><u>Television</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Television can be a tool for great good or great evil. Unfortunately, many can't seem to distinguish between the<b><i><u> content </u></i></b>and the<b><i><u> television itself</u></i></b>. Fr. DePauw, my spiritual father, was an approved canonist from pre-Vatican II. From 1955 to 1962 he was Professor of Canon Law, Moral Theology, and Latin at Mount Saint Mary's Seminary for the Archdiocese of Baltimore. The Ave Maria Chapel (where Fr. offered the True Mass and sacraments from June 23,1968 until his passing on May 6, 2005) was located in Westbury, Long Island, not too far from an SSPX chapel. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Fr. DePauw would watch a half-hour of the evening news after reciting his Breviary and other prayers, and before retiring for the night. The resident priest of the SSPX chapel in the mid-1990s gave a sermon claiming that the mere possession of a TV set was an occasion of sin, and that watching television (regardless of content) was mortal sin. He also made the mistake of accusing Fr. DePauw of mortal sin for watching the evening news, and causing scandal by owning one. Word of this got back to Fr. DePauw, and he was visibly angry as he responded the following Sunday in his sermon to those unfounded charges.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">"Perhaps Fr. (<span style="color: red;">name withheld by me---<i><b>Introibo</b></i></span>) would like to explain to me how an invention which he claims to be intrinsically evil was given a Patron Saint, St. Clare of Assisi, by Pope Pius XII. Popes don't give patron saints to that which is intrinsically evil, like abortion clinics that murder innocent babies. Not only is he incapable of making necessary and proper distinctions between content and the medium through which it comes, he would never be able to pass my Moral Theology course in a real pre-Vatican II seminary. If this is the kind of so-called guidance he gives his parishioners, he should refrain from ever giving any advice again. A priest should only give guidance when he knows what he's talking about; in the case of Fr. and all the SSPX priests I've ever known, this would require perpetual silence." The priest in question never retracted his incorrect statements, nor did he apologize to Fr. DePauw (<span style="color: red;">quote </span><span style="color: red;">written from notes I made after the sermon</span>). </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Fr. DePauw knew his theology, as did the great Pope Pius XII. In the pontiff's address to delegates of the European Radio Union on October 20, 1955, he said the following:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">Television has already appeared in many sectors and will appear in even more places, in public as well as in the privacy of the home, so that it is possible for all<b><i><u> to enjoy it in peace and recollection</u></i></b>. The good and evil which can result at the moment of broadcast or after it are incalculable and unforeseen. <b><i><u>Make absolutely sure, therefore, that television does not serve to spread error and evil. On the contrary, make it an instrument of information, formation, and transformation...</u></i></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><b><i><u>Television can above all be of aid to schools</u></i></b> and make teaching more efficacious by becoming a complementary element in the formation of pupils...The history teacher, for example, would be greatly helped by the projection of documentary films concerning the places which were the stage of important events. The teaching of the history of art would profit by placing before the pupils' eyes the masterpieces of painting, sculpture, the beauties of a picture gallery and in general the marvels of a city, with a lifelike presentation no book could guarantee...</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">Beyond the influence on school teaching we must consider that <b><i><u>television can become an efficacious means of helping family unity in the home</u></i></b>...[television] can reunite the whole family around the set... program directors must always concern themselves with more than artistic levels, in the respect that is due, obviously, to just standards of human and Christian morality.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><b><i><u>Television also can become a providential instrument for a larger participation in the manifestations of religious life for all those who would be prevented from being actually present at them</u></i></b>. The televising of liturgical ceremonies, the illustration of the truths of faith, the presentation of masterpieces of sacred art and many other things will carry the Word of God to homes, hospitals, prisons, and the most remote centers of population. <b><i><u>God grant that the day may soon come when the pagan masses will themselves receive the Gospel more easily, thanks to this remarkable instrument.</u></i></b> </span><span>(Emphasis mine). </span><span style="color: red;"> </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span>In 1958, Pope Pius XII declared St Clare of Assisi the Patron Saint of Television, just as televisions were becoming universal in homes across most of the world. She was chosen because the virtuous nun had a miraculous event in her life. She was once too sick to attend Mass on Christmas, and she wept bitterly at not being able to attend and receive her Lord in Holy Communion. Suddenly, the Mass that was going on was projected onto the wall of her room where she could see and hear everything as if she were present. As the priest was giving out Communion, an angel appeared in St. Clare's room, and gave her Holy Communion while on her sick bed. God had "produced the first television" so to speak, in order to show His love to His beloved saint! </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><u><b>The False Spirituality of Those Who Overemphasize (and Those Who Devalue) Technology</b></u></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">As I wrote above, there are those who condemn all technology and those who embrace it with no concern for the attendant dangers. In his Christmas Message of 1955, Pope Pius exposes and eschews the false spirituality the underlies both attitudes. The holy Pontiff lives by the old aphorism <i>In medio stat veritas---</i>In the middle lies the truth. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">...In truth modern man , precisely because he is in possession of all that the mind and labor of man have produced, ought to recognize even more the infinite distance between what he can do and what proceeds from the limitless power of God. But the reality is quite different... <b><i><u>Not a few indeed permit themselves to be dazzled by the limited splendor deriving from these works, refusing to follow that internal prompting to seek their source and end, outside of and above the world of science and technology.</u></i></b>.. <b><i><u>Others on the contrary, in the opposite way... hope that man may renounce all this feverish external and, above all, technological dynamism, that he may enter within himself where he will find the richness of an interior life</u></i></b>, all his, exclusively human, such as will satisfy every possible exigency. And yet, <b><i><u>this...is rather a withdrawing from life prompted by arrogance, almost despair, by the fear and incapacity to give oneself to the external order and has nothing in common with a genuine interior life which is complete, dynamic, and fruitful</u></i></b>...</span><span>(Emphasis mine). </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span><b><u>Youth and Technology</u></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Millennials, and more so Gen Z, are the product of a technological age. My generation, Gen X, is the last to remember growing up in a world devoid of personal computers and cell phones/iPhones. It is not unusual for me to see a family sitting in a restaurant and saying nothing to each other throughout the meal with eyes on their phones. It is the age of "antisocial media." It is a world of "cyberbullying," and where every form of evil and error can spread. The truth can also be given a boost as websites like Novus Ordo Watch prove. Here's what His Holiness had to say about youth and technology in an Address to Catholic Action on September 12, 1948:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><b><i><u>It is no wonder then that technology too often dazzles the mind, especially of youth, which, entirely overcome by its fascination, runs the danger of losing the sight and the sense of what is spiritual, supersensible, and interior, of what is religious, supernatural, and eternal. </u></i></b>Yet, it is precisely the men of the century of technology who have more need than ever before of the protective and steadying forces of religion. Take fire as an example. Restrained and guided, it is a good and indispensable help to man. Once out of control, it carries death and destruction, in annihilating flame, through city and countryside. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">The same is true of technology. <b><i><u>A gift of God by its very nature, today's ultrapowerful technology becomes in the hands of violent men, of parties ruling with the brutality of force, of omnipotent and oppressor states, a terrible instrument of injustice, slavery, and cruelty. In modern warfare, technology intensifies---to an intolerable degree---the sufferings and torments of the populations. </u></i></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b style="color: red;"><i><u>On the other hand, restrained and directed by a society which fears God, which obeys His precepts and esteems spiritual, moral, and eternal things incomparably more than the material; technology can bring us those blessings for which it was ordained according to the Creator's design</u></i></b><span style="color: red;">. ...To the young of this generation: it is up to you to bring to your life and the State an energy of true religious faith so great that the scale of values established by God, the Creator and Redeemer, in which matter does not rule but serves, will be contentiously observed, and technology will be subordinated, according to the Divine Will, to man's dignity and liberty, to his peace and happiness, both earthly, </span><u style="color: red; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">and above all else eternal...</u>(Emphasis mine). </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Will the Traditionalist youth of today take up the pope's call to action? Hopefully, it's not too late. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><u>Ultimate Value to be Found in Love of God Not Technology</u></b><span style="color: red;"> </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Humanity, in its arrogance, must never think more highly of itself as technology allows for greater domination over the world. People have always thought highly of themselves, lacking humility, until God brings them down to reality, as in the time of the Tower of Babel. Science and technology have become "gods" to many. Pope Pius XII warned of this in his Address to Gynecologists given on January 8, 1956.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">Although<b><i><u> the Christian applauds new scientific discoveries and makes use of them, he rejects all of materialism's exaggerated glorification of science and culture.</u></i></b> He knows these occupy a place on the scale of objective values, but that, while they are not the lowest, neither are they the highest. In their regard too, he repeats today as ever and always: "Seek first the Kingdom of God and His Justice." (St. Matthew 6:33)...<b><i><u>The highest, the ultimate value for man is to be found, not in science or its technical capabilities, but in the love of God and devotion to His service.</u></i></b>..</span>(Emphasis mine). </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><u>Conclusion</u></b></div></blockquote><p>Never before has there been such dangers, or such opportunities for true advancement, as technology gives to us today. Pope Pius XII was able to see what was awaiting us over 80 years ago when his reign began. Before we make any decisions regarding technology, we would all do well to heed the sage advice of this true Vicar of Christ. </p><p></p>Introibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.com35tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-18062557065961422942023-12-11T04:15:00.000-08:002023-12-22T14:10:43.917-08:00The First Of The Four Marks<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnBu-yXA_mUCRgmGjfv9wCaUyIc7xYUM5kz1vcTtY7-c7dl7IchuPq5QJj7XXqUEJ56u6JDGCZxUbGGL4Ox2HSVZw6mJEjNWRI4KMvU_QekLXtPWkAbJTKaRYUXivWlXaScGVJ9DTR2pibyKgX79iRP3BJGIEqiMHzp0zfAb_nsu3xVfq4utyQLUq6upY/s1024/The%20Church%20is%20One.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="1024" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnBu-yXA_mUCRgmGjfv9wCaUyIc7xYUM5kz1vcTtY7-c7dl7IchuPq5QJj7XXqUEJ56u6JDGCZxUbGGL4Ox2HSVZw6mJEjNWRI4KMvU_QekLXtPWkAbJTKaRYUXivWlXaScGVJ9DTR2pibyKgX79iRP3BJGIEqiMHzp0zfAb_nsu3xVfq4utyQLUq6upY/s320/The%20Church%20is%20One.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">To My Readers: This week my guest poster <i style="font-weight: bold;">Lee </i>has a great topic which I'm sure you will find as interesting as I did. I can't thank <i style="font-weight: bold;">Lee </i>enough for his always great content, and for giving me a much needed respite from research and writing. Please feel free to leave comments for <i style="font-weight: bold;">Lee. </i>If anyone has a specific comment or question for me, I will respond as usual, but it may take me a bit longer to reply this week. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">God bless you all, my dear readers---<b><i>Introibo</i></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><u>The First of the Four Marks</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><i><b>By Lee</b></i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Recently, there has been a disagreement among a couple traditional Catholic (Sedevacantist) bishops on whether or not candidates for the episcopacy are worthy of consecration. As a result, one of them publicly cut his relationship off from the other due to what one will do and the other refuses to take part in. Not surprisingly, those united to Jorge Bergoglio (A.K.A. "Pope" Francis I) have been using this example to suggest that there is no unity among Sedevacantists as a consequence of being divided with no pope for such a long period and like the Protestants will splinter off continuously as time passes. Many seem to be amused by this. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">It's a fair argument, but the irony behind this example is that those united to Francis I aren't even one in faith with him, nor his bishops throughout the world. Fr. Anthony Cekada once coined the phrase "Recognize and Resist" (R&R) and for the most part that doesn't just come out of those in the SSPX but also those in the Latin Mass societies (those granted an indult or Motu Proprio by John Paul II and Benedict XVI) such as the Fraternity of St. Peter's or the Institute of Christ the King etc. Many in these organizations have recently complained heavily about the removal of "Bp." Strickland, as if his removal was unjust, as if their pope didn't have the authority to do that, and so on. They constantly worry about whether their pope or their local bishop is going to add further restrictions as to the removal of the Tridentine Mass. When Joe Biden was told by Francis I that he was a good Catholic worthy to receive Holy Communion, even though a priest in America had previously denied him Communion, many so called conservatives including those who love the Novus Ordo liturgy (who typically don't resist) were up in arms bad mouthing him for such an outrage. </span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Surveys have shown that many who call themselves Catholic since the time of Vatican II, whether lay folk or even clergy, do not believe in simple dogmas or doctrines taught by the Catholic Church such as Transubstantiation, the immorality of same sex marriage, or whether the devil actually exists (Fr. McBrian d.2015). Who is responsible for this? Is it not the hierarchy? If people do not believe in basic Catholic teachings why are they tolerated? What are they being taught or why are they allowed to teach? So I revert the question back to the accusers of traditional Catholic bishops (sedevacantists), where is unity of faith in your entire church? Why all the division amongst each other, even though you do have what you call a pope?</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; text-align: center;"><span style="color: black;"><b><u>The Mark of ONENESS</u></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Those of us who suffer backwardness as a result of a nostalgic disease (words from none other than Francis) believe in what the Catechism of Trent teaches:</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">"One"</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;">The first mark of the true Church is described in the Nicene Creed, and consists in unity: My dove is one, my beautiful one is one. So vast a multitude, scattered far and wide, is called one for the reasons mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians: One Lord, one faith, one baptism.</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;">"Unity In Government"</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;">The Church has but one ruler and one governor, the invisible one, Christ, whom the eternal Father hath made head over all the Church, which is his body; the visible one, the Pope, who, as legitimate successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, fills the Apostolic chair.</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;">It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church. This St. Jerome clearly perceived and as clearly expressed when, in his work against Jovinian, he wrote: One is elected that, by the appointment of a head, all occasion of schism may be removed. In his letter to Pope Damasus the same holy Doctor writes: Away with envy, let the ambition of Roman grandeur cease! I speak to the successor of the fisherman, and to the disciple of the cross. Following no chief but Christ, I am united in communion with your Holiness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that on that rock is built the Church. Whoever will eat the lamb outside this house is profane; whoever is not in the ark of Noah shall perish in the flood.</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;">The same doctrine was long before established by Saints Irenaeus and Cyprian. The latter, speaking of the unity of the Church observes: The Lord said to Peter, I say to thee, Peter! thou art Peter: and upon this rock I will build my Church. He builds His Church on one. And although after His Resurrection He gave equal power to all His Apostles, saying: As the Father hath sent me, I also send you, receive ye the Holy Ghost; yet to make unity more manifest, He decided by His own authority that it should be derived from one alone, etc.</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;">Again, Optatus of Milevi says: You cannot be excused on the score of ignorance, knowing as you do that in the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was first conferred on Peter, who occupied it as head of the Apostles; in order that in that one chair the unity of the Church might be preserved by all, and that the other Apostles might not claim each a chair for himself; so that now he who erects another in opposition to this single chair is a schismatic and a prevaricator.</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;">Later on St. Basil wrote: Peter is made the foundation, because he says: Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God; and hears in reply that he is a rock. But although a rock, he is not such a rock as Christ; for Christ is truly an immovable rock, but Peter, only by virtue of that rock. For Jesus bestows His dignities on others; He is a priest, and He makes priests; a rock, and He makes a rock; what belongs to Himself, He bestows on His servants.</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;">Lastly, St. Ambrose says: Because he alone of all of them professed (Christ) he was placed above all. </span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;">Should anyone object that the Church is content with one Head and one Spouse, Jesus Christ, and requires no other, the answer is obvious. For as we deem Christ not only the author of all the Sacraments, but also their invisible minister -- He it is who baptizes, He it is who absolves, although men are appointed by Him the external ministers of the Sacraments -- so has He placed over His Church, which He governs by His invisible Spirit, a man to be His vicar and the minister of His power. A visible Church requires a visible head; therefore the Saviour appointed Peter head and pastor of all the faithful, when He committed to his care the feeding of all His sheep, in such ample terms that He willed the very same power of ruling and governing the entire Church to descend to Peter's successors.</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;">"Unity In Spirit, Hope And Faith"</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;">Moreover, the Apostle, writing to the Corinthians, tells them that there is but one and the same Spirit who imparts grace to the faithful, as the soul communicates life to the members of the body. Exhorting the Ephesians to preserve this unity, he says: Be careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; one body and one Spirit. As the human body consists of many members, animated by one soul, which gives sight to the eves, hearing to the ears, and to the other senses the power of discharging their respective functions; so the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church, is composed of many faithful. The hope, to which we are called, is also one, as the Apostle tells us in the same place; for we all hope for the same consummation, eternal and happy life. Finally, the faith which all are bound to believe and to profess is one: Let there be no schisms amongst you, says the Apostle. And Baptism, which is the seal of our Christian faith, is also one.</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The above teaching leaves us either with two conclusions. Either Francis I is pope and it is he who removes all schism, preserves all unity, and it is he who feeds the sheep with the same doctrine from the time of Christ as his visible head on earth---or it is he who is an imposter, who is cut off by his own schism/heresy, a wolf in sheep's clothing who sows discord, and is devouring the sheep with poisonous doctrine, and therefore not a true shepherd who acts in the name of the Catholic Church.</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">It doesn't just stop with Francis I. It would also extend to the bishops in union with him in the world if he were in fact the pope because Pope St. Pius X taught in his encyclical on the Mariavites:</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">"But their profession of fidelity to the Vicar of Christ is vain in those who, in fact,</span><b><i><u> do not cease to violate the authority of their Bishops.</u></i></b><span style="font-weight: normal;"> For “by far the most august part of the Church consists of the Bishops, (as Our Predecessor Leo XIII of holy memory wrote in his letter of December 17, 1888, to the Archbishop), inasmuch as this part by divine right teaches and rules men; </span><b><i><u>hence, whoever resists them or pertinaciously refuses obedience to them puts himself apart from the Church. . . On the other hand, to pass judgment upon or to rebuke the acts of Bishops does not at all belong to private individuals —</u></i></b><span style="font-weight: normal;"> that comes within the province only of those higher than they in authority and especially of the Sovereign Pontiff, for to him Christ entrusted the charge of feeding not only His lambs, but His sheep throughout the world. At most, it is allowed in matters of grave complaint to refer the whole case to the Roman Pontiff, and this with prudence and moderation as zeal for the common good requires, not clamorously or abusively, for in this way dissensions and hostilities are bred, or certainly increased.” <i>(Tribus Circiter</i> #9). </span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">What do we see today? We see total contempt by a great multitude of those who call themselves either "conservative" or "traditional" Catholics for certain bishops, many of whom were appointed by Francis himself, such as Herman Glettler of Innsbruck, Austria, or John Stowe of Lexington, KY, USA. Yet Francis praises and encourages their ministries. Who among those who wag their tongues at Traditional Catholic (Sedevacantist) bishops cannot in some way say worse things about the new head of the <i>Dicastery of the Doctrine</i> (destruction) <i>of the Faith</i> named "Cardinal" Fernandez? Was it not he who answered the opposing bishops dubia when he said that Transsexuals can receive Baptism (so long as no scandal is in involved, whatever that means) as well as be Godparents and witnesses to weddings? Do not the opposing bishops disagree? Does not Francis approve of "Cardinal" Fernandez's answers? Did not Francis invite a multitude of Transgenders to a luncheon, not to proselytize them, but rather to "dialogue" about nothing beneficial for their salvation? So where is the unity of faith in the new religion? Those who dare attack traditional Catholic bishops should take a good look in the mirror. This counterfeit religion can't agree with its pope's doctrine, how he governs, nor figure out which bishop is orthodox in faith. How can Francis be pope? Where is the unity?</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">What then can be said of the traditional Catholic bishops? Are they truly ONE without a pope? In faith they are one, because they recognize the same last pope (Pius XII), his authority as well as his predecessors and, consequently, teach the same traditional Catholic doctrines handed down by the Church. They have also received the traditional rites of the priesthood and episcopacy that were not affected by the new changes occurring in 1968. They may be divided in so far as how they operate. They may be divided in what isn't settled in the Church. It may be true that even some among them have fallen away into heresy and should be avoided. Without a pope there is no way for them to be unified as we shall see below. Once the shepherd is struck, the sheep are scattered, but that doesn't mean the scattered sheep are no longer Catholic without a pope. That's because every time a pope dies, the Church doesn't die for good. It just means the Church is suffering like it has never suffered before. Do sedevacantist bishops want a pope? Sure. Do they want unity? Of course, but they know it cannot be done without a pope. Is it beyond their control to do more than what they are already doing for the salvation of souls? Absolutely. </span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; text-align: center;"><span style="color: black;"><b><u>Consider Pope Leo XIII</u></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red;"><span style="color: black;"><span>Any serious minded Catholic ought to read Pope Leo XIII's encyclical <i><b>Satis Cognitum</b></i> and ponder whether this still holds true today within what is called the Catholic Church. He states,</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><i><b>But the mission of Christ is to save that which had perished:</b></i> that is to say, not some nations or peoples, but the whole human race, without distinction of time or place. “The Son of Man came that the world might be saved by Him” (John iii., 17). “For there is no other name under Heaven given to men whereby we must be saved” (Acts iv., 12). The Church, therefore, is bound to communicate without stint to all men, and to transmit through all ages, the salvation effected by Jesus Christ, and the blessings flowing there from. Wherefore, by the will of its Founder, it is necessary that this Church should be one in all lands and at all times to justify the existence of more than one Church it would be necessary to go outside this world, and to create a new and unheard – of race of men...</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span><span style="color: red; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span><span style="color: red; font-weight: normal;">Another head like to Christ must be invented – that is, another Christ if besides the one Church, which is His body, men wish to set up another. “See what you must beware of – see what you must avoid – see what you must dread. It happens that, as in the human body, some member may be cut off a hand, a finger, a foot. Does the soul follow the amputated member? As long as it was in the body, it lived; separated, it forfeits its life. So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic – the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member” (S. Augustinus, Sermo cclxvii., n. 4)...</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span><span style="color: red; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><b><i><u>The Church of Christ, therefore, is one and the same for ever; those who leave it depart from the will and command of Christ, the Lord – leaving the path of salvation they enter on that of perdition.</u></i></b><span style="font-weight: normal;"> “Whosoever is separated from the Church is united to an adulteress. He has cut himself off from the promises of the Church, and he who leaves the Church of Christ cannot arrive at the rewards of Christ….He who observes not this unity observes not the law of God, holds not the faith of the Father and the Son, clings not to life and salvation” (S. Cyprianus, <u>De Cath. Eccl. Unitate</u>, n. 6)...</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span><span style="color: red; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">But He, indeed, Who made this one Church, also gave it unity, that is, He made it such that all who are to belong to it must be united by the closest bonds, so as to form one society, one kingdom, one body – “one body and one spirit as you are called in one hope of your calling (Eph. iv., 4). Jesus Christ, when His death was nigh at hand, declared His will in this matter, and solemnly offered it up, thus addressing His Father: “Not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in Me…that they also may be one in Us…that they may be made perfect in one” John xvii., 20-21 23). Yea, He commanded that this unity should be so closely knit and so perfect amongst His followers that it might, in some measure, shadow forth the union between Himself and His Father: “I pray that they all may be one as Thou Father in Me and I in Thee” (<i><b>Ibid</b></i>. 21).</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span><span style="color: red; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. </span><b><i><u>Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith</u></i></b><span style="font-weight: normal;">; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and </span><b><i><u>whence we receive the name of the faithful</u></i></b><span style="font-weight: normal;"> – “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, </span><b><i><u>without exception,</u></i></b><span style="font-weight: normal;"> have but one faith. And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions: “I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment” (I Cor. i., 10)... Besides, all who profess Christianity allow that there can be but one faith. It is of the greatest importance and indeed of</span><b><i><u> absolute necessity</u></i></b><span style="font-weight: normal;">, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized. And, as We have already stated, this is not to be ascertained by conjecture, but by the certain knowledge of what was done; that is by seeking for and ascertaining what kind of unity in faith has been commanded by Jesus Christ...</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span><span style="color: red; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;">The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavor than she has displayed in g<b><i><u>uarding the integrity of the faith</u></i></b>. Hence <b><i><u>She regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children</u></i></b> all who held beliefs on <b><i><u>any point of doctrine different from Her own</u></i></b>. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. <b><i><u>“There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition”</u></i></b> (<i>Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos</i>).</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span><span style="color: red; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church,</span><b><i><u> whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium</u></i></b><span style="font-weight: normal;">. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore:, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, </span><b><i><u>he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity</u></i></b><span style="font-weight: normal;">. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, <u>De Haeresibus</u>, n. 88).</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span><span style="color: red; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The need of this divinely instituted means for the </span><b><i><u>preservation of unity</u></i></b><span style="font-weight: normal;">, about which we speak is urged by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians. In this he first admonishes them to preserve with every care concord of minds: “Solicitous to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. iv., 3, et seq.). And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity </span><b><i><u>unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith:</u></i></b><span style="font-weight: normal;"> “One Lord, one faith,” and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: “that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed,</span><b><i><u> not for a time only – “but until we all meet in the unity of faith</u></i></b><span style="font-weight: normal;">…unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ." But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that – “He gave some Apostles – and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (11-12)...</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span><span style="color: red; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">For this reason the Fathers of the Vatican Council laid down nothing new, but followed divine revelation and the acknowledged and invariable teaching of the Church as to the very nature of faith, when they decreed as follows: “All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written or unwritten word of God, and which are pro posed by the Church as divinely revealed, either by a solemn definition or in the exercise of its ordinary and universal Magisterium (Sess. iii., cap. 3). Hence, as it is clear that God absolutely </span><b><i><u>willed that there should be unity in His Church,</u></i></b><span style="font-weight: normal;"> and as it is evident what kind of unity He willed, and by means of what principle He ordained that this unity should be maintained, we may address the following words of St. Augustine to all who have not deliberately closed their minds to the truth: “When we see the great help of God, such manifest progress and such abundant fruit, shall we hesitate to take refuge in the bosom of that Church, which, as is evident to all, possesses the supreme authority of the Apostolic See through the Episcopal succession? </span><span><b><i><u>I</u></i></b></span><b><i><u>n vain do heretics rage round it; they are condemned partly by the judgment of the people themselves, partly by the weight of councils, partly by the splendid evidence of miracles. To refuse to the Church the primacy is most impious and above measure arrogant. And if all learning, no matter how easy and common it may be, in order to be fully understood requires a teacher and master, what can be greater evidence of pride and rashness than to be unwilling to learn about the books of the divine mysteries from the proper interpreter, and to wish to condemn them unknown?”</u></i></b><span style="font-weight: normal;"> (<i>De Unitate Credendi</i>, cap. xvii., n. 35).</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span><span style="color: red; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span><span style="color: red; font-weight: normal;">It is then undoubtedly the office of the church to guard Christian doctrine and to propagate it in its integrity and purity. But this is not all: the object for which the Church has been instituted is not wholly attained by the performance of this duty... There must needs be also the fitting and devout worship of God, which is to be found chiefly in the divine Sacrifice and in the dispensation of the Sacraments, as well as salutary laws and discipline. All these must be found in the Church, since it continues the mission of the Saviour for ever. The Church alone offers to the human race that religion – that state of absolute perfection – which He wished, as it were, to be incorporated in it. And it alone supplies those means of salvation which accord with the ordinary counsels of Providence...</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-weight: bold;"><span><span style="color: red; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">But the Episcopal order is rightly judged to be in communion with Peter, as Christ commanded, if it be subject to and obeys Peter; otherwise it necessarily becomes a lawless and disorderly crowd. It is not sufficient for the due preservation of the unity of the faith that the head should merely have been charged with the office of superintendent, or should have been invested solely with a power of direction. </span><b><i><u>But it is absolutely necessary that he should have received real and sovereign authority which the whole community is bound to obey.</u></i></b><span style="font-weight: normal;"> What had the Son of God in view when he promised the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter alone? Biblical usage and the unanimous teaching of the Fathers clearly show that supreme authority is designated in the passage by the word keys. Nor is it lawful to interpret in a different sense what was given to Peter alone, and what was given to the other Apostles conjointly with him. If the power of binding, loosening, and feeding confers upon each and every one of the Bishops the successors of the Apostles a real authority to rule the people committed to him, certainly the same power must have the same effect in his case to whom the duty of feeding the lambs and sheep has been assigned by God. “Christ constituted [Peter] not only pastor, but pastor of pastors; </span><b><i><u>Peter therefore feeds the lambs and feeds the sheep, feeds the children and feeds the mothers, governs the subjects and rules the prelates, because the lambs and the sheep form the whole of the Church” </u></i></b><span style="font-weight: normal;">(S. Bruonis Episcopi Signiensis<i> Comment. in Joan</i>., part iii., cap. 21, n. 55).</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span><span style="color: red; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span><span style="color: red; font-weight: normal;">Hence those remarkable expressions of the ancients concerning St. Peter, which most clearly set forth the fact that he was placed n the highest degree of dignity and authority. They frequently call him “the Prince of the College of the Disciples; the Prince of the holy Apostles; the leader of that choir; the mouthpiece of all the Apostles; the head of that family; the ruler of the whole world; the first of the Apostles; the safeguard of the Church.” In this sense St. Bernard writes as follows to Pope Eugenius: “Who art thou? The great priest – the high priest. Thou art the Prince of Bishops and the heir of the Apostles…. Thou art he to whom the keys were given. There are, it is true, other gatekeepers of heaven and to pastors of flocks, but thou are so much the more glorious as thou hast inherited a different and more glorious name than all the rest. They have flocks consigned to them, one to each; to thee all the flocks are confided as one flock to one shepherd, and not alone the sheep, but the shepherds. You ask how I prove this? From the words of the Lord. To which – I do not say – of the Bishops, but even of the Apostles have all the sheep been so absolutely and unreservedly committed? If thou lovest me, Peter, feed my sheep. Which sheep? Of this or that country, or kingdom? My sheep, He says: to whom therefore is it not evident that he does not designate some, but all? We can make no exception where no distinction is made” (De Consideratione, lib. ii., cap. 8).</span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span><span style="color: red; font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><span><span style="color: red; font-weight: normal;">But it is opposed to the truth, and in evident contradiction with the divine constitution of the Church, to hold that while each Bishop is individually bound to obey the authority of the Roman Pontiffs, taken collectively the Bishops are not so bound. For it is the nature and object of a foundation to support the unity of the whole edifice and to give stability to it, rather than to each component part; and in the present case this is much more applicable, since Christ the Lord wished that by the strength and solidity of the foundation the gates of hell should be prevented from prevailing against the Church. All are agreed that the divine promise must be understood of the Church as a whole, and not of any certain portions of it. These can indeed be overcome by the assaults of the powers of hell, as in point of fact has befallen some of them. Moreover, he who is set over the whole flock must have authority, not only over the sheep dispersed throughout the Church, but also when they are assembled together. Do the sheep when they are all assembled together rule and guide the shepherd? Do the successors of the Apostles assembled together constitute the foundation on which the successor of St. Peter rests in order to derive therefrom strength and stability? Surely jurisdiction and authority belong to him in whose power have been placed the keys of the Kingdom taken collectively.</span><b style="color: red;"><i><u> And as the Bishops, each in his own district, command with real power not only individuals but the whole community, so the Roman pontiffs, whose jurisdiction extends to the whole Christian commonwealth, must have all its parts, even taken collectively, subject and obedient to their authority.</u></i></b><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;"> Christ the Lord, as we have quite sufficiently shown, made Peter and his successors His vicars, to exercise for ever in the Church the power which He exercised during His mortal life. Can the Apostolic College be said to have been above its master in authority? </span>(Emphasis mine). </span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red; text-align: center;"><span style="color: black;"><b><u>Conclusion</u></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; color: red;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Is Francis or the "Church" since Vatican II continuing the mission of Christ to save souls by converting all nations to be in the one fold; the Catholic Church and Her alone? Is Francis or the Church since Vatican II keeping the Church one in faith by guarding its integrity from every drop of poisonous heresy that could potentially infect the whole Mystical Body of Christ, which would be foreign to Her? Are the bishops in union with him not teaching the same things as Francis and the Church after Vatican II? If it is the Catholic Church are we not bound to obey it despite all its newness since Vatican II? If the answer to all these question are </span><span><b><i><u>no</u></i></b></span><span style="font-weight: normal;">, then tell me dear reader, how can anybody still united to it say with a clear conscience, I believe in ONE, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?! It would have to be some place else where the gates of Hell (i.e., the tongues of heretics according to Pope Vigilius), shall not prevail against it. </span></span></div></div>Introibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.com42tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-85244423167873138042023-12-04T04:26:00.000-08:002023-12-04T04:26:47.142-08:00Contending For The Faith---Part 22<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_7jU8_FdgkNLdJfCoHn3Mkor4zXdp4WqyGahdytzFzp5k8zJpM07yO7Shc0CscMeEXFmJawyr6cWVzmfm9w5TXpNqowZdatBhv2J9JkkDZa2FLIWsWK-KdioaImSrg8l6SLFUdzZ84nXg881EXvDJS5CQVoq-XuqzsrMCs9HYfowwIcbgQVx0iO37rG4/s960/Contending%20For%20The%20Faith.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="960" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_7jU8_FdgkNLdJfCoHn3Mkor4zXdp4WqyGahdytzFzp5k8zJpM07yO7Shc0CscMeEXFmJawyr6cWVzmfm9w5TXpNqowZdatBhv2J9JkkDZa2FLIWsWK-KdioaImSrg8l6SLFUdzZ84nXg881EXvDJS5CQVoq-XuqzsrMCs9HYfowwIcbgQVx0iO37rG4/s320/Contending%20For%20The%20Faith.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to <b><i><u>contend earnestly for the faith</u></i></b> once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e., the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month. This is the next installment.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="color: red;">The existence and attributes of God</span></li><li><span style="color: red;">The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all </span></li><li><span style="color: red;">The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church</span></li><li><span style="color: red;">The truth of Catholic moral teaching</span></li><li><span style="color: red;">The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II </span></li></ul></div><div><span style="color: red;">In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone has suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>The One True Church and the Attack By Religious Pluralism</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">"Everyone thinks their religion is the true religion. That's what divides us and keeps us apart. Endless arguments, and until we die, we won't know which religion, if any, is true." These statements were made by a colleague of mine in response to my refusal to go to an "ecumenical Thanksgiving party" given by the firm where grace before the meal would be given by attorneys of different religions. My colleague wanted to know why I would not attend since I could say a Traditionalist Catholic prayer. I explained that my faith was not "one among many" religions, that it was the One True Church founded by Christ to which all must belong in order to be saved. By attending that party, I would give scandal by letting people think that religion is no big deal, and the True Church is somehow on par with Mohammedanism, Judaism, Protestantism, Hinduism, and any other false sect.