Feeds:
Posts
Comments

I’m surprised that the Vatican 2 religion keeps going the way it does, but there may be a good answer. If the Lexington Diocese reflects the rest of the Vatican 2 religion, then we may have the answer.

Most of the priests here are homosexual or homosexual friendly (meaning it’s not that sinful if at all). Bishop Stowe is the biggest LGBTQ supporting bishop in the United States and he was hand-picked and supported by none other than “Pope” Francis himself.

The following 2020 poll (taken from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/02/how-catholics-around-the-world-see-same-sex-marriage-homosexuality/)  shows where the Vatican 2 religion is going and I suspect it’s directly related to the membership increase, since the world is going in the same direction. The Vatican 2 religion is a cultural religion that goes with the flow as the following poll nicely proves. 

The Gallup Poll also shows how Vatican 2 Catholics support same-sex unions. Even “Pope” Francis calls for Sodomite civil unions.

The significance of these facts goes right to the heart on how the Vatican 2 religion can’t possibly be the Catholic Faith. 

Pope Leo XIII declared in his Encyclical, Satis Cognitum (On the Unity of the Church), June 29, 1896:

“But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.”

Rejecting “all faith” is apostasy, not mere heresy. Homosexuality is contrary to the Natural Law, which is written on all the hearts of all men. Like atheism, there’s no excuse for believing and professing that homosexuality is okay. 

May a Catholic profess to be an atheist openly and repeatedly and remain a member of the Catholic Church? Has the Vatican 2 Church stooped to the level that belief in God is not necessary to be a Catholic? Yet, that’s precisely what Vatican 2 apologists are arguing in principle with homosexuality.

If you’re a member of the Vatican 2 religion, you are united in faith with apostates that we know are apostates without doubt. 

The Mark of Oneness or Unity has no meaning in the Vatican 2 religion. Vatican 2 apologists must adopt a worse understanding of the oneness mark of the Church than even Protestants. 

Pope Leo XIII’s entire Satis Cognitum encyclical is on the oneness mark of the Church. He explains that “the eminence of the Church arises from its unity, as the principle of its constitution – a unity surpassing all else, and having nothing like unto it or equal to it”

No other religion has the mark of oneness as the Catholic Church.

Pope Leo continues to explain “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…

Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful – “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith…

It is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, 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…

He requires the assent of the mind to all truths without exception. It was thus the duty of all who heard Jesus Christ, if they wished for eternal salvation, not merely to accept His doctrine as a whole, but to assent with their entire mind to all and every point of it, since it is unlawful to withhold faith from God even in regard to one single point.

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. 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, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “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, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

The need of this divinely instituted means for the preservation of unity, 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 unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: “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, not for a time only – “but until we all meet in the unity of faith…unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ” (13). 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)…”

Here we see that the leaders are the primary principle and means of preserving the unity. Yet, in the Vatican 2 religion, it’s precisely in their leaders that there’s disunity in faith. I give one example with homosexuality, but I could easily provide more examples. Pope Leo continues…

“It is therefore clear that all doctrine which agrees with that of the Apostolic churches – the matrices and original centers of the faith, must be looked upon as the truth, holding without hesitation that the Church received it from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God….We are in communion with the Apostolic churches, and by the very fact that they agree amongst themselves we have a testimony of the truth…”

The Vatican 2 churches do not agree amongst themselves over the Natural Law, much less, all the other common doctrines of the Church. The Vatican 2 people are not in unity over the Natural Law as the polls clearly indicate. Absolutely nothing is done about it by the leaders except maybe encouragement of the vice. Where are the condemnations of the bishops with the other bishops? They don’t condemn each other, because they recognize each other as members of the same religion regardless of the Natural Law. It’s The Believe-Whatever-You-Want Religion of Bergoglio.

Pope Leo continues…

“In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them” (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. “You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel” (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3).

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 proposed 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 willed that there should be unity in His Church, 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? In 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?” (De Unitate Credendi, cap. xvii., n. 35).

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. For, since Jesus Christ delivered Himself up for the salvation of the human race, and to this end directed all His teaching and commands, so He ordered the Church to strive, by the truth of its doctrine, to sanctify and to save mankind. But faith alone cannot compass so great, excellent, and important an end. 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…

Those holding Vatican 2 offices do not teach or guard the whole truth, which sanctifies and saves mankind.