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">I told him his contentions were wrong, and invited him to go to lunch with me in January, when things slow down a little bit, and I would explain why. He said he would, and I'll see how that goes if he keeps his word. My fellow attorney is not alone in his sentiments (which led to his becoming an atheist). With the ever-growing secularization of society, and the existence of every religion under the sun here in the United States (with the Masonic separation of Church and State), a large segment of society believes as he does--and agnosticism/atheism many times is the result.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">The primary meaning of this attack proceeds as follows: if God is truthful, loving, and clear, why is there so much religious disagreement? This, in turn, leads to religious indifferentism; the view that one religion is as good as another and no religion can be considered correct. There is also <i>negative </i>indifferentism, which asserts all religions are false and bad (atheism/agnosticism), or one only needs to be "spiritual"---whatever that means. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Our culture, with its <i><b>pluralism</b></i>, subjectivism, and relativism, finds it easy to replace <b><i><u>truth with certainty.</u></i></b> This attitude is enjoying unprecedented popularity. However, truth is not the same thing as certainty. Truth is what corresponds with reality, while <b><i>certainty</i></b> refers to a person having no doubt or being fully convinced about something which may or may not correspond to reality.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">In this post, I will demonstrate how someone should answer these statements that may well confront you. In this age of Great Apostasy, ushered in by Vatican II, you may very well come up against someone who is convinced by the diversity of religion, and the prevalence of ecumenism, that no religion is true. They assert one of three positions: (1) All religions are false; (2) all religions are equally good; or (3) beliefs don't matter because we can't know which, if any, is true--just be "spiritual." </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">(In the writing of this post, I have used many sources, both online and books. I have incorporated the works of Christian philosophers including (but not limited to) St. Thomas Aquinas, Dr. John Lennox, and Professor Richard Swinburne. <b><i><u>I take no credit </u></i></b>for the material herein, but only for compiling it into a terse and readable post---<i style="font-weight: bold;">Introibo</i>). </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>A Pluralistic World</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>Occultist guru Oprah Winfrey says it’s a big mistake to believe there’s just one means of salvation: “There are millions of ways to be a human being and many paths to what you call ‘God.’ . . . There couldn’t possibly be just one way.” Now, the observation that religious beliefs abound (descriptive religious pluralism) is one thing; perhaps we could simply call this “religious diversity.” However, there is also truth-suppressing, Traditionalist-threatening prescriptive religious pluralism: “It’s true—and therefore you need to believe—that no one faith is uniquely capable of saving or liberating; all religions are able to do so.”(those who become atheists will assert no religion can save you).</div><div><br /></div><div><div>To assert Christ’s saving uniqueness is arrogant and imperialistic—a relic of the Colonial age. Pluralism is more suited to our individualistic, consumer-oriented, buffet-style approach that says, “I’ll take some of this; no, I don’t like that.” Oprah’s spiritual advisor, Eckhart Tolle (b. 1948), author of A New Earth, presents a pluralistic, souped-up version of Hinduism. Likened to drops of water, individual humans need to recognize that they’re part of an ocean (“God”) and thus can be “One with Life.” There aren’t others—God and fellow humans—to love and relate to, since everything is ultimately one (pantheism). </div><div><br /></div><div><div>Tolle says that a time is coming when not only “all mythologies but also . . . ideologies and belief systems” will evaporate. Though he denies his view is a “belief system,” it certainly is one, nonetheless. Tolle confidently proclaims that all religions are “equally false and equally true, depending on how you use them.” In fact, to assert that your religion is “the truth” is to let your ego get in the way. Perhaps the most notable religious pluralist is John Harwood Hick (b. 1922), who grew up in England amid the Anglican sect.</div><div><br /></div><div>Once, he had a religious experience on the top floor of a double-decker bus, after which he embraced “the entire evangelical package of Christianity,” complete with serious Bible studies and activities. However, during his studies at Edinburgh under the Kant scholar Norman Kemp Smith (1872–1958), his mind began to change about the centrality of Christ and the historicity of the Resurrection. Moreover, seeds of skepticism were sown due to the idea that the structure of the human mind shapes our perceptions of reality. He then began attending worship in mosques, synagogues, and temples, and he came to believe that the “same kind of thinking” was taking place in those places as in Christian churches: people “opening their minds to a higher divine Reality.” </div><div><br /></div><div>Hick became convinced of “God’s universal saving activity,” incompatible with the belief that there can be only one true way of salvation. He saw all religions as human attempts to understand the Ultimate Reality. Over the years he has established himself as an outspoken, highly respected proponent of religious pluralism. </div><div><br /></div><div>No stranger to religious diversity, Christianity throughout history has engaged with other religions. In the New Testament itself, believers faced imperial Rome with its emperor cult and polytheism, hostile Judaizers, and syncretistic religion. In the second and third centuries, Christian apologists responded to Gnostic religions (salvation through occult, "enlightened knowledge") and interacted with Judaistic ideas. Centuries later, Christians grappled with Islamic expansion and domination in formerly Christianized regions (e.g., North Africa and the Middle East). Holding on to the truth at all costs was the message of the Church.</div><div><div><br /></div><div><div>Religious pluralism, which has become deeply embedded within Western culture, has a foundational resistance to one religious faith alone bringing salvation or liberation. One instance of pluralism’s going mainstream is Harvard University’s<i> Pluralism Project</i>, chaired by Diana Eck (b. 1945). Eck acknowledges that religious differences exist and shouldn’t be minimized, but the project’s not-so-subtle assumption is twofold: (1)<b><i> No one religious perspective should be affirmed over against anothe</i></b><i><b>r</b></i>, and (2) <i><b>proselytism is an inappropriate response to religious plurality.</b></i></div><div><br /></div><div><div>Increased globalization carries with it a presupposition of “tolerant pluralism;" this, though, turns out to be an intolerant exclusivism (just as with “relative truth” and “relative morality”). We need to be prepared to respond wisely to this phenomenon, which will be a long-term feature in the worldwide religious landscape in these dark days without a true pope. </div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><u><b>The Horrific Implications of Pluralism</b></u></div></div></div></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><b>Proselytism is prohibited.</b> On many university campuses, proselytism is viewed as “cramming your religion down someone’s throat.” Obviously, trying to persuade—to tell someone about the One True Church of Jesus Christ—gets some people upset. Proselytism implies that you believe your doctrines are true and, what’s more, that you believe your listeners should turn from (change) their present way of life. As Bergoglio says, "Proselytism is solemn nonsense."</li></ul></div><div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><b>To be exclusivist is to be arrogant.</b> Given the variation of religious beliefs in the world, claiming to know something others don’t must be wrongheaded and erroneous. Moreover, many people convolute exclusive claims—especially about Christ’s saving uniqueness—with colonialism and imperialism, seeing them as nothing more than "Western bigotry" and narrow-mindedness being imposed on unknowing or unwilling people. We invite criticism when we shout that Catholicism alone is true—and equally loudly proclaim that other religions are false.</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><b>Tolerance is the "greatest virtue." </b>Implying that someone is wrong sounds terribly intolerant when tolerance popularly (but mistakenly) is defined as “being open to or accepting of all ideas.” What sodomite activists call "tolerance," for example, is unconditional acceptance of their lifestyle as legitimate and right. As we’ll see later, this disposition of open-mindedness turns out to be inconsistent: Such sodomite activists, for instance, don’t consider the one holding the traditional view of marriage to be legitimate and right. They are open and accepting (what they call "tolerant") toward those who agree with their argument, and to no others. You are claimed to have a mental illness (the made up "homophobia"), if you dare to disagree. </li></ul></div><div><div>Faith and morals go hand-in-glove. If there is no true Faith, then there can't be a true morality based on religious beliefs either. Some statistics from 2016:</div><div><br /></div><div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>71% of Americans believe divorce is morally acceptable</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>68% of Americans believe fornication is acceptable as long as the two people "love" each other</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>63% of Americans believe shacking up ("cohabitation") is okay</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>63% of Americans believe it's OK for married people to have sexual thoughts about someone other than their spouse</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>63% of Americans believe sodomite relations are okay</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>61% of Americans believe it is acceptable to have a baby out of wedlock</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>69% of Americans believe euthanasia should be permitted</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>53% of Americans think having an adulterous affair is justifiable</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>50% of Americans identify as "pro-choice"--the alleged right to murder an innocent unborn baby</li></ul></div><div>(See George Barna, <u>America at the Crossroads</u>, (Grand Rapids, MI; Baker Books, [2016], pg. 9; abortion statistic from 2017 Gallup Poll).</div></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Against Indifferentism/Pluralism</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">When confronted by someone who has become an Indifferentist (especially due to pluralism), here are some talking points:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div><b><u>1. Multiple claims to truth do not imply that there is no truth</u></b>. We can see this throughout history, for example, in the history of science. Over the centuries, people had all sorts of theories to account for natural phenomena, but that variety of views did not mean there was no correct view in any case. You can introduce this point with an analogy and a question: “Does the existence of counterfeit money show there is no real money?” Your discussion partner may answer “no” and then add something to press the objection further. That’s a good thing, and it allows you to see more of what he has in mind. He may argue something like this: “Yes, but if God reveals only one religion, He should do so clearly so that there would not be any other ones. The fact that there are so many religions shows that God did not adequately reveal Himself." You can respond by asking if he believes God to be all-good and all-powerful. If he responds in the affirmative, you can reply that God would not allow for inadequate revelation. If he is an atheist, continue with the other points in this section.</div><div><br /></div><div><div><b><u>2. Widespread religious disagreement may be due in part to a widespread religious impulse within a fallible human race.</u></b> Most human beings throughout history have believed in God in some sense. Since they believed in God, it’s not surprising that they attempted to find God and draw conclusions about Him<b><i><u> on their own.</u></i></b> Being fallible, these conclusions were prone to error. Add to this that human beings are not only fallible (prone to error) but also vicious (prone to doing evil), and we can see how some would falsely claim divine revelation for their own gain.</div><div><br /></div><div><div><b><u>3. The fall of Adam and Eve, through which sin entered the world, is the root cause of our living in an imperfect world—complete with pain, suffering, disease, disasters, and yes, religious disagreement.</u></b> Nonetheless, God has a rescue plan, according to Christianity, and the created order is in a state of “journeying” toward perfection.</div><div><br /></div><div><div><b><u>4. Willful and culpable ignorance also accounts for some measure of religious disagreement.</u></b> In <u>Five Proofs of the Existence of God</u>, philosopher Edward Feser writes, “Just as God allows us a very long leash with respect to errors in what we do—even to the extent of moral breakdown at the level of entire societies, genocide and other atrocities, and so forth—so too does he allow us a very long leash with respect to errors in what we think.”(See pg. 302). If a person is offered evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus or some other proof for the existence of God and the truth of the Catholic Church, but refuses to consider it or investigate it, by his choice he remains ignorant of these motives for faith. So the “long leash” that Feser describes can include the free decisions of people who culpably refuse to examine the evidence honestly.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now, you can offer proof for the existence of God and/or the proofs of the Catholic Church's claims to be the One True Church. (Unfortunately, this is made very difficult because of the Vatican II sect falsely claiming to be the Catholic Church). </div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>A Response Against Indifferentism/Pluralism by a Pre-Vatican II Theologian</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">The following is part of an essay entitled <i>Indifferentism, the Heresy that All Religions are Equal:</i></div><div><i>A Consequence of Martin Luther's Heresy of Faith Alone </i>contained in the 1929 book, <u>The Question Box, Second Edition</u>, by Fr. Bertrand L. Conway, C.S.P.</div><div><br /></div><div><div><span style="color: red;">The Catholic Church condemns indifferentism in the name of reason, of the Sacred Scriptures, and of Christian tradition. The god of indifferentism is not a God to be adored by rational men. God is Essential, Absolute and Eternal Truth; He is likewise Essential. Absolute and Eternal Holiness. A God of Truth and Holiness, He cannot be equally pleased with truth and error, with good and evil. To assert, therefore, that God does not care what men believe, is indeed blasphemous. A man indifferent to truth--a liar, in other words,--cannot have the respect of his fellows. A God indifferent to truth could not demand the homage of thinking men. No wonder, then, that those who formed so low a concept of the Deity finally denied Him altogether. Indifferentism is merely atheism in disguise.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">The assertion that one religion is as good as another is irrational. It is a first principle of reason that two contradictory statements cannot both be true. If one is true, the other is undoubtedly false. Either there are many gods or one God; either Jesus Christ is God or He is not; Mohammed is either a prophet or an impostor; divorce is either allowed or prohibited by Christ; the Eucharist is the living Jesus Christ or it is mere bread.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">To declare all religions equally true, or that their differences are immaterial, is to deny objective truth altogether with the pragmatist--a denial which is the curse of our age. On this theory a man ought to change his religion as he changes the cut of his clothes, according to his environment. He ought to be a Catholic in Italy, a Lutheran in Sweden, a Mohammedan in Turkey, a Buddhist in China, a Shintoist in Japan.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">It is certainly strange that many believers in the Bible are indifferentists, in spite of its clear, explicit condemnation of this theory. Jesus Christ commanded His Apostles to teach a definite Gospel, and condemned those who knowingly rejected it. "Preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not, shall be condemned" (Mark xvi. 15, 16). He prophesied that many would gainsay His teaching, but He denounced them in unmeasured terms. "Beware of false prophets who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves" (Matt. vii. 15).</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Revelation, if it has any meaning, is a divine message which no one can reject without sin. We must receive it, as the Apostle says, "not as the word of men, but as it is indeed the Word of God" (1 Thess. ii. 13). God, a God of Truth, could not possibly have revealed a plurality of religions, or a multitude of varying Christianities. He founded one Church, one Kingdom of God, one Sheepfold, under the perpetual and infallible guidance of Himself and the Holy Spirit.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">The history of Christianity in every age shows how alien to Christ is the heresy of indifferentism, which was first popularized by the English Deists and the French Rationalists of the seventeenth century. In the first three centuries the Christian martyrs died by the thousands, rather than save their lives by a profession of indifferentism. Frequently they were asked by friends and kinsfolk to sacrifice to the gods of pagan Rome, or at least to allow their names to be written down as having sacrificed. "What difference does it make?" asked their pagan friends. They answered in the words of Christ: "Every one, therefore, that shall confess Me before men, I will confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But he that shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven" (Matt. x. 32, 33). They were not indifferentists. In sixteenth century England, many a Catholic was offered money, preferment and life, if he would but acknowledge the royal supremacy of the Tudors in things spiritual, against the constant voice of Christendom from the beginning. But men like Blessed Thomas More, Bishop Fisher and Edmund Campion gladly died for the certain teaching of Christ. They were not indifferentists.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">As a matter of fact, we find that the man who says first, "It does not make any difference what a man BELIEVES" is led logically to say, "It does not make any difference what a man DOES." His morality is built upon the shifting, sands of opinion, fancy, human respect, and, therefore, will not stand the stress of sorrow, disgrace, difficulty or temptation. If religion be a mere matter of opinion, all certainty in morals becomes impossible, and men lapse into the old-time vices of paganism.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Sometimes the good lives of unbelievers are mentioned as proof positive that belief is an unimportant factor in the regulation of conduct. A man will argue, "A never puts his foot inside a church, nor does he accept any creed whatever; yet he is a man, kindly, charitable, pure and honest. On the other hand, B is a Catholic, accepting without question every dogma and law of his Church, and I know him to be a drunkard, an adulterer, a hypocrite, the most uncharitable and contemptible of men." But this statement proves nothing at all, because the comparison is made between the open, well-known vices of a sinful, hypocritical believer, and the obvious good deeds of an amiable unbeliever. The whole character of the two men is often not adequately known, and consequently is not weighed in a true balance.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">But even if we grant that a particular unbeliever is a fairly good man, his goodness is certainly not due to his unbelief. He lives in a Christian environment; he comes of Christian stock; he may perhaps have received a Christian education as a child. His life is parasitic. As Balfour writes in his Foundations of Belief, 82: "Biologists tell us of parasites which live, and can only live in the bodies of animals more highly organized than they. . . . . So it is with those persons who claim to show by their example that naturalism is practically consistent with the maintenance of ethical ideals, with which naturalism has no natural affinity. Their spiritual life is parasitic; it is sheltered by convictions which belong not to them, but to the society of which they form a part; it is nourished by processes in which they take no share. And when these convictions decay, and these processes come to an end, the alien life which they have maintained can scarce be expected to outlast them."</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">If a man be utterly indifferent to the truth of God, if he look upon the Ten Commandments as temporary laws evolved out of the consciousness of a certain Semitic race, if he questions the fact of God's existence, makes little of the fact of immortality, denies the fact of sin, and the freedom of the will, what basis can he have for the moral law? A lawyer, he will not hesitate to bribe both jury and judge, if he can do so without detection; a doctor, he will not shrink from child murder or a criminal operation; a politician, he will steal what he can from the State's treasury, and be loyal to his friends, no matter what their competence or their morals; a preacher of the Gospel of Christ, he will deny its every doctrine, and be at the beck and call of the rich and powerful among his hearers--a mere "seller of rhetoric," as St. Augustine called him long ago.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">The true Christian may under stress of temptation fall into the worst vices of the pagan, and give the lie to his high profession. But no matter how low he may fall, he falls FROM A STANDARD, and you may appeal to him for amendment. He has once climbed up the mount of God, and he knows that with God's help he can again reach the summit. But if a man feels confident that every lapse is due merely to the evil of environment, a taint in the blood, or the impelling force of a stronger will, he will not answer your appeal to higher things. He calls evil good, and good evil.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Will you say that conduct is the one thing essential? You are right. But faith is the inspiration and support of right conduct. It is the very foundation stone of the supernatural life. A good man will accept God's word in its entirety, once he knows it. A good man is bound to search for the revelation of God, once he begins to doubt about the validity of his own ethical and religious convictions. It is just as much a sin to deny the known truth or to be indifferent in its search, as to commit murder or adultery. This is a principle which the modern world has forgotten, but it will have to come back to it. It is a truth that the Catholic Church is ever trying to drive home to every heart and mind. She appeals to all men, however deluded by error or debased by sin, in a spirit of kindliness, tact, sympathy and patience. But she dare not sacrifice one jot or tittle of the divine message, which Christ gave her for the healing of the nations.</span></div></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Conclusion</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">We must be prepared for the challenge of indifferentism spurred on by unrestrained religious pluralism, in the age of "religious liberty" ushered in by Vatican II. Believe it or not, intolerance is a <u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">virtue</u>. It doesn't mean we go around hating people, but <b><i><u>ideas and actions should be forcefully hated and condemned.</u></i></b> We should be intolerant of abortion, sodomite "marriage" and the idea that beliefs don't matter, because "all religions lead to God" or "no one can know the truth about religion." If someone believes all religions lead to salvation, then he believes he has the correct perspective to the exclusion of all who think otherwise, whom he would consider wrong and (ironically) be intolerant of their belief. If someone thinks we can't know the truth about religion, he has made a truth claim. Ask, "how do you know that"? </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Objective truth and objective morality exist, and it carries with it great implications for us. We must strive to live in accordance with them and defend our Holy Mother the Church whenever She is attacked. </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p></p>Introibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.com32tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-44694532569761456842023-11-27T04:16:00.000-08:002023-11-27T13:16:09.871-08:00A Crooked Path: Walking The "Labyrinth" <p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbqLt0wee-JI07zkijJRvHdmt_rGGTyc2CsNPZh9h9Jzkec6tdl79_CNXeM35b2COBcwP8IddvZRDOuePLBv4KrVOzW3Ae_YcdRt0wWlOSofawMFUha2lu8FoUgqHSsiUFI6flRW2BoP-ozXJJp00j2MgdhyphenhyphenOkssvogIZEIz5VfoLkfPujWB0Dbrry-KM/s3072/labyrinth.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2304" data-original-width="3072" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbqLt0wee-JI07zkijJRvHdmt_rGGTyc2CsNPZh9h9Jzkec6tdl79_CNXeM35b2COBcwP8IddvZRDOuePLBv4KrVOzW3Ae_YcdRt0wWlOSofawMFUha2lu8FoUgqHSsiUFI6flRW2BoP-ozXJJp00j2MgdhyphenhyphenOkssvogIZEIz5VfoLkfPujWB0Dbrry-KM/s320/labyrinth.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div>It was the late 1990s, and I needed to see a client right away. He informed me he was travelling all over, and the only time he could meet me during his busy journey was during a weekend retreat on Long Island. I agreed to meet him at the Vatican II sect retreat. He was staying at the <i>St. Ignatius Retreat House </i>in the swank town of Manhasset, on the so-called "Gold Coast" of Long Island written about by F. Scott Fitzgerald in the classic novel <u>The Great Gatsby.</u> St. Ignatius was also known as <i style="font-weight: bold;">Inisfada </i>(Gaelic for "Long Island") and it had an interesting history.<p></p><p>The mansion turned retreat house was originally the estate of Nicholas Frederic Brady and Genevieve Brady. Mr. Brady was incredibly wealthy. Raised a Protestant, he converted to Catholicism. He was Chairman of the board of directors of New York Edison Co. and a director of Anaconda Copper Mining Co., Westinghouse Electric, National City Bank, Union Carbide, and numerous other companies in the United States and Japan whose activities were primarily in utilities. Brady married Genevieve Garvan, a Catholic as devout as he was, who held many Church honors, including being a <i>Dame of the Order of Malta,</i> <i>Dame of the Order of the Holy Sepulchre</i>, holder of the papal <i>Cross Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice</i>, and a Vice-President of the <i>Welfare Council of New York</i>.</p><p>Nicholas Brady was ennobled by Pope Pius XI and created a<i> Papal Duke</i> (<i>ad personam</i>, or non-hereditary) while Genevieve was created a <i>papal duchess</i> in her own right. The couple was unable to have children, and chose not to adopt. While living in a posh luxury apartment on New York City's Fifth Avenue, they purchased 33 square acres of land in Manhasset and had their mansion built in the middle. It was completed in 1920 for $2 million dollars (adjusted for inflation that's approximately $31 million in 2023). The couple hosted many notable clerics. In 1930, Nicholas Brady died, and Mrs. Brady continued hosting clerics, most notably Eugene Cardinal Paccelli in 1936. Three years later, the good Cardinal would become Pope Pius XII. When she died in 1938, she gave her home to the Jesuits who first used it as a seminary, and in 1963 (as the Robber Council was underway) made it into a retreat center for those wanting to practice the <u>Spiritual Exercises</u> of St. Ignatius Loyola. (See, e.g., web.archive.org/web/20110714034237/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,930896,00.html) </p><p>The place is so large, when I entered, one of the office workers gave me a map. You could probably fit about seven NYC homes inside; I couldn't fathom only two people living there. I smiled as I came upon a glass case inside of which was a zucchetto worn and gifted to Mrs. Brady by Cardinal Pacelli. It was the one and only Catholic item I would find there. Even with the map, I couldn't seem to find my client's room, so I asked a man whom I thought, by dress and appearance to be the janitor, for help. He introduced himself to me as one of the Jesuit "priests." I told him who I was and why I was there. He told me to wait there and he would bring my client down. "Right here is the prayer and meditation room," he said while pointing to the room next to us. "You can wait there if you like." </p><p>When I opened the door, I saw about 10 members of the Vatican II sect sitting in the lotus position on a mat, and staring reverently at a large statue of the Buddha (so much for the <u>Spiritual Exercises</u>). I got out at once, and met my client in the hallway. When we were done, he asked me what I thought of the place. "The architecture is beautiful, but it's now a place for literal pagans to stare at the Buddha." He responded, "Vatican II opened up the windows to let old ideas like a 'One True Church' out! Go out in the garden out back and walk in the Labyrinth. It teaches you all paths lead to God! I have to run now; 'mass' is going to begin in the Chapel." I said goodbye and decided to look at this "labyrinth." </p><p>I saw a large, convoluted path etched out on the ground and lined by stones. There were several men walking around in circles, saying nothing and looking like lobotomized mental patients with far-off stares. It creeped me out and I left to go back to my office. That was my first encounter with the pagan and occult "labyrinth" that continues to be used today, and is seeing a resurgence in popularity. <span style="color: red;">(St. Ignatius Retreat House was sold by the Jesuits in 2013 for $36.5 million dollars. The mansion was demolished and the land used by developers. Despite Jesuit claims that they had a "new vision to share the [non-existent] <i>Exercises</i>," they needed the money to pay court costs and settlements for 50 members of their order accused of sexual abuse in the NY area---<b><i>Introibo</i>).<i> </i></b></span></p><p>In this post, I will explain the meaning and dangers of the labyrinth. </p><p><span style="color: red;">(I have consulted numerous sources in my research regarding labyrinths; both online and books. In addition to those specifically cited herein, I wish to give attribution to <u>Walking a Sacred Path: Rediscovering the Labyrinth as a Spiritual Practice</u> [2006], by Lauren Artress,<u> Exploring the Labyrinth: A Guide for Healing and Spiritual Growth</u> [2000], by Melissa Gayle West, and <u>Walking the Labyrinth: A Place to Pray and Seek God</u> [2014], by Travis Scholl. I take no credit except for putting the information into a concise and readable post---<i style="font-weight: bold;">Introibo</i>). </span></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><u>What are Labyrinths?</u></b></p><p style="text-align: left;">A labyrinth is a flat circle or square consisting of a path that winds round to the center (not to be confused with a maze, which is enclosed). In Greek mythology, the Labyrinth was the name for the maze-like enclosure for the half-man, half-bull Minotaur. According to one source:</p><p><span style="color: red;">A labyrinth is a meandering path, often unicursal, with a singular path leading to a center. Labyrinths are an ancient archetype dating back 4,000 years or more, used symbolically, as a walking meditation, choreographed dance, or site of rituals and ceremony, among other things. Labyrinths are tools for personal, psychological and spiritual transformation, also thought to enhance right-brain activity. Labyrinths evoke metaphor, sacred geometry, spiritual pilgrimage, religious practice, mindfulness, environmental art, and community building. </span></p><p><span style="color: red;">Labyrinths are named by type and can be further identified by their number of circuits. Counting from the center, the drawing at right illustrates a seven circuit design. You begin a labyrinth walk at the entrance and proceed along the path. Lines define the path and often maintain a consistent width, even around the turns. Generally at the center you have travelled half the distance, where it is common to pause, turn around, and walk back out again. </span>(See https://labyrinthsociety.org/about-labyrinths/). </p><p>The same source relates:</p><p><span style="color: red;">How are they used? People walk the labyrinth for many reasons. Some do it to relax, some as a walking meditation, some just for fun. There are benefits to walking a labyrinth...</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">Aren't they strictly some sort of New Age phenomenon? No. Labyrinths are ancient. The labyrinth was a central feature in many of the European Roman Catholic churches in the middle ages and many of these still exist today. The most famous of these remaining labyrinths is at Chartres Cathedral near Paris, France. The labyrinth at Chartres was built around 1200. It was walked as a pilgrimage and/or for repentance. As a pilgrimage, it was a journey to become closer to God. When used for repentance, the pilgrims would walk on their knees. Sometimes this eleven-circuit labyrinth would serve as a substitute for an actual pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The cross is at the center of the pattern of the labyrinth and is used in the construction as a guide. Even today, churches with labyrinths encourage people to walk the labyrinth during Lent and Advent. </span>(<i>Ibid). </i></p><p>The Vatican II sect Jesuits employ this connection to Catholic use, in justifying bringing labyrinths into retreats, and "new" (occult) "spirituality." After the Crusades, the labyrinth remained unused by Catholics and was never meant to be a permanent feature of Catholic devotion such as the Rosary, and much less a replacement for these devotions. Those who push labyrinths will say things like:</p><p><span style="color: red;">Labyrinths have been found all over the world dating from the earliest antiquity. Their origins are lost in the mists of time.</span>(<i>Ibid</i>). They have been found in many places dating back centuries. However, they have occult origins that have been brought back in the wake of Vatican II.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><u>The "Labyrinth Effect"</u></b></p><p style="text-align: left;">There is research (ongoing) which has disturbing findings about the effects of mindless walking about a labyrinth. According to K.J. Danielson, in his research paper <i>The Transformative Power of the Labyrinth </i>he reports:</p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">I found through my research that the labyrinth does indeed have unique transformative power. Its transforming energy is thought to come from its design based on the<i><b><u> ancient science of sacred geometry.</u></b></i> Walking the winding path creates a calming meditative state that <b><i><u>opens one up to one’s intuitive, non-rational, creative nature, and allows for a shift in consciousness</u></i></b>. My relationship with the labyrinth deepened throughout my journey over the past year. Over the time of my work with the labyrinth, I have experienced greater awareness, more focus, and a deeper connection with my spirituality. </span>(Emphasis mine). </p><p style="text-align: left;">The nonsense about occult "sacred geometry" aside, "a shift in consciousness" can be induced by pagan meditation while walking in a winding path, causing a hypnotic state, which in turn can open a person up to demonic influences. Kathy Doore, an author on "sacred spaces," freely describes the spiritual implications of the labyrinth:</p><p><span style="color: red;">Labyrinths are temples that enhance and balance and bring a sense of the sacred—a place where we can confirm <b><i><u>our unity with the cosmos, awaken our vital force and elevate our consciousness</u></i></b>. These structures are space/time temples where we can behold realities that oddly enough transcend space and time. The orientation, form and geometry of a labyrinth has symbolic as well as spacial</span> [sic]<span style="color: red;"> importance. It is a mirror for the divine, a place to behold the beauty in nature.</span></p><p><span style="color: red;"><b><i><u>Spiraling inward and out, this serpentine flow is the most generative form of subtle energy. The process of moving through the pathway unwinds this stored energy, releasing, magnifying, and ultimately harnessing the flow.</u></i></b> Working directly in conjunction with the human energy fields this spiraling flow interacts with the kundalini energy coiled at the base of our spine converting the subtle energy into life force itself. This uncoiling of the kundalini vitalizes us through a process of unfolding both upwards and inwards, an exhalation and ingathering of energies known as the dance of creation.</span></p><p><span style="color: red;"></span></p><p><span style="color: red;">Labyrinths are known as sacred gateways and have been found at the entrance of ancient sites around the world. <b><i><u>Often located at the center of subtle ‘earth energies’ these temples enhance, balance, regenerate and confirm our unity with the cosmos.</u></i></b> A type of Labyrinth known as a Yantra was used as a<b><i><u> meditation by Hindu midwives</u></i></b> to assist in childbirth and served as a means of relaxation for the birth canal, another labyrinthine form. </span>(See labyrinthina.net/labyrinths-myth-history.html; Emphasis mine). This is pure pagan pantheism being practiced. Hindus used labyrinths for centuries; hence the first labyrinths were of pagan/occult origin. </p><p>Even a secular health website admits walking the labyrinth induces "active meditation" of the same type used in pagan yoga:</p><p><span style="color: red;">Walking a labyrinth is a form of <b><i><u>active meditation </u></i></b>which is unique from meditation while standing still, sitting, or lying down. Active meditation provides many benefits, and labyrinth walking is a <b><i><u>unique spiritual experience.</u></i></b> Learn more about labyrinth walking meditation and its potential benefits.</span></p><p>(See verywellfit.com/walking-the-labyrinth-3435825; Emphasis mine). The link on active meditation states:</p><p><span style="color: red;">To lasso our ever-wandering minds to the present, mindfulness incorporates behaviors like focusing on breathing, paying attention to our thoughts, withholding judgment, and having compassion for ourselves and others. <b><i><u>Activities like yoga</u></i></b> and meditation often help place us in this state of mindful awareness. </span>(See verywellfit.com/how-mindfulness-can-help-you-achieve-nutrition-and-fitness-goals-6825952; Emphasis mine). </p><p>The message of the labyrinth is clear. It is pagan and pantheistic. There is no One True Church because "you are god," part of the Divine. The person who revived this practice (quickly picked up by the Vatican II sect) was an Episcopalian "priestess," who will be the subject of the next section.</p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Lauren Artress: Occult Priestess</u></b></p><p style="text-align: left;">It is actually Dr. Jean Houston, who is ground zero for the labyrinth movement, who was listed on the Internet as one of the 10 top New Age speakers in North America. The inside cover of Jean Houston’s 1997 book <u>A Passion for the Possible</u> describes herself as ‘considered by many to be one of the world’s greatest teachers…’ Houston teaches her students in her "Mystery School" how to speak in occult glossolalia [speaking in tongues]. She encourages her participants to "begin describing your impressions in glossolalia" and even to "…write a poem in glossolalia." (See Huston, <u>GodSeed: the Journey of Christ</u>, [1992], pgs. 50-51). Blasphemously, Houston talks of Christ as being an occult Savior, not the Incarnate Second Person of the Holy Trinity. </p><p style="text-align: left;">As a past president of the Association for Humanistic Psychology, Houston makes use of her doctorate in <i>Philosophy of Religion</i> to gain access to areas where most occultists can’t go. For example, as noted widely in media a number of years ago, she became a consultant to Hillary Clinton, helping her to "channel" the spirit of Eleanor Roosevelt. (See Bob Woodward in ‘The Choice’; <i>The Providence Journal Bulletin</i>, Tuesday, 6/25/96, A3). Houston also calls the labyrinth "The Dromenon"--a word from Greek paganism meaning "the thing enacted." In Houston's own words, “The Dromenon is a soul-driven geometry; it brings a new meaning to sacred geometry. It carries us into realms of awakening that we did not know existed and restores the imagination.”</p><p style="text-align: left;">At Houston's "Mystery School," people would pay almost $4,000 each to attend for nine weekends and learn Houston's occult teachings; the labyrinth being foremost among them. "Rev." Lauren Artress (sometimes referred to as "Canon Artress") from Grace Cathedral Episcopal Church brought the Labyrinth back to her Cathedral after experiencing the Labyrinth at Jean Houston’s Mystery School. Artress notes that she was hardly prepared for the force of my own reaction. <span style="color: red;">As soon as I set foot into the labyrinth I was overcome with an almost violent anxiety. Some part of me seemed to know that in this ancient and mysterious archetype, I was encountering something that would change the course of my life. </span>(See Artress, <u>Walking A Sacred Path: Rediscovering the Labyrinth as a Spiritual Practice</u> [2006], pg. 8). </p><p style="text-align: left;">One of the stated purposes of the Labyrinth is to connect us to the "mother goddess," of which the labyrinth is a symbol. Also in her book W<u>alking A Sacred Path: Rediscovering the Labyrinth as a Spiritual Tool,</u> Canon Artress states that “The labyrinth is a large, complex spiral circle which is an ancient symbol for the divine mother, the God within, the goddess, the holy in all creation.” Artress says that “You walk to the center of the labyrinth and there at the center, you meet the Divine.” You meet yourself--the "divine within" and commune with "Mother Goddess." </p><p style="text-align: left;">On the website of Grace Cathedral, Artress states the three "Stages of the Walk:"</p><p><span style="color: red;">Unlike a maze, a labyrinth has just one path, so there are no tricks to it and no dead ends. It is a two-way path, so you may meet others coming or going on the path. The are three main stages of the walk:</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">Purgation (Releasing)</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">A releasing, a letting go of the details of your life. This is the act of shedding thoughts and distractions. A time to open the heart and quiet the mind.</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">Illumination (Receiving)</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">When you reach the center, stay there as long as you like. It is a place of meditation and prayer. Receive what is there for you to receive.</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">Union (Returning)</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">As you leave, following the same path out of the center as you came in, you enter the third stage, which is joining God, your Higher Power, or the healing forces at work in the world. Each time you walk the labyrinth you become more empowered to find and do the work for which you feel your soul is reaching.</span>(See gracecathedral.org/our-labyrinths). </p><p>People are told that the labyrinth is a tool useful to people<b><i><u> of all religions or no religion</u></i></b>. Each person's walk can be interpreted differently each time to the same individual. From some of the quotes I have read one can assume life is one big labyrinth. This experiential walk is spiritualized to have meaning. “We are not human beings on a spiritual path, but spiritual beings on a human path” (Artress).</p><p> Labyrinths are being used for reflection, meditation, prayer with various interpretations of what these mean. Some see it as a metaphor of the path of life, a journeying to God. Some ask forgiveness on the way in and empowerment on the way out. The participant can ascribe their own spiritual meaning to this ritual walk, the theory is that by walking the labyrinth one partakes of a spiritual journey of self -examination and enlightenment. What happens to everyone may not all be the same, but many claim to receive a spiritual transformation. Artress tells us: “The space and the experience of walking it become powerful and help one feel a greater sense of Oneness. It is a tool for people of all beliefs to come together for a common spiritual experience.” From the occult outlook, people are told these are "sacred places." There is allegedly power incorporated in the design. The Labyrinth “Is truly a tool for transformation, a crucible for change, a blueprint for the sacred meeting of the psyche and the soul, a field of light, a cosmic dance, it is a center for empowering ritual.” (Artress).</p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><u>The Labyrinth: The Wrong Path</u></b></p><p style="text-align: left;">As you can see, the labyrinth is being used by occultists to spread their false doctrines in Churches. Here is a summary of the major problems:</p><p style="text-align: left;"><b>1. It promotes pagan meditation and can induce a hypnotic trance-like state to become "One" with the universe or "Mother Goddess." It is therefore occult and opens a person to demonic possession.</b></p><p style="text-align: left;">On June 23, 1840 under Pope Gregory XVI, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office decreed the following regarding hypnotic states:</p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">Excluding all error, and excluding fortune-telling and the invocation of demons, whether explicit or implicit, the use of magnetism </span>[as hypnosis was the called]<span style="color: red;">, namely the mere act of using physical means otherwise permissible, is not prohibited on moral grounds, </span><u style="color: red; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">provided it does not lead to an end that is illicit or improper in any manner.</u> </p><p style="text-align: left;">Even those who do not get to such altered states, have unwittingly opened themselves up to a decidedly pagan worldview and possible demon possession. The idea of being "divine" is the opposite of Christianity which tells us we are sinners in need of Redemption by the God-Man Jesus Christ.