Pope Leo continues…

“Furthermore, the eminence of the Church arises from its unity, as the principle of its constitution – a unity surpassing all else, and having nothing like unto it or equal to it” (S. Clemens Alexandrinus, Stronmatum lib. viii., c. 17). For this reason Christ, speaking of the mystical edifice, mentions only one Church, which he calls His own – “I will build my church; ” any other Church except this one, since it has not been founded by Christ, cannot be the true Church. This becomes even more evident when the purpose of the Divine Founder is considered. For what did Christ, the Lord, ask? What did He wish in regard to the Church founded, or about to be founded? This: to transmit to it the same mission and the same mandate which He had received from the Father, that they should be perpetuated. This He clearly resolved to do: this He actually did. “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you” (John xx., 21). “Ad thou hast sent Me into the world I also have sent them into the world” (John xvii., 18). But the mission of Christ is to save that which had perished.

Are we to believe the Vatican 2 leaders really carry on this mission? Are they even trying to save mankind at this point because they think everybody is already saved? They either encourage homosexuality or are quiet about the evils of it by permitting it and recognizing as legitimate authorities of the Church who actually do encourage it. They all claim to be one in faith!

Regardless as to which side of the fence you stand on the issue of homosexuality, to be a Vatican 2 Catholic, you must completely chuck Pope Leo XIII’s teaching and the Catholic Mark of Unity!

In 2001, Michael Rose published “Ugly as Sin,” which showed how the Vatican 2 religion builds its new churches. Over the past several years, http://www.NovusOrdoWatch.com has published numerous posts showing more of the same in Germany, Austria, and Italy. [1] (See Footnote for a list of them.) N.O.W. included American churches as well.

Paul Joseph Watson has posted two interesting videos explaining the purpose of the new architecture throughout the world and why architecture is important:

Why Modern Architecture SUCKS – YouTube

Latest Atrocities in Modern Architecture – YouTube

(There may be bad language in some of Watson’s videos)

I don’t have to look any further than my surrounding communities in Kentucky and find the same hideous buildings called “Catholic Churches.”

In my hometown, St. Leo’s is one of those churches built in 1989. The late Fr. McDonald (one of my old confessors) was responsible for this design and he loved it. I remember telling him I how Protestant it looked. 

I took the following pictures of St. Leo Church on 1/22/23. 

The entrance isn’t that bad as you’re welcomed with big statues of Mary and Joseph.

The Protestant-styled outside is reflected in the inside. It’s big, cold, and mostly empty. It smelled nice, but it didn’t feel nice. There was a lady praying up front behind the altar. When I grew up in the Vatican 2 sect, we didn’t hang out in the sanctuary, because that was considered a sacred area. We didn’t feel entitled to do anything but clean the sanctuary after mass. There’s obviously not the same reverence anymore. Then again, these churches reflect the irreverent Vatican 2 faith.

The old St. Leo’s is still standing and now used for Chiropractics. It’s small but has a traditional Catholic style. It was built in 1893.  

The next town just north of us is Frankfort, the capital city of Kentucky. Their church is Good Shepherd. The old Church was absolutely beautiful! Pictures of the old church are found here. 

However, the new Good Shepherd Church built in 1997 is quite the contrary. I’ve been told by reliable sources that another one of my old confessors, the late Fr. Keller designed the new church. We considered him a staunch conservative, too. 

I took the following pictures of Good Shepherd on 1/20/23. As I was taking these pictures, one of the parishioners said to me, “Isn’t it a beautiful church?” God love the man, but how sad. It looks like anything but a Catholic Church. In fact, when I showed my non-Catholic friend the following picture, he said, “That’s a church? I drive by it all the time and didn’t know what it was.” 

The inside feels cold and completely devoid of God. At least, there’s a fairly nice crucifix.  

There’s a nice image of Our Lady of Guadalupe in the following picture. It has no big statues worth noting. The Stations of the Cross are just pitiful. We had bigger and nicer ones in St. Lawrence Catholic Church back in the 1970’s and 80’s, which is a church that could barely hold a hundred people. 

I

I thought Good Shepherd was the worst ever until I visited the next church. I took the following pictures on 1/26/23

You are looking at the back view of Pax Christi of Lexington, Ky, which you see from Man-O-War Blvd. The following picture is the front of the Church where you enter. 

The next pictures are the east and west sides of the building.

If you think the outside is bad, it actually gets worse in the inside. The other two churches felt cold and empty, but this makes you feel like you’re being mocked. Catholic architecture should give glory to God, but Pax Christi is anti-Catholic. If you remember my post 

Breakfast with a Novus Ordo Priest

 you’ll remember the celebrated Larry Hehman, who just so happens to be the priest behind Pax Christi. 

The following pictures show the altar.

The left side of the altar is the choir and family room.

They went out of their way with the Stations of the Cross (3 examples below). All I can say is it’s SORRY!

The following picture is an armless Christ without the Cross, which is mounted behind the “sanctuary.” Think about the symbolism of this image. The devil hates the Cross and behold, it’s missing. We work with our arms and hands. Priests who represent Christ have their hands anointed. Why are the outstretched arms and hands of Christ amputated? This blasphemous depiction is par for the course for such a satanic church. 

Not only is the Vatican 2 faith devoid of the sacred, so are their church buildings. I guess they gutted the churches to reflect the gutted sacredness of the Catholic faith from the Vatican 2 religion. There’s no reason why the churches should look traditional, when the religion and its leaders aren’t. 

The Catholic Faith heals and strengthens souls. Not so with the Vatican 2 religion. It’s a sick religion that makes souls sick. Their architecture alone demonstrates this fact. The heresy of modernism is even in their architecture, which is more of the rotten fruit of Vatican 2. Millions of dollars are spent on these awful churches and their parishioners keep giving more money to the organization that keeps feeding them garbage in their giant garbage can churches. Most of them love their churches or don’t care at all. Their sickness of soul is beyond me. 

I could have continued in my leg work of going from church to church. I could have included several more churches in Lexington, such as St. Elizebeth Ann Seton or Mary Queen of the Holy Rosary. I think the cathedral is bad, too, but you get the idea. I’m sure every big city has its own new ugly so-called Catholic churches.

For the road, I’ve included below 3 more modernists church buildings found in the diocese.

The following pictures were taken from https://cdlex.org/parish-finder/?swLat=32.45131389745787&swLng=-90.817062415625&neLat=43.25875336670313&neLng=-78.204757728125

Jesus Our Savior Church in Morehead, KY

Sts. John and Elizabeth Church in Grayson, KY

St. Sylvester Church in Waynesburg, KY

 

 

Footnote [1]

No Holy Spirit here: Welcome to the “Tent” Church of the Unholy Ghost – Novus Ordo Watch

Church of the Squashed Mushroom? St. James the Apostle Parish in Ferrara, Italy – Novus Ordo Watch

Spiritually Diseased Architecture: “Resurrection Church” in Viareggio, Italy – Novus Ordo Watch

Where the Sacred IS the Profane: St. Nicholas Church in Neuried, Germany – Novus Ordo Watch

New Churches for a New Religion: Welcome to “Most Holy Trinity Church” in Austria – Novus Ordo Watch

Blasphemous Architecture: Holy Family Church in Salerno, Italy – Novus Ordo Watch

The Novus Horror Church of St. Martin – Novus Ordo Watch

Welcome to Monster Church! – Novus Ordo Watch

Introducing… Autobahn Church! – Novus Ordo Watch

Welcome to ‘Garnet Chapel’ in Austria – Novus Ordo Watch

MUST-SEE: St. Jacob “Catholic” Chapel in Austria – Novus Ordo Watch

Introducing “God’s Castle” – Novus Ordo Watch

Today the Church begins her Chair of Unity Octave which she prays for all those who are not Catholic for their conversion to the true Catholic Faith. We pray the following prayers from the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter at Rome (Jan. 18) to the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul (Jan. 25): 

Official Prayer

Antiphon: That they all may be one, as Thou, Father, in Me and I in Thee; that they also may be one in Us; that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me. (John 17:21)  

V. I say unto thee that thou art Peter,  R. And upon this Rock I will build My Church. 

Let us pray: O Lord Jesus Christ, Who didst say to Thine Apostles: peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you; look not upon my sins, but upon the faith of Thy Church, and vouchsafe unto her that peace and unity which are agreeable to Thy Will. Who livest and reignest God forever and ever. Amen. 