</p><p style="text-align: left;"><b>2. Indifferentism (the idea that "one religion is as good as another") is promoted. </b></p><p>The labyrinth is publicized as a spiritual tool, not just for Christians, but also for anyone who is seeking a spiritual experience, or even just as a tool for self-reflection. The labyrinth gives many the misleading impression that one can be close to God without Christ and His One True Church. </p><p><b>3. The idea of religion as "experience" and "feelings" is imbued. This is pure Modernism.</b></p><p style="text-align: left;"><b>Problems:</b></p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Seeking to evoke an experience often can bring one on. This may create an appetite for more experiences because people can feel good doing it. Then it induces not only a desire for more experiences, but also a sense that one must experience or feel something in order to believe one is genuinely in relationship with God. </li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Seeking an experience is self-oriented, not God-oriented. Walking a labyrinth automatically sets up an expectation that something special should happen. Disappointment results if there is no feeling or experience.</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Experiences and feelings can be deceptive. Even if walking a labyrinth gives a powerful experience, it does not mean it is from God or that the person actually is closer to God. Experiences and feelings are not the measure of truth. It can lead a non-Christian into believing they have encountered God when they haven’t. In fact, there is nothing about walking a labyrinth that prevents one from having a counterfeit spiritual experience, even for a Traditionalist. Feeling “close” to God is not the way to gauge our relationship with Him.</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Labyrinths have been used at Vatican II sect youth group rallies and retreats, thus possibly leading teens to believe that feelings indicate contact with God.</li></ul><p></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Conclusion</u></b></p><p style="text-align: left;">The Labyrinth Walk is an occult practice that has used the pretense of "use in the Middle Ages by Christians" to deceive people into thinking it is a legitimate form of Christian prayer. The Modernists have been successful introducing it into the Vatican II sect by means of retreats, and even outside some Churches. Walking meditation and stopping to quiet oneself is not promoting prayer. Not all that is claimed to be spiritual, is good or from God. Do we now need experiential prayer elements? Traditionalist Catholics have a different path to follow: "How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!" (St. Matthew 7:14). </p>Introibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.com26tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-91095997716308594892023-11-20T04:14:00.000-08:002023-11-21T18:49:30.640-08:00Gen Z Feeneyites<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwqDNszZfHEu6rXmFCCbl46D1cAsVjfLvuPz6Bod4HrJPCV7zxSsg0qXUT4nsX6CTe05HxmdCesq1gEj2KRp3dUB_zY-vGqLNb9qYs_I8uM4ARwfWU9E3VynPmE4tQqQv_I174xoJpIS3phVh4M09Bsa51rJPQaTahOMs72W6m4GpMNO1zrdHnwHdq_MA/s1024/St%20Emerentiana.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1024" data-original-width="557" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwqDNszZfHEu6rXmFCCbl46D1cAsVjfLvuPz6Bod4HrJPCV7zxSsg0qXUT4nsX6CTe05HxmdCesq1gEj2KRp3dUB_zY-vGqLNb9qYs_I8uM4ARwfWU9E3VynPmE4tQqQv_I174xoJpIS3phVh4M09Bsa51rJPQaTahOMs72W6m4GpMNO1zrdHnwHdq_MA/s320/St%20Emerentiana.jpg" width="174" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Sadly, I've noticed a disturbing trend among "Gen Zers" (those born from 1997-2012) on the Internet and social media. These young people are special "Victims of Vatican II." Many, having attending the sect's "Catholic schools," were unwilling to become practical atheists like the rabid Modernists who taught them. So far, good for them. Unfortunately, when seeking the truth, they go to the opposite extreme in reaction to the Modernism which they refused to imbibe. These Gen Z Vatican II sect members reject Bergoglio, and then begin to uphold views that are not Catholic, simply because they are considered extreme and "must be true." Having stumbled across Fred and Bobby Dimond's "Most Holy Family Monastery" site, many become Feeneyites. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Like the malevolent misfit "monks" from upstate New York, they will refuse to debate in a neutral online forum, and argue like sophists. I've decided to make this post to help them (and any other person of good will) taken in by Feeneyism. I have turned out many posts against Feeneyism in the last 13 years I've been operating this blog. Here, I will combine the most salient points from what I've written, so that the Catholic truth may (God willing) take hold, and they will repent of their heresy. To my readers, I hope this post will be a reminder of the truth, and something to share with anyone you know trapped in the wicked error of Leonard Feeney. As this is a compilation from my prior writings, I have already given due attribution when I first published, and some citations may not be duplicated here. I will gladly direct anyone to my past writings for the citations that back up all which is written in this post. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"> This exposition of the teaching of the Church and the errors of the Feeneyites is not meant to be "definitive" or exhaustive; it is meant to give an adequate overview that (please God) allows people to see the truth of the Faith and the falsehood of the Feeneyites. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><u>Contents</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b>I. What are Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood?</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b>II. Who was Leonard Feeney?</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><span> </span>(a) Feeney was not a theologian or canonist</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><span> <span> </span></span>(b) Feeney's False Teaching </b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><span> </span>(c) More Strange Teaching</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span> </span>(<b>d) Leonard Feeney: Cult Leader and Child Abuser</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><span> </span>(e) Feeney was Excommunicated for Heresy</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b>III. Comparison of Feeney to Fred and Bobby Dimond</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b>IV. The "Feeneyite Virus"</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b>V. Understanding the Teaching of the Magisterium</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><span> </span>(a) The Basics</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><span> </span>(b) What, exactly, constitutes an approved theologian of the Church?</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b>VI. Baptism of Desire and of Blood are an Infallible Teaching of the Magisterium </b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><span> </span><span> </span>Objection #1: "Desire" really means "Intends to Receive"--"Or" really means "And"</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><span> </span><span> </span>Objection #2: The Canons of Trent "Prove" Only Water Baptism Saves</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b>VII. Canon Law Infallibly Teaches BOD</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b>VIII. Culpable Ignorance about Invincible Ignorance</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b>IX. Two Major Feeneyite Attacks on BOD</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><span> </span><span> (a</span>) Fred and Bobby's "Best Argument" Against BOD</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><span> </span><span> </span><span> (b) </span>BOD and BOB "led to" the Universal Salvationism of Vatican II</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b>X. The Crazy Creed of the Feeneyites</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b style="text-align: center;">XI. Conclusion</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><br /></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><u>I. What are Baptism of Desire (BOD) and Baptism of Blood (BOB)?</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">According to Fr. Francis Spirago, in <u>The Catechism Explained</u>, (referencing <u>The Catechism of the Council of Trent)</u>: "If baptism by water is impossible, it may be replaced by the baptism of desire, or by the baptism of blood, as in the case of those who suffer martyrdom for the faith of Christ." Neither BOD or BOB are sacraments, they are extraordinary ways to receive the grace of baptism by those who cannot do so. The baptism of desire (<i><b>baptismus flaminis sive Spiritus Sancti</b></i>) is a perfect contrition of heart, and every act of perfect charity or pure love of God which contains, at least implicitly, a desire (<b><i>votum</i></b>) of baptism. The Latin word <b><i>flamen</i></b> is used because <i>Flamen</i> is a name for the Holy Ghost, Whose special office it is to move the heart to love God and to conceive penitence for sin. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Baptism of Blood means that martyrdom can be a substitute for baptism of water because by it the person is actually conformed to the Passion of Christ from which springs the efficacy of the Sacrament of Baptism. By BOD and BOB, faith and sanctifying grace are infused in the soul, but the indelible character of baptism is not. A person who dies after receiving BOD and BOB is within the Church and is saved. To be saved by BOD or BOB is a rare gift of God, and must not detract us from getting as many converts as possible as the Great Commission tells us. BOD and BOB are dogmas that must be believed. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><u>II. Who was Leonard Feeney?</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Leonard Feeney was born on February 18, 1897, in Massachusetts. He entered the novitiate of the Jesuits in 1914 and was ordained a priest on June 20, 1928. <span style="color: red;">{Whenever I mention Leonard Feeney in this post, I do not use his clerical title of "Fr." or "Father," because an excommunicated cleric loses the right to his ecclesiastical designation. His "reconcilliation" by Montini means nothing, as Paul VI was a false pope---<i style="font-weight: bold;">Introibo</i>).</span> In the 1930s, he was literary editor at the Jesuit magazine,<i><b> America</b></i>. He became a professor at Boston College, and soon became the chaplain at the Catholic Saint Benedict Center at Harvard Square in 1945. Soon after, he started preaching against BOD and BOB.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"> After World War II, Catholics in the United States were exposed to different religions as never before. They became less concerned with what their non-Catholic friends believed as long as they were "nice." It became hard for many to conceive of God letting those outside the One True Church go to Hell. Seeing an opening, the crypto-Modernists in the clergy and religious orders began a brilliant campaign to get ecumenism in the minds of the faithful by distorting a Catholic truth. Fr. "Love the World" and Sister "Mary Sunshine" would tell people that they need not worry about the fate of non-Catholics because they would all (or almost all) be saved by Baptism of Desire (BOD). This is what caused Feeney to reject BOD and BOB. Instead of correcting the error, he fell into an opposite error.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Since "Outside the Church there is no salvation," and the only way to enter the Church (according to Feeney) is by water baptism, all those not baptized by water in the Catholic Church cannot be saved.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">He gained a large following. His Jesuit superiors ordered him to leave the Center for a post at the College of the Holy Cross, but after initially going there, he returned to the Center and repeatedly refused to comply with the order. Feeney was summoned to Rome to answer <b><i><u>for his teachings</u></i></b>, but he staunchly refused to go. On February 13, 1953, Fr. Feeney was solemnly excommunicated by Pope Pius XII <b><i><u>for heresy, not disobedience</u></i></b>. More will be stated about this fact.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Prior to his excommunication, Feeney set up a community called the<b><i> Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary</i></b>. He was "reconciled" with Montini (Paul VI) and the Vatican II sect in 1972, but was not required abjure his errors, causing his followers to rejoice and claim "his teachings were vindicated." </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><u>(a) Feeney was not a theologian or canonist</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Despite the claims of many of his followers that he was some learned scholar, Feeney never held either a Doctorate in Sacred Theology (STD), or a Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD). His early writings were devotional works. In 1934 he published a collection of essays entitled <u>Fish on Fridays</u> which became a best seller. In it, he made it known he believed that it was possible for a Protestant to be saved (but not as a Protestant, of course, but as a Catholic received in the Church by that rare miracle of BOD). His later works, most notably <u>Bread of Life</u> (1952), set forth his false teachings. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Theologian Salaverri, makes it clear that to be considered a theologian, that cleric's works must be known for "...orthodoxy of doctrine...at least to this extent recognized by the Church that their writings are used by the faithful and the schools, with the knowledge of and with no opposition from the Magisterium of the Church."(See Salaverri, <u>Sacrae Theologiae Summa, Vol. IB</u>, pg. 327, #857). Obviously, Feeney, a gifted writer, could not be considered either a theologian or canonist ( i.e., Church-approved expert in Canon Law).</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><u>(b)Feeney's False Teaching</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Justification is the passage from the state of sin to the state of sanctifying grace; salvation is the passage out of this earthly life and persevering to the end in the state of sanctifying grace so as to merit Heaven (either directly, or after time in Purgatory). The Sacrament of Baptism imparts an indelible character on the soul, such that it cannot be repeated. Feeney taught that the character was necessary for salvation. This has never been the teaching of the Church. If a validly baptized person commits mortal sin, they retain the baptismal character, but not sanctifying grace. The two are distinct and separable. In <u>Bread of Life</u>, pg. 118, Feeney writes, "Justification is now being turned into salvation with the aid of water." </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">If someone is justified, they have sanctifying grace. Baptism cannot turn anything "into salvation." This would mean you are somehow assured of going to Heaven as "salvation by faith alone" Protestants falsely teach. 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 Trinity in his soul. How could such a person go to Hell? They can't. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Modern-day Feeneyites, such as the Dimond brothers realize the illogical position of Feeney, and thereby teach that without Baptism of water, no one is saved or justified. While more logically consistent (although totally false), they do not believe as Feeney did, but "improve" upon his teaching, a teaching demonstrably illogical as well as contrary to the teaching of the Church.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><u>(c) More Strange Teaching</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">In<u> Bread of Life</u>, 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..."</div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">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.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>(d) Leonard Feeney: Cult Leader and Child Abuser</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Feeney's "Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary" consisted of married men and women living as religious "brothers" and "nuns" without permission from Rome. What is really awful is <b><i><u>what happened to the children. </u></i></b>There were thirty-nine (39) children of these "married religious" who were raised in a wacky commune built for the "Congregation." The MICM (Latin initials for the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary) bought some houses and erected a fence around them. Feeney and "Sr." Catherine (sometimes referred to as "Mother" just as Feeney was known simply as "Father") ran the place in dictatorial fashion. It was called the "St. Benedict Center" (SBC). </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">What happened to them can justly be deemed child abuse, on this basis alone. Children have a right by Natural and Divine Law to be raised by their married parents, and not reared as "siblings" of wannabe "nuns" and "brothers." </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">The Code of Canon Law (1917), Canon 1013 section 1 states, "The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children. It’s secondary end is mutual help and the allaying of concupiscence." (Emphasis mine). The raising and education of children is the responsibility of the parents, not Leonard Feeney. The children were referred to as "Little Brothers" and "Little Sisters." Their parents were known only by their religious names, not "mom and dad." As a matter of fact, the children were forbidden to call their parents by anything other than their "religious" names, and they were told it was wrong to be "too attached" to any person.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Here is a partial listing of the bizarre and abusive behaviors that took place under Feeney:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Fr. Feeney was convinced that the "outside world" (i.e., all those not in SBC) were evil and out to get both him and his followers</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Therefore, no one was allowed to read newspapers, listen to the radio, watch movies, or have any contact with those outside SBC</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>As a way to keep their activity secret, they developed strange code words. Morning Mass offered by Feeney was to be called "First Breakfast," Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament in the evening was called "Tea," and the Blessed Sacrament Itself was called "D.N." for "Dominus Noster"---"Our Lord"</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Every child was assigned an "Angel" (so-called nun) to watch over them and punish them for the slightest infraction of the rules</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Punishment included being sent to Br. Isidore, who was called "B.P." for "Big Punisher." Punishments included being cracked over the buttocks repeatedly with a two by four (wooden plank), being punched with closed fists, getting ten lashes with a long black rubber hose across the bare back and stomach which left marks, and being repeatedly beaten with a belt in front of the other Little Brothers and Little Sisters to show them what happens when you disobey a rule of Feeney (Father) and/or "Sr." Catherine Clarke (Mother). It was done to "save them from Hell."</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The children were told an angel from heaven would be watching them at "First Breakfast" and if they didn't pay attention, the angel would report back to God so that they would get an especially painful place to burn in Hell forever if they did not confess to Father right away and change their ways</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>One boy suffered from nocturnal enuresis (i.e., nighttime bed wetting) and instead of being taken to the doctor, was accused of "disobedience" when he was told to stop but couldn't help himself. In order to make him stop wetting the bed, the B.P. beat him in front of the other kids with the belt. When that didn't work, he was given only bread and water to eat for days, then scalded with hot water, and even burned with matches</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The children were told not to get close to anyone emotionally, including their parents. "Particular friendships" were forbidden by Sr Catherine. The children were not allowed to have real friendships with each other and were punished if their "Angel" thought they were becoming friendly with anyone. Particular friendships were "worldly" and "sinful" </li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>When someone from the "outside world" would criticize something Feeney said (usually when he was out protesting against Cardinal Cushing), Feeney would blasphemously make the sign of the cross over them and say in English, "I curse you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Even prior to Vatican II, Feeney did not allow any member of MICM to attend the Mass of any other priest, as they were all "heretics" and part of the "evil world"</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Feeney would refer to His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, as a "dirty WOP." (WOP, meaning "without a passport," is a degrading and derogatory ethnic slur used against Italians) </li></ul><div><b><u>(e) Feeney was Excommunicated for Heresy</u></b></div><div><div>The decree of excommunication against Feeney reads:</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">Since Father Leonard Feeney remained in Boston (St. Benedict Center) and since he has been suspended from performing his priestly duties for a long time because of his grave disobedience to the Authority of the Church, in no way moved by repeated warnings and threats of incurring excommunication ipso facto, and has still failed to submit, <b><i><u>the most Eminent and Reverend Fathers, charged with the responsibility of safeguarding faith and morals</u></i></b>, during a plenary session held on February 4, 1953, <b><i><u>have declared him excommunicated with all the effects that this has in law.</u></i></b></span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><b><i><u>On Thursday, February 12, 1953, Our Most Holy Father Pius XII, Pope by Divine Providence, has approved and confirmed the decree of these Most Eminent Fathers, and ordered that this be made a matter of public record.</u></i></b></span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Given in Rome in the general quarters of the Holy Office, February 13, 1953. </span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Marius Crovini, notary</span> (Emphasis mine).</div></div><div><br /></div><div><div>Note well two facts:</div><div>1. The Holy Office is charged with safeguarding faith and morals, not enforcing discipline.</div><div>2. The decree of excommunication was approved and confirmed by Pope Pius XII and ordered to be published.</div><div><br /></div><div><i><b>Proof of #1 above:</b></i> According to canonists Abbo and Hannon, "<b><i><u>The Sacred Congregation for Religious is exclusively competent in matters affecting</u></i></b> the government, <b><i><u>the discipline</u></i></b>, the studies, the property, and the privileges <b><i><u>of religious of the Latin Rite</u></i></b>, including religious of both sexes, those of both solemn and simple vows, and members of societies livining in common without vows, as well as members of secular Third Orders." (See The Sacred Canons, [1952], 1:308; Emphasis mine). Hence, if Feeney's problem was merely and exclusively one of disobedience, it would be a disciplinary matter to be handled by The Sacred Congregation for Religious. The Holy Office would not (and could not) involve itself in a purely disciplinary matter.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><i>Proof of #2 above:</i></b> "In one respect, the Holy Office differs from all the other Congregations in that it exercises both judicial and administrative power, or, at least, may only use judicial power at the request of the parties interested. Thus, the Holy Office in dealing with all matters which directly or indirectly concern faith or morals, will not judge only heresy, but, where it pronounces an adverse judgement, will also apply the canonical punishments incurred by heretics and schismatics." (See theologian Williams,<u> The Catholic Church in Action</u>, [1958], pg. 92). The Holy Office has the authority to excommunicate any person. The Prefect is the pope himself, a "Pro-Prefect" heads the Congregation on a daily basis, but the pope must personally approve all decisions and order them published. Pope Pius XII personally approved the decree of excommunication emanating from the Holy Office and ordered it published.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>The letter of solemn excommunication against Father Leonard Feeney was duly published in the <b><i>Acta Apostolicae Sedis</i></b>, the official publication of the Holy See. Its reference number is<b><i> 45-100</i></b>. All laws promulgated through it have binding force with no other form of publication/promulgation being necessary.</div><div><br /></div><div><b><i><u>The inescapable conclusion is that Fr. Feeney was properly and validly excommunicated for his false teachings. </u></i></b></div></div></div><div><b><i><u><br /></u></i></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>III. Comparison of Feeney to Fred and Bobby Dimond</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>Rarely does heresy stay isolated. Those who deny Catholic teaching on BOD and BOB hold up as a modern day "savior" the late Jesuit, Fr. Leonard Feeney. This is a priest who:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>was never qualified as a theologian or canonist </li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>was disobedient to his lawful superiors and refused to report to the Holy See during the reign of Pope Pius XII and defend his teachings. He was subsequently excommunicated by Pope Pius XII</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>taught a strange, mixed-up notion of Justification and Salvation which is rejected even by his modern day followers</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>started a "religious order" consisting of married couples with children without ecclesiastical approval and in violation of Canon Law</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>abused the children of those "religious" by raising them communally and depriving them of their mother and father as God intended</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>taught that baptized infants were not somehow in the Mystical Body of Christ and could not be considered "children of Mary"</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>sought and received reconciliation in the false Vatican II sect which will accept ANY teaching as long as it isn't the teaching of the One True Church. </li></ul><div><div>Notice how their most ardent supporters, Fred and Bobby Dimond, have many of the same problems, They:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>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. More phony "religious."</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>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</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Claim to understand Church teaching on BOD better than Doctors of the Church, such as St. Alphonsus Liguori</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Have "found errors" in the works of the most highly educated approved theologians of the Church, such as theologian Van Noort</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Used to tell people they can attend the Mass of sedevacantist priests who are "heretics" (believe Church teaching on BOD and BOB), as long as they don't contribute money. By the same logic you could attend the Mass of an Eastern Schismatic/Heretic as long as you don't contribute money!</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Claimed that a Mass with the name of the false pope in the Canon (such as by the SSPX) is a grave evil to attend, yet for years attended the "mass" of the Eastern Rite Vatican II sect which always puts the name of the false pope in the Anaphora (their Canon)</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Deny the Blessed Mother of her rightful title as Co-Redemptrix</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Claim that married people must have as many children as possible and any use of the natural infertility period is sinful</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Have often claimed to know that certain people who died were in Hell (we cannot know, except by special revelation who is in Hell except for Judas Iscariot)</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Have an unhealthy fascination with UFOs, and material that's fit to be published in supermarket tabloids</li></ul><div>Lest someone accuse this section of being an an <i>ad hominem </i>attack, it was used to show that the originator (and perpetuators) of the attack on Church teaching regarding BOD and BOB are prideful, disobedient, and lie/misrepresent themselves holding themselves out to be some sort of "theological experts." Moreover, Feeney was either mentally unbalanced or pure evil. </div></div></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>IV. The "Feeneyite Virus"</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Like a virus, Feeneyism mutates into different forms, but all give you the same "sickness of soul," as my friend Steve Speray has said. There are Vatican II sect Feeneyites who accept the Modernist-Universalist Vatican and Bergoglio, yet teach against BOD and BOB. They note that Montini (Paul VI) received Feeney into the sect without having to abjure his heresy--proof the Vatican II sect will tolerate anything except the truth. Then you have the sedevacantist Feeneyites like Fred and Bobby Dimond. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>Whether or not affiliated with the Vatican II sect, all Feeneyites can be placed into four categories; namely, those who teach:</div><div><br /></div><div><b>(a) BOD and BOB are heretical and to be completely rejected. </b>(The teaching of Fred and Bobby Dimond). Leonard Feeney held nearly the same; he taught BOD and BOB could effectuate justification but not salvation. This is as illogical as it is heretical. If you are justified, you are in the state of sanctifying grace. Nevertheless, you would go to Hell justified unless you received water baptism. Fred and Bobby "improved" on Feeney's teaching and made it more logical by claiming BOD and BOB effectuate neither justification nor salvation; however it is just as heretical. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>(b) BOD and BOB are not Church dogma</b>; you may accept or reject it. (Heretical because BOD/BOB are dogma and must be accepted). </div><div><br /></div><div><b>(c) BOD is to be rejected but not BOB.</b> (This is not only heretical but illogical as the proponents admit that there is an exception to water baptism for salvation). </div><div><br /></div><div><b>(d) Explicit faith is necessary for BOD and BOB</b>; implicit faith (what they falsely deem "invincible ignorance") will not save. (These Feeneyites sinfully reject Church teaching, especially that of Pope Pius IX). </div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>V. Understanding the Teaching of the Magisterium</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>(a) The Basics</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div><b>What is the Magisterium?</b> According to theologian Parente, it is "the power conferred by Christ upon His Church and strengthened with the charism of infallibility, by which the teaching Church (Ecclesia docens) is constituted as the unique depository and authentic interpreter of divine revelation to be proposed authoritatively to men as the object of faith for their eternal salvation." (See <u>Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology</u>, [1951], pg. 170). Therefore, the Church is divinely appointed to teach all necessary truths of faith to people, free from error, in order that they may attain Heaven. "Magisterium" comes from the Latin magister or "teacher." Christ told His Apostles "Go therefore, teach ye all nations..."(St. Matthew 28:19). </div><div><br /></div><div>The Magisterium, therefore, is expressed either<i><b><u> solemnly</u></b></i> or in an<b><i><u> ordinary and universal way</u></i></b>. This is clear from both Church history and the dogmatic decree of the Vatican Council of 1870. The former exercise of the Church's teaching authority is called the<b><i><u> Solemn or Extraordinary Magisterium</u></i></b> and the latter is called the<b><i><u> Universal and Ordinary Magisterium</u></i></b> ("UOM"). <b><u><i>Both are equally infallible</i></u></b>. As the Vatican Council of 1870 dogmatically taught:</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, <b><i><u>either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium, proposes for belief as having been Divinely-revealed</u></i></b></span>.(<i>Dei Filius</i>, Emphasis mine). </div><div><br /></div><div>The Extraordinary Magisterium is expressed by (1) solemn definitions ex cathedra promulgated by either the Roman Pontiff or an Ecumenical Council approved by the Roman Pontiff; (2) professions of faith decreed by the Church; (3) theological censures contrary to heretical propositions. (See theologian Tanquerey, <u>A Manual of Dogmatic Theology</u>, [1959], 1:174). </div><div><br /></div><div>The UOM is explained according to theologian Scheeben: <span style="color: red;">The Criteria, or means of knowing Catholic truth may be easily gathered from the principles...nearly all set forth in the Brief Tuas Libenter, addressed by Pius IX to the Archbishop of Munich. </span>(See <u>A Manual of Catholic Theology</u> 1:89)<span style="color: red;">. </span>Pope Pius IX wrote,<span style="color: red;"> For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, </span><b style="color: red;"><i><u>but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith</u></i></b>. (See <i>Tuas Libenter </i>[1863], DZ 1683; Emphasis mine).</div><div><br /></div><div>Canon 1323 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law further gives proof of the belief of the Church regarding the UOM and imposes on the faithful the obligation of consent. The eminent canonist Augustine writes, <span style="color: red;">The universal and ordinary Magisterium consists of the entire episcopate, according to the constitution and order defined by Christ, i.e., all the bishops of the universal Church, dependently on the Roman Pontiff...What the universal and approved practice and discipline proposes as connected with faith and morals must be believed. And what the Holy Fathers and the theologians hold unanimously as a matter of faith and morals, is also <i><b>de fide</b></i></span>. (See<u> A Commentary on Canon Law</u>, pg.327). </div><div><br /></div><div>Approved theologians therefore, hold great importance in the Church. As theologian Tanquerey teaches, <span style="color: red;">They</span> [theologians] <span style="color: red;">are not to be esteemed lightly <b><i><u>no matter what the Protestants, Modernists or other adversaries have alleged against them</u></i></b></span><b><i><u>.</u></i></b> (Ibid, pg.180; Emphasis mine). Hence, those who deny the importance of the teachings of approved theologians are Protestants, Modernists and other enemies of the Church, not Catholics.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>(b) What, exactly, constitutes an approved theologian of the Church?</b> The book by Fr. Reginald-Maria Schultes OP,<u> De Ecclesia Catholica: Praelectiones Apologeticae</u> [Apologetic Lectures on the Catholic Church], 2nd. ed., Paris: Lethielleux 1931, was used by priest-students studying for doctoral degrees at Pontifical Universities. Fr. Schultes himself taught at the world-renowned Angelicum University. A theologian is thus defined by him (and recognized by the Church) as "learned men who after the time of the Church Fathers scientifically taught sacred doctrine in the Church."</div><div><br /></div><div> The pre-Vatican II theologians were all clerics (i.e., priests and bishops) who received either a <b><i>Doctorate in Sacred Theology</i></b> (STD) or a <b><i>Doctorate in Canon Law</i></b> (JCD). The latter are known as canonists and apply the proper theological principles to the Sacred Canons to ascertain the correct meaning and application of each Canon to each unique situation. Every theologian had to defend and publish a dissertation before the Board of Examiners of a Pontifical University, and it had to bear an <i>Imprimatur</i> and <i>Nihil Obstat</i> declaring the work free from all error against faith and morals. The breadth and depth of theological knowledge enjoyed by theologians was vastly superior to both laymen and the average priest or bishop because of the excellence of their training.</div><div><br /></div><div>Theologians are said to be "approved" at least insofar as (a) they manifest a certain eminence in doctrine in their writings and (b) display orthodoxy at least to the extent recognized by the Church that their writings are used by the faithful and the theological schools, with the knowledge of (and with no opposition from) the Magisterium of the Church. (See, e.g,. theologian Salaverri, <u>Sacrae Theologiae Summa, IB</u>, [1955]). The doctorate may only be dispensed by the Roman Pontiff if the cleric is found by the Vicar of Christ to be highly proficient in both Canon Law and Sacred Theology; such is the case with bishops as well (See 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 331; see also canonists Abbo and Hannon, <u>The Sacred Canons</u>, [1952], 1:357-358). </div><div><br /></div><div>Theologians <b><i><u>demonstrate, and do not determine</u></i></b> Catholic doctrine. Theologians do not determine whether some doctrine is <i>de fide</i> or some other theological note, like "certain." They merely demonstrate, or manifest, or give witness, that a particular doctrine is Church teaching and to what degree. They prove their assertions with convincing arguments, so that when theologians reach an objective, morally unanimous consensus, we must accept such conclusions as belonging to the Faith. According to Schultes (cited above), theologians are witnesses not only to whether a doctrine is defined, but also to its meaning. </div><div><br /></div><div>Theologian Fenton's <u>The Concept of Sacred Theology</u> makes clear that Councils, encyclicals, etc., are the raw data the theologian uses for his work. Theology is not simply quoting Church documents, any more than law is not simply quoting the Supreme Court. </div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>VI. Baptism of Desire and of Blood are an Infallible Teaching of the Magisterium</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: left;">The Extraordinary Magisterium pronounces it dogma as does the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div><b>From the Council of Trent:</b></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, <b><i><u>or without the desire thereof</u></i></b>, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all</span> (the sacraments)<span style="color: red;"> are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.</span> (Emphasis mine).</div><div><br /></div><div><div><b>From the Decree on Justification: </b></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected,<b><i><u> without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof,</u></i></b> as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.</span> (Emphasis mine). </div><div><br /></div><div>How do we know what these passages mean? <b><i><u>The unanimous consent of all approved theologians and the Catechism of the Council of Trent tell us so.</u></i></b></div><div><b><i><u><br /></u></i></b></div><div>If you inform a Feeneyite that there was unanimous consent of the theologians and Fathers regarding the reception of the effects/grace of Baptism apart from the sacrament (BOD/BOB) making it also a teaching of the<b><i><u> infallible Universal and Ordinary Magisterium</u></i></b>, you will get two standard responses from Fred and Bobby's script:</div><div><br /></div><div>(1) Not ALL the Fathers agreed, and (2) theologians are not infallible. They usually throw in Aquinas not accepting the Immaculate Conception as further "proof" that theologians and Doctors of the Church can be wrong. </div><div><br /></div><div><div>First, they don't understand that it's not NUMERICAL unanimity but MORAL unanimity that counts. According to the Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary (1957):</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">When the Fathers of the Church are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a part of revelation, or is received by the universal Church, or that the opposite of a doctrine is heretical, then their united testimony is a certain criterion of divine revelation. As the Fathers are not personally infallible, the counter testimony of one or two would not be destructive of the value of the collective testimony; so a moral unanimity only is required.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div>So moral unanimity is the criteria for Fathers and theologians. As to the fact that theologians and even Doctors of the Church are not infallible, again, I turn to theologian Scheeben:</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to theologians, <b><i><u>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.</u></i></b> 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." </span>(Scheeben, <i>Ibid</i>, pg. 83; Emphasis mine).</div><div><br /></div><div>As to Aquinas, the matter of the Immaculate Conception was not settled but open to debate among the theologians. His main problem was how to reconcile Mary's Immaculate Conception with the fact she (like all humans) needed to be redeemed. Pope Pius IX addressed this concern in his Apostolic Constitution <i>Ineffabilis Deus</i> when he defined that Mary was preserved free from Original Sin "in view of the merits of Jesus Christ." Hence, she was redeemed by Christ in a unique manner.</div><div><br /></div><div> BOD/BOB is infallible by means of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium as well as the Extraordinary Magisterium. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>Objection #1: "Desire" really means "Intends to Receive"--"Or" really means "And"</b></div><div>Feeneyites will state that "without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof,..." means that a person must intend to receive baptism because the sacrament would be invalid if forced upon someone who didn't want it. When it's pointed out that the conjunction "or" is used meaning you must receive the laver of regeneration OR have the desire for it, the Feeneyite will retort that "or" really means "and." When you say a car can't run without gas OR oil, you really need both. Forget the Fathers, Doctors, and approved theologians--Fred and Bobby know best.</div><div><br /></div><div>Even the very documents of Trent prove the Feeneyites wrong. In Trent's <i>Decree on Penance and Extreme Unction</i>, we read:</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">The Synod </span>[Trent]<span style="color: red;"> teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament [Penance] be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless,<b><i><u> is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein</u></i></b>.</span> (Emphasis mine). </div><div><br /></div><div><div>We have a teaching on "Penance by desire." Later, the Decree states,</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">This Sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><div>The Council of Trent says here that the sacrament of penance is necessary for the salvation of those who have fallen after baptism,<b><i><u> as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated.</u></i></b> However, it is very clear that Trent admits that a man can receive <b><i><u>the effect of the sacrament of Penance by desire, before actually receiving the sacrament itself.</u></i></b></div><div><br /></div><div>Thus, if one wishes to hold that baptism by water is necessary in such a way that the effect of baptism cannot be received before the sacrament itself, one must also hold that the same thing is true of Penance. <b><i><u>Otherwise, it would not be true</u></i></b> that the sacrament of penance is necessary after sinning<b><i><u> just as the sacrament of baptism before being baptized.</u></i></b></div></div></div></div></div></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></u></b></div><div style="font-weight: bold; text-align: left;">Objection #2: The Canons of Trent "Prove" Only Water Baptism Saves</div><div style="text-align: left;">Once, more the interpretation of the Church is jettisoned for private interpretation. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>The Feeneyites will cite Trent's second canon on Baptism:</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">CANON II.-If any one saith, <b><i><u>that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism</u></i></b>, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.</span> (Emphasis mine). </div><div><br /></div><div>Yes, but context is everything. This canon was formulated by the theologians at Trent to condemn the heresy of the so-called Reformers (principally Martin Luther) who taught that since faith alone saves, if someone doesn't have water to baptize you can substitute it with milk or beer. <b><i><u>Trent was defining the matter of the Sacrament of Baptism, not condemning BOD or BOB. </u></i></b></div><div><b><i><u><br /></u></i></b></div><div><div>Next, they cite Trent's fifth canon on Baptism:</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.</span></div><div><br /></div><div>Trent uses the exact same wording in regards to Penance:</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">CANON VI.--If any one denieth, either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is necessary to salvation, of divine right;...let him be anathema.</span></div></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div>Does that mean one who has just been baptized and dies right away will be damned because Penance is "necessary to salvation"? What about baptized babies? What about those who have been baptized, fall into mortal sin, and have never before confessed--can't they be saved by an Act of Perfect Contrition, or "Penance by desire"? Baptism is the instrumental cause of salvation, to use Scholastic terminology. It is that through which we are saved, just as a pen is the instrumental cause of someone writing something down on paper. The principal efficient cause of salvation is Faith and sanctifying grace; the theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Therefore, just as a writer can substitute a pencil for a pen (for he is the one who produces the words as principal efficient cause), so too can God substitute another instrumental cause (BOD/BOB) for the Sacrament of Baptism.</div><div><br /></div><div>Finally, they quote from Trent that Baptism is the "Sacrament of Faith" and no one can be saved without Faith. From Trent's Decree on Justification:</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">"...the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified;..."</span></div></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div>So why is Baptism the "Sacrament of Faith"? <u>The Catechism of the Council of Trent</u> teaches, "The holy Fathers designate [Baptism] also by other names. St. Augustine informs us that it was sometimes called the Sacrament of Faith because by receiving it we profess our faith in all the doctrines of Christianity. (pg. 110) Nowhere in the Council, its Catechism, or in the teaching of any approved theologian/canonist is it held that Baptism is called "the Sacrament of Faith" because it is the only way one can first receive Faith.</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>VII. Canon Law Infallibly Teaches BOD</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>There are two deadly Canons in the (1917) Code that destroy the Feeneyite position. </div><div><br /></div><div>Canon 737 states, <span style="color: red;">Baptism, the gateway and foundation of the Sacraments, <b><i><u>actually or at least in desire</u></i></b>, is necessary for all for salvation...</span>(Emphasis mine).</div><div><br /></div><div>This should end any doubt as to how the Church understands Trent's Canon IV on Baptism. However, Canon 1239, section 2 delivers another crushing blow:</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">Catechumens who, through no fault of their own, die without Baptism, are to be treated as Baptized.</span></div><div>Canonists Abbo and Hannon comment, "The reason for this rule is that they are justly supposed to have met death united to Christ through Baptism of Desire." (See <u>The Sacred Canons</u>, [1951], pg. 493). </div><div><br /></div><div><div>This is devastating to the cause of Fred and Bobby, so they must deny that Canon Law is infallible. First, it is established that the Church is infallible in Her universal disciplinary laws such as the 1917 Code of Canon Law. </div><div><br /></div><div>Proof: According to theologian Van Noort, "The Church's infallibility extends to the general discipline of the Church...By the term "general discipline of the Church" are meant those ecclesiastical laws passed for the <b><i><u>direction of Christian worship and Christian living.</u></i></b>" (See <u>Dogmatic Theology</u>, 2: 114-115; Emphasis mine). </div><div><br /></div><div>According to theologian Herrmann:</div><div>"<b><i><u>The Church is infallible in her general discipline.</u></i></b> By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…. If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible."</div><div>(<u>Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae</u>, Vol. 1, p. 258; Emphasis mine)</div><div><br /></div><div>Pope Gregory XVI teaches: "[T]he discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced." (See <i>Mirari Vos</i>, para. #9).</div></div><div><br /></div><div>Feeneyites will make two objections: (1) The Code is not universal since it only applies to the Latin Rite and not the Eastern Rites, and (2) Canon 1 "proves" it's not universal.</div><div><br /></div><div>In response to the first objection, it is sheer ignorance of Canon Law. According to the eminent canonist Buscaren: <span style="color: red;">A general </span>[universal] <span style="color: red;">law is one which is not limited to a particular territory; it is a universal law of the Church. This does not mean it is binding on all Catholics. It may be enacted for a special class of persons, or for certain particular circumstances.</span> (See<u> Canon Law: A Text and Commentary</u> [1951], pg. 27). Therefore, "universality" means "pertaining to all members of a Rite throughout the world," and not just in a particular territory. <b><i><u>The 1917 Code is therefore universal.</u></i></b></div><div><b><i><u><br /></u></i></b></div><div>In response to the second objection, Canon 1 does state that the Code as<b><i><u> a general rule</u></i></b> does not affect the Oriental Church (i.e., Eastern Rites). However, as Buscaren explains, there are some matters in which it [the 1917 Code] affects also the Oriental Church and Oriental Catholics. He enumerates three categories that <b><i>apply to all Rites:</i></b> (1) Canons which express dogmatic truths; (2) Canons which declare Divine Law; and (3) Canons which expressly and explicitly mention the Oriental Rites. (See <i>Ibid</i>, pg. 16).</div><div><br /></div><div><div>To summarize:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Universal disciplinary laws are infallible</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The 1917 Code of Canon Law is a universal disciplinary law by the Church's own definition</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The Code also applies to all Rites when it expresses a Divine Truth and/or declares something is Divine Law</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Canon 737 teaches a Divine truth as to what is necessary to salvation</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Canon 1239 is an extension of Canon 737 in declaring a dogmatic/Divine truth</li></ul></div><div><b>Conclusion: BOB and BOD are therefore infallibly taught by the 1917 Code of Canon Law</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br /></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>VIII. Culpable Ignorance about Invincible Ignorance</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Many Feeneyites think that the Church teaches people are saved by invincible ignorance. That statement is itself ignorant. Here, we will see that the Church teaches "Outside the Church there is no salvation," and BOD by implicit desire.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Teaching of the Church:</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div><b> Outside the One True Church, There is no Salvation</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>"There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved." Pope Innocent III, ex cathedra, (Fourth Lateran Council, 1215).</div><div><br /></div><div>"We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Pope Boniface VIII, (Unam Sanctam, 1302).</div><div><br /></div><div>"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire 'which was prepared for the devil and his angels' (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her... No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." Pope Eugene IV (Cantate Domino, 1441). </div><div><br /></div><div>The Syllabus of Errors (1864):</div><div>CONDEMNED PROPOSITION 16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.</div><div><br /></div><div>CONDEMNED PROPOSITION 17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. </div><div><br /></div><div>The position of the Church is clear.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>The Teaching of the Church:</b></div><div><b>Ignorance does not--and cannot-- save anyone</b></div><div><div>In his Allocution<i> Singulari Quadem</i> [1854], Pope Pius IX teaches, "On the other hand it is necessary to hold for certain that ignorance of the true religion, if that ignorance be invincible, is not a fault in the eyes of God."</div><div><br /></div><div>As theologian Fenton teaches, "He [Pope Pius IX] stated simply that God will blame no man for invincible ignorance of the Catholic Church, any more than He will blame anyone for invincible ignorance of anything else...non-appurtenance to the Catholic Church is by no means the only reason why men are deprived of the Beatific Vision. Ultimately, the only factor that will exclude a man from the eternal and supernatural enjoyment of God in Heaven is sin, either Original or mortal." (See <u>The Catholic Church and Salvation In the Light of Recent Pronouncements of the Holy See</u>, [1958], pgs. 45-46).</div><div><br /></div><div><div>The same holy Pontiff, in his encyclical <i>Quanto Conficiamur Moerore</i> [1863], teaches:</div><div><br /></div><div>Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. <b><i><u>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.</u></i></b> 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. Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. (para. #7 and 8; Emphasis mine).</div><div><br /></div><div>Notice that Pope Pius IX affirms the absolute necessity of belonging to the Church for salvation twice, and between these affirmations, he discusses those in invincible ignorance of the true religion who <b><i><u>"are able to" </u></i></b>(not <b><i><u>"will"</u></i></b>) attain eternal life. Unless you are a Feeneyite, it is apparent that a pope cannot teach error to the whole Church, even when not speaking infallibly. Nor was he schizophrenic; contradicting himself in the same document by affirming the absolute necessity of belonging to the Church <b><i><u>and</u></i></b> invincible ignorance. Therefore, invincible ignorance is not an exception to being within the Church. </div><div><br /></div><div>First, who are those that Pius IX indicates "may be saved" <b><i><u>despite</u></i></b> (not <b><i><u>because of</u></i></b>) invincible ignorance? There are several stringent requirements. The person must:</div><div><br /></div></div><div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>be invincibly ignorant of the Catholic religion</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>carefully observe the natural law (the duty to "do good and avoid evil" as recognized by human reason)</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>observe all the precepts of natural law, which are those specific obligations of the natural law and are known to all people who have not extinguished the light of true conscience within them. Such obligations include, but are not limited to, adoring God, not to steal or kill, to reserve sex for marriage, etc. </li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>"lead a good and upright life" thus striving to to inform and obey his conscience in regard to every action</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>be "ready to obey God" by being disposed to do whatever He may want Him to do, and "lead an honest life" thereby having perfect contrition for sin</li></ul><div>If a person meets these requirements, is he/she assured of salvation? In a word: No. They need "Divine light and grace." What does this mean? God can, before death, enlighten the mind by infusing the basic truths of Faith and imbue sanctifying grace in the soul. The person thereby is within the Church with grace and can be saved. St Thomas Aquinas in <i><b>De Veritate,</b></i> question 14, article 11, discusses whether it is necessary to have explicit Faith to be saved. The Angelic Doctor answers in the affirmative, and this comports with implicit faith being changed to explicit Faith by Divine Light. Aquinas teaches:</div><div><br /></div><div>"For if anyone thus brought up [someone raised in the woods or among brute animals] were to follow the guidance of natural reason in seeking good and shunning evil, it must be held most certainly that God would reveal to him <b><i><u>even by an internal inspiration those things which are necessary to be believed,</u></i></b> or would direct some preacher of the Faith to him, even as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10). (Emphasis mine). Hence, theologian Lacroix teaches that "...the faithlessness of those who have heard nothing of the Faith [not even by internal inspiration]...is not a sin, but the penalty of sin; because if they had done what lay within their power, God would not have concealed the faith from them." (See <u>Theologia Moralis</u>, De Fide, cap. 5, dub 1). </div><div><br /></div><div>If someone in invincible ignorance meets many stringent requirements, it is possible that God can bring him into the Church through BOD before death. It is a rare miracle of grace. Therefore, we must pursue the Great Commission with full vigor. Just as God has miraculously allowed certain saints to survive by ingesting nothing but the Holy Eucharist, we can't take a rare miracle like that and use it to justify not feeding the poor because "God can feed them by a miracle." </div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>IX. Two Major Feeneyite Attacks on BOD</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>(a) Fred and Bobby's "Best Argument" Against BOD:</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">BOD<b> </b>gives the grace<b> </b>of baptism, yet temporal punishments remain, unlike in the sacrament of Baptism by water. Therefore, you are not receiving "the grace of Baptism" and BOD does not exist.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>There is confusion on the meaning of the term "grace of Baptism." First, the Feeneyite objection will be set forth in a syllogistic form:</div><div><br /></div><div>1. An adult who receives water baptism validly and who dies before committing a sin goes immediately to Heaven because the "grace of baptism" washes away all sin and all punishment due to sin.</div><div><br /></div><div>2. An adult who receives baptism of desire does not have all punishment due to sin washed away.</div><div><br /></div><div>3. Hence, an adult who receives baptism of desire is receiving something other than the "grace of baptism."</div><div><br /></div><div>4. Therefore, an adult who receives baptism of desire, is not actually receiving the "grace of baptism," and will not go to Heaven were he to die before receiving water baptism.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div>It <b><i><u>seems</u></i></b> valid, but the problem lies in the term "grace of baptism" not being properly understood. The term applies to a <b><i><u>bundle of gifts</u></i></b> that the Sacrament alone gives to the recipient. Those gifts are:</div><div><br /></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The infusion of sanctifying grace (which washes away all sin, both Original and actual [mortal and venial])</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The infusion of the three theological virtues (these actually never exist in a soul without sanctifying grace, but are distinct from sanctifying grace)</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The removal of all temporal punishment for sin</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The communication of the baptismal character on the soul which gives the soul a right to participate in the Church's sacramental life</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Incorporation into the Church as a member</li></ul><div><div>BOD<b><i><u> does not</u></i></b> communicate "the bundle" that is always communicated via the "grace of baptism."</div><div>BOD <b><i><u>does </u></i></b>communicate the first two items in the bundle, however, and as a consequence puts the recipient within the One True Church. So while it does not communicate "the grace of baptism," it communicates enough of the gifts included in the grace of baptism to justify. This is because justification consists simply in the existence of God's life in the soul and the habituation of the virtues of faith, hope, and charity. While it is true that a man who receives baptism of desire receives something other than the "grace of baptism" technically considered, the person who receives BOD <b><i><u>does receive the justifying effects of baptism.</u></i></b></div></div><div><b><i><u><br /></u></i></b></div><div>In revisiting the Feeneyite objection above, #4 does not logically follow from numbers 1-3. They actually beg the question when they assert "BOD does not communicate the grace of baptism," because they are really saying:</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">BOD is not the same as being justified by water baptism. Water baptism is the only way to be justified. Therefore, BOD does not justify. </span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div>Yet, the whole point of dispute is whether water baptism (the sacrament) is the only way to be justified, and they gratuitously assume it to be true in making their objection to BOD. Finally, there is the condemned proposition #31 of Michael du Bay (Condemned in the decree<i> Ex omnibus afflicionibus</i> of Pope St. Pius V on October 1, 1567) which states:</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">CONDEMNED: Perfect and sincere charity, which is from a "pure heart and good conscience and a faith not feigned" [1 Timothy 1:5], can be in catechumens as well as in penitents without the remission of sins. </span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div>So a catechumen can have perfect and sincere charity which necessitates the remission of sin. It says nothing about the remission of temporal punishments. BOB, on the other hand, is considered by theologians as removing all temporal punishments. This is most likely because death in the service of Christ is a kind of penance whereby those debts are remitted. Such a penitent type of willful surrender of one's life to Christ is different than a catechumen who has a heart attack or a car accident causing death prior to Baptism.</div><div><br /></div><div>The "best argument" of Fred and Bobby is fallacious. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>(b) BOD and BOB "led to" the Universal Salvationism of Vatican II</b></div><div>The doctrine of Universalism is grounded in the heretical ecclesiology of the damnable document <i>Lumen Gentium </i>"promulgated" by "Pope" Paul VI on November 21, 1964. In paragraph number 8, we read: "This Church [the Church of Christ], constituted and organized as a society in the present world, <b><i><u>subsists in</u></i></b> the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity." (Emphasis mine).</div><div><br /></div><div>In simple terms, this "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church," as it is called, teaches that there is an entity known as "the Church of Christ" which is distinct from the Roman Catholic Church. (The true ecclesiology always taught that the Church of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church <b><i><u>are one and the same</u></i></b>). The Church of Christ is found in its "fullness" in the Roman Catholic Church because She contains all the "elements" of the Church of Christ, which subsists (in greater or lesser degrees) in other religions too, depending on how many "elements" they possess. To have all the elements is best, but to have just some is good too and leads to salvation. This heresy denies that there is only One True Church, and it makes a farce of the dogma <i><b>Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus</b></i> ("Outside the Church No Salvation"--hereinafter "EENS").</div><div><br /></div><div>The "conservative" defenders of the Vatican II sect will protest that Lumen Gentium upholds EENS in paragraph number 14. It states: "Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it." In paragraph number 16, it declares, "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience--those too may achieve eternal salvation."</div><div><br /></div><div>The text cites to the letter of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office <i>Suprema Haec Sacra</i> [1949] to the Archbishop of Boston regarding the errors of Leonard Feeney. It is interesting that the letter does not expound the Catholic teaching on BOD and BOB as fully and comprehensively as other sources which the Robber Council simply ignored.</div><div><br /></div><div>In response to their defense of<i> Lumen Gentium</i>, I can easily point out glaring departures from EENS, such as in paragraph number 16 where it teaches "... the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." God's plan of salvation includes the followers of the murderous madman Mohammed? Worshiping the false moon god "Allah" is the same as the Triune God of Catholicism? </div><div><br /></div><div>I could go on, but the purpose of my post is to bring to light the false ideas held by "EWTN" types in the Vatican II sect, <b><i><u>who give a heretical interpretation</u></i></b> to invincible ignorance based on the above cited sentence from Lumen Gentium: "Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it."</div><div><br /></div><div>From the sentence cited in<i> Lumen Gentium</i>, the V2 sect apologists reason as follows: No one can be damned for not joining the Catholic Church <b><i><u>unless the failure to join is deliberate</u></i></b>. The Church teaches that all who do not join Her are damned. Therefore, "Outside the Church No Salvation" only applies to those who recognize the Catholic Church as the True Church and then deliberately refuse to join Her. Now if you apply this totally false and heretical idea and label it "invincible ignorance," you have completely eviscerated EENS.</div><div><br /></div><div>According to Vatican II, there are two necessary factors for being "outside the Church:"<i><b> First</b></i>, you must explicitly know that the Catholic Church is the One True Church, <b><i>and</i></b> having this knowledge, you nevertheless (out of human respect, fear, or whatever motive) refuse to join Her.</div><div><br /></div><div> It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that large numbers of people have no knowledge of the Catholic Church, or don't realize Catholicism is the true religion, due to factors they can't overcome (like poor Chinese pagans who don't know any better and have never heard of Catholicism in many cases. I won't even discuss those who mistake the Vatican II sect for the Catholic Church). Add to the mix Lutherans living in Scandinavian countries, and since they were surrounded by non-Catholics, they had no way to understand the Catholic Church is the One True Church. Hence, nearly all the world is saved. Feeneyites will rightfully condemn this heresy, but then they go on to reject the true teaching on invincible ignorance as taught by Pope Pius IX.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>The heretical implications of the V2 sect apologists are:</div><div><br /></div><div>1. The Divine and Catholic Faith are not always necessary for salvation.</div><div><br /></div><div>2. Those who are not deliberately outside the Church because of ignorance, and those who fail to recognize Her as the One True Church, will ipso facto be united to Her through BOD.</div><div><br /></div><div>3. There is a "presumption of salvation" for non-Catholics. This comes directly from Vatican II which discussed Moslems as a whole (and many other false sects) as being "in the plan of salvation." </div></div><div><br /></div><div>Compare with the section on the Church's teaching on invincible ignorance and implicit BOD. <b><i><u>They stand in stark contrast to one another.</u></i></b> The Vatican II sect exalts ignorance as a condition that automatically saves you. Nothing could be more wrong and wicked. Ignorance, even when invincible and thereby inculpable, does not save anyone. If that were the case, the Church should not carry out the Great Commission by sending missionaries, because if you leave someone in invincible ignorance they will be saved, but if you tell them the truth and they reject it they will be damned. You thereby put non-Catholics in a potentially worse position by preaching to them. </div><div><br /></div><div>Did BOD and BOB "lead to" this Universalism of Vatican II? Unequivocally: NO. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>1. The Church always taught BOD and BOB. Heretics always begin by taking something the Church has taught and twisting it into something different. BOD and BOB no more "lead to" Universalism, than the Bible "led to" Protestantism.</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>2. The approved theologians, staunchly Anti-Modernist, drew up the original Vatican II schemas and were ready to explicitly define the dogma in depth. It was the Modernists, led by Roncalli, that had that schema scrapped. See below.</b></div><div><br /></div><div> <b>From the schema on the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church:</b></div><div>Para. #8: <span style="color: red;">The Holy Synod teaches, as God's Holy Church has always taught, that </span><b style="color: red;"><i><u>the Church is necessary for salvation</u></i></b><span style="color: red;"> and that no one can be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded by God through Jesus Christ, nevertheless refuses to enter her or to persevere in Her. </span><b style="color: red;"><i><u>Just as no one can be saved except by receiving baptism--by which anyone who does not pose some obstacle to incorporation becomes a member of the Church--or at least by desire for baptism, so also no one can attain salvation unless he is a member of the Church or at least is ordered towards the Church by desire. </u></i></b><span style="color: red;">But for anyone to attain to salvation, it is not enough that he be really a member of the Church or be by desire ordered towards it; </span><u style="color: red; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">it is also required that he die in the state of grace, joined to God by faith, hope, and charity.</u> (Emphasis mine).</div><div><br /></div><div>This is explicit and a vivid contrast to <i>Lumen Gentium</i>. Baptism or the desire for baptism, sanctifying grace, and the infused virtues are necessary to be within the Church and achieve salvation. </div><div><br /></div><div>Cited by the schema as authorities for this formulation: For the teaching of the Church, see the <i>Athanasian Creed</i> (Dz 40); Pelagius II,<i> Letter Dilectionis vestris</i> (Dz 247); Innocent III,<i> Profession of Faith for the Waldensians </i>(Dz 423); Boniface VIII, Bull <i>Unam sanctam</i> (Dz 468); Clement VI, <i>Epist. Super quibusdam </i>(Dz 570b); the Council of Florence,<i> Decree for the Jacobites</i> (Dz 714); the <i>Tridentine Profession of Faith</i> (Dz 1000); Benedict XIV, <i>Profession of Faith for the Maronites</i> (Dz 1473); Gregory XVI, Enc. <i>Mirari vos</i> (Dz 1613); Pius IX, Enc. <i>Quanto conficiamur maerore </i>(Dz 1677); <i>Syllabus</i>, n. 16-17 (Dz 1716-17); Pius XII,<i> Mystici Corporis</i> (AAS 35 [1943], pp. 242-43); <i>Humani generis </i>(Dz 2319);<i> Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston</i>, Aug. 8, 1949.</div><div><br /></div><div>Note well that the top theologians cite to the very documents the Feeneyites claim <b><i><u>exclude </u></i></b>Baptism of Desire (e.g., <i>Unam Sanctam</i>). Bye, bye Fred and Bobby! For someone who wishes to do all God wants of him, and leads a morally upright life by cooperating with actual graces, God<b><i> can</i></b>, before the moment of death, infuse his intellect with Faith, and give him perfect contrition so as to fill the soul with sanctifying grace. He therefore dies within the Church and in the state of grace; the requirements to be saved. </div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>X. The Crazy Creed of the Feeneyites</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">My friend, Steve Speray, accurately summed up what you must believe if you want to maintain the denial of BOD and BOB:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">1. The Catholic Church has been promulgating heresy by catechisms for centuries. <u>The Catechism of the Council of Trent</u> has been the official catechism of the Church, teaching heresy, unnoticed or uncorrected by all the popes, from the 16th century until 1958.</div><div><br /></div><div>2. The Catholic Church has been promulgating heresy by Canon Law for over 100 years.</div><div><br /></div><div>3. The Catholic Church allows heresy to be taught throughout the whole Church for hundreds of years, and no pope stopped it.</div><div><br /></div><div>4. Protestant and Eastern Schismatic sects are false religions because they teach heresy, but the Catholic Church remains the True Religion when it teaches heresy by law and catechism.</div><div><br /></div><div>5. All the popes and approved theologians that taught Baptism of Desire/Blood after Trent were ignorant of that same Council's "dogma" that there is only baptism by water.</div><div><br /></div><div>6. Pope Pius IX was ignorant of the Council of Trent's teaching on Baptism, and promulgated heresy about invincible ignorance. When approved theologians during his life explained what he meant, he did not stop them or censure them.<span style="color: red;"> [How could he promulgate heresy and still be a true pope? This would make it morally certain that he had fallen from office prior to that time by espousing heresy as a private theologian]. </span></div><div><br /></div><div>7. Pope St. Pius X allowed a heretical catechism to be promulgated in Italy bearing his name. He never knew it contained teaching on BOD/BOB--or else he knew it and didn't stop the heresy pushed in his name.</div><div><br /></div><div>8. St. and Doctor of the Church Alphonsus Liguori didn’t understand the Council of Trent's teaching on Baptism and interpreted Trent to mean <b><i><u>exactly opposite to its true meaning</u></i></b>. In spite of that, <b><i><u>Pope Pius IX in 1871 declared him a Doctor of the Church for his orthodoxy in teaching the faith.</u></i></b></div><div><br /></div><div>9. Every layman that believes in Baptism of Desire/Blood is a heretic and a liar, but all the popes, saints, and Doctors of the Church that professed the same are not heretics or liars, but they simply "made a mistake."</div><div><br /></div><div>10. Defenders of Baptism of Desire/Blood who use the teachings of popes, catechisms, Canon Law, and Doctors of the Church are bad-willed and cannot be sincere. </div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>XI. Conclusion</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Modern day Feeneyites teach that BOD confers neither justification or salvation. The only way to be within the Church and be in the state of grace is through water baptism. Yet this post has shown the teaching of the Church to be quite different. When you understand how and what the Church teaches us, the case against Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire simply does not hold water. </div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>Introibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.com71tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-64268918847585771362023-11-13T04:11:00.000-08:002023-11-13T19:08:33.852-08:00The Unseen Realm Of Gnosticism <p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm0mKK7h2d-UGi6TptU4gq0HKdBg3uwNRsQ7tk4FF9CaPpGbB-i2uyGAbh0jyNpK2xaQug_njnXioUchyphenhyphen2vlTl_GNSNi8ZySyMzzgepJvDxKFFs8CfIbpNZO4Y78OiarbSsgA8zixYgqT3v2T3PfpmGVYE50gjoxOGDAPf4NRgvPjgSQvtKGNDe0kCZa0/s400/Unseenrealm.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="265" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm0mKK7h2d-UGi6TptU4gq0HKdBg3uwNRsQ7tk4FF9CaPpGbB-i2uyGAbh0jyNpK2xaQug_njnXioUchyphenhyphen2vlTl_GNSNi8ZySyMzzgepJvDxKFFs8CfIbpNZO4Y78OiarbSsgA8zixYgqT3v2T3PfpmGVYE50gjoxOGDAPf4NRgvPjgSQvtKGNDe0kCZa0/s320/Unseenrealm.jpg" width="212" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">On February 20th of this year, Dr. Michael S. Heiser died from cancer six days after turning 60 years old. A Protestant theologian and scholar, Heiser wrote a best selling book in 2015 entitled <u>The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible</u>. Heiser received his doctorate in Semitic languages and ancient biblical history (<i><b>Hebrew and Semitic Studies</b></i>) from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 2004. A typical Protestant, he used his knowledge of ancient language and history to "discover new things" in the Bible via private interpretation. So why is this of any concern to a Traditionalist? </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Heiser was not your run-of-the-mill Protestant; he was a <b><i><u>Gnostic occultist</u></i></b> and a <b><i><u>polytheist</u></i></b>. He has numerous defenders among conservative Protestants and "conservative" members of the Vatican II sect. Rarely do I go on "X" (formerly "Twitter") except to promote new posts on this blog, but the last time I did, there was someone I had thought was a Vatican II sect member. (I was wrong; this person was Sedevacantist). He had posted positive comments about the work of Michael Heiser. I posted back to warn him of Heiser's work. This was his verbatim response to me:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">He </span>[Heiser] <span style="color: red;">wrote about the Spiritual Realm. If you believe in angels & demons, you believe it to be true. There's God, the uncreated Creator, the Most High but other created "Elohim." Only one is Worthy of worship. Acknowledging that there is an invisible populated spiritual realm doesn't make you a polytheist.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I can't believe how many people buy into the occult and fanciful tales; they are unable or unwilling to see such evil falsehood, and defend it. So, if we believe in angels and demons (fallen angels) as we must, does this make Hesier's ideas true? Who, exactly, are the "Elohim," and is it the teaching of the Church (or compatible with Church teaching)? What proof is there that Heiser was a polytheist and Gnostic occultist? These questions shall be answered in this post.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">(This post was compiled from numerous sources. The actual works of Dr. Michael Heiser, as well as commentaries from online and book sources, were used in the composition of this post. <b><i><u>I take no credit</u></i></b> except for condensing the aforementioned materials into a terse and readable post---<b style="font-style: italic;">Introibo</b>)</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><u>The "Divine Council"</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">In his book, Heiser will proceed with a hermeneutic (method of interpreting the Bible) divorced from the Magisterium. How could it be otherwise for a Protestant? However, he goes beyond this by rejecting the Church Fathers, as well as all creeds, confessions and "denominational preferences." (See <u>The Unseen Realm</u>, ("TUR") pgs. 14-16 and pgs. 60-61). He has developed a Gnostic and polytheistic worldview<u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"> based on a single verse of one Psalm.</u> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Psalm 82:1 reads:<span style="color: red;"> God stands in the divine assembly, He administers judgment in the <b><i><u>midst of the gods</u></i></b></span> (Elohim). (Emphasis mine). Heiser believes he has found a "hidden secret key" for interpreting (or re-interpreting) the Bible and Christianity. That key was: “The God of the Old Testament <b><i><u>was part of an assembly – a pantheon – of other gods</u></i></b>” (TUR pg. 11; Emphasis mine). To be clear, Heiser's divine council worldview (TUR pg. 27) teaches that the “gods” or <i>elohim</i> in Psalm 82 are divine beings and apparently have a higher level of responsibility than angels, who are primarily messengers. These “gods” are consistently called “divine” throughout Heiser’s book without any real definition. “Divine” in standard English dictionaries as well as common use, would usually reference deity as opposed to mortals. Normally the word would not be understood to describe angels or heavenly beings, but God. If an author wants to use a word in an atypical fashion, his readers would expect a definition indicating his esoteric use; this Heiser does not do. Clearly, Heiser presents Yahweh as the supreme God, the creator of all the other gods (pg. 34).</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">This is a form of<b><i> Gnosticism</i></b>. Gnostics taught that the world was created by a <i><b>demiurge</b></i> or satanic power—which they often associated with the God of the Old Testament—and that there is total opposition between this world and God. This is also<b><i> polytheism</i></b>, the belief in many "gods." To make it clear,<b><i><u> polytheism</u></i></b> is belief in and/or worship of more than one god. In other words, belief in more than one god, even if one only worships one God, is polytheism. Heiser fans try to back away from the label of polytheism for Heiser but it fits. Whether the gods are created or not, whether they are worshiped or not, whether one god is eternal and the others are not, does not matter. Belief in many gods is polytheism.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"> (See britannica.com/topic/polytheism). Heiser teaches these gods <b><i>are not demons or fallen angels. </i></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><i><br /></i></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Heiser sees the "divine council" of gods (as he calls it) functioning and giving God counsel (!) in the “unseen realm,” while God’s people form God’s human, non-divine council on earth (TUR pgs. 43-44). (I guess Heiser never read Romans 11: 34-36: <span style="color: red;">“For who has known the mind of the Lord, or<b><i><u> who has been his counselor?</u></i></b>” “Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. </span>Emphasis mine). </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Heiser believes the divine council sat and ruled in Eden before the fall and thus for a time the “gods” lived among humans (Adam and Eve). He conjectures that it was God’s design for humanity to expand Eden, bringing God’s glory and perfection to the rest of the earth (TUR pg. 48). Of course, this would mean that God’s physical creation, apart from Eden, was flawed and therefore dependent upon Adam and Eve to bring it to perfection (TUR pgs. 50-51) and advance God’s kingdom rule (TUR pg. 56), which He apparently did not have yet. Every component of this crazy theory has substantial problems. How could a perfect and holy God create flawed material and then pronounce it good, if, in fact, it was not? On what basis can Heiser be assured that Adam and Eve were commissioned to bring this supposedly flawed creation to perfection? Then Heiser theorizes, again without any theological warrant, that if humanity had not fallen, humans would have been glorified and become part of the divine council, ruling on Earth together as one council (TUR pg. 48). </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><u>Imposing Pagan Mythology on Sacred Scripture</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Heiser refers to <b><i><u>Ugaritic literature</u></i></b> quite often, seemingly applying their views to the outlook in Scripture, as though the biblical authors were influenced by their pagan perspective. <b><i>Ugarit </i></b>was an ancient city in northern Syria discovered in 1928; Ugarit texts were found the following year and reveal much about Canaanite culture and religion. While there were cultural overlaps between Ugarit and Israel, and some references in the Bible can be explained by knowing about Ugarit, this does not mean that the Bible imbibed a pagan religious view, which is what liberal Protestant and Modernist scholars propose. When Biblical authors use language similar to that used for pagan gods, it is a polemic against false gods to demonstrate that Yahweh is the only true living God. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">"Ancient near east" (ANE) mythology guides and dominates Heiser’s interpretations. This is the faulty hermeneutical lens by means of which Heiser wants to "restore to the Bible." Throughout the book, the reader is informed that:</div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The ANE pagans believed in a divine council structure much like Yahweh’s </li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Their myths taught that a Ugaritic council met in a garden similar to Eden</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>ANE people alleged that animals could speak which is why Eve was not surprised when the serpent spoke to her </li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>He uses Babylonian myths to draw unprovable connections from extra-biblical sources </li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Heiser believes that the divine council is comprised of <b><i><u>beings called Watchers</u></i></b> drawn from <b><i>intertestamental literature</i></b>, not Scripture </li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Since some Mesopotamian myths claimed a “divine” council of 70, so too does Yahweh</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The idea that Israelite kings possessed a quasi-divine essence and were called sons of God is drawn not from the OT narrative but from the model set by ANE kings </li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Since ANE pagans believed demons resided in the desert so, of course, does Israel</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Prophecy must be interpreted via an ANE worldview </li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The ANE divine council makes decisions so that “when God prepares to act in strategic ways that propel His kingdom forward, [His] divine council is part of the decision making” process (TUR pg. 349)</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>All such descriptions of God enthroned in the midst of His heavenly court are based on the ancient conception of the divine council or assembly found in Mesopotamia, Ugarit, and Phoenicia as well as supposedly in Israel</li></ul></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Heiser assures us that most people <b><i><u>wouldn’t pick up on these clues unless, like he, they knew Hebrew and are informed of the ANE worldview</u></i></b> (TUR pg. 373). No wonder he is the first to put this puzzle together; he apparently<b><i> has knowledge and information that others do not have, or at least that is what he would have his readers believe. </i></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><i><br /></i></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">We must see the Bible “through the eyes of the ancient readers,” according to Heiser. There is value in understanding the culture and time of the writers of the Bible to get historical and cultural references and context. However, we do not have to possess the ancient worldview to read the Bible because the Bible was written under the Divine Inspiration of the Holy Ghost and interpreted by the Magisterium of Christ's One True Church. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><i><br /></i></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><u>Proof of Occult Involvement: Heiser Discusses "Orthodox" Astrology</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">See the following video of Heiser giving a lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O44nNzRa81Q</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Between the 4 and 5 minute mark, Heiser asserts there was a “Jewish astrology” and an “orthodox astrology” versus a "pagan astrology." “Orthodox astrology” is an oxymoron. Nothing in Scripture or in history reveals an ”orthodox astrology" accepted by the Church. He is correct that "astronomy" and "astrology" were sometimes used interchangeably, but he is NOT talking about the science of astrology, for that body of scientific knowledge was nearly uniform throughout the Middle East.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The pro-zodiac or astrological ideas found in the Jewish sources <b><i><u>are extra-biblical</u></i></b>. The Bible clearly denounces astrology as divination, prognostication, and worship of the heavens along with other divinatory and <i><b>magickal </b></i>practices. Heiser is clearly referencing occult astrology and claiming it can be "orthodox." </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><u>Heiser's Gnostic/Occult and Polytheistic Worldview Refuted</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">"The Divine Council" worldview is flawed from its outset. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><u>Psalm 82 and Elohim</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">From the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">Elohim is the common name for God. It is a plural form, but "The usage of the language gives no support to the supposition that we have in the plural form Elohim, applied to the God of Israel, the remains of an early polytheism, or at least a combination with the higher spiritual beings" (Kautzsch). </span></div></div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">According to theologian Haydock:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">[in reference to the Psalm] <span style="color: red;">"Gods" here, are put for judges who act in God's name. </span>(See <u>The Douay-Rheims Old Testament</u>, [1859], pg. 752, notes on Psalm 82). </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><i><u>Elohim here refers to human judges or rulers as in Exodus 22:8-9,</u></i></b> the law for stealing or trespassing: “the cause of both parties shall come before the judges (elohim); and whomever the judges condemn shall pay double to his neighbor.” This is the settled interpretation of Church approved theologians and Bible scholars. Heiser’s view is that Psalm 82:1 refers to a Divine Council which includes (created) gods. This becomes his filter for other passages in the Bible, leading to sometimes rather bizarre and heretical conclusions.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><u>Conjecture and Speculation Devoid of Theology</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Heiser's conjecture about many things (e.g., the existence of creatures called "Watchers," humans meant to join the divine council in the absence of the Fall, etc) have <b><i><u>zero support</u></i></b> in Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the teachings of the Church Fathers and theologians. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The idea that God needs a council to make decisions is an implicit denial of God's omnipotence. Furthermore, what are these demi-gods, exactly? Made in the image of the "Creator-God"? It is polytheism and pagan.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><u>Turning the Bible Pagan</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">With Heiser’s system, Scripture can only be interpreted through ANE pagan mythologies and worldviews. These worldviews, filled with gods and demigods, were to be rejected by Israel in the Old Testament. It was by absorbing the pagan teachings and lifestyle that Israel became corrupt and failed as a holy nation. The inspired writers of the Old Testament never encouraged Israel to study ANE myths in order to understand the ways of God or to mirror them, but to repudiate them. Heiser’s understanding of what is taking place is far more informed by ANE paganism than by Scripture. He is using an ANE lens to interpret the Sacred Scriptures. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><u>Gnosticism and the Occult</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Only Heiser can correctly understand the Bible. He actually states on page 13 of his book, “you will never be able to look at your Bible the same way again.” He has uncovered "secret knowledge" the Church never knew for almost 2,000 years. Heiser contends that astrology can be "orthodox." </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><u>Conclusion</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Michael Heiser's "Unseen Realm" is unseen for a good reason; it doesn't exist. The person on "X" I referenced at the beginning of this post obviously doesn't understand what is meant by polytheism, nor does the orthodox belief in angels (good and fallen) necessitate belief in the whacky, Gnostic, and pagan ideas of Heiser. The days are evil. I can't help but shake my head at how foregone the Vatican II sect is, when even its "conservative" members can't see blatant error staring them in the face. </div><p></p>Introibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-42454221700072127552023-11-06T04:11:00.001-08:002023-11-06T04:11:59.860-08:00Contending For The Faith---Part 21<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg14j4ZiAwr4TpCdzZkG1eL-xemxlro7ieAyZd37tHdETjt77plb3VZICZlVgFhdPNIYYCzVHmQ1H5lRAPNV1fjJ8UNt5fZ_mYYngCyfX0IHZv3QVcf0uSstlAMutOaN7hqDNEMkOmajFrjLnxCXVURzFSWbqH-mlbivooUuFooIhDD53bQ5BO6K8VINg/s960/Contending%20For%20The%20Faith.