 An indulgence of 300 days during the octave of prayers for the unity of the Church from the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter in Rome to the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul. A plenary indulgence on the usual conditions at the end of the devout exercise. 

Other Prayers 

 Almighty and everlasting God, whose will it is that all men should be saved and that none should perish, look upon the souls that are deceived by the guile of Satan, in order that the hearts of them that have gone astray may put aside all the perverseness of heresy, and, being truly repentant, may return to the unity of Thy truth. Through Christ our Lord. Amen. 

From the Roman Missal. An indulgence of 3 years. 

Lord Jesus, merciful Saviour of the world, we humbly beseech Thee by Thy Most Sacred Heart, that all the straying sheep may turn unto Thee, the Shepherd and Bishop of their souls: Who livest and reignest world without end. Amen. 

An indulgence of 500 days (Pope St. Pius X, rescript in his own hand, Oct. 26, 1905, S. P. Ap., June 5, 1933.

Death and Judgment

To purchase this awesome book, click here.

Christ told us several things about how we should live in order to be saved.

Jesus said…

 “Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing. 6 If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth. 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, you shall ask whatever you will, and it shall be done unto you. 8 In this is my Father glorified; that you bring forth very much fruit, and become my disciples. 9 As the Father hath loved me, I also have loved you. Abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; as I also have kept my Father’s commandments, and do abide in his love.” (Matthew 15:4-10)

“But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” (Matthew 19:17)

“For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 21 You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not kill. And whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. 22 But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” (Matthew 5:20-22)

“But if you will not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive you your offences.” (Matthew 6:15)

“And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but to him that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven.” (Luke 12-10)

God through St. Paul taught…

“As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.” (Galatians 1:9)

“Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, 10 Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.” (I Corinthians 6:9-10)

“Take heed to thyself and to doctrine: be earnest in them. For in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee.” (I Timothy 4:16)

How many of us are not living right? How many of us are holding grudges against others? How many of us are fornicating with our boy and girl friends, being impure with ones self, or merely lusting after others? How many of us are getting drunk all the time, cheating others out of their money, or coveting our neighbor’s spouses or goods? How many of us are following false doctrines that are against the historic Christian Faith out of convenience?

Heaven has no place for us that live in any one of these sinful ways.

Today, our priest Fr. Oswalt posted the following writing of St. Alphonsus Liquori on preparation for death in our church bulletin. 

Preparation for Death

(St. Alphonsus M. Liguori) 1700’s 

Sixth Consideration, Death of the SinnerThird Point: God unceasingly threatens sinners with an unhappy death. “Then they shall call upon me, and I will not hear.”— Prov. i. 28. “Will God hear his cry when distress shall come upon him? ” — Job xxvii. 9. “I also will laugh in your destruction, and will mock.” — Prov. i. 26. According to St. Gregory, God laughs when he is unwilling to show mercy, ”Revenge is mine, and I will repay them in due time.” — Deut. xxxii. 35. The Lord pronounces the same threats in so many other places; and sinners live in peace as securely as if God had certainly promised to give them, at death, pardon and paradise. It is true that at whatsoever hour the sinner is converted, God promises to pardon him. But he has not promised that sinners shall be converted at death; on the contrary, he has often protested that “they who live in sin shall die in sin” — John viii. 21. “You shall die in your sins.” — Ibid. 24. He has declared that they who shall seek him at death, shall not find him. “You shall seek me, and shall not find me.” — John vii. 34. We must, therefore, seek God while he may be found. “Seek ye the Lord while he may be found.” — Isa. Iv. 6. A time shall come when it will not be in our power to find him. Poor blind sinners! they put off their conversion till death, when there shall be no more time for repentance. “The wicked,” says Oleaster, “have never learned to do good unless when the time for doing good is no more.” God wills the salvation of all; but he takes vengeance on obstinate sinners.