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="960" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg14j4ZiAwr4TpCdzZkG1eL-xemxlro7ieAyZd37tHdETjt77plb3VZICZlVgFhdPNIYYCzVHmQ1H5lRAPNV1fjJ8UNt5fZ_mYYngCyfX0IHZv3QVcf0uSstlAMutOaN7hqDNEMkOmajFrjLnxCXVURzFSWbqH-mlbivooUuFooIhDD53bQ5BO6K8VINg/s320/Contending%20For%20The%20Faith.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to <b><i><u>contend earnestly for the faith</u></i></b> once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e., the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month. This is the next installment.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="color: red;">The existence and attributes of God</span></li><li><span style="color: red;">The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all </span></li><li><span style="color: red;">The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church</span></li><li><span style="color: red;">The truth of Catholic moral teaching</span></li><li><span style="color: red;">The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II </span></li></ul></div><div><span style="color: red;">In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone has suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.</span></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>World's Apart: Postmodernism</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>Continuing from last month when <b><i>Existentialism</i></b> was examined, I'm going to be explaining various worldviews. What is a worldview? In the simplest terms, a worldview may be defined as<b><i><u> how one sees life and the world at large.</u></i></b> In this manner it can be compared to a pair of glasses. How a person makes sense of the world depends upon that person’s vision, so to speak. The interpretive lens helps people make sense of life and comprehend the world around them. Worldviews also shape people’s understanding of their unique place on Earth. This month the worldview of <b><i>Postmodernism</i></b> will be explained.</div><div><br /></div><div>As stated in last month's post, a well-thought-out course, or worldview, needs to answer seven ultimate concerns that philosophers identify as “the big questions of life:"</div><div><br /></div><div> <b>1. Ultimate Reality:</b> What kind of God, if any, actually exists? </div><div><br /></div><div><b>2. External Reality:</b> Is there anything beyond the cosmos, or is what we perceive all there is?</div><div><br /></div><div><b>3. Knowledge:</b> What can be known and how can anyone know it? </div><div><br /></div><div><b>4. Origin:</b> Where did humanity come from? </div><div><br /></div><div><b>5. Morals and Values:</b> How should I live, and what things are important in life? </div><div><br /></div><div><b>6. Problem of Life and Resolution:</b> What is wrong with the world? How can humanity’s problem be solved? </div><div><br /></div><div><b>7. Destiny:</b> Will I survive the death of my body and, if so, in what state? </div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">(Sources were many, and of special mention:</span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Dooyeweerd, Herman. <u>Roots of Western Culture: Pagan, Secular, and Christian Options</u>.Trans. John Kraay. [2003]; Harris, Robert A. <u>The Integration of Faith and Learning: A Worldview Approach</u>. [2004]; Sire, James W. <u>Naming the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept</u>, [2004].<b><i><u> I take no credit</u></i></b> except for the compilation and condensation of the material into a concise post.---<b><i>Introibo</i></b>). </span></div><div style="text-align: center; text-decoration-line: underline;"><b>Postmodernism Defined</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>A culture cannot lose its philosophic center without the most serious of consequences, not just to the philosophy on which it was based but to the whole superstructure of culture and even each person’s notion of who he or she is. Everything changes. When God dies, both the substance and the value of everything else die too. <b><i><u>The acknowledgment of the death of God is the beginning of postmodern "wisdom."</u> </i></b>It is also the end of postmodern wisdom. For, in the final analysis, postmodernism is not “post” anything; it is the last move of the modern, the result of the modern taking its own commitments seriously and seeing that they fail to stand the test of analysis.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Our age, which more and more is coming to be called postmodern, finds itself afloat in a pluralism of perspectives, a plethora of philosophical possibilities, but with no dominant notion of where to go or how to get there. A near future of cultural anarchy seems inevitable (and some would argue, quite convincingly, that we have already arrived at such anarchy). What, exactly, does the term <i style="font-weight: bold;">postmodernism </i>mean? The term <i>postmodernism </i>is usually thought to have arisen first in reference to architecture, as architects moved away from unadorned, impersonal boxes of concrete, glass, and steel to complex shapes and forms, drawing motifs from the past without regard to their original purpose or function.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Postmodernism has influenced religious understanding, including that characteristic of Christian theism, but it accepts the foundation at the heart of naturalism: <u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Matter exists eternally; God does not exist.</u> </div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Postmodernism on Ultimate and External Reality</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>The first question postmodernism addresses is not what is there or how we know what is there but how language functions to construct meaning. In other words, there has been a shift in “first things” from <b><i><u>being</u></i></b> to<b><i><u> knowing</u></i></b> to <u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">constructing meaning.</u> There has been a movement from (1) a “premodern” concern for a just society based on revelation from a just God to (2) a “modern” attempt to use universal reason as the guide to justice to (3) a “postmodern” despair of any universal standard for justice. Society then moves from medieval hierarchy to Enlightenment, universal democracy to postmodern privileging of the self-defining values of individuals and communities. This is a formula for anarchy. It is hard to think of this as progress, but then progress is a “modern” notion.</div><div><br /></div><div>Only matter exists. There is no God. Humans construct meaning.</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Postmodernism on Knowledge</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">The first decent of the human mind by rejecting Thomistic philosophy. Theism puts being before knowing. "Enlightenment" Naturalism puts knowing before being. Rene Descartes is seen as the first modern philosopher, not least because he was more interested in<b><i><u> how</u></i></b> one knows than in <b><u><i>what </i></u></b>one knows. Descartes’s approach to knowing is legendary. He wanted to be completely certain that what he thought he knew was actually true. So he took the method of doubt almost (but not quite) to the limit. What can I doubt? he asked himself in the quietness of his study. He concluded that he could doubt everything except that he was doubting (doubting is thinking). So he concluded, “I think, therefore I am.” He then further considered whether there was anything other than his own existence of which he could be sure. </div><div><br /></div><div><div>One individual, Descartes, declares on the foundation of his own judgment that he knows with philosophic certainty that he is a thinking thing. From this foundation Descartes goes on to argue that God necessarily exists and that reality is dual—matter and mind. The notion of the autonomy of human reason liberated the human mind from the authority of the Church. </div><div><br /></div><div>Now enter postmodernism. Look again at Descartes’s “I think, therefore I am.” What if it is the thinking that creates or causes the "I" rather than the "I" that creates or causes the thinking? What if the activity of thinking does not require an agent but produces only the illusion of an agent? What if there is only thinking—a fluid flow of language without discernible origin, determinate meaning, or direction? The truth about the reality itself is forever hidden from us. All we can do is "tell stories."</div><div><br /></div><div><div>According to postmodernism, nothing we think we know can be checked against reality as such. Now we must not think that postmodernists believe that there is no reality outside our language. We are not to abandon our ordinary perception that a bus is coming down the street and we’d better get out of the way. Our language about there being a “bus” that is “coming down” a “street” is useful. It has survival value! But apart from our linguistic systems we can know nothing. All language is a human construct. We can’t determine the “truthfulness” of the language, only the usefulness.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Truth is whatever we can get our colleagues (our community) to agree to. If we can get them to use our language, then—like the “strong poets” Moses, Jesus, Plato, Freud—our story is as true as any story will ever get. In short, the only kind of truth there is is pragmatic truth. There is no truth of correspondence. It is easy to see how this notion, when applied to religious claims, triggers a radical relativism. No one’s story is truer than anyone else’s story. Does the story work? That is, does it satisfy the teller? Does it get you what you want—say, a sense of belonging, a peace with yourself, a hope for the future, a way to order your life? It’s all one can ask.</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Postmodernism on Origins</u></b></div></div></div></div><div style="text-align: left;">We don't know where humanity came from or where it is going. Stories give communities their cohesive character. Christians, for example, believe that God is triune. The postmodernist may say that this story cannot be known to accord with reality, but a Christian thinks it does anyway. A naturalist really believes that “the cosmos is all there is,” regardless of how the postmodernist may explain that this belief cannot in principle or practice be substantiated. One might say, too, that a postmodernist really believes that this explanation is true, though if it is, then it can’t really be true (but this anticipates the critique of postmodernism that follows below). In any case, stories have great social binding power; they make communities out of otherwise disparate bunches of people.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>There is no substantial self. Human beings make themselves who they are by the languages they construct about themselves. </div></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Postmodernism on Morals and Values</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>Postmodernism follows the route taken by naturalism and existentialism, but with a linguistic twist. Morality, like knowledge, is a linguistic construct. Social good is whatever society takes it to be. This is pure <i style="font-weight: bold;">cultural relativism. </i>If some future society decides that Communism is what it wants, a person for a republic, or anyone else, is without appeal. The good is whatever those who wield the power in society choose to make it. If a person is happy with how society draws its ethical lines, then individual freedom remains. But what if an individual refuses to speak the ethical language of their community?</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Postmodernism can make no normative judgment about such a view. It can only observe and comment: so much the worse for those who find themselves oppressed by the majority.</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Postmodernism and the Problem of Life and Destiny</u></b></div></div><div style="text-align: left;">It is simple and bleak: life just is and there is no problem, per se. Death is the end of an individual existence, if indeed, individuals can actually be said to exist at all.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Postmodernism: A Critique</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"> First, the rejection of all metanarratives is itself a metanarrative. The idea that there are no metanarratives is taken as a first principle, and there is no way to get around this except to ignore the self-contradiction and get on with the show, which is what postmodernism does.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Second, the idea that we have no access to reality (that there are no facts, no truths-of-the-matter) and that we can only tell stories about it is self-referentially incoherent. Put crudely, this idea cannot account for itself, for it tells us something that, on its own account, we can’t know.</div><div><br /></div><div>Third, postmodernism’s critique of the autonomy and sufficiency of human reason rests on the autonomy and sufficiency of human reason.</div><div><br /></div><div>Postmodernism is an incoherent worldview that must be rejected.</div></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Modernism and Postmodernism</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Modernism, the synthesis of all heresies, is not the modernism contemplated by postmodernism, but the Modernist Vatican II sect has led the way for postmodernism. Postmodernism is an atheistic worldview taken to the limit, where even the self is questioned. Without exaggeration, Modernism is the cause of all the major problems in our sick world today. With the Church driven underground, morality and truth have been obscured to a degree not seen since the days of Noah. Atheism is the logical and final outcome of Modernism; postmodernism being its most radical expression. Atheism is on the rise like never before; and the "New Atheists" are denigrating religion and making disciples.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Postmodernism is seen in the Vatican II sect. All paths lead to God. There is no One True Church, since all religions are the subconscious need for the Divine manifested in various ways. Different religions are merely different stories. No religion is more true or better than any other.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">In society, the "transgender" madness is also linked to the idea of a world constructed by language. Gender studies claim that society has forced men and women into “social constructs” of gender; in other words, gender theorists believe that the social categories which distinguish men and women from each other have no basis in reality. Gender studies promotes an anarchic view of gender and sexuality where there is no objective standard for gender and everything from clothing to sexuality should be subject to each individual’s experience. The word “sex” is rejected because it suggests an essential link between the bodies and souls of men and women; the jargon word “gender” does not bring with it the same connotation. In fact, the word “gender” used this way suggests that masculinity and femininity are not essential traits but social constructs. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Conclusion</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">The bankrupt and morally degenerate worldview of postmodernism is in every facet of society, to one degree or another. It has been said that, “Postmodernism is a worldview that denies all worldviews.” It’s a philosophy that explodes all comprehensive systems without offering to build anything new in their place. In place of purpose, design, logic, and meaning it affirms and embraces uncertainty, anarchy, chaos, and chance. It considers any effort to impose order upon the world or human life as purely provisional and arbitrary. It asserts that “truth” can vary from person to person and group to group. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Our only sure foundation to fight against it is to study the philosophy of Aquinas and the teaching of the One True Church. This will be our sure anchor against the evil tide. </div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p></p>Introibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.com27tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-34936347970283348802023-10-30T04:04:00.002-07:002023-11-01T21:10:19.009-07:00Cardinal Ottaviani: A Profile In Fortitude<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoeaCtBeaEUMmexzMOUqgD6nGPafImTzawTCeCyzQ_QQh4FnpiiA3PAe6E6euYKHSOcweSQjTdz6YEs8orVQTSF8nfkIe2G5mXrsd6NDWcg261zWFmIopSGex4_M7efGW-370dgqkmCoHHHOSR3lb1nCvc2HOVj_XmF0ZShQX8CVfmHr42SwnpdpezBQQ/s500/Card.%20Ottaviani.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="457" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgoeaCtBeaEUMmexzMOUqgD6nGPafImTzawTCeCyzQ_QQh4FnpiiA3PAe6E6euYKHSOcweSQjTdz6YEs8orVQTSF8nfkIe2G5mXrsd6NDWcg261zWFmIopSGex4_M7efGW-370dgqkmCoHHHOSR3lb1nCvc2HOVj_XmF0ZShQX8CVfmHr42SwnpdpezBQQ/s320/Card.%20Ottaviani.jpg" width="292" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Few figures during the time of the Robber Council, which spawned the sect of Counterfeit Catholicism, was more of a lightening rod for criticism on all sides than the late, great Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani (1890-1979). One of the most powerful men in the Vatican under Pope Pius XII, and a brilliant canonist, theologian, and philosopher in his own right (three earned doctorates), he was Pro-Prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. The primary purpose of the Holy Office was to safeguard the Deposit of Faith from all attacks from whatever source; a responsibility the Cardinal took with all the somber seriousness and diligence one would expect from a true Prince of the Church. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Modernists portray Cardinal Ottaviani as a "villain" who tried to "stop progress" and liked to "persecute misunderstood theologians." Some "conservative" Vatican II sect members falsely claim that he eventually recanted the famous theological study named after him (<i>The Ottaviani Intervention), </i>and accepted the so-called <i>Novus Ordo Missae </i>as a Catholic Mass. Some Traditionalists, acting like Monday morning quarterbacks, criticize him for not "doing more" or for not being an outspoken sedevacantist. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Truth be told, Cardinal Ottaviani was a great Churchman, who tried with all his might to stop the Modernist takeover of the Vatican. In this post, I will write a brief overview of his life and his battles for Holy Mother Church. <b><i><u>My sources are from two men who knew the Cardinal personally;</u></i></b> theologian Fr. Joseph Fenton, and canonist Fr. Gommar DePauw. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Fr. Fenton wrote about Cardinal Ottaviani shortly after the Council began, in a 1963 article for <i>The American Ecclesiastical Review</i> entitled <i>Cardinal Ottaviani and the Council. </i> I have the writings of Fr. DePauw regarding the Cardinal, and how he told me that the ecclesiastical giant was a spiritual father to him, and without his help, the Catholic Traditionalist Movement never would have gotten off the ground. <i><b>I take no credit for the information herein.</b></i> I simply compiled the information from two amazing priests who stood alongside Cardinal Ottaviani in (as Fr. DePauw would say) the "fight for Truth and Tradition," and made it into what I hope is a terse, readable, and worthy writing on a Hero of the Catholic Church. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><u>A Holy and Humble Beginning</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Alfredo Ottaviani was born on October 29, 1890, the tenth of a poor baker's twelve children, in a little store. He was never ashamed of his impoverished background, seeing that he had that in common with Our Lord. He grew up in the shadow of the Vatican, in Rome's Trastevere working-class district, where his pious parents instructed young Alfredo in the truths of the Faith. They probably couldn't imagine that their son would become the second most powerful cleric in the Church; second only to the Holy Father himself. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Alfredo was as brilliant as he was devout, having been taught by the Brothers of the Christian Schools, and felt called to the priesthood at an early age. He attended the Pontifical Roman Seminary and the Pontifical Roman Athenaeum S. Apollinare, from where he received doctorates in philosophy, canon law, and sacred theology. On March 18, 1916, the twenty-five year old scholar was ordained to the Holy Priesthood. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Called to teaching, he lectured several years on Ecclesiastical Public Law at the Apollinare Judicial University, and on Philosophy at the Pontifical Urban College of the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, where he also held the position of Secretary for some time. In addition to all his official duties, he also carried out priestly work among the youths of the densely populated Aurelio district, at St. Peter's Oratory. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">In 1926 he was nominated Rector of the Pontifical Bohemian College, later called the College of Nepomucene, and there guided many young Czechs to the priesthood. In February 1928, Professor Ottaviani was called to service at the Vatican by Pope Pius XI, who appointed him Undersecretary of the Vatican Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, and a year later, Deputy Secretary of State. In 1935, he was transferred to the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (informally, "Holy Office"), as his stellar academic career as an approved theologian, canon lawyer, and philosopher preceded him, and that---along with his reputation for unflinching orthodoxy---made him the perfect cleric to help defend Faith and morals. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">In 1952, Pope Pius XII, who knew talent when he saw it, appointed him as the Pro-Prefect in charge of the Holy Office (the pope himself is Prefect of that Congregation). On January 12, 1953, that same Pontiff gave Fr. Ottaviani the Red Biretta as a Prince of the Church. Cardinals could be Cardinal-Priests, or Cardinal-Bishops. Cardinal Ottaviani remained a priest. He would resign as Pro-Prefect of the newly named "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" in 1968, when Montini (Paul VI) wanted him to give approval to "ecumenical services." Just prior to that battle, the Cardinal used every bit of his leverage and influence to successfully convince Montini not to permit artificial contraception.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">In 1962, Roncalli (John XXIII) wanted all Cardinals to be Bishops by definition and would consecrate all Cardinal-priests personally. Hence, on April 19, 1962, at the main altar of St. Peter's Basilica, Cardinal Ottaviani was consecrated a Bishop, with Roncalli as his Principal Consecrator, and Giuseppe Cardinal Pizzardo along with Benedetto Cardinal Aloisi Masella as his Co-Consecrators. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Cardinal Ottaviani chose as his motto upon becoming a Cardinal <i style="font-weight: bold;">Semper Idem---</i>"Always the Same"---a reference to how Faith and morals can always be better understood, but can never change or become other than they were. How could they? The faith and morality of the One True Church is as unchanging as God Himself. His motto let friend and foe alike know that he was an indefatigable defender of the Deposit of Revelation against the machinations of the Modernists. He once publicly described his role at the Holy Office as that of "an old police officer guarding a reserve of gold." </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Both Church and human history would have been changed for the better had Cardinal Ottaviani been elected at the ill-fated conclave of 1958. He was so sure he would be elected, he even had his regnal name picked out; Pope Pius XIII, in honor of "Papa Pacelli" whom he esteemed and admired. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">At the Robber Council (which he advised against ever calling), His Eminence was the undisputed leader of the Traditionalist Bishops fighting tooth and nail against the Modernists. The Cardinal also knew talent when he saw it, and had 44 year old canonist Fr. Gommar DePauw as one of his <b><i>periti</i></b> (theological experts) and closest adviser. They would repeatedly lock horns with the equally undisputed leader of the demonic Modernists; the despicable Joseph Cardinal Frings of West Germany, and his top <i>peritus,</i> 35 year old theologian Fr. Joseph Ratzinger--the future leader of the very Vatican II sect of Counterfeit Catholicism he would help create. Fr. DePauw would spend many sleepless nights during Vatican II in strategy discussions with Cardinal Ottaviani and Bishop Blaise S. Kurz, to whom Fr. DePauw was his <i>peritus</i> as well. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">After the disaster that was Vatican II, Cardinal Ottaviani publicly denounced the Novus Bogus bread and wine service masquerading as a Catholic Mass, in a scathing theological critique that would go on to bear his name as the <i style="font-weight: bold;">Ottaviani Intervention. </i>It was something which he would never recant, just as the Novus Bogus itself was a <i><b>service</b></i> ("Mass" would be a meaningless word here) which he never used. Cardinal Ottaviani had many problems with his eyes, becoming completely blind in one eye, and severely vision-impaired in the other. Yet his faith and intellect allowed him to see what was happening better with one poor eye, than most people with two perfect eyes. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">On August 3, 1979, just under three months away from what would have been his 89th birthday, Cardinal Ottaviani went to Judgement. He went to meet His Judge after a life well-spent in the service of God. The highlights of his life will be examined next. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><u>Cardinal Ottaviani: Reviled by the Communists, Modernists, and Masons</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">During the Robber Council Vatican II (October 11, 1962-December 8, 1965), no cleric was more constantly reviled and placed under unrelenting attack by the press than His Eminence. To any fair-minded person who knew the Cardinal, the words most used to describe him were <i style="font-weight: bold;">brilliant, devout, </i>and<i style="font-weight: bold;"> urbane. </i>Yet the press put out story after story that was vehemently (even hysterically) unfavorable.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The Communist papers of Italy (literally Communist, I'm not using the word loosely in a pejorative sense) were the most vocal against him. The Italian anti-clerical press joined in, most notably <i style="font-weight: bold;">L'Espresso, </i><span>which</span><i style="font-weight: bold;"> </i>would have three and one-half inch headlines attacking the Cardinal; some articles written by Carlo Falconi, a former Catholic. In the United States, the dual rags of <i style="font-weight: bold;">Time </i>and <i style="font-weight: bold;">Newsweek</i> would do their best to convince the gullible American public that His Eminence should be a discredited member of the College of Cardinals by writing articles that were notable for inaccuracy and malevolence. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The question naturally arises as to why Cardinal Ottaviani was the object of such hatred. The answer is clear: he performed his job as Pro-Prefect of the Holy Office astonishingly well, and was Cardinal-President of the Preparatory Theological Commission for the Second Vatican Council. During his time at the Holy Office, numerous books were censured and placed on The Index of Forbidden Books. Many theologians were censured, such as Teilhard de Chardin and Yves Congar. The fact that he stopped Modernists dead in their tracks, earned him the ire of the many Modernists who were "underground" as it were, and waiting to overtake the Church. Ottaviani made no secret of his contempt and condemnation of all things Communist, making them his bitter enemies as well. He was also aware of the danger of Freemasonry, making his name one subjected to seeming limitless scorn in the Lodges of Lucifer. The good Cardinal also was an influence behind Pope Pius XII publishing his famous, scholarly, and erudite encyclical<i> Humani Generis</i> in 1950, forcefully condemning the errors of Modernist theologians of the time. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">As Cardinal-President of the Preparatory Theological Commission for the Second Vatican Council, he was the guiding force behind the original<i> schemas</i>, which were completely orthodox and address many errors. Never one to back down when protecting Church teaching, he publicly made it known that the documents would continue in the tradition of <i>Counter-reformationist theology. </i>When Roncalli (John XXIII) rehabilitated all the theologians Cardinal Ottaviani had censured under Pope Pius XII, he had <b><i>them</i></b> draw up new schemas after getting those originals scrapped. Cardinal Ottaviani was humiliated, and the Communists, Modernists, and Masons rejoiced. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">While not formal theological terminology, "Counter-reformationist theology" was a colloquial term for the theology as organized by the masters of the Counter-reformation period, such as Melchior Cano, St. Peter Canisius, St. Robert Bellarmine, Thomas Stapleton, William Estius, Francis Suarez, and Adam Tanner. These men were unanimous in their teaching that there are some truths contained in Sacred Tradition alone which must be believed. They insist that the Roman Catholic Church is the One True Church of Jesus Christ, outside of which no one may be saved. These truths are reviled by the world, which reviled Christ Himself. Can anyone who stands with the God-Man expect to be treated any more favorably? <span style="color: red;">Blessed shall you be when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of Man's sake. (St. Luke 6:22).</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><u><b>Cardinal Ottaviani: Fighting at Vatican II Against the Modernist Juggernaut </b></u></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">By 1962, a majority of Bishops were Modernist or Modernist-sympathizers. With false pope Roncalli (and later false pope Montini---Paul VI) aiding them, the Modernists were unstoppable. Nevertheless, the good Cardinal used his influence and his encyclopedic knowledge of procedure to try and stop them at every opportunity. Three incidents will help illustrate this point.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><u>Frings attacks the Holy Office</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">On November 8, 1963, the loathsome Cardinal Frings took to the floor of the Council to address the question as to whether the powers of the Roman Curia should be at least partially taken away and given to diocesan Bishops. With an arrogance equaled by few, and surpassed by none, the leader of the Modernists directly attacked the Holy Office. "Its [the Holy Office's] procedures are out of harmony with modern times, and a source of scandal to those outside the Church. No Roman Congregation should have authority to accuse, judge, and condemn an individual who has had no opportunity to defend himself." </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Cardinal Ottaviani rightfully considered the German's words as a direct attack on the papacy itself. He took to the floor immediately after Frings' time to talk was up, and he wasted no time castigating him.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">"The opportunity must be taken to protest most vigorously against the condemnation of the Holy Office voiced in this Council hall. It should not be forgotten that the Prefect of the Holy Office is none other than the Sovereign Pontiff himself. The criticism formulated proceeds from a lack of knowledge, not to use a stronger term, of the procedures of this Sacred Congregation. No one is ever accused, judged, and condemned without a thorough previous investigation carried out with the help of competent consultors and experienced specialists. Besides, all decisions of the Holy Office are approved by the pope personally, and thus such criticisms are a reflection on the Vicar of Christ." </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The "stronger term" Cardinal Ottaviani wanted to use was that Frings was a LIAR and CALUMNIATOR. Any canonist, whether in Frings' own diocese of Cologne, Germany or anywhere else, would have immediately known that the procedures of the Holy Office are very fair and can only have effect if approved and promulgated by the pope. What Herr Frings did was to purposely misrepresent the Holy Office to make the Congregation charged with keeping safe faith and morals look bad, and to take a cheap shot at both Cardinal Ottaviani and Pope Pius XII who had very successfully censured so many of the theologians who shared the Modernism of Frings. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The speech by Frings had its intended effect. The press reported how Cardinal Ottaviani was acting the part of "Grand Inquisitor" and was defending the Church's alleged "human rights violations" in condemning heresy. Montini (Paul VI) never ordered Frings to retract his objectively false speech, nor was he made to apologize to the Pro-Prefect Ottaviani. He was clearly with the heretics and liars.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"> <b><u>Decrying "Collegiality"</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">When the debate on the topic of collegiality came up, once more, Cardinal Ottaviani took to the floor and defended the true teaching of the Church against this heresy: "Those who propose collegiality of the Bishops <b><i><u>proceed in a vicious circle</u></i></b>, since they presume that the Apostles existed and acted as a collegial body, and then proceed from that presumption to deduce the collegial character of the body of Bishops. And yet, <b><i><u>learned and experienced professors of Sacred Scripture reject this thesis as without any solid foundations in the Sacred Scripture</u></i></b>. To defend collegiality is to place a limitation on the exercise of the universal primacy of the Roman Pontiff. Yet, <b><i><u>the fact remains that only Peter has responsibility for the entire flock. It is not the sheep who lead Peter, but it is Peter who leads the sheep.</u></i></b>" (Emphasis mine). </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Frings was livid that Ottaviani (assisted this particular time by Cardinal Spellman of New York City) was clearly exposing the vacuous arguments of the Modernists and making the heretical prelates look like the sophistical fools they were. Indeed, Cardinal Spellman said in his floor speech, "Let us be careful about proposing anything that may be at variance with the decrees of previous Councils or papal pronouncements." Yet, that could only happen in the absence of the protection of the Holy Ghost promised to St. Peter and his successors. However, if Paul VI approved something contrary to previous Councils or papal pronouncements, it must mean he's NOT protected by the Holy Ghost because he is not the pope. Cardinal Spellman may have unwittingly spoken one of the premises for sedevacantism. Unfortunately, Spellman would later compromise his faith by voting for so-called "religious liberty." It would be a decision he would lament before his death with (literal) tears. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Nevertheless, Ottaviani lost the battle in the demonic press, and by the Modernists who also bullied other prelates into voting their way on collegiality. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><b><u>Adamant Against Communists</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">Many Modernist prelates had Communist sympathies. They thought the idea of "containing Communism" as was the case in Vietnam at the time, was evil. They denounced war without condemning the cause of war: the sins of humanity and the scourge of Communism. On October 7, 1965 the Cardinal stated:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"> "War is not the only thing we should condemn. We should also condemn the so-called 'guerilla' warfare, a method of fighting especially employed by the Communists to bring about the subjection of peoples to Communism. We should also condemn subtle war-like acts which nations use against each, such as 'sabotage' and 'terrorism.' Neither should we forget that Communism initiates its wars --that is, its aggressions---under the guise of 'liberation.' For, to Communists, words assume a different meaning, more often than not a meaning which is contrary to that normally contained in the words themselves." Needless to say, no condemnation of Communism would ever make it out of the Council. Roncalli had already sold his soul to the Communists, agreeing that if the Communists allowed Eastern Schismatic Bishops to attend the Council, there would be no condemnation of their wicked system of government. It was dubbed the "Vatican-Moscow Agreement," and Montini honored it. Another example of ecumenism at its "finest."</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><i><br /></i></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Cardinal Ottaviani: Condemning The Novus Bogus "Mass"</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">In 1969, His Eminence met with a small group of top-notch theologians, and they put together the ultimate condemnation of the so-called "New Order (Novus Ordo) Mass." He sent Montini (Paul VI) the study with a cover letter in September of 1969, exactly five months after the "promulgation" of the Neo-Protestant bread and wine service. The study entitled <i>A Critical Study of the New Order of the Mass, </i>gave the dogmatic reasons explaining why the Novus Bogus must be rejected. After one month went by with no reply from Montini, the Cardinal attempted to meet with him, only to be denied an audience. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Cardinal Ottaviani asked for all Bishops willing to stand up for the Mass of Ages and opposed to an invalid counterfeit, to sign the study along with him. Only two answered the call; Bishop Blaise Kurz (exiled Bishop of the Diocese of Yungchow, China), and Antonio Cardinal Bacci. Bishop Kurz was confined to a Catholic hospital and somehow the study never reached him (!) Cardinal Bacci signed and it was made public on October 15, 1969. It gave every Catholic solid grounds for rejecting the Novus Bogus on no less than twenty-seven counts, calling it:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>a denial of all Catholic claims to be the True Church</li><li>the overthrow of a Tradition unchanged in the Church since the fourth and fifth centuries</li><li>satisfying even the most Modernistic of Protestants</li><li>the systematic and tacit negation of the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament</li><li>an incredible innovation</li><li><u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">AN INCULCABLE ERROR</u> (Emphasis mine)</li></ul><div>The study was subsequently called <u>The Ottaviani Intervention</u>, and belongs on every Traditionalist's bookshelf; to be read at least once a year to remind us of what was taken away from us and what evil replaced it. </div><div><br /></div><div>In 1970, there was a letter, purportedly signed by the Cardinal, retracting his endorsement and involvement in the study. His signature was obtained by fraud, as he was nearly totally blind in 1970, and the culprit was one Msgr. Gilberto Agustoni, a member of the "Concillium" which concocted the Novus Bogus with Freemason Bugnini directing it. The cardinal <b><i><u>never</u></i></b> retracted his condemnation, nor did he offer any "Mass" but the Traditional Mass. </div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Cardinal Ottaviani: Defender of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Fr. DePauw first heard the name Ottaviani while studying Canon Law in the seminary, where a textbook the future head of the Holy Office wrote, was part of the curriculum. Upon becoming an approved canonist himself, he never apologized to his students or colleagues for having stated that he was trying to be a faithful spiritual and intellectual disciple of Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani. He would develop a close relationship with the His Eminence at the beginning of Vatican II, when he was introduced to him by his former Ordinary, Francis Cardinal Spellman. Impressed by Fr. DePauw, he became one of Cardinal Ottaviani's<i> periti</i>; Father also was <i>peritus</i> to Bishop Kurz and Cardinal Ruffini. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Fr. DePauw launched the Catholic Traditionalist Movement on December 31, 1964, while the Council was still in session. He saw the evil coming. He made his <i style="font-weight: bold;">Catholic Traditionalist Manifesto </i>public on March 15, 1965, and refused to implement any of the changes to the Mass as it would degenerate into the "Monstrosity of 1969." Father's Ordinary at that time was the ultra-Modernist Lawrence Cardinal Shehan of Baltimore. He made it clear that he would "destroy that thorn-in-my-side DePauw" who does nothing but "hinder progress." </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Cardinal Spellman got wind of this (already regretting some of his actions at the Council), and immediately went to Fr. DePauw. He told Father he would use his enormous political and legal connections to incorporate the Catholic Traditionalist Movement (CTM) in record time, and keep him safe under civil law in the United States. Ecclesiastical law was another matter. Cardinal Spellman met with Cardinal Ottaviani and told him of Shehan's intentions. His Eminence then invited Fr. DePauw to stay with him in Rome the week of August 10-16, 1965. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Father said that during that week he learned more about Church politics than he was even able to suspect during his (at that time) previous 23 years in the priesthood. He thanked God that, besides many painful eye-openers he experienced on that occasion, he learned that not all Bishops and Cardinals were cheap politicians, and that the one with whom he was staying as a guest, was a man whose scholarly brilliance was only surpassed by his simple faith and unshakable integrity.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Cardinal Ottaviani convinced Shehan to sign Fr. DePauw's excardination papers, releasing him from the Archdiocese of Baltimore, and had him incardinated into the Diocese of Tivoli, a suburb of Rome, on November 15, 1965. Tivoli allowed Father to continue with the CTM. When Shehan realized what His Eminence had done, he had a conniption. He denied having signed the excardination papers, and "suspended" Fr. DePauw, ordering him to return to Baltimore. Tivoli had allowed Bishop Kurz to have Fr. DePauw under his personal episcopal jurisdiction. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>Bp. Kurz went toe to toe with Shehan, and on January 17, 1966 made the following <b><i><u>public declaration</u></i></b> carried by the news media; it read in pertinent part:</div><div><br /></div><div> "I consider any attack on Father DePauw, at whatever the source or with whatever person that attack may originate, as an attack on my personal integrity as a Bishop of the Catholic Church. I most solemnly declare that the statements released by Father DePauw to the media <span style="color: red;">[about his being incardinated with Bp. Kurz after release by Shehan-<i><b>-Introibo</b></i>] </span>...<u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">contain the truth and nothing but the truth.</u>" <u>(</u>Emphasis mine<u>)</u>.Then on May 22, 1966 at the Garden City Hotel in Long Island, NY, Bishop Kurz made the following historical step at a press conference when he stated to the world:</div><div><br /></div><div> "I recommend the Catholic Traditionalist Movement to all Catholics willing to defend our Church. While the active leadership of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement will remain with Father DePauw, I have today accepted the position offered me by that Movement's Board of Directors, and will henceforth publicly function as Bishop-Moderator of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement."</div><div><br /></div><div>Bp. Kurz further publicly challenged the odious Shehan to go to the Vatican and let Paul VI decide if he really signed those papers or not. Not one to mince words, he stated that if he was too cowardly to do so, then apologize like a man and undo the damage his calumny caused Fr. DePauw. Shehan never responded, and ran like the coward he was. The heroic response of Bp. Kurz was only possible thanks to the behind the scenes work of Cardinal Ottaviani.</div><div><br /></div><div>When Fr. DePauw was leaving Rome in December of 1965, to publicly defend the Catholic Faith and denounce Vatican II, Cardinal Ottaviani gave him a letter containing his advice to him. It read in part:</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">Son, my prayers and blessings are with you. You will need them. You will have to suffer a great deal once you are back in the States. But, be strong. Watch every word you say. Be charitable even in regard to those who do not practice charity to you. I worry that they will even try to make life materially impossible for you. But, you must persevere. You are fighting for God's truth and our Holy Mother Church. I am behind you. Always keep me informed. As long as I live, no one in Rome will ever touch you. And, if I live a few more years, by the time I leave this vale of tears, you will be so solidly entrenched that no one in Rome will touch you then either. </span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div>His words came true. Thanks to Father's wealthy Belgian father, he was always materially well-off. Yet he suffered much from the constant harassment of the Modernists.</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Conclusion</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">It is my belief that in the Church's darkest hour, the Most Holy Trinity raised up a quartet of holy clerics to keep the One True Church going. They did the best they could under the unique circumstances of the time as they then understood it. <b>Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani</b>, <b>Antonio Cardinal Bacci</b>, <b>Bishop Blaise S. Kurz</b>, and<b> Father Gommar A. DePauw</b>, shall one day be known as the heroes of the Church they are, and who paved the way for others to do what they could. I respect other clerics who fought for the Church, but at the beginning of the Great Apostasy, you <b><i><u>did not</u></i></b> hear the names of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Bishop Alfred Mendez, or Archbishop Peter Thuc. They would not come out until after those brave "first responders." </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">What made Cardinal Ottaviani and the other three great clerics stand out was the<b> Gift of Fortitude</b>. One of the Seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost received at Confirmation, fortitude is defined as, "... a firmness of mind in doing good and in avoiding evil, particularly when it is difficult or dangerous to do so, and the confidence to overcome all obstacles, even deadly ones, by virtue of the assurance of everlasting life." Can anyone reading the above post deny that Cardinal Ottaviani was a man of fortitude? It was my God-given honor and blessing to have known Fr. DePauw as my spiritual father for almost 24 years. I still miss him, and I'm afraid we will never see the likes of him again. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Evil people continue to lie and calumniate these four Churchmen of fortitude. However, the facts of history will not change, no matter how hard people may try. The great assurance of our Faith also tells us that death is not "good-bye," but "so long for now." I am comforted by the words of Sacred Scripture:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div><span style="color: red;">But the souls of the just are in the hand of God, and the torment of death shall not touch them. In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die: and their departure was taken for misery: And their going away from us, for utter destruction: but they are in peace. (Wisdom 3:1-3).</span></div></div></div></div><p></p>Introibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-15984117422294226092023-10-23T04:06:00.000-07:002023-10-23T04:06:58.195-07:00Our Constant Foe: Satan<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlwo9QQ2Sj_WNiWS9da2-Nm1BkFX6kqJL11KH0RBs1hrxXlcy8bi3Ax5KOGr58GokOtmCwLwVcbTvSYh1Y4YChjb2INOTf_aaboXwvE5MgkFNS3TMNlXsbaBVpeteW9ITkPwa4Z7NeDIiPn3PuVyXWjlQSUfajLrIbN8zJd8QUAUMFZ0Zdi2awbChr6Wc/s1024/Satan.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="832" data-original-width="1024" height="260" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlwo9QQ2Sj_WNiWS9da2-Nm1BkFX6kqJL11KH0RBs1hrxXlcy8bi3Ax5KOGr58GokOtmCwLwVcbTvSYh1Y4YChjb2INOTf_aaboXwvE5MgkFNS3TMNlXsbaBVpeteW9ITkPwa4Z7NeDIiPn3PuVyXWjlQSUfajLrIbN8zJd8QUAUMFZ0Zdi2awbChr6Wc/s320/Satan.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">To My Readers: This week I get a much needed respite thanks to my guest-poster <i style="font-weight: bold;">Lee. </i>As Halloween nears, and all things occult are celebrated, it's good to remind ourselves of one of the three threats to our salvation: the Devil. (The world and the flesh are the other two threats). <i style="font-weight: bold;">Lee </i>does a magnificent job in exposing the threat of Satan using top-notch theological sources. Feel free to comment and/or ask questions of<b><i> Lee.</i></b> As usual, if you have any specific questions or comments for me, I will reply as always, but it will take me a bit longer to respond this week.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">God bless you all, my dear readers---<b><i>Introibo</i></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><b><i><br /></i></b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><u>Satan: Our Constant Foe</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><i>By Lee</i></b></div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Throughout every age, people in some form or another have sought out religion as an answer to their problems. Even to this day we hear a lot about the apocalypse, the Anti-Christ, WWIII, etc. and so the common person can recognize the need for a high power. The problem is when those who seek a religion often get misled into a false one. From there they knock on the wrong doors and ask the wrong people for guidance. Even if a person gets misled it would seem that reason itself with the help of God's grace should be able to help a person be able to identify objective truth when presented, yet as many of us have seen it rather gets laughed to scorn, aggressively attacked, or dismissed without ever looking back into it. Indeed, it is like the story of the man in the gospel who went to hell and saw Abraham's bosom, where the poor man in the past life had entered and as he asks Abraham to warn his brethren so that they would not end up with him, Abraham responds thus, "And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead." (Luke 16:31) </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Is it ill-will? Is it falsely trusting in ones own ability to solve problems? Or is it something more sinister which causes man to frequent his folly? </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">The sixth session of the Council of Trent nails it in its decree on justification: "Nevertheless, let those who think themselves to stand, take heed lest they fall, and, with fear and trembling work out their salvation, in labors, in watchings, in alms-deeds, in prayers and oblations, in fastings and chastity: for, knowing that they are born again unto a hope of glory, but not as yet unto glory, they ought to fear for <b>the combat which yet remains with the flesh, with the world, with the devil</b>, wherein they cannot be victorious, unless they be with God's grace, obedient to the Apostle, who says; We are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh; for if you live according to the flesh, you shall die; but if by the spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live."</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Of the three-fold combat of man's struggle for salvation, the devil, who is the father of lies, of false religions, and false promises, will be discussed below. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><u>Is it Certain that the Devil Exists?</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">According to the book, <u>The Devil</u>, theologian Delaporte answers the question thus: </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">To most of our readers this question appears superfluous but we write for everyone, and in an age when people deny the existence of God without being sent to the lunatic asylum. Yes, certainly, there is an Evil Spirit, and even a multitude of evil spirits. For a time, at least in Europe, the devils avoided attracting attention. The philosophy of the eighteenth century had made the grossest materialism fashion able; people became accustomed to believe only what was palpable. Naturally, the Devil agreed to be forgotten, provided God was also forgotten. But materialism is too base, too absurd to last. Faith in God, a moment obscured, shone forth with renewed luster. No sooner it slept than it awoke this strange and terrible actor, banished for a time to the region of fancy, reappeared on the scene, and made himself talked of more than ever. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b>But where are the proofs of his existence? </b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b>1. In the unanimous belief of mankind.</b> In the beginning, say, with the Catholic Church, with the Jewish Synagogue, with the heretical and schismatic sects, the traditions of all nations, the Supreme Being created three sorts of beings: material beings, spiritual beings, and man, composed of spirit and matter. Among the pure spirits, several, having revolted against the Creator, lost, by their crime, the sovereign good. Once condemned, they became obstinate in evil, and incited man thereto. The Bible, which often mentions these evil spirits, names their chief Satan, Beelzebub, Lucifer it calls themselves bad angels, demons (a word which in the ancient authors sometimes means simply spirits) and devils. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">This belief makes manifest a providential plan so harmonious that it would of itself impress calm right reason. Above the created universe, the infinite spirit, whose thought conceived and whose power created all things. In the universe, all below, beings that reflect, without knowing them, the perfections of the Creator. These beings form an ascensional ladder, from step to step of which beauty goes on ever increasing . All above, beings who not only reflect, but know the perfections of the Supreme Being , and live a life like unto His—a life of intelligence, love, freedom. And, forming the tie between these two orders, humanity, which, by the body, dips into the material world, and, by the soul, enters into the spiritual world. “ In a word, matter— spirit soldered to matter—spirit disengaged from matter; there is a complete whole. These three parts of the universe must not be detached one from the other, as there would then be several universes; all a reconnected together—the material world, the human world, the spiritual world. If spiritual beings remain attached to the Supreme Good, they attract us toward it; if they depart from it, they turn us away from it. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">If, then, any one reason falsely, it is not mankind, for mankind believes in good and bad spirits; it is the individual who admires himself so very much that he can no more understand the possibility of a created being whose perfection exceeds his own. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b>2. The belief of mankind is based on the Divine Word itself. </b>For our sacred books speak often of the Devil, and St . John formally affirms not only that he exists, and that sinners are under his influence, but also that “the Son' of God appeared, that He might destroy the works of the Devil.” (Eph. I, chap. III.) </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">As every spirit—not excepting our soul, which is not seen by the corporal eye makes itself known by acts which can be attributed only to it, so (as we shall soon see) the demons have a ‘ thousand times manifested their existence by acts which cannot possibly be ascribed either to man, whom they strike , and whose power they exceed, or to God or the good spirits, to whose sanctity they are opposed.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">The existence of evil spirits is, therefore certain. The demons are guilty and reprobate spirits. The Manicheans, ancient heretics, audaciously taught the existence of a principle of Evil, eternal as God, the Principle of Good-- of a being thoroughly evil, in perpetual opposition to God. Monstrous error! Good alone is eternal and necessary. Evil is the fall of a being which came forth good from the Creator's hand. When that fall is voluntary, and consequently criminal, it is named sin. God tolerates evil-for a time-in order to offer a glorious field for the exercise of virtue. But it is absurd to imagine that creatures may go on unceasingly insulting the Creator; the hour of justice comes.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Satan is no longer, as modern romancers in religion and philosophy have dreamed, a mere allegorical personification of Sin, as the muse is of poetry or history. From Epicurus and Lucretius to Hugo and Littre, Taine and Renan, Atheists have been almost alone in denying the existence of the devil . Their denial is easily understood. How should the willfully blind, who no longer see even the sun, whose splendor all proclaim, perceive darkened, extinguished stars? But the Atheists and some few Deists are nothing before the Church, humanity, and the innumerable facts collected and attested by history. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">The demons are very real beings, but mere creatures. Originally they made part of the glorious army of the heavens, that is to say, of the angelic hosts, who, in the morning of creation, praised God in gladness, and of whom the army of stars is the magnificent symbol. Like us, but before us, the pure spirits were put to the proof. Stronger and more enlightened than man, the angels who failed in their duty were less excusable than man; hence they were irrevocably deprived of the Divine gifts, and forever separated from the Creator.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">A child was asked, “Who created the angels? ” The answer was easy: God. ”But who created the Devil?” The child reflected a while, then exclaimed: God made him an 'angel; he made himself a devil. Without knowing it, that child spoke as did the Church in the first canon of the fourth council of Lateran. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">In what did the crime of the demons consist? That is not precisely known, nor is it necessary that it should be known. According to grave theologians, the future incarnation of the Word was announced to the angels. Lucifer, their chief, refused to humble himself before the future Christ, inferior to him by his human nature, and drew into his rebellion a great number of spirits. Others have thought, with St. Thomas, that Lucifer and his accomplices deemed themselves able, by their own strength, to attain to supernatural bliss, and wished to gain it without the aid of their Creator. What is certain is, that they lost this beatitude for having, in the trial proposed to their free will, taken the haughty part of disobedience...</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b>Are the evil spirits responsible for all the mischief ascribed to them?</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Not always. A drunkard swears that the Devil appeared to him, spoke to him, struck him. In reality, the Devil simply reminded him of the tavern; the fumes of the liquor did the rest. A rascal, cleverly availing himself of the credulity of simpletons, gets up for himself the reputation of being a sorcerer, and boasts of having the Devil for his colleague, makes his clients pay for consultations with which Satan has nothing to do — every day our courts of justice condemn such tricks, and exculpate the Devil from a chimerical complicity. But whence comes it that people can, with some truth, attribute to the Devil mischief of which he is not the author? — From his bad reputation, most authentically established.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Humanity, expelled from the terrestrial paradise, under the weight of a condemnation the most terrible; then drowned in the waters of the Deluge; then plunged, with the exception of one small nation divinely protected, into the darkness and abominations of idolatry; "the Word made flesh, crucified; the blood of ten millions shed; the benign mission of the Church constantly obstructed by schisms, heresies, persecutions, and calumnies — there is a very incomplete abridgment of the incontestable works of the evil spirits in the moral and religious order.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">In the material order, diabolical action, like that of God and the good angels, is generally veiled under the appearance of events purely natural. The lightning that struck the house in which the children of Job were assembled seemed a purely physical effect: the Holy Scripture teaches us that this time Satan himself directed the electric fluid. One day St. Francis de Sales was blessing a church-yard; a torrent of rain prevented the ceremony. The saint, who was in no wise fainthearted, made an exorcism, and immediately the firmament recovered its serenity. Men have always been convinced that a host of calamities which occur in the world are not mere fortuitous combinations of the physical laws which govern matter. They believe in the indignation, and wrath, and trouble which he sends by evil angels," (Ps. Lxxvii, 49 ;) and, without neglecting physical means of struggling against pestilence and famine, they have recourse to prayer, and events have often proved that this weapon is the most powerful. Many times, after a procession in honor of the Blessed Virgin, a consecration to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the plague suddenly ceases. The materialist sees in this only a chance coincidence; popular sense sees differently, and it is not mistaken.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">"It is an impiety," says the learned Gerson, "and an error directly contrary to Holy Writ, to deny that the devils are the authors of many surprising effects. Those, who regard what is told of this as a fable would deserve severe reprehension. . . . Sometimes, even learned men are prone to this error, because they allow their faith to be weakened and the natural lights to be obscured. Their soul, wholly occupied with sensible things, refers all to the body, and cannot raise itself to the spiritual." {De error, circa art mcig,)</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Must it be said? The Christians of our times have been subjected to the materialistic atmosphere in which they live. "Without denying diabolical agency, in principle, they are always disposed to deny it in fact. To hear them, one would imagine that, fatigued with sixty centuries of mischievous activity, Satan had really turned hermit. Thus, when, some years ago, it was noised about that the venerable Cure d' Ars had to undergo the external assaults of the invisible enemy, who would believe it? Many ecclesiastics laughed, like the vulgar, at these supposed devilish tricks ! 'But what happened one day? It was at St. Trivier, where a mission was going on. During supper, there was a learned dissertation on the fancies of the good cur6, who eat too little, slept badly, and took the rats for the Devil. But, behold ! at midnight they are all suddenly awoke by a fearful uproar ; the house is all in confusion ; the doors bang, the windows shiver, the walls totter, and seem, by their crackling noise, as though they were going to fall ! In a moment every one is up. They remember that the Cure d' Ars has said, "Thou will not be surprised if you chance to hear some noise to-night." They rush to his room; he is sound asleep. " Get up," they cry, the presbytery is going to fall!" "Oh, I know well what it is,'^ he replies, smiling; "you must go to bed; there is nothing to fear." (See the Life, by Monnin.) Next day, no one laughed at M. Vianney.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Habitually more hidden, and for that reason more perfidious, diabolical agency is but too real; and if humanity were left unaided, it would long ago have . been crushed in an unequal contest.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><u><b>Transforming Themselves into Angels of Light</b></u></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Below is a story that can be found on the website mysticsofthechurch.com which explains how (at the time) a famous nun made a pact with two devils and how for 40 years they through her deceived a great many including those in her convent, kings, theologians etc. An interesting note taken from below was how Sts. Ignatius of Loyola and John of Avila were the few who were not fooled. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Sister Magdalena of the Cross (Magdalena de la Cruz) was born in Córdoba (Cordova) in Andalusia, Spain in 1487. Named after the St. Mary Magdalene, the one whom Church tradition remembers as the great <b><i>"..sinner from whom Jesus had cast out seven demons.”</i></b> (Mark 16:9), and who was also known for her extraordinary repentance. As for herself, Magdalena of the Cross too would one day become an extraordinary mystic, and later a repentant sinner, doing severe penances for her sins. Not even the great Saint Teresa of Avila would ever have as much prestige across Spain in her lifetime as Sr. Magdalena of the Cross! Her (apparent) outstanding piety and the miracles that she performed were known throughout Spain, and even much of Europe. So much so, that even the Emperor Charles V, the sovereign ruler of the Roman and Spanish Empire asked for a piece of the habit of Magdalena of the Cross to wrap around the future Prince Philip II at his birth, to give his royal son the<b><i> "assistance of a living saint from birth, to envelop him in Divine grace."</i></b> Incidentally, prince Phillip II later became the King of Spain in 1556.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>Little Magdalena's first vision</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">But for now, little Magdalena is just 5 years old, and she is already known in town for her remarkable devotion, which is out of the ordinary for a girl of her age. Not long after her fifth birthday, she is praying in Church when she hears music of remarkable sweetness. Then a beautiful young man, with thick, black hair appears to her, wearing a mantle so brilliant that she has to close her eyes. Hearing the story, some believe it to be Jesus. News of this event spreads throughout Córdoba, and many want to see little Magdalena.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Sorting out the heavenly apparitions from the demonic ones</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">The difficulty that we will now have in sorting out Magdalena's early life story is that as with all the mystics and their mystical graces, there is often the influence and appearence of the demonic along with the heavenly apparitions. Like in the case of the Biblical Job, God allows the devil to tempt and even attack the mystics, to test their faith, love and devotion. This is the case with most every mystic. And with Magdalena, the task of discernement of her obvious mystical gifts and graces is even more difficult in her early years, because there definitely was a period where Magdalena demonstrated authentic piety and deep devotion, with the sincerity and simplicity of a child. But we know that she made a pact with the devil, so there must have been a point where the heavenly apparitions slowed or even ceased altogether, and the diabolic apparitions took over.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">But for now, little Magdalena is living a simple life with her family who were poor artisans, and while Magdalena remains of exemplary modesty and conduct, the visions continue, one after another, and as time goes on this attracts the attention of many; so much so that one day she flees her home to take refuge in a nearby cave, where she once again falls into ecstasy. When she awakens, she discovers that she has been miraculously transported back to her bed by her guardian angel.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>Miraculous cures</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Soon, a person whom she believes to be Jesus appears to her and asks her to somewhat moderate her asceticism, so as not to compromise her fragile childhood health. He informs her that a great destiny awaits her, and that she will need her strength. She flies to the church to thank Jesus and on the way meets a man with a severe limp who asks her to lend him her hand to climb the Church steps. He has hardly climbed a few steps when he stands erect and with great surprise and excitement he dashes through the whole town crying out that he is healed!</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Magdalena herself goes into Church then falls into a deep ecstasy. Soon, someone comes in looking for her and realises that she is seeing a vision. Looking closely at her eyes, she sees in the reflection in her eyes the heavens and what seems to be the Holy Trinity surrounded by the Communion of Saints. Soon afterwards, like Jesus after the cure of the blind man, Magdalena is subjected to all sorts of interrogations to discover any subterfuge, none of which can apparently be found. Not long afterwards, a mute person also allegedly receives his speech through her intercession.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>Magdalena attempts to crucify herself</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">In 1497 at the age of ten, Magdalena is already quite beautiful, and in her purity she is very cautious to hide herself under long black dresses and skirts. Even so, she still finds herself too beautiful, and one day for penance she tries to crucify herself on the wall of her bedroom. She starts by nailing her two feet, then her left hand. Blood flows, and she faints from the atrocious pain. Her flesh tears and, falling heavily onto a chest, she breaks two ribs. Her parents call the doctor and he bandages all of her nail wounds, yet she is burning with desire to suffer terribly for the reparation of sins, and she repeatedly takes off the bandages, so as to suffer more. But this soon makes her very ill.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">On Easter Saturday, 1497, Magdalena is bedridden and seems to be dying, probaly because of infection from the wounds of her failed crucifixion. At midnight, she lets out a great scream, sits up on her bed, once more rips off her dressings, saying that she is healed. She says that it is Jesus himself, who has just appeared to her and has cured her.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>A prolonged fast and her first Holy Communion</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Three months before her First Holy Communion, Magdalena seemingly stops eating. The pleadings of her poor parents make no difference; she fasts right up until the Sunday of her first Holy Communion, surprisingly without losing her healthy appearance. On the day of the ceremony, at the precise moment of consecration, she lets out another cry and prostrates herself for a long time. When she exits the church, she explains that the Lord Himself put the Eucharist in her mouth, without her needing to approach the priest.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>Wounds seemingly heal overnight and the story of two stubby fingers</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">At sixteen, Magdalena contunes to astound many with her apparent extraordinary devotion and her remarkable desire to make reparation for sin. Many see her as a living saint- for who else but a saint could do such extraordinary penances? When she whips herself to bleeding point while doing penance, her wounds are miraculously healed the next day to everyones great surprise. She is healthy, and everything about her seems wholesome, except two fingers which have not grown like the others: at sixteen, they are no larger than the size of a child's pinky. Some say that these two fingers are those that Christ touched one night in her childhood, during an apparition.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>Magdalena becomes a Franciscan nun</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">In 1504, at age 17, Magdalena at last obtains what seems to be the great desire of her life: to become a Franciscan nun- a spiritual daughter of St. Francis and St. Clare. Because of her reputation for holiness, she is joyfully admitted to the Franciscan convent of Saint Elizabeth of the Angels in Cordova (Convento de Santa Isabel de los Ángeles), and she soon edifies and inspires the admiration of many of the nuns.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">There are however some "red flags" though. She is seemingly not too discrete about her spiritual life and merits; she inflicts severe mortifications upon herself, carries a heavy cross all around the convent, kisses her companions’ feet, and she seemingly stops eating completely, apparently living only on Holy Communion. All of these facts are cause for some concern, but she does seem very devout and is willing to do even the most menial and unwanted tasks, so her "extravagances" are for the most part downplayed, at least for now.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">After a few years as a postulant, in 1509, at age 22, she already has a reputation for sainthood, and because of this it is thought prudent to let her take her vows alone. The event is greatly anticipated and well prepared. All of the nobles seek to obtain a good place in the church and to add even more glory to the great day, the Archbishop himself has his throne covered by a dais of richly embroidered velvet.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">At last, the day of the ceremony arrives. Magdalena will now be known as Sister Magdalene of the Cross, in memory of the heroic crucifixion of her youth. The ceremony begins and she comes forward and kneels outside the sanctuary, and waits to hear the Cardinal’s speech. But rather than exhort the novice to the practice of christian virtue and piety, as is usual, he publicly asks her for her prayers and protection in support of himself and the diocese.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>The miraculous dove</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Afterwards at the Kyrie Eleison, something very remarkable happens: a dove, which seems to descend straight from the high catherdral ceiling, catches the eye of everyone. The dove lands on Magdalena's shoulder, and seems to speak into her ear. Afterwards it ascends up to a parapet, and remains there as if watching until the end of the ceremony. Afterwards it flies outside of the Church and those who run out to follow it see it rise almost striaght up, and for so long, that the sky finally seems to close over it. The news of these events spread like wildfire across the country and even spills outside its borders.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">As the weeks and months progress after her solemn profession, Sr. Magdalene de la Cruz (as she is know known as) soon exhibits extraordinary faculties. Without ever going outside the walls, she seemingly knows many things that happens in Cordoba and elsewhere, particularly in the neighbouring Franciscan convent, and also in the aristocratic and noble homes in Cordoba. As in the past she continues to go into ecstasy often, and if she happens to be out of her cell while doing so, her companions carry her to her cell then withdraw discretely. Sometimes their curiosity gets the better of them and they listen not far away and often hear a gentle muttering of unknown words and also moans of suffering too.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>Her fame continues to spreads across Spain and abroad</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">As can be expected, the gossip around all of these remarkable events swells and continues to spill outside of Spain. Correspondence floods the convent; people from all over petitioning Magdalena of the Cross for her prayers and spiritual help. Generous donations pour in also, and Magdalena’s convent is buzzing like a beehive with activity.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>Magdalena's prophesies</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">It is at this time that another prodigious mystical gift of Sr. Magdalena appears: she can seemingly predict the future. In 1515, she announces the death of King Ferdinand for the following year, which comes to pass as foretold, and also the regency of Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros over the kingdom of Castile. In sign of gratitude, Cardinal Jiménez has a beautiful vermilion ostensory given to her, which increases the admiration and devotion of her fellow sisters and others even more.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>An unexpected and remarkable pregnancy on the day of the Annunciation</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">On March 25, 1518, the day of the Feast of the Annunciation, Magdalena discreetly tells her Abbess some news which fills the pious woman with great confusion and perplexity--Magdalena states that on the preceding night, that is, the solemn Vigil of the Annunciation, she had conceived the child Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit. Thus Magdalene of the Cross, the shining light of the convent of Saint Elizabeth of the Angels, is pregnant.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Forseeing the enormous scandal that such news would inevitably provoke, the Abbess orders Magdalena to keep absolutely quiet about it for now, while she prays for guidence as to how to proceed. As the days pass, the Abbess discretely watches Magdalena and, after a few weeks, she is obliged to bow to the obvious evidence, for Magdalena's abdomen is noticeably rounding out, and the moment is going to come when they will no longer be able to hide this "work" of the Holy Spirit....or of nature?</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>The nuns are divided concerning Magdalena's alleged miraculous pregnancy</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">The nuns are all informed of the situation, and soon the convent is divided into two camps. On the one side, there are those who doubt the miraculous conception, some perhaps because they feel a hidden envy for Magdalena. Others because it is such a extraordinary thing that has never happened outside of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and there is nothing in Sacred Scripture that would point to such a second birth of Jesus into this world.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">At this point most do not yet actually doubt her sainthood, however all these extraordinary things are without a doubt cause for careful discernment. And then there is all the generous donations that have been flowing in in honor of the "living saint", and the countless individuals who request her intercession and prayers...all of this tends to relegate the other sisters to a lesser position in the convent, and causes them to feel somewhat inadequate in their spirituality and the practice of virtue. Certainly many of them accuse themselves of jealousy to their confessor, and must have harbored some envy towards her. And so to some, for various reasons this supernatural pregnancy appears inconceivable, most importantly because such a miracle is not announced in the Holy Scriptures.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">On the other side, there are those, also numerous, who say that God works in mysterious ways, and that the Most High has been pouring all sorts of extraordinary graces on his humble servant for many years. Understandably they cannot fathom how she could have possibly stained her purity; she who is so seemingly devout and pious, and besides she never leaves the convent grounds. To that, the doubters reply that she receives her confessor alone, and also that the bars on the convent fence are so widely spaced as to allow the passage of a much more cumbersome being than the Holy Spirit.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">However, a vow of silence is agreed upon by both camps, however some cannot help themselves and soon the extraordinary news is spreading through all of Cordova and abroad. But how does Magdalena respond? She treats all of the news and insinuations with absolute and complete indifference.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Seemingly even more devout in the practice of virtue, she redoubles the severity of her penances, walking barefoot on pieces of broken glass and lashing her back and shoulders with instruments of severe mortification, along with wearing a rough cilice discipline.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>The Archbishop orders a medical examination of Sr. Magdalena</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Hearing the news, the Archbishop of Seville sends three experienced matron "midwives" to examine Magdalena. Having very carefully examined her, they announce that while it is indeed true that the nun is pregnant, it is also very much a fact that her virginity is completely intact and unquestionable. Prayers of thanksgiving explode in all the churches and throughout the land, and inside the convent the doubters and gossipers are reduced to utter silence and penances for their apparent doubts .</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">On Christmas Eve, 1518, Magdalena confirms that she will very soon give birth. A little house at the end of the garden is prepared for her, for in a vision her guardian angel recommends that she give birth alone, so as to suffer more without any human assistance. Magdalena remains locked up in the little house for three days, during which time the whole community remains in prayer. The story that Magdalena tells when she comes out is absolutely prodigious.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">She relates that during Christmas night, at midnight, she gives birth to a magnificent baby who radiates so much light that she can see as if it were high noon. The cold air of her chamber is suddenly miraculously heated and the divine child doesn’t suffer at all from the cold.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">During this time, strangely Magdalena’s hair begins to grow very fast and, from crow black that it was, it changes to the brightest blond, with its long length allowing her to swaddle the infant child in it, and keep him warm in the softest of tunics.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">As proof of the miracle, she cuts a few of her blond curls before her hair turns back to normal. The nuns then compete for a few of the miraculous hairs to keep as precious relics.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Continuing with the story of the remarkable birth, Sr. Magdalene de la Cruz states that on the morning after Christmas she found herself alone, the beautiful little child gone, but with her breast chapped from suckling him, along with all of the stigmata of recent delivery still on her body. Soon the matron midwives are sent again to check on the veracity of these facts and to verify that Magdalena’s virginity has not suffered from the event. A solemn 'Te Deum' is then sung in the cathedral and donations flow in like never before. <b>But in truth this entire event was orchestrated and perpetrated by the devil, in particular by two demons named Balban and Patorrio, as we will soon discover......</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">A few people continue to gossip, however, so in an attempt to put a definitive end to the calumnies an exorcist monk arrives at the convent one morning, while the nun is in ecstasy. He approaches her and pushes two long needles in her body, one into her foot, and the other into her hand. The needles penetrate deeply, yet Magdalena remains perfectly insensitive to them, without any reaction whatsoever, which confirms in the minds of many that her ecstasies are authentic. When the needles are are withdrawn, a little stream of blood flows from the wounds.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>Her fast from food is subjected to a stringent test</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">In spite of this proof, Sr. Magdalena is subjected to another test, this time concerning her abstinence from food; a fast which she allegedly has been carrying out for eleven years. For, it was being insinuated that certain novices were secretly bringing her food.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">So the Abbess then requests that a vigilant guard of two monks from the nearby Franciscan monastery be positioned at the entrance to Magdalena's cell with a 24 hour watch; the two monks taking turns with others in a rotating schedule. Additionally, she even orders that the window shutters of the chamber be nailed shut. After a few days, it is discovered that Magdalena has suddenly disappeared. They look for her everywhere, and soon find her in the completely opposite part of the garden, asleep near a fountain. The monks assure the abbess that they have not relaxed their surveillance for an instant. For her part, Sr. Magdalena reveals that it is Saint Francis himself who transported her to this place. Of course nobody is able to give any explanation for this prodigy, and it is concluded that this is but another miracle in the extraordinary life of Sister Magdalena of the Cross.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><u><b>A Cathedral is built in greater part through the donations given to Sister Magdalena.</b> </u></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">At this point, Sr. Magdalena now has a greater prestige than the Abbess herself. She is consulted for all the major decisions that need to be taken by the community. Her advice is even sought from outside, by great and small alke, and soon Magdalena and the other nuns who have befriended her are better informed of what is happening in the city than the Archbishop himself.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">In 1523, the Archbishop is in need of a new Cathederal, and because of the abundant donations sent to Sr. Magdalena her convent of Saint Elizabeth of the Angels is the richest in Spain, and is able to furnish by far the greatest part of the money needed for its construction. Because of this, Sr. Magdalena is consulted on the new cathedral’s appearance.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>Sr. Magdalena de la Cruz is elected Abbess</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">And so it is that for twenty-nine years Magdalena's notoriety has grown in proportion to her alleged virtues, and she has led an existence which, although full of sometimes astounding events, has contributed for the most part in a positive way to the convent’s enrichment through her practice of virtue and the apparent signs from heaven which inspire the faithful. Always seemingly pious and disposed to sacrifice, she inspires and fascinates the Spanish high clergy, and many feel that she should have a higher position in the convent more suited to her merits. It is suggested that she should become the Abbess, since as time passes the current Abbess is becoming infirm. In a show of alleged humility, Magdalena protests and she uses her poor administrative abilities as a reason, stating: “Let them elect Sister Isabella of the Holy Trinity instead.”</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">However, many of her fellow nuns want her as abbess so much that, on February 17, 1533 Magdalena is elected Abbess, in presence of the Order’s Superior, by forty-four votes as opposed to the seven given to Isabella of the Holy Trinity.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>The new abbess Magdalena encourages severe mortifications and penances</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">With Magdalena now in charge, in the beginning life in the convent hardly changes, except Mother Magdalena seems to have a strong penchant for the practice of severe penances, and she exhorts her religious sisters to do likewise. In doing so, the new Abbess sometimes provokes very difficult scenes.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">And so it is that during Confession the sisters, by hypocrisy or fear of too difficult penances, now usually only accuse themselves of small faults. Hearing of this, Mother Magdalena enters into holy wrath which soon causes unspeakable fear into her sisters. She orders them to admit to more severe sins, and the poor nuns become frightened by the severity of the abbess. Some burst into tears, and there are a couple of others who astonishingly go into a sort of semi-possession, rolling on the floor and arching their bodies, before slowly returning back to normal.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">To reprimand the more guilty ones for their alleged spiritual weaknesses, the Abbess orders some to crawl on their knees in the refectory and make the sign of the cross with their tongues on the shoes of all the assembled nuns.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Soon, the confessions of the nuns are more to Mother Magdalena's liking, supposedly reveling the sisters true state of sin. Penances are now measured to the alleged gravity of the faults, for according to Abbess Magdalena, it is necessary to totally expiate sins, and to succeed in this endeavor the common cord whip disciplines are replaced with iron tipped ones.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">As for the manner and the times in which the discipline (i.e.- scourge or lash/whip) should be applied, the Abbess modernizes it. Before, when the occasion came for extreme penance and use of the discipline (i.e. -scourge or lash/whip), the candles were extinguished, so that no one else could see the nuns who chose to use this form of severe mortification. It was the nuns own choice to do so, and it was done in darkness so that no one might know who is choosing to discipline themselves. This is to preserve the nuns humility.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">But from now on, Mother Magdalena orders that the candles are to remain lit, and the nuns are given all the necessary time to openly whip themselves in the performance of bodily mortification and penance, in the full light and presence of the other nuns. According to her, the sight of the self inflicted penance should be an encouragement for all of them to likewise do the same, or be exposed to the indignation of others, along with provoking interior feelings of inadequacy and spiritual weakness and discouragement amongst many of the nuns. Knowing that Mother Magdalena was being guided by the devil at this time (which we shall soon see), it is assumed that these extraordinary penances were an attempt by the devil to instill spiritual pride in some of the nuns, and discouragement and despair in others</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Gone now are the "little penances" consisting of begging food from each table; for according to Mother Magdalena a soul with pride can submit to that easily enough. For according to her it is severe mortification which is the salt of true penitence. The nuns are now encouraged to remain on their knees on boards garnished with rounded iron nail heads; they are encouraged to wear cilices or belts with small iron spikes pointing inwards and are encouraged to stretched out in doorways so that the others nuns can walk upon them and some wear a crown made of thorns. Yet these extreme severities seemingly do not harm the outward devotion of most of the community to their new Abbess. She is twice re-elected with the majority of the votes. No one dares, it seems, to question her authority and power within the community.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>Mother Magdalena relaxes other rules of the Order</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Yet, surprisingly, the abbess Magdalena of the Cross relaxes some long-standing rules of the Order that have existed for centuries. This of course causes concern first and foremost amongst the other Franciscan communities in her order, and also with the Archbishop and the priests within the local Church itself. Yet, as in the past, her reputation for holiness goes before her, and she is allowed to relax many rules of the Order within her own convent.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>St Francis allegedly appears to her, and dispenses her from Confession</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Not only does Magdalena on the one hand encourage severe penances and mortifications, and on the other hand she relaxes some of the rules of the Order, but now apparently because of her "saintliness" Saint Francis, the founder of her Order allegedly appears to her one night and dispenses her from having to go to Confession in the future.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">And for the confessions of her fellow nuns, she explains that it is an insult to them to be separated from their confessor by a grille. In her opinion, they are to sit face to face with the confessor. This causes quite a stir amongst not only the sisters, but also with the priests themselves, as such a practice is unheard of throughout Catholic Spain at that time.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Additionally, Mother Magdalena of the Cross authorizes the sisters to no longer fast on Fridays "so as to be able to support even greater mortifications". It is the belief of many of her fellow sisters that this great reform of the Franciscan Order that she is undertaking will bring new prosperity to the convent, and to the Order itself. It is no wonder then that within a couple of decades the great Spanish reformer and mystic, the Carmelite<b> St. Teresa of Avila </b>would face such heavy opposition to the reforms that she was endeavoring to instill within the Carmelite Order in Spain only a few short years later.