Should any man in the state of sin be seized with apoplexy and be deprived of his senses, what sentiments of compassion would be excited in all who should see him die without the sacraments and without signs of repentance! And how great should be their delight, if he recovered the use of his senses, asked for absolution, and made acts of sorrow for his sins! But is not he a fool, who has time to repent, and prefers to continue in sin? or who returns to sin, and exposes himself to the danger of being cut off by death without the sacraments, and without repentance? A sudden death excites terror in all; and still how many expose themselves to the danger of dying suddenly, and of dying in sin?

“Weight and balance are the judgments of the Lord.” — Prov. xvi. 11. We keep no account of the graces which God bestows upon us; but he keeps an account of them, he measures them; and when he sees them despised to a certain degree, he then abandons the sinner in his sin, and takes him out of life in that unhappy state. Miserable the man who defers his conversion till death. “The repentance which is sought from a sick man is infirm.” St. Jerome teaches, that of a hundred thousand sinners who continue in sin till death, scarcely one shall be saved. St. Vincent Ferrer writes, that it is a greater miracle to bring such sinners to salvation, than to raise the dead to life. What sorrow, what repentance can be expected at death from the man who has loved sin till that moment? Bellarmine relates that when he exhorted to contrition a certain person whom he assisted at death, the dying man said that he did not know what was meant by contrition. The holy bishop endeavored to explain it to him; but he said, “Father, I do not understand you; these things are too high for me.” He died in that state, leaving, as the venerable cardinal has written, sufficiently evident signs of his damnation. St. Augustine says, that, by a just chastisement, the sinner who has forgotten God during life, shall forget himself at death.

“Be not deceived,” says the apostle, “God is not mocked. For what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap. For he that soweth in his flesh, of the flesh also shall he reap corruption.” — Gal. vi. 7. It would be a mockery of God to live in contempt of his laws, and afterwards to reap remuneration and eternal glory. But God is not mocked. What we sow in this life we reap in the next. For him who sows the forbidden pleasures of the flesh, nothing remains but corruption, misery, and eternal death.

Beloved Christian, what is said for others is also applicable to you. Tell me; if you were at the point of death, given over by the physicians, deprived of your senses, and in your last agony, with what fervor would you ask of God another month or week, to settle the accounts of your conscience! God at present gives you this time; thank him for it, and apply an immediate remedy to the evil you have done; adopt all the means of finding yourself in the grace of God when death shall come; for then there shall be no more time to acquire his friendship.

To purchase the $2 ebook. Click The Sacred Passion of Jesus Christ

All the proceeds go towards hosting much needed clergy in India.

 

 

In a recent open email with Robert Siscoe, I asked who are the baptized non-Catholics that are members of Christ’s Body and have a right to the Christian name, which Vatican 2 is referencing and to name them? [1]

Siscoe responded: “Anyone below the age of 14 who has been validly baptized, and who has not renounced Christianity.”

The problem with Siscoe’s answer is that Vatican 2 is not referring to just those under 14 or 5 or 6, but ALL of who’ve been baptized “and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.”

If Siscoe were correct, only those under 14 would be accepted as brothers by Catholics. However, the Vatican 2 popes are clear that all Eastern Orthodox and Protestants are considered as our brethren and use the term “separated brethren” in place of heretics and schismatics.

The right to be called Christian is an external forum issue, which necessarily means that Christ’s Body is a reference to the external forum. Christ’s Body in the external forum is the Catholic Church. This is why Pope Leo XIII declared in his 1896 Encyclical Satis Cognitum, #3: “For this reason the Church is so often called in Holy Writ a body, and even the body of Christ – “Now you are the body of Christ” (I Cor. xii., 27) – and precisely because it is a body is the Church visible…. 5 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.”

Pope Pius IX declared in his Apostolic Letter to all Protestants and other Non-Catholics at the convocation of the Vatican Council, September 13, 1868, “Neither will it ever be able to be said that they are members and part of that Church as long as they remain visibly separated from Catholic unity.”

Siscoe remarked how I had stated in a previous email that, “You may call them [baptized non-Catholics] Christians out of conventional language, but they don’t have a right to it. This is another heresy of Vatican 2.”

Siscoe then replied, “It’s not a heresy.  Heresy is the denial of a dogma, that is, of a revealed truth that has been infallibly proposed as revealed by the Church. The Church has never defined the meaning of the word Christian, nor has she ever defined, as a revealed truth, that only those who are externally united to the Roman Catholic Church can be called Christians. truth.”  

Vatican 2 is saying that baptized non-Catholics have a right to the Christian name precisely because they are members of Christ’s Body. The heresy, which I was referring, is the denial that Christ’s Body is the Catholic Church. The Vatican 2 teaching denies the dogma that only Catholics are members of Christ’s Body (external forum). This is an oft repeated teaching.

Siscoe continued, “Therefore, it would not be heresy to refer to a Protestant or a Sedevacantist as a Christian.”

I didn’t say it was heresy to refer to a Protestant as a Christian. I said it was heresy to say they have a RIGHT to the name, because it denies the dogma on Christ’s Body and Eastern Orthodox and Protestants are outside of Christ’s Body (the Catholic Church in the external forum). 

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also…heretics and schismatics…” (Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441)


Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.”

I could supply dozens of teachings that say that heretics are not members of the Church. 

Siscoe believes in the one Church of heretics, who all have a right to the Christian name, just as his modernist popes have officially taught. He tried to get around it by placing a 14 year age limit on the teaching, but it doesn’t come close to the truth of Vatican 2’s teaching.

I asked Siscoe if Christ’s Body is the Catholic Church in the external forum or not. I’m still waiting for an answer, but I don’t expect to get one, because this is one teaching of Vatican 2 that Siscoe can’t BS his way out of.

Footnote

[1] Referring to non-Catholics, Unitatis Redintegratio of Vatican 2 declared: For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church – whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church – do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, (21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church. (22)

During every Advent, we like to watch the 1951 movie “A Christmas Carol” with Alastair Sim. It’s our favorite rendition of Dickens’ wonderful story about the conversion of a miser after the visitation of four ghosts on Christmas.

The character Jacob Marley always makes me think of the real poor souls in Purgatory. We should try to remember to pray for them often. As good Catholics, we know the Holy Mass is the greatest thing we can offer for the poor souls.

On the third Sunday of Advent this year, I read several stories from “Purgatory” by Fr. F.X. Shouppe, S.J., which is my favorite book of all time. No other book has affected my life more than this one book. One particular story comes during Christmas. Fr. Shouppe relates:

We know that in the Catholic liturgy there is a special Mass for the dead; it is celebrated in black vestments, and is called Mass of Requiem. It may be asked whether this Mass is more profitable to the souls than any other? The Sacrifice of the Mass, notwithstanding the variety of its ceremonies, is always the same infinitely holy Sacrifice of the Body and

Blood of Jesus Christ; but as the Mass for the Dead contains special prayers for the holy souls, it also obtains special assistance for them, at least at those times when the liturgical laws permit the priest to celebrate in black. This opinion, based on the institution and practice of the Church, is confirmed by a fact which we read in the Life of Venerable Father Joseph Anchieta.

This holy Religious, justly surnamed the Wonder-worker of Brazil, had, like all the saints, great charity towards the holy souls in Purgatory. One day during the Octave of Christmas, when the Church forbids the celebration of Requiem Masses, on the 27th of December, Feast of Saint John the Evangelist, this man of God, to the great astonishment of all, ascended the altar in black vestments, and offered the Holy Sacrifice for the Dead.

His superior, Father Nobrega, knowing the sanctity of Anchieta, doubted not that he had received a Divine inspiration; nevertheless, to remove from such conduct the character of irregularity which it appeared to have, he reprimanded the holy man in presence of all the brethren. “What, Father,” said he to him, “do you not know that the Church forbids the celebration of Mass in black today? Have you forgotten the Rubrics?”

The good Father, quite humble and obedient, replied with respectful simplicity that God had revealed to him the death of a Father of the Society. This Father, his fellow student at the University of Coimbra, and who at that time resided in Italy, in the College of the holy House of Loreto, had died that same night. “God,” he continued, “made this known to me, and gave me to understand that I should offer the Holy Sacrifice for him immediately, and do all in my power for the repose of his soul.” “But,” said the Superior, “do you know that the Mass celebrated as you have done will be of any benefit to him?” “Yes,” modestly replied Anchieta, “immediately after the memento for the dead, when I said these words: To Thee, God the Father Almighty, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honor and glory! God showed me the soul of that dear friend, freed from all its sufferings and ascending to Heaven, where his crown awaited him.”