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Soon afterwards, Mother Magdalena states that on the previous evening, a dead woman, (presumably a soul from purgatory?) had come to confess to her. She immediately wants the young nuns and novices to confess to her at night in her cell. This most recent innovation of course causes even more murmurs and doubts, particularly from Isabella of the Holy Trinity who still hasn’t forgotten being beaten by Magdalena in the 1533 elections, and on whom Magdalena (as Abbess) has inflicted the severest humiliations upon ever since.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>Mother Magdalena receives the admiration of many top dignitaries</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Yet, amidst these troubling new reforms and directives from Mother Magdalena, the admiration that she receives from the greats of her time seem to easily blunt any criticisms– for Queen Isabella of Spain herself sends Mother Magdalena her portrait and beseeches Magdalena for her prayers, and also the Archbishop of Seville often writes to her, and in his letters he calls her <i>"the happiest creature in the world,"</i> presumably because of all the alleged heavenly graces that she supposedly receives.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">The noblest ladies, while pregnant and nearing their deliveries would send the layette to be blessed by her, as did the Empress Isabel before the birth of Philip II. When, in 1535, the Emperor Charles V was starting from Barcelona for the expedition to Tunis, he sent his banner to C6rdova that she might bestow on it her blessing. Cardinal Manrique, the inquisitor-general, and Giovanni di Reggio, the papal nuncio, made pilgrimages to visit her, and it is said that even the pope sent to ask her prayers for the Christian Republic, although it should be said that this was often a common practice of the time for prioresses such as Mother Magdalena who were considered devout, for since they were in charge of their respective convents, the pope and the high prelates would often request their prayers in union with the sisters in their convents, for the benefit of the Church or their local dioceses.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>The doubts about Mother Magdalena begin to mount</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">And so it is that the revelations and prodigies that direct and guide Mother Magdalena seem to cause her to make decisions that are more and more contestable and disconcerting. And now once again she reveals more troubling revelations one morning:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><i>“The Holy Virgin has appeared to me and led me about the corridors last night. She smiled at you, Sister" and then gazing at one of those who had been opposing her "but she only gave a long look of scorn to you.”</i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Understandably, these revelations strongly displease those who are the victims. Their protestations join those of the families who, outside, see their daughters refused entrance into the convent, because for example one of their ancestors were perhaps Jewish. Mother Magdalena of course receives her information from the Holy Virgin Herself, but in the families, indignation and anger provoke the growing attitude of doubt concerning the supposed heavenly guidance recieved by the abbess.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>The 1542 elections bring a surprising result</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">During the next elections for abbess, Mother Magdalena receives only a handful of votes, and Isabella of the Holy Trinity is elected by a large margin. In reparation (and perhaps some retaliation for her own humiliations?) that same evening, she obliges Magdalena to make as many signs of the cross on the floor with her tongue as there are tiles in the refectory.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">In the middle of this, Magdalena the former Abbess falls into ecstasy. Always when this would happen in the past, the sisters would carry her to her cell. Now, she is left where she is in the refectory for a good part of the night. After the "ecstasy" she finally returns to her cell on her own.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">With doubts continuing to mount, Magdalena is again suspected of receiving food clandestinely, as she is still said to be fasting on a daily basis for over thirty years now.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Add to this, one day, a little iron box containing Communion wafers is brought to the Abbess. This box, found under Magdalena’s bed, seems to prove that the miracle of spontaneous Communion, repeated many times in the past, has been just a trick.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>A demonic presence is detected</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">In 1543, she falls gravely ill. This seems a good occasion for the Abbess to oblige her to make a general confession of her entire life. But at the moment when the confessor puts his stole on in preparation for her confession, Magdalena immediately goes into convulsions. The priest suspects a demonic presence, so he sends for a doctor whom he knows to be also well versed in the spiritual life. He examines Magdalena and notices that during one of her ecstasies, Magdalena’s eyes do not remained fixed, which is one of the distinctive marks of real ecstasies. However, he stabs her with a needle and obtains no reaction. But when he wisely dips the needle in holy water, Magdalena lets out a moan. This immediately draws suspicion and concern that Sr. Magdalena may be infested or even possessed by a demon.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">As time progresses, Magdalena's illness continues to get worse. Seemingly out of character, she is now worried, and often asks the doctor to keep her informed on the evolution of her illness. One December day, she hears:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><i>“You are dying. You will not see another Christmas.”</i></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Greatly anguished, Magdalena suddenly twists on her bed and then rises up and lets out mysterious words:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><i>“1544!...The forty years as announced!; I am a cursed dog! Take me to Hell!”</i></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Then she falls back into her bed and begins uttering revolting blasphemies before suddenly being taken from her bed by an invisible force and held in mid-air. She then falls heavily onto the bed several times, but apparently without hurting herself.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">After some reflection, the Abbess decides to have a very old and experienced priest, Rev. Don Juan of Cordova called in, and she asks him to examine, and if need be exorcise Magdalena immediately. Not long after visiting Magdalena the old man looks at her and orders:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><i>“I order you in the Name of Jesus to leave this poor woman and dare to say your name!”</i></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">The demon first lets out a terrible cry in which the name “Balban” is recognized. Later during exorcisms it was discovered that another demon named "Patorrio" was also influencing her. The demonic laughing intensifies and the words uttered are horrible. The demon glories in all the disorder that he has been able to cause over so many years in the convent, and swears that he will return...</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Thus the Rev. Don Juan of Cordova is able to establish at least a solid case of demonic infestation, and perhaps even possession, and the news spreads first among the nuns, and soon afterwards amongst the clergy and townspeople of Cordova, and later throughout the whole of Spain. The following day however, the Provincial of the Franciscans goes in person to the dying nun’s bedside. He remains there for several hours and receives a complete confession, of which he says nothing.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Yet all those who meet him afterwards notice that he is carrying a very heavy burden, a frightful secret; a nightmare which has been a whole lifetime; the lifetime of the “saint” Magdalena of the Cross, the diabolic Abbess of Cordova.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><u><b>Sister Magdalena of the Cross admits to a 40 year pact with the devil</b></u></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Next, an Inquisitor is sent to investigate the thorny matter by the express order of Cardinal Juan Pardo de Tavera, the Primate of Spain. He is much younger than the Rev. Don Juan of Cordova and he inspires her with confidence. She reveals to him that the beautiful dark-haired young man who appeared to her at the age of five was in fact the devil. He had promised her fame and the respect of everyone, if she would consent to obey him always.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">It is also Satan who leaves his mark by touching her two fingers which from then forward stop growing. And it is also he who teaches her the subterfuge of the wafers, and he assists her with the simulation of ecstasies. Her cries in the night are in no way inspired by the ecstatic love that she has for the Creator, but by the demon’s evil caresses.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Upon hearing such disconcerting admissions, the Inquisitor is horrified and almost instinctively he makes the sign of the Cross upon himself. Immediately, Sr. Magdalena starts to insult the priest with vile and abhorrent words. She then begins to roll around the floor in her cell, and bites anything she can, while striking indecent poses and mimicking the vile copulations that she has performed with Balban for nearly forty years.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Because he is an experienced Inquisitor, the good monk had asked the older, more experienced nuns to stay in the corridor to write down the fallen Magdalena's words, so as to be able to document and later serve as witnesses. From here, Sr. Magdalena de la Cruz' case is well documented and quickly prepared.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>The Exorcisms of Sister Magdalena begin</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">During the extended course of interrogations that were part of the ongoing exorcism during which Balban is very reluctantly dislodged from Magdalena, it is discovered that the most wicked and hideous means were used to undermine Magdalena’s soul as a child. It was believed that he originally chose her because she was in fact very pious and devoted to God, and so in his terrible wickedness he earnestly sought to despoil God of one of His favorites. But, we shall soon see how God wins triumphantly in the end.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">During the ongoing exorcisms it is learned that when Magdalena became a young adult, the demon Balban ceased to appear to her as a beautiful young man, as he had been doing since she was age five. One night, when the young girl was waiting for him as usual, he presented himself to her in the form of a shimmering mist which condenses and takes the form of a very tall man with long hair, who radiates a reddish light.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">She cries out “Jesus”, but this, of course, greatly displeases the demon, who lifts her with his burning hand and drops her on the ground. She is then forced to contemplate this horrid creature who now rises before her in a horrible metamorphosis, from a man into a vile beast.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">The infernal creature is repulsive and the possessed nun describes in horror his wide, flat nose, his twisted horns and his toothless mouth. He commanded her to immediately become his wife, and he assures her that she will not lose her virginity, and he promises that her apparent sainthood would only grow in measure with the supposed unimaginable pleasures that she would enjoy with him. Lacking in spiritual fortitude; vanquished, Magdalena then gives in, and it is again the dark-haired, and very attractive young man that she now receives in her.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Next she confesses that it was also the devil who came to feed her in secret, and that she had really been pregnant by him. She had been told by him that she risked nothing if she followed his instructions. It was to play a joke by troubling the minds of the nuns and the Spanish clergy and laity that he had made her pregnant with an monstrous caterpillar, which escaped from her body with a loud wind that famous Christmas night, before changing into Balban, and re-possessing her with unprecedented vigor.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>A few holy and well known individuals were not fooled</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">And so it is that the whole of Christendom discovers with horror that she of whom most everyone thought was God’s most-beloved, was in fact the most-beloved creature of the devil. Yet some of Sr. Magdalena's contemporaries were not so easily fooled by her false mysticism, like the great St Ignatius Loyola who was incredulous and in 1541, it is said that he severely reproved Martin de la Santa Cruz, who endeavored to win him over towards Sr. Magdalena, for accepting exterior signs without seeking for the true interior ones; and the great St John of Avila (who is soon to be declared a Doctor of the Church) was also very skeptical and, when he was in Cordova, he was discreetly denied access to her.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>Sr. Magdalena of the Cross becomes like her namesake, St. Mary Magdalene and deeply repents of the demons that were possessing her</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">As the Scriptures relate, Jesus had cast out seven horrible demons that were possessing St. Mary Magdalene,(Mark 16:9) and she became known as the great, repentant sinner. Tradition tells us that she spent the rest of her life in a cave making penance and reparation for her manifold sins, and she became a most extraordinary Saint. In fact, Jesus chose St Mary Magdalene to be one of the first witnesses to His glorious Resurrection, as Holy Scripture tells us.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>The judgement of the Religious Tribunal</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">As for the once renowned Sr. Magdelena de la Cruz, now fully exorcised and free of the demons who are forced to reveal that they are leaving forever the body and soul of the possessed woman, she is then judged by the religious tribunal on May 3, 1546.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">The Grand Inquisitor of the religious tribunal is Cardinal Jimenez, now the Primate of Spain, appointed by Isabella of Castile herself, and it is because of this that Magdalena is transferred to the Alcazar prisons to be further interrogated.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>The demons Balban and Patorrio receive the majority of the blame</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Sr. Magdalena is now sixty-one years old and she is extraordinarily repentant for all that she has done and she begs the court to put a rapid end to her torments and deliver her to the purifying flames. The judges however decide otherwise. Because of her great age, her sincere confessions and the quality of her repentance her deserved sentence is greatly mitigated. And rightfully so, they consider her to be a pitiful victim of the demon and perhaps they remember well the days of her glory when they too had exalted in having what was believed to be such an extraordinary saint in their midst. And so the inquisitors place a large portion of the blame on the demons Balban and Patorrio, most especially Balban, and not so much on Magdalena herself, since she was just an inexperienced youth when the demon(s) began influencing her. In short, they feel that as a youth Magdalena was heavily intimidated by the demon, so they conclude that her culpability is greatly lessened because of her age at the time.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">The Catholic Church relies on the principle that divine works are eternal and infinite. Those of the demon, on the other hand, are always limited in time and space. If Magdalena confesses, it is because, in 1544, her pact with the devil has arrived at its end. It is fear of Hell, as she says herself, which precipitates her revelations. And it is also God who in His infinite love and mercy inspires all of her admissions, and inspires and guides her deep repentance. And it is God who assures her that she will live if she confesses. She would become even more a heroine in repentance than she was in false virtue and fame.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">So the judges decide that Sr. Magdalena is to be led to the scaffold with a gag in her mouth, a Spartan cord around her neck, and a candle in her hand. She is to remain exposed there for all to see for the time period of a High Mass, and that she should then abjure her manifold errors. For three months, she must keep her face exposed and cannot wear the black veil, and she must always walk last in all of the movements of convent life.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">She abjures and repents in tears, in front of the Cathedral that she had had raised thanks to her deceptions in union with the two demons. She is also ordered to go to a different Franciscan convent in Burgos, where she lives long years or repentance and expiation without ever falling again into the slightest error.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">At a young age, Magdalena succumbed to a great pride and a false demonic promise that offered her prestige and power. But the great and small of her time were all later sure that her final deep humility and repentance had made her quite worthy of Paradise. Sister Magdalena de la Cruz died in 1560 at the age of 74.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Today, the name of this Sister Magdalena of the Cross is all but forgotten and her remarkable story is practically unknown. However, the great lawyer and writer, Maurice Garcon, for whom Magdalena is an important historical figure, documents how she was in fact very well-known throughout Christendom in the 16th and 17th centuries, and how many of the theological and demonological treatises make precise and detailed references to her case. In fact during this time period the many facts presented in theological books concerning demonic influences are illustrated by the statements and documents drawn from her trial.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">And it is from the transcript of her trial that Maitre Maurice Garcon drew up his remarkable book on her life, using the transcript from her trial. Louis Pauwels used Maitre Garcon's book (among other references) for his resume of Sr Magdalena's life.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">According to him there are only two copies of this very precious manuscript in the world, one in London and the other in Paris.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b><u>The important lessons learned through the extraordinary case of Magdalena of the Cross </u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Magdalena had arrived so high in her reputation for sainthood that she had been the counseller of kings, emperors, and above all, of the great Church dignitaries. Yet the trial’s conclusions about this are very interesting. The outcome of the long and detailed trial by the judges concludes that in the end the only real dupe in this affair is the devil, himself. His subterfuges have turned against him: by intimidating and perverting Magdalena, he has in the end only reinforced the faith of the people, and she who had been submissive to him for so long, gloriously escapes from his wicked rule in the end, through the power and mercy of God. And Truth overcomes the devils lies and the deceptions that he inspires through his demons.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><u>Discernment of Spirits</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">Perhaps a good remedy to meditate on is St. Ignatius of Loyola's <u>Spiritual Exercises</u> concerning how to discern spirits. If It worked for him regarding the above story of Sr. Magdalena, than it should work for those who are serious in the spiritual life. His lists of rules are as follows: </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b>First Rule.</b> It is proper to God and to His Angels in their movements to give true spiritual gladness and joy, taking away all sadness and disturbance which the enemy brings on. Of this latter it is proper to fight against the spiritual gladness and consolation, bringing apparent reasons, subtleties and continual fallacies. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b>Second Rule.</b> It belongs to God our Lord to give consolation to the soul without preceding cause, for it is the property of the Creator to enter, go out and cause movements in the soul, bringing it all into love of His Divine Majesty. I say without cause: without any previous sense or knowledge of any object through which such consolation would come, through one’s acts of understanding and will. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b>Third Rule.</b> With cause, as well the good Angel as the bad can console the soul, for contrary ends: the good Angel for the profit of the soul, that it may grow and rise from good to better, and the evil Angel, for the contrary, and later on to draw it to his damnable intention and wickedness. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b>Fourth Rule</b>. It is proper to the evil Angel, who forms himself under the appearance of an angel of light, to enter with the devout soul and go out with himself: that is to say, to bring good and holy thoughts, conformable to such just soul, and then little by little he aims at coming out drawing the soul to his covert deceits and perverse intentions. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b>Fifth Rule.</b> We ought to note well the course of the thoughts, and if the beginning, middle and end is all good, inclined to all good, it is a sign of the good Angel; but if in the course of the thoughts which he brings it ends in something bad, of a distracting tendency, or less good than what the soul had previously proposed to do, or if it weakens it or disquiets or disturbs the soul, taking away its peace, tranquility and quiet, which it had before, it is a clear sign that it proceeds from the evil spirit, enemy of our profit and eternal salvation. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b>Sixth Rule.</b> When the enemy of human nature has been perceived and known by his serpent’s tail and the bad end to which he leads on, it helps the person who was tempted by him, to look immediately at the course of the good thoughts which he brought him at their beginning, and how little by little he aimed at making him descend from the spiritual sweetness and joy in which he was, so far as to bring him to his depraved intention; in order that with this experience, known and noted, the person may be able to guard for the future against his usual deceits. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b>Seventh Rule.</b> In those who go on from good to better, the good Angel touches such soul sweetly, lightly and gently, like a drop of water which enters into a sponge; and the evil touches it sharply and with noise and disquiet, as when the drop of water falls on the stone. And the above-said spirits touch in a contrary way those who go on from bad to worse. The reason of this is that the disposition of the soul is contrary or like to the said Angels. Because, when it is contrary, they enter perceptibly with clatter and noise; and when it is like, they enter with silence as into their own home, through the open door. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><b>Eighth Rule.</b> When the consolation is without cause, although there be no deceit in it, as being of God our Lord alone, as was said; still the spiritual person to whom God gives such consolation, ought, with much vigilance and attention, to look at and distinguish the time itself of such actual consolation from the following, in which the soul remains warm and favored with the favor and remnants of the consolation past; for often in this second time, through one’s own course of habits and the consequences of the concepts and judgments, or through the good spirit or through the bad, he forms various resolutions and opinions which are not given immediately by God our Lord, and therefore they have need to be very well examined before entire credit is given them, or they are put into effect.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><u>Conclusion</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both;">We live in a time where disorder, confusion, and wickedness flood the earth, just as pope Pius XII predicted would happen after his reign. It is also note-worthy that from the eyes of the world, this month (October), as it does every year is preparing for the glorification the devil's favorite holiday, Halloween. Who needs the devil to transform himself into and angel of light when the world is so lost that it already embraces abomination, blasphemy, apostasy, and eternal death without putting up a fight? For those who have the true faith and who are in the true Church, beware of your enemy who goes about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour and add some St. Michael prayers, such as his Chaplet, to your daily routine. </div></div>Introibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.com27tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-34759353753123969282023-10-16T04:00:00.001-07:002023-10-16T14:57:55.089-07:00The Occult-Suicide Connection <p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMU7_ekEP3j1ZLM6e4EQc0WODHwY3B0rq4GIk3NoOieYTYYbtBqJ8OAi90CH18OnLgbALmUc9K3Ou3dwBabmLvF3V4cHsZvgJNhmsjzp1caBBa00lvhudXJO89g2zp8jXEE3MV9Y0n0Mb2zGcKWHw8BbstV1MRUln8U7p0uEHSE9IKEys2D00CTv83FXA/s900/suicide.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="515" data-original-width="900" height="183" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMU7_ekEP3j1ZLM6e4EQc0WODHwY3B0rq4GIk3NoOieYTYYbtBqJ8OAi90CH18OnLgbALmUc9K3Ou3dwBabmLvF3V4cHsZvgJNhmsjzp1caBBa00lvhudXJO89g2zp8jXEE3MV9Y0n0Mb2zGcKWHw8BbstV1MRUln8U7p0uEHSE9IKEys2D00CTv83FXA/s320/suicide.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div>I have often written upon the "occult explosion," or "occult invasion," or "occult revival" in society since Vatican II. It is like an explosion because it is dangerous and leaves much damage. It is like an invasion because it is coming at us from all angles, and in ways most wouldn't expect. It is a revival insofar as (based on my research) there is more occult activity (both proportionately and in sheer numbers) since the days of the Old Testament. Recently, I came across this article, written in 2017, which demonstrates exactly this point. The website containing the article is <i style="font-weight: bold;">non-religious, </i>and well worth reprinting here:<div><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;"><b><i><u>As occult practices are on the rise</u></i></b>, contemporary theologians become increasingly interested in psychology, with many Christian authors wrestling with the question of <b><i><u>how demons can influence mental disorders.</u></i></b></span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">It is only fair to say, people with psychological problems should receive psychological treatment: and indeed <b><i><u>the majority of therapists will point blank refuse to link depression with virtually any form of witchcraft, magic or occult involvement. But an increasing number of theologians appear less inclined to accept occultism as an innocuous pastime.</u></i></b></span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">So, the question is: Can we screen episodes of mental illness from, literally, the devil's work?</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">While many forms of depression result from a chemical imbalance, it is usually a combination of events and a variety of long-term or personal factors, rather than one immediate issue that breed anxiety and depression. And as any mental disorder goes, it will be medical practitioners and therapists who administer treatments upon tracing the root cause of the problem.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">But whereas it may be difficult to tell whether certain patterns of depressive behavior are innate or inherited, the article published last week in<i><b> Open Theology</b></i> suggests, <b><i><u>a contact with the Satanic and occult rituals may trigger off psychopathological reactions.</u></i></b> Psychopaths are generally less likely to suffer from typical depressive disorders, but drawing upon an extensive research, Dr. Zlatko Sram from Croatian Center for Applied Social Research argues, that <b><i><u>people who practice black magic or have otherwise occult bondage in their history are particularly susceptible to comorbidity of depression and psychopathy.</u></i></b></span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><b><i><u>The author conducted a survey on over one thousand participants and found strong evidence that people suffering from depression and psychopathy simultaneously are attracted to satanic practices as a means of obtaining magical power and control over their destiny—regardless of their sex or ethnic origin.</u></i></b> The research categorized different esoteric practices that spanned from psychic séances, through black magic, to engaging with an occult society or reading books and magazines dealing with esoteric and occult issues. <b><i><u>Psychopathy and depression were significantly predictive of "satanic syndrome" in individuals who had been subjected to the occult involvement, suffering bouts of depression and mental disorders nearly twice as often compared to the rest of society.</u></i></b> Given the nature of the satanic syndrome, namely the fact that it is measured by specific occult practices, the author suggests to verify the scale of the problem in psychiatric hospitals and clinics.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">This key correlation yields new perspective on the early-onset depression. "This is an important study in that it takes ontological claims seriously and supports <b><i><u>the real possibility that demonic forms of bondage may be linked to psychopathology</u></i></b> as [...] evil forces can interfere in human behavior." comments Prof. Ralph W. Hood from University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.</span></div><div>(See medicalxpress.com/news/2017-01-occult-depression-psychopathy.html; Emphasis mine). </div><div><br /></div><div>I have discovered in my research a strong correlation between occult involvement and suicide that cannot be denied. I can't help but think that as young people get into occult practices, it has been driving up the suicide rate. According to a 2021 study conducted by<b><i> The Springtide Research Institute, </i></b>the following was discovered:</div><div><span style="color: red;">Springtide’s survey showed that 51% of its sample population, aged 13-25, engage in “tarot cards or fortune telling.” Of that percentage, 17% practice daily, 25% once a week, 27% once a month and 31% less than once a month.</span> (See springtideresearch.org/post/news/in-the-news-gen-z-doubles-down-on-spirituality-combining-tarot-and-traditional-faith). </div><div><br /></div><div>Those are scary numbers. Next, consider the suicide statistics concerning young people from jasonfoundation.com:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Suicide is the SECOND leading cause of death for ages 10-24</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Suicide is the SECOND leading cause of death for college-age youth and ages 12-18 </li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>More teenagers and young adults die from suicide than from cancer, heart disease, AIDS, birth defects, stroke, pneumonia, influenza, and chronic lung disease, COMBINED</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Each day in our nation, there are an average of over 5,240 suicide attempts by young people grades 7-12</li></ul><div>The connection between occult practices and suicide was made as far back as the <b><i>1970s</i></b>. M. Lamar Keene (d.1996) was a charlatan medium for many years. He made a living by defrauding others. He wrote his tell-all book about it in 1976 entitled <u>The Psychic Mafia</u>. Keene coined the term "true-believer syndrome" which refers to people who continued to believe in a paranormal event or phenomenon even after it had been proven to have been staged. The book was published by <i>Prometheus Press </i>founded in 1969 by atheist philosopher Paul Kurtz. It is dedicated to publishing books that promote an anti-supernatural (Naturalist) worldview. </div><div><br /></div><div>I bring this up because, despite being a complete and total fraud, Keene nevertheless believed in God and occult phenomena. I deduce that at least part of that reason is that he saw the effects of the occult up close and personally. Sadly, many people dismiss the occult as chicanery, or a positive spiritual quest. As Keene found out for himself, it is neither. In his public confession he wrote that all the mediums he knew, either personally or through others, ended their lives tragically. </div><div><br /></div><div>William Slade, who was famous for reading minds, became mad and died in a Michigan insane asylum. The medium Margery died as a hopeless drunkard. Wherever he looked, the same picture presented itself: mediums invariably ended their pitiful existence with an even more pitiful death. He was totally crushed by the whole mediumistic syndrome — by the deceit, commonplace depravity, thoughtless drunkenness, and narcotic dependency. </div><div><br /></div><div>According to theologian Jone, "Spiritism claims to be able to communicate with the spirit world and endeavors to establish such commerce with it.<b><i><u> Although spiritism is for the most part fraud, still the intention alone to enter into communication with spirits is gravely sinful. Therefore, it is mortally sinful to conduct a spiritistic seance or to act as a medium.</u></i></b>" (See <u>Moral Theology</u>, [1961], pg. 100; Emphasis mine). Even the <b><i><u>intention</u></i></b> to make contact with spirits is mortal sin. Satan hates each individual human, as do his demons. They will not help, but hurt all the more, anyone foolish enough to get involved with them by occult practices. </div><div><br /></div><div><div>This observation is substantiated by many.</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li> Dr. Nandor Fodor, the author of the well-documented<u> Encyclopedia of Psychic Science</u> (1974): "Curiously enough, mediumism, if suppressed, will manifest in symptoms of disease … Once the practices are accepted, the disease disappears."</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li> The renowned psychic Edgar Cayce is another clear illustration. Joseph Millard writes that, in fact, he was a pitiful marionette of the forces of the other side (See<u> Edgar Cayce: Mystery Man of Miracles</u>, [1967]). </li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>An earlier medium, Raphael Gasson, wrote the following from personal experience: "Many have suffered greatly because they started investigating into this thing (occult work as a medium), and have eventually been brought to distraction when they have attempted to free themselves from it. Homes have been broken up, suicide and lunacy have afflicted those who were once in it, and have dared to seek deliverance from its power. Those who have found that deliverance, give thanks to God for His grace and mercy" (<u>The Challenging Counterfeit</u>, [1966], pg. 134).</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Occultist and "guru" Sri Chinmoy, a "spiritual counselor" at the United Nations, comments that many sorcerers and others having dealings with spirits were strangled or otherwise killed. He was personally familiar with several such occurrences (<u>Astrology, the Supernatural and Beyond</u>, [1973]). </li></ul></div></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Why Suicide?</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Suicide will often follow the despondency induced by alcohol, drugs, depression, and other vices that come along with occult practices. Sometimes it comes without passing through drugs or alcohol. Mediums and the teachings of the demons working through them (and the teachings of the charlatans who make sure they say the same as the others) state that that this life is not the end (annihilation), and that there is no final judgment. If this life is simply too difficult or unpleasant, why not take a way out? Why not enter a world you have been promised is far more glorious? Death, after all, is claimed to be a friend. In fact, the spirits may encourage this. I have read many cases where allegedly “loving” spirits have deliberately induced emotional dependence upon their advice and then at a moment of weakness encouraged their contact to commit suicide. (See, e.g., <u>The Satan Trap: Dangers of the Occult</u>, [1976]). </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Consider the number of people who, unfortunately, go to a medium to find out about "where a deceased loved one is now," or want to receive "messages" from them. All of the mediums will tell the grieving person who has lost someone that the deceased are "fine and happy." Of course, this is what we would all like to hear, but how is it possible that all people died within the True Church in the state of sanctifying grace? Hell and damnation are never even considered as possibilities. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>Many times there is a deliberate attempt by the demons to induce suicide in an unwary person. If people are trying to leave the occult, they are told they will never be able to and that the only escape is to take their own life. Or they may become enamored with blissful descriptions of the wonders of the “next-life” and be lovingly urged to “come join us," or to be reunited with a deceased loved one. </div><div><br /></div><div>Former witch Doreen Irvine was subjected to repeated pressures to take her own life in her attempt to escape from witchcraft. (See Doreen Irvine, <u>Freed From Witchcraft</u>, [1973], pg. 121). Another individual noted that “many attempts have been made to lead me astray and to cause me great physical and mental harm…. On numerous occasions these spirits sought verbally to convince me that suicide was the only answer.” (See Merrill Unger, <u>What Demons Can Do to Saints</u>, [1977], pg. 54). </div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><u>The Satan Trap: Dangers of the Occult</u>, describes four cases of people who were told to commit suicide by the spirits (i.e., demons) they contacted. The first case involved a husband and wife who joined a psychic development class to help their chronically sick child:</div><div><br /></div><div>The instructions of the “spirit doctors” regarding the treatment of her sick child, she thought quite foolish, but her husband, who believed unswervingly in the reality of these experiences, wished to carry them out in every detail. Things came to a head when the leader of the circle expelled the young woman, thus sharpening the conflict in her marriage. The young wife, thoroughly confused, divided between faith and doubt, attempted to apply the mediumistic practices she had learned during the séance. She began to write automatically and suddenly heard voices demanding that she take her own life. She was barely prevented from throwing herself from a balcony while saying “it was a force that I had to obey.”</div><div><br /></div><div>In the second and third incidents, two married sisters attempted suicide as a result of séance practices and automatic writing. Both were hospitalized at the psychiatric clinic at Freiburg. In both cases “schizophrenic tendencies seemed to be apparent.” In the case of one of the sisters, “eventually she heard spirit voices, not only while engaged in automatic writing, but everywhere all the time. These voices grew louder and more emphatic. They commented upon her behavior; gave her meaningless orders that she tried to resist; and alternated between quiet or vulgar and destructive tones.</div><div><br /></div><div>When she entered the hospital, the patient at first refused to provide any information whatsoever. She maintained that the spirits had ordered her to remain silent. Also, at the behest of one spirit, the patient once tried to cut her wrist with a piece of glass.</div><div><br /></div><div>In the fourth case, that of a 25-year-old teacher, mediumistic psychoses developed after automatic writing. She was eventually urged to sacrifice her life, threw herself into a river, and was “rescued much against her will.” The book notes that oftentimes even mediums “find themselves led astray by the suggestions of allegedly high level discarnate entities.” (pgs. 232-236). </div></div><div><br /></div><div><div>Such examples are not surprising. In the Bible, demons are presented as inflicting numerous physical and psychological ailments upon their victims. Many of these parallel today’s cases of channeling. While it must be stressed that most illness is not demonically produced, the array of symptoms suggest the possibility of a virtual monopoly over the workings of the human mind and body: skin disease (Job 2:7), destructive and irrational acts (St. Matthew 8:28; Luke 8:27), deafness and inability to speak (St. Mark 9:25; St. Luke 11:17), epileptic-like seizures (St. Matthew 17:15; St. Mark 9:17-18, St. Luke 9:39), blindness (St. Matthew 12:22), tormenting pain (Apocalypse 9:1-11), insanity (St. Luke 8:26-35), severe physical deformity (St. Luke 13:11-17). Demons can also give a person supernatural strength (St. Luke 8:29) or attempt to murder them (St. Matthew 17:15-18).</div><div><br /></div><div>Suicide is the best means for a demon to damn a soul. Driving them to the depths of despair, those in the occult, having already committed mortal sin, will now die in that state. </div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Church Teaching on Suicide</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>Suicide is either direct or indirect, according to both the intention and mode. <b><i><u>A person who kills himself from knowledge and choice makes the act direct.</u></i></b> The mode is direct if what is done tends by its very nature to cause death (e.g., taking a lethal dose of cyanide). Someone who is mentally ill would only kill himself indirectly. The mode is indirect if that which is done tends from its nature to another end, i.e. to struggle with a criminal wielding a gun. It is wrong to assume that all people are mentally ill, and the suicide is only indirect (although one is free to assume a majority may be psychologically disturbed). </div><div><br /></div><div> Direct suicide is always a mortal sin that deprives the person of ecclesiastical burial unless they were able to give signs of repentance before death (See Canon 1240, section 3). If the person who attempts suicide is unsuccessful, they are subject to various penalties pronounced in Canon 2350, section 2. If it is doubtful that the person killed himself, the doubt is decided in the decedent's favor that he did not, provided there would be no scandal. </div><div><br /></div><div><div><b>Suicide is a grave sin for three (3) reasons:</b></div><div><br /></div><div><b>1.It is a most grave offense against the rights of God.</b> The act usurps God's authority over life and death. "Thou, O Lord, hast the power of life and death." (Wisdom 16: 13). Human life has intrinsic worth because it comes from God, and God wills the salvation of all. The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity took on a human nature and died for humanity, to give all a chance to get to Heaven. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>2. It is a grave offense against society.</b> A community has the right to be benefited by the lives of their members. It has a demoralizing effect on those who loved the person. People valuable to society would rashly kill themselves in a fit of depression thinking they are not valuable. Even members of society not able to contribute in any substantial, material way would deprive others of an example of fortitude, or the opportunity to show charity and mercy to the needy. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>3. It is a grave offense against the natural law. </b>You cannot "love thy neighbor as thyself," unless there is love of self (not inordinate). Those who kill themselves to escape pain and miseries, incur the greater evils of death and moral cowardice, to be followed by eternal damnation--the greatest of all evils and suffering. </div><div><br /></div><div>(Material above condensed from theologians McHugh and Callan, <u>Moral Theology</u>, [1930], 2: 117-123).</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Conclusion</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">It is nothing short of lunacy to risk one’s life (both temporal and eternal) by tampering with the occult. Christ told us, "And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell. " (St. Matthew 10:28). The occult can lead to untold problems and ultimately suicide. Suicide kills <b><i><u>both</u></i></b> body and soul. </div></div></div></div>Introibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.com19tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-56052921177710894242023-10-09T05:25:00.000-07:002023-10-09T05:25:18.817-07:00Blessing An Intrinsic Evil<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkZPE17Tt3yiYvPL6LpdfC7iC0NT2zEyB-KqoI8ThdBmtWvLWqS2oxpdazjBhBJ4wWYNapW_2YDbcKnZBSjWKeFuz2pn2bM6W_oyKAeJynty15k5yVNlocvuSHp13OKsulMLAz5XDQhmBzl-Hma2zLCbaMzef1GPQh__rKbr5Z7vMe6-YsgFSqv3K-vn0/s3264/Francisblessesevil.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2448" data-original-width="3264" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkZPE17Tt3yiYvPL6LpdfC7iC0NT2zEyB-KqoI8ThdBmtWvLWqS2oxpdazjBhBJ4wWYNapW_2YDbcKnZBSjWKeFuz2pn2bM6W_oyKAeJynty15k5yVNlocvuSHp13OKsulMLAz5XDQhmBzl-Hma2zLCbaMzef1GPQh__rKbr5Z7vMe6-YsgFSqv3K-vn0/s320/Francisblessesevil.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div>The Argentinian apostate, Jorge Bergoglio, has effectively given incontrovertible proof of his non-papacy. According to Reuters:<p></p><p><span style="color: red;">VATICAN CITY, Oct 2 (Reuters) - Pope Francis has appeared to leave open the possibility of <b><i><u>priests blessing same-sex couples, if they are limited, decided on a case-by-case basis and not confused with wedding ceremonies of heterosexuals.</u></i></b></span></p><p><span style="color: red;">Francis made his opinion known in one answer to five questions from five conservative cardinals from Asia, Europe, Africa, the United States and Latin America.</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">The cardinals sent the pope a set of formal questions, known as "dubia" ("doubts" in Latin), about issues relating to a global gathering that starts at the Vatican on Wednesday. One of the questions specifically regarded<b><i><u> the practice, which has become relatively common in places like Germany, of priests blessing same sex couples who are in a committed relationship.</u></i></b> The written exchange took place in July and the Vatican published the pope's responses on Monday after the five cardinals unilaterally disclosed their initiative, saying they were not satisfied with Francis' answers.</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">The pope's nuanced response differed from an explicit ruling against such blessings by the Vatican's doctrinal office in 2021. In his seven-point response, Francis said the Church was very clear that the sacrament of matrimony could only be between a man and woman and open to procreation and that the Church should avoid any other ritual or sacramental rite that contradicted this teaching. <b><i><u>Still, he said "pastoral charity should permeate all our decisions and attitudes" adding that "we cannot be judges who only deny, reject and exclude."</u></i></b></span></p><p><span style="color: red;">At times, he said,<b><i><u> requests for blessings were a means through which people reached out to God to live better lives, even if some acts were "objectively morally unacceptable." </u></i></b>The Church teaches that same-sex attraction is not sinful but homosexual acts are. Any eventual blessings, Francis said, should not become the norm or get blanket approval from Church jurisdictions such as dioceses or national bishops conferences. Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, which promotes Church outreach to LGBT Catholics, said that while the response was not a "full-fledged, ringing endorsement" of such blessings, it was very welcomed.</span></p><p><span style="color: red;">In a statement DeBernardo said that <u style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">the pope's words implied "that the church does indeed recognize that holy love can exist between same-gender couples, and the love of these couples mirrors the love of God."</u></span> (Emphasis mine). </p><p>The importance of what happened cannot be understated. The man who claims to be the Vicar of Christ on Earth, allowed the possibility of Vatican II sect clergy "blessing" that which is <b><i><u>intrinsically evil</u></i></b> (sodomitical relationships). The post will answer the following questions: (1) what does it mean when something is "intrinsically evil"?; (2) is homosexuality intrinsically evil?; and (3) what consequences result from blessing a sodomitical relationship? </p><p style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Intrinsically Evil Acts</u></b></p><p style="text-align: left;">What does the term "intrinsically evil act" mean? The most common definition put forth by the approved theologians is "a human act that can never be morally justified or permitted, regardless of the intention of the person who performs them or any circumstances within which they take place." Homosexual acts are forbidden by both the<i style="font-weight: bold;"> natural law</i> and Divine Positive Law, which admits of no exceptions in this case.</p><p style="text-align: left;"><b><u>Natural Law</u></b></p><p style="text-align: left;">According to the Angelic Doctor, the eminent St. Thomas Aquinas, <b><i>natural law</i></b> consists of the basic principles of practical reason for humans. The most fundamental of these principles is that good is to be done and evil is to be avoided. Here <b><i><u>good</u></i></b> means reasonable while <b><i><u>evil</u></i></b> means unreasonable. A second key principle of practical reasoning is that knowledge is a good to be pursued while falsehood and ignorance are to be overcome. A third principle is that you may never do evil even if you anticipate that good may come of it.</p><p>How then do we know these principles? Natural law holds that people possess a basic knowledge of these principles through their possession of reason (See ST I-II a.94, a.4). In this sense, the principles of natural law are “natural” to human beings (See ST I-II q.94, a2) not because of human biology but because they are universally knowable by human reason (See ST I-II q. 94, a.4; a.94, a.6)and universally binding because of their basis in human reason (See ST I-II q. 94, a.4). Reason thus permits us to know the truth about good and evil, even though the directedness of such knowledge can be undermined or obscured by the pull of powerful emotions, and the meaning of this information for human choice and action can be hard to determine (See ST I-II q.94, a.6).</p><p>The study of natural law consequently involves identifying and applying the principles of rational thought to how we know and choose the good, right, and just when we make free choices. Natural law maintains that for us to be rational in the fullest sense is to choose and act in accordance with what our reason tells us is the truth about the right course of action. Aquinas defined truth as <b><i>adaequatio intellectus et rei </i></b>[i.e., conformity between the intellect and reality] (See ST I, q.21, a.2c). What Aquinas meant by “reality” is the truth about something as it is in itself: that, for instance, the content of the most basic principle of justice is to give others what they are owed, and not something else; or that the content of the virtue of courage is not the same as being reckless or being a coward.</p><p>Natural law is thus neither social science nor political theory. Instead, natural law is primarily ethics insofar as it is concerned with practical reasoning about how individuals and communities do good and avoid evil when making choices and acting.</p><p>How, then, does natural law understand the nature of evil actions? Human actions, from the standpoint of natural law, can go wrong in several ways. An act might be wrong, for example, simply because it involves directing oneself against a good like truth, for instance, by lying (See ST II-II q.110, a.3).There is, however, another dimension to natural law theory that shapes its understanding of free choice, morality, and virtue. This is its insistence that there are certain choices which may never be made; that is, certain actions that are never acceptable, regardless of the circumstances or the nobility of the intention, because such actions are always seriously wrong by reason of their object: that is, what we are choosing to do.</p><p>An example of what the theologians and natural law scholars call an "exception-less norm" is the direct killing of an innocent person: in other words, directly choosing to violate the fundamental good of life. Even if an act of directly killing an innocent person might save an entire city from destruction, such an act remains intrinsically wrong by reason of its object. It is always irreconcilable with the choice of the good. There is never a good reason to make murder the deliberate object of our act. It follows that, in accordance with the principle that good is to be done and evil avoided, such an act can never be freely chosen. <b><i><u>There are no exceptions.</u></i></b></p><p>To this extent, natural law is grounded on a commitment to moral absolutes. Examples of other acts that would meet the same criteria are lying (which violates the good of truth), theft (which violates the good of property), and homosexuality (which violates the good of human procreation). </p><p>Homosexual activity is therefore <b><i><u>an intrinsically evil act under the natural law.</u></i></b></p><p><b><u>Divine Positive Law</u></b></p><p>Homosexual activity is also intrinsically wrong by Divine Command of God, and it admits no exception. Here's what the Bible, Church Fathers/Doctors/Theologians, and Magisterial teaching have said on the subject.</p><p><b>Old Testament:</b></p><p>Genesis 19:7-8: "I beg you, my brothers,<b><i><u> not to do this wicked thing</u></i></b> [sodomy] I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with men. Let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you please. But don't do anything to these men."---The very term "sodomy" comes from the city of Sodom, destroyed along with the city of Gomorrah because of rampant homosexuality.</p><p>Judges 19:23-24: "No, my brothers; do not be so wicked. Since this man is my guest, <b><i><u>do not commit this crime</u></i></b>.[sodomy]. Rather let me bring out my maiden daughter or his concubine. Ravish them, or do whatever you want with them; but against the man <b><i><u>you must not commit this wanton crime</u></i></b>."[sodomy]</p><p></p><p>Leviticus 18:22: "<b><i><u>You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.</u></i></b>"</p><p>(All emphasis mine). <span style="color: red;">N.B. Some wonder how Lot could be considered a good man when he offered his daughters to be raped. <u>The Catholic Encyclopedia</u> (1913) answers: "Lot interceded in behalf of his guests in accordance with his duties as host, which are most sacred in the East, but made the mistake of placing them above his duties as a father by offering his two daughters to the wicked designs of the Sodomites..." Lot tried to spare his guests (which he did not realize were angels disguised as men) from being sodomized and failing his duties as a host. The evil of sodomy was known even then, and duties of hosts were considered sacred. In his zeal to prevent this dual evil, he committed a sin in offering his daughters to be raped. However, even in this, his sin <b><i>did not even come close</i></b> to the savage brutality and iniquity of the Sodomites.---<i><b>Introibo</b></i></span></p><p><b>New Testament:</b></p><p>1 Corinthians 6:9: "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers<b><i><u> nor men who have sex with men</u></i></b> nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."</p><p>1 Timothy 1:10: "... law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly ... the unchaste, <b><i><u>practicing homosexuals</u></i></b>, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching."</p><p>Romans 1:26-27: "Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. <b><i><u>Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. </u></i></b>Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity."</p><p>St. Jude 1:7: "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and <b><i><u>perversion</u></i></b>. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."</p><p>(All emphasis mine).</p><p><b>Church Fathers and Doctors:</b></p><p><b><i>St. Augustine</i></b>: “[T]hose <b><i><u>shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished</u></i></b>. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way." </p><p><b><i>St. John Chrysostom</i></b>: "But if thou scoffest at hearing of hell and believest not that fire, remember Sodom. For we have seen, surely we have seen, even in this present life, a semblance of hell. For since many would utterly disbelieve the things to come after the resurrection, hearing now of an unquenchable fire, God brings them to a right mind by things present. For such is the burning of Sodom, and that conflagration!…<b><i><u>Consider how great is that sin, to have forced hell to appear even before its time!… For that rain was unwonted, for the intercourse was contrary to nature, and it deluged the land, since lust had done so with their souls. Wherefore also the rain was the opposite of the customary rain.</u></i></b> Now not only did it fail to stir up the womb of the earth to the production of fruits, but made it even useless for the reception of seed. For such was also the intercourse of the men, making a body of this sort more worthless than the very land of Sodom. And what is there more detestable than a man who hath pandered himself, or what more execrable?"</p><p><b><i>Pope St. Gregory the Great</i></b>: "<b><i><u>Sacred Scripture itself confirms that sulfur evokes the stench of the flesh, as it speaks of the rain of fire and sulfur poured upon Sodom by the Lord. He had decided to punish Sodom for the crimes of the flesh, and the very type of punishment he chose emphasized the shame of that crime.</u></i></b> For sulfur stinks, and fire burns. So it was just that Sodomites, burning with perverse desires arising from the flesh like stench, should perish by fire and sulfur so that through this just punishment they would realize the evil they had committed, led by a perverse desire."</p><p><b><i>St. Peter Damien</i></b>: "<b><i><u>Truly, this vice is never to be compared with any other vice because it surpasses the enormity of all vices.… It defiles everything, stains everything, pollutes everything</u></i></b>. And as for itself, it permits nothing pure, nothing clean, nothing other than filth.…"</p><p>(As cited in the pamphlet <u>The Sin of Homosexuality</u>, [1949], Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, no author given). </p><p><b>Approved Theologians:</b></p><p><i style="font-weight: bold;">Prummer: "</i><b><i><u>Sodomy is a sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance</u></i></b>." (<u>Handbook of Moral Theology</u>, [1957], pg. 236).</p><p><i style="font-weight: bold;">Jone:</i> "Sexual paresthesia is had when sex life is not affected by venereal matters, but by objects all together foreign to sex life. The following are forms of this perversion: (a) Sadism...(b) Masochism...(c) Fetishism...(d) <b><i><u>Homosexuality</u></i></b>..."(<u>Moral Theology</u>, [1961], pg. 151). </p><p><b><i>McHugh and Callan</i>: </b>"<b><i><u>Worst among the sins of impurity</u></i></b>, as such, are crimes of unnatural lust...For procreation requires heterosexual intercourse, a condition disregarded by sodomy, which is<b><i><u> the lustful commerce of male with male...or of female with female</u></i></b> (tribadism, sapphism, lesbian love)." (<u>Moral Theology</u>, [1930], 2:543). </p><p><i style="font-weight: bold;">Cronin: </i>"The sexual function can only be exercised in a way consonant with the generation of offspring.<b><i><u> Any other use of it would be a perversion of the natural order and, therefore, a violation of the natural law</u></i></b>." (<u>The Science of Ethics</u>, [1939], 2:63). </p><p>(All emphasis mine).</p><p><b>Magisterium:</b></p><p><i style="font-weight: bold;">Pope St. Pius V: </i>"Having set our minds to remove everything that may in some way offend the Divine Majesty, We resolve to punish, above all and without indulgence, those things which, by the authority of the Sacred Scriptures or by most grievous examples, are most repugnant to God and elicit His wrath; that is, negligence in divine worship, ruinous simony, the crime of blasphemy, <b><i><u>and the execrable libidinous vice against nature.</u></i></b> For which faults peoples and nations are scourged by God, according to His just condemnation, with catastrophes, wars, famine, and plagues… Let the judges know that if even after this, Our Constitution, they are negligent in punishing these crimes, they will be guilty of them at Divine Judgment and will also incur Our indignation… If someone commits that nefarious crime against nature that caused divine wrath to be unleashed against the children of iniquity, he will be given over to the secular arm for punishment; and if he is a cleric, he will be subject to analogous punishment after having been stripped of all his degrees.” (Emphasis mine)</p><div><i style="font-weight: bold;">1917 Code of Canon Law: </i>Canon 2357, section 1: "Lay persons who have been legitimately declared guilty of the commission of crimes against the sixth commandment with minors under sixteen years of age, or of rape, sodomy, incest, or traffic in vice, are automatically branded with infamy, besides incurring the other penalties which the Ordinary may think proper to impose.”</div><div><br /></div><div>The Divine Positive Law prohibits homosexual acts without exception. Ergo, <b><i><u>homosexual acts are intrinsically evil.</u></i></b></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Blessings of the Church</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">There are two types of blessings given by the Church:<b><i> invocative</i></b> and <b><i>constitutive.</i> </b>Invocative blessings "are those in which the Divine benignity is invoked on persons or things, to bring down upon them some temporal or spiritual good without changing their former condition. Of this kind are the blessings given to children, and to articles of food." Constitutive blessings " permanently depute persons or things to Divine service by imparting to them some sacred character, by which they assume a new and distinct spiritual relationship." (See <u>The Catholic Encyclopedia</u>, [1913]). Invocative blessings are what sodomites seek.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">What are the benefits conferred by blessings? </div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>1. Excitation of pious emotions and affections of the heart and, by means of these, remission of venial sin and of the temporal punishment due to it.</div><div><br /></div><div>2. Freedom from power of evil spirits.</div><div><br /></div><div>3. Preservation and restoration of bodily health.</div><div><br /></div><div>4. Various other benefits, temporal or spiritual. (<i style="font-weight: bold;">Ibid</i>). </div><div><br /></div><div><b>How does this apply to sodomitical relationships like "same-sex marriage"? </b></div><div>In brief: IT CANNOT AND DOES NOT APPLY. Note well that the sodomites who want their perverted relationship "blessed" <b><i><u>are asking for approval to commit homosexual acts which are intrinsically evil.</u></i></b> As such they are not seeking remission of sin, freedom from the power of evil spirits, preservation/restoration of bodily health, or any other benefit for their soul. They want God, through His One True Church, to acknowledge intrinsically evil acts as worthy of respect, special recognition, and not to be condemned. This is an approval of something for which no approval can ever be given for any reason. </div><div><br /></div><div>The qualifiers offered by Bergoglio are easily seen as ludicrous. Let me analogize. What if Bergoglio had said "priests can bless abortion providers if they are limited, decided on a case-by-case basis and not confused with bringing the fetus to term." Abortion is the murder of an innocent unborn human being and is an intrinsic evil. Every case of abortion, like every case of sodomite "marriage" is always wrong. Period. Being in a "committed relationship" founded on unnatural, intrinsically evil acts is no less evil than those performed by strangers who hook-up. </div><div><br /></div><div>Bergoglio said, "pastoral charity should permeate all our decisions and attitudes" adding that "we cannot be judges who only deny, reject and exclude." Does "pastoral charity" allow a so-called doctor to murder an unborn child? No. Nor does it permit perverts to commit acts of homosexuality. Exclusion by excommunication can cause someone to realize their sin and repent. Christ Himself excludes people from Heaven: "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." (Apocalypse 21:8). </div><div><br /></div><div>Moreover, we should judge as Christ commanded: "Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly." (St. John 7:24). "Those homosexuals look nice and seem to be in love," is to be rejected by correct judgement based on Church teaching. The statement by New Ways Ministry, that homosexual acts committed by two perverts pretending to have a "marriage" are such that they "mirror the love of God," is <b><i><u>so blasphemous</u></i></b> it could only have come from one doing the work of Satan himself. </div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Consequences Considered</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Bergoglio has opened up the possibility that an intrinsic evil could be "blessed." Roncalli (John XXIII) did the same thing by calling a Commission to "study" artificial contraception. Contraception is also intrinsically evil so what was there to "study"? The result? Just by giving people the idea it could be permissible has lead to only 13% in the Vatican II sect (in the U.S.) considering it sinful as of 2016. In that same year, 64% of sect members see nothing wrong with homosexual behaviors. Can you imagine how much that will now increase? </div><div style="text-align: left;">(See americamagazine.org/faith/2016/09/28/poll-finds-many-us-catholics-breaking-church-over-contraception-abortion-and-lgbt). </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>The Sin of Scandal:</b></div><div style="text-align: left;">According to theologian Prummer: "Scandal is some word or deed (whether of omission or commission) that is itself evil or has the appearance of evil and provides an occasion of sin to another." (See <i style="font-weight: bold;">Ibid, </i>pg. 102). Bergoglio has claimed that it may be possible to "bless" an intrinsic evil, something which is impossible. What he spoke was evil, and will give others the idea that sexual perversion is "not that bad," or even a positive good. That is scandalous. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Sodomite "marriage" is evil for at least the following reasons:</div><div style="text-align: left;">1. It makes a mockery of the Sacrament of Matrimony which is meant for the procreation and education of children. It builds up the Mystical Body of Christ. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">2. Marriage is no longer seen as being about procreation, but about hooking-up.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">3. It makes the unnatural and perverted seem acceptable and normal.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">4. Children will be more likely to experiment with perversions and become perverts themselves. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">5. Children raised via adoption (or conceived by surrogate mothers for same-sex "marriages") will be heavily influenced by the perverts. Many will be molested. Moreover, with women willing to sell their bodies as surrogates for different men, don't be surprised if unintended incest spikes when half-siblings marry, not knowing their background, and an increase in special needs children spawned by them, will result.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">6. Blessing same-sex marriage will give homosexuals validation, that their destructive and intrinsically evils acts are in some way good, or can be acceptable in certain circumstances. This will confirm them in their sin.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">All the above will lead countless souls to eternal damnation. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Conclusion: The Other "S-Word"</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">By claiming that it is even permissible to bless that which is intrinsically evil, Jorge Bergoglio's nod towards homosexuality and sodomitical relationships means he is giving evil to the Church. However, the Church is Indefectible, i.e., She cannot give what is evil or erroneous to Her children. Ergo, the idea that intrinsic evil could be blessed could not come from a true pope protected by the Holy Ghost. Instead, it comes from a false pope who leads a false sect pretending to be the Roman Catholic Church. Will the "recognize and resist" SSPX and "conservative" Vatican II sect members wake up to the fact of the other "s-word"? Sedevacantism is the only logical conclusion. </div></div>Introibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.com23tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6466183320330735196.post-7386324011823871202023-10-02T04:00:00.000-07:002023-10-02T04:00:48.869-07:00Contending For The Faith---Part 20<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSKJ10K7cYCMtZD7b2806x-YaHmjhkmvlOL10wXG7yv7oUjO1eQff3P1_QH7ES0GPOdAr6UaVdXOUN2JXKGrrOQ0kS-P7b_Yy-yilD19e2L43IkHzS8TMJR4UORGPENdq4Z5aiOLRJV6vfh10s2OMsv8NSDSUWvrw5NhyphenhyphenmAq_EkHjXvVmI85H2QFpDPvk/s960/Contending%20For%20The%20Faith.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="640" data-original-width="960" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSKJ10K7cYCMtZD7b2806x-YaHmjhkmvlOL10wXG7yv7oUjO1eQff3P1_QH7ES0GPOdAr6UaVdXOUN2JXKGrrOQ0kS-P7b_Yy-yilD19e2L43IkHzS8TMJR4UORGPENdq4Z5aiOLRJV6vfh10s2OMsv8NSDSUWvrw5NhyphenhyphenmAq_EkHjXvVmI85H2QFpDPvk/s320/Contending%20For%20The%20Faith.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to <b><i><u>contend earnestly for the faith</u></i></b> once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. <b><i>Contending For The Faith</i></b> is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e., the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month. This is the next installment.</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:</span></div><div><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="color: red;">The existence and attributes of God</span></li><li><span style="color: red;">The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all </span></li><li><span style="color: red;">The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church</span></li><li><span style="color: red;">The truth of Catholic moral teaching</span></li><li><span style="color: red;">The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II </span></li></ul></div><div><span style="color: red;">In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone has suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.</span></div><div><br /></div><div><div style="text-align: center;"><u><b>Worlds Apart: Existentialism</b></u></div><div>Continuing from last month when <b><i>Naturalism</i></b> was examined, I'm going to be explaining various worldviews. What is a worldview? In the simplest terms, a worldview may be defined as <b><i><u>how one sees life and the world at large.</u></i></b> In this manner it can be compared to a pair of glasses. How a person makes sense of the world depends upon that person’s vision, so to speak. The interpretive lens helps people make sense of life and comprehend the world around them. Worldviews also shape people’s understanding of their unique place on Earth. This month the worldview of <b><i>Existentialism</i></b> will be explained.</div><div><br /></div><div>As stated in last month's post, a well-thought-out course, or worldview, needs to answer seven ultimate concerns that philosophers identify as “the big questions of life:"</div><div><br /></div><div> <b>1. Ultimate Reality: </b>What kind of God, if any, actually exists? </div><div><br /></div><div><b>2. External Reality:</b> Is there anything beyond the cosmos, or is what we perceive all there is?</div><div><br /></div><div><b>3. Knowledge:</b> What can be known and how can anyone know it? </div><div><br /></div><div><b>4. Origin:</b> Where did humanity come from? </div><div><br /></div><div><b>5. Morals and Values:</b> How should I live, and what things are important in life? </div><div><br /></div><div><b>6. Problem of Life and Resolution: </b>What is wrong with the world? How can humanity’s problem be solved? </div><div><br /></div><div><b>7. Destiny:</b> Will I survive the death of my body and, if so, in what state? </div><div><br /></div><div><span style="color: red;">(Sources were many, and of special mention:</span></div><div><span style="color: red;">Dooyeweerd, Herman. <u>Roots of Western Culture: Pagan, Secular, and Christian Options.</u>Trans. John Kraay. [2003]; Harris, Robert A. <u>The Integration of Faith and Learning: A Worldview Approach.</u> [2004]; Sire, James W. <u>Naming the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept,</u> [2004]. I take no credit except for the compilation and condensation of the material into a concise post.---<b><i>Introibo</i></b>).</span> </div></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Existentialism Defined</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Existentialism is not a full-fledged worldview, but it exists as an outgrowth of other worldviews to the point that it is considered a worldview unto itself. Existentialism is either<b style="font-style: italic;"> atheistic </b>(major proponents include John Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and Friedrich Nietzsche) or <i style="font-weight: bold;">theistic </i>(major proponents include Gabriel Marcel [Catholic], Karl Jaspers [Protestant], and Martin Buber [Jewish]). Atheistic existentialism is a parasite on naturalism; theistic existentialism is a parasite on theism.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>BASIC ATHEISTIC EXISTENTIALISM:</b></div><div>It answers the worldview questions on <i>Ultimate Reality</i>, <i>Knowledge</i>, <i>Moral and Values</i>, and <i>Death, </i>the same as Naturalism, to wit:</div><div><div><br /></div><div>Matter exists eternally; God does not exist. Death is extinction of personality and individuality. Through our innate and autonomous human reason, including the methods of science, we can know the universe. The cosmos, including this world, is understood to be in its normal state. Ethics is related only to human beings. In other words, atheistic existentialism affirms most of the propositions of naturalism except those relating to human nature and our relationship to the cosmos. Indeed, existentialism’s major interest is in our humanity and how we can be significant in an otherwise insignificant world.</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Atheistic Existentialism and External Reality</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>The cosmos is composed solely of matter, but to human beings reality appears in two forms— subjective and objective.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>The world, it is assumed, existed long before human beings came on the scene. It is structured or chaotic, determined by inexorable law or subject to chance. Whichever it is makes no difference. The world merely is. Then came a new thing, conscious beings—ones who distinguished he and she from it, ones who seemed determined to determine their own destiny, to ask questions, to ponder, to wonder, to seek meaning, to endow the external world with special value, to create gods. In short, then came human beings. </div><div><br /></div><div>Now we have—for no one knows what reason—two kinds of being in the universe, the one seemingly having kicked the other out of itself and into separate existence. The first sort of being is the objective world—the world of material, of inexorable law, of cause and effect, of chronological, clock-ticking time, of flux, of mechanism. The machinery of the universe, spinning electrons, whirling galaxies, falling bodies and rising gases and flowing waters—each is doing its thing, forever unconscious, forever just being where it is when it is. Here, say the existentialists, science and logic have their day. People know the external, objective world by virtue of careful observation, recording, hypothesizing, checking hypotheses by experiment, ever-refining theories, and proving guesses about the lay of the cosmos in which we live.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>The second sort of being is the subjective world—the world of mind, of consciousness, of awareness, of freedom, of stability. Here the inner awareness of the mind is a conscious present, a constant now. Time has no meaning, for the subject is always present to itself, never past, never future. Science and logic do not penetrate this realm; they have nothing to say about subjectivity. Subjectivity is the self’s apprehension of the not-self; subjectivity is making that not-self part of itself. The subject takes in knowledge not as a bottle takes in liquid but as an organism takes in food. Knowledge turns into the knower.</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Atheistic Existentialism and Human Origins</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>Human beings are complex “machines”; personality is an interrelation of chemical and physical properties we do not yet fully understand. For human beings alone existence precedes essence; people make themselves who they are. Atheistic existentialism is at one with naturalism’s basic view of human nature; there is indeed no genuinely transcendent element in human beings, but they do display one important unique feature. To put it in Sartre’s words, “If God does not exist, there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before he can be defined by any concept, and . . . this being is man.” This sentence is the most famous definition of the core of existentialism. Sartre continues, “First of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself.” (See Jean-Paul Sartre, “Existentialism,” reprinted in <u>A Casebook on Existentialism</u>, ed. William V. Spanos, [1966], pg. 278). </div><div><br /></div><div><div>Each of us makes himself or herself human by what we do with our self-consciousness and our self-determinacy. The subjective world is completely at the beck and call of every subjective being, that is, of every person. How does this work out in practice? Let us say that Robert, a soldier, fears he is a coward. Is he a coward? Only if he acts like a coward, and his action will proceed not from a nature defined beforehand but from the choices he makes when the bullets start to fly. We can call Robert a coward if and only if he does cowardly deeds, and these will be deeds he chooses to do. So if Robert fears he is a coward but does not want to be, let him do brave deeds when they are needed.</div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Atheistic Existentialism and The Problem of Life/Resolution</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">The problem of life is that people don't "commit to themselves." It is solved when they do so commit. Ordinary naturalists can choose to commit themselves to their families or neighbors, their communities or country, the environment or the world. They need not display overarching egotism or selfishness. However, full-blown atheistic existentialists have already committed themselves to themselves.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Since they themselves make themselves who they are, they are responsible only to themselves. They admit they are finite beings in an absurd world, subject to death without exception. The authenticity of their value comes solely by virtue of their own conscious choices.</div><div><br /></div><div> <b>BASIC THEISTIC EXISTENTIALISM</b></div><div>Theistic Existentialism shares the same answers as theism to <i>Ultimate Reality, External Reality, Origin of Humans, Morals and Values, and Destiny.</i> It differs on<i> Knowledge</i> and <i>Problem of Life/Resolution</i>.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>In short: God is infinite and personal, transcendent and immanent, omniscient, sovereign, and good. God created the cosmos ex nihilo to operate with a uniformity of cause and effect in an open system. Human beings are created in the image of God and thus possess personality, self-transcendence, intelligence, morality, gregariousness, and creativity. Human beings were created good, but through the fall the image of God became defaced, though not so ruined as to be incapable of restoration. "Christian existentialists" see this redemption in Christ. Non-Christian existentialists see it as yet to be. </div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Theistic Existentialism and Knowledge</u></b></div></div></div><div style="text-align: left;">Theistic existentialism accepts the basic existentialist premise that there are no rationally discoverable universal truths; knowledge comes to us from lived experience. This conflicts with their stated commitment to morals and values like the Ten Commandments. Each individual simply accepts the Commandments, <b><i>as they understand them</i></b>, through <b><i>an encounter with God</i></b> in lived experience. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Theistic Existentialism and Problem of Life/Resolution</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div>The Fall of our First Parents was said not to have taken place back there and then in space and time. Rather, each person reenacts in their own life this story. Each enters the world like Adam, sinless; each one rebels against God. The fall is existential—a here-and-now proposition. Edward John Carnell summarizes the existential view of the fall as “a mythological description of a universal experience of the race.” By "living authentically as to how you personally believe," you will be saved. (Existentialism implies universal salvation). </div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Refutation of Existentialism</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Theistic existentialism has found its way into the Vatican II sect, and tried to gain entrance to the One True Church pre-Vatican II. Since atheistic existentialism can be refuted by the proofs for God's existence, theistic existentialism poses the greater threat.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;">(For this section, I have condensed some material on existentialism from Phillip Trower's work, The Church Learned And The Revolt Of The Scholars, [1979], pgs. 29-40---<b><i>Introibo</i></b>). </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="color: red;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;">In existentialism, reason is not just downplayed it is, in effect, abolished. To use it for thinking in the normal way by distinguishing object from object (cat from dog, and cat's tail from cat's body), or objects in the outside world from the thoughts in one's mind (object from subject) is considered wrong. This kind of normal thinking, though plainly designed for us by God, was supposedly introduced by wicked "Greek intellectualism," and is said to falsify reality, which <b><i>does not consist of separate creatures with distinct natures, but is envisaged as a liquid continuum--like soup.</i></b> For example, making statements about the nature of God, such as He exists as a Trinity, should be forbidden because they turn God into an "object," and God cannot be considered as an object among a variety of other objects (even if we are unquestionably objects to God).</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><i><u>The fallacy at the root of all existentialist thought is the idea that "experience" can be a path to knowledge on its own, separate from and, in some sense, in rivalry with the use of the mind.</u></i></b> In reality, experience is merely the stuff out of which knowledge is derived. <b><i><u>Unless we analyze or think about what we have experienced (which necessarily involves the use of abstract ideas and propositions) our experiences will tell us nothing or deceive us.</u></i></b> Existentialism also assumes that we all experience reality differently; each has his own version of the "truth." This is why each must be allowed to "do his own thing"; whatever he finds "meaningful" or "relevant." The word <b><i>meaningful</i></b> in existentialist talk does not mean true, right, or intelligible, but <b><i>what gives the individual satisfaction. </i></b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><i><br /></i></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">The way we can know something is <b><i><u>by experiencing it subjectively, in an encounter</u></i></b>, with "the other." Most existentialist philosophers were atheists, as there was no God they encountered. Life was simply absurd and meaningless to these existentialists (Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus, and Friedrich Nietzsche to name three of the most famous and influential). There were some who believed in "The Other" (God) who could be encountered through our experiences with each other and in Whom we sometimes need a "leap of [blind] faith." The most famous of these philosophers were Karl Jaspers (Protestant), Soren Kierkegaard (Protestant), Martin Buber (Jewish), and Gabriel Marcel ("Catholic"). </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Marcel (1889-1973) was an atheist son of a French agnostic. He converted to Catholicism in 1929, at age 40. He followed the Vatican II sect happily. Marcel was friends with Jacques Maritain, whose philosophical writings were going to be censured by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII. Marcel likely would have been next, but both he and Maritain escaped censure with the death of Pope Pius XII and subsequent usurpation of Roncalli. Marcel's philosophy influenced a Polish bishop; Karol Wojtyla. (See Derek Jeffreys, <u>The Legacy of John Paul II: An Evangelical Assessment</u>,[2007]). </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Enter Fr. Karl Rahner</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Karl Rahner was born on March 5, 1904, in Freiberg, Germany. He was ordained a Jesuit on July 26, 1932. In the twentieth century (beginning in the late 1930s), Rahner, along with theologians Henri de Lubac, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Yves Congar, Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Louis Bouyer, Jean Daniélou, Jean Mouroux and Joseph Ratzinger (later "Pope" Benedict XVI) began a Neo-Modernist movement that despised the Neo-Scholasticism which had served the Church so well. The movement was called "Nouvelle Theologie" (French for "New Theology") by the great anti-Modernist theologian Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, often pejoratively called "the sacred monster of Thomism" by his enemies because of his love of the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas and his hatred of Modernism.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">In 1946, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange wrote a scathing criticism of the movement (which liked to call itself <b><i>ressourcement</i></b> ---"return to the sources"), because they claimed they were "returning to patristic thought." Garrigou-Lagrange demonstrated that the theologians of the movement did not "return to the sources" but deviated from the long-standing theological tradition of the Catholic Church, thus creating a "new theology" all their own, and a disguised resurgence of Modernism. In 1950, Pope Pius XII responded with his great encyclical Humani Generis which condemned many of their errors, such as rejecting the traditional dogmatic formulations that emerged throughout Church history as a result of scholastic theology, re-interpreting Catholic dogma in a way that was inconsistent with tradition, falling into the error of dogmatic relativism and criticizing biblical texts in a way that deviated from the principles of biblical hermeneutics outlined by his predecessors (principally Pope Leo XIII).</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"> Almost all the theologians of the "new theology" were under suspicion of Modernism by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office under Cardinal Ottavianni. Rahner was no exception. Before the death of Pope Pius XII, Cardinal Ottaviani tried unsuccessfully three times to convince the ailing Pontiff to have him excommunicated. In November 1962, "Pope" John XXIII appointed Rahner as a peritus ("theological expert") at Vatican II. The heretic Rahner thus had complete access to the Council and numerous opportunities to share his heresy with the bishops. Rahner's influence at Vatican II was widespread, and he was subsequently chosen as one of seven theologians who would develop Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, which created the Vatican II sect with its damnable new ecclesiology. The Church of Christ is not identical to the Roman Catholic Church, but it is a separate entity which "subsists in" the Catholic Church, as well as in false sects. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">Rahner's works discuss his idea of the <b><i><u>supernatural existential.</u></i></b> This term meant that every human being, since Creation, has a supernatural element within him which inclines him, like a magnet, to encounter the "Supreme Divine Other." The supernatural existential takes the place of Divine Grace. Radically different experiences of God lead to different interpretations and theological positions, but all come from and lead to God. According to Herbert Vorgimler, Rahner stated, "I have experienced God directly. I have experienced God, the nameless and unfathomable One, the one who is silent, yet near...I have experienced God Himself, not human words about Him." (See Understanding Karl Rahner, [1986], pg. 11). Rahner teaches that every human being is an "anonymous Christian." The supernatural existential links all humans to Christ through their encounters, even if their religion is a different perception, and even if they are atheists who don't realize they have encountered Him. </div><div><br /></div><div><div>As a result of Rahner's philosophically warped worldview, and the false theology driven by it, he was led into serious errors that resulted in apostasy from the One True Faith:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The <b><i>supernatural existential </i></b>is an implicit denial of Original Sin and the whole doctrine on Grace</li><li>The Incarnation and Redemption by Christ are mythological, but are useful narratives</li><li>All Marian Dogmas are myths</li><li>There is no "One True Church" because all religions lead to God</li><li>All humanity will be saved</li></ul></div><div><b><i>Lumen Gentium</i></b>, the Vatican II document Rahner helped draft, teaches the heresy that there is a Church of Christ separate from the Roman Catholic Church. False sects have "elements" of the Church of Christ. To have all the elements, like the Roman Catholic Church, is best. However, having just some elements is good too, and leads to salvation. You can begin to see the connection to Rahner's idea that the more vivid, or the more close your encounter with God, the better it is, <b><i><u>but we all encounter Him to one degree or another. </u></i></b></div></div><div><b><i><u><br /></u></i></b></div><div><div>Now, these statements can be better understood:</div><div><br /></div><div>"All the baptized are in Christ's Church."--Wojtyla,<b><i> Ut Unam Sint</i></b>, para. #42 </div><div><br /></div><div>"Proselytism is solemn nonsense."--Bergoglio</div><div><br /></div><div>"The way to achieve Christian unity, in fact, is not proselytism, but fraternal dialogue..." Wojtyla, "Homily" of 1/25/93</div><div><br /></div><div>"The Second Vatican Council did immense work to form that full and universal awareness by the Church of which Pope Paul VI wrote in his first Encyclical. This awareness-or rather self-awareness-by the Church is formed a "in dialogue"; and before this dialogue becomes a conversation, attention must be directed to<b><i> "the other,"</i></b> that is to say: the person with whom we wish to speak."---Wojtyla, <b><i>Redemptor Homines</i></b>; Emphasis mine</div><div><br /></div><div>"...as the Council teaches, 'by his Incarnation, he, the Son of God, in a certain way<b><i> united himself with each man'"</i></b>---Wojtyla, <b><i>Redemptor Homines</i></b>; Emphasis mine; See also<b><i> Gaudium et Spes</i></b>, para. #22.</div></div><div><br /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Conclusion</u></b></div><div style="text-align: left;">Existentialism, as demonstrated, is one of the chief sources of the moral as well as the doctrinal rot in the Vatican II sect. It destroys the metaphysical framework of reality by which the mind ascends to God, reducing everything to a fog and a flux where He is lost. It provides the justification for moral relativism, and universalism (the heretical idea all people will be saved). Existentialism in both its forms (atheistic and theistic) is heretical, and it is a worldview that is self-defeating and thus incoherent and untrue as a comprehensive system of belief, since experience cannot be a path to knowledge on its own.</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p></p>Introibo Ad Altare Deihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11377479441601352059noreply@blogger.com17