The following true story is much like Dickens’ fictional Scrooge where the sinner is warned and given a chance to repent and change his life. Fr. Shouppe tells us:

In the year 1615, when the Fathers in Rome celebrated this monthly Communion in the church of Our Lady in Trastevere, a crowd of persons was present. Amongst the fervent

Christians there was one great sinner, who, although taking part in the pious ceremonies of religion, had for a long time led a very wicked life. This man, before entering the church, saw coming out and advancing towards him a man of humble appearance, who asked of him alms for the love of God. He at first refused, but the poor man, as is customary with beggars, persisted, asking for the third time in a most pitiful tone of supplication. Finally, yielding to a good inspiration, our sinner recalled the mendicant and gave him a piece of money.

Then the poor man changed his entreaties into other language. “Keep your money,” said he; “I stand in no need of your liberality; but you yourself greatly need to make a change in your life. Know that it was to give you this salutary warning that I came from Mount Gargano to the ceremony which was to take place in this church today. It is now twenty years since you have been leading this deplorable life, provoking the anger of God instead of appeasing it by a sincere Confession. Hasten to do penance if you would escape the stroke of Divine Justice ready to fall upon your head.”

The sinner was struck by these words: a secret fear took possession of him when he heard the secrets of conscience revealed, which he thought were known to God alone. His emotion increased when he saw the poor man vanish like smoke before his eyes. Opening his heart to grace, he entered the church, cast himself upon his knees and shed a torrent of tears. Then sincerely repenting, he sought a confessor, made an avowal of his crimes and asked pardon. After Confession, he related to the priest what had happened to him, begging him to make it known in order that devotion towards the holy souls might be increased; for he had no doubt that it was a soul just delivered that had obtained for him the grace of conversion.

It may here be asked who was that mysterious mendicant that appeared to this sinner in order to convert him? Some have believed that it was none other than the Archangel Michael, because he said that he came from Mount Gargano. We know that this mountain is celebrated throughout Italy for an apparition of Saint Michael, in whose honor a magnificent shrine has been erected. However this may be, the conversion of this sinner by such a miracle, and at the same moment when prayers and Holy Communion were being offered for the faithful departed, shows plainly the excellence of this devotion and how pleasing it must be in the sight of God.

Let us therefore conclude in the words of Saint Bernard, “May charity lead you to communicate, for there is nothing more efficacious for the eternal repose of the dead.”

A common and dangerous error advanced these days is to label certain theological opinions as heretical propositions.

Theological opinions are free opinions concerning doctrines on Faith and morals. Their value depends on facts and reasons adduced in their favor. There are different degrees of opinions ranging from probable, more probable, well-founded, pious, and tolerated. According to Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, a theological opinion ceases to be a free opinion once the Church pronounces a judgment on the matter.

At times, popes will advance a theological opinion. Theologian Fr. Joachim Salaverri gives us an example with jurisdiction, when he taught, “On the mediate or immediate origin from God of the jurisdiction of Bishops. This question was raised in the Councils of Trent and Vatican, but it was not decided. Several authors with Victoria and Vasquez held that the jurisdiction was given immediately by God to the individual Bishops; but generally Catholic authors with St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, St. Robert Bellarmine and Suarez hold that jurisdiction is given to the Bishops immediately not by God but mediated through the Roman Pontiff. Pius XII teaches this opinion positively in the Encyclical Mystici Corporis, when he says: ‘But Bishops so far as their own diocese is concerned…are not completely independent but are subject to the Roman Pontiff, although they enjoy ordinary power of jurisdiction received directly from the Sovereign Pontiff himself.’ We think that his opinion is to be preferred.” [1]

What’s most fascinating about this example is that not everything advanced in encyclicals are binding teachings of the faith. This doesn’t mean an encyclical may contain a potential error against the faith. Popes can’t err against the faith, but they may err on something not yet settled by the Church. The Fathers of the First Vatican Council discovered 40 papal errors of the past.

An opinion is an opinion. Twice this year, Feeneyites have accused me of heresy for spreading the following theological opinions on what type of faith is needed to be saved, which St. Alphonsus Liguori taught in his Moral Theology:

1. Which mysteries must be believed by a necessity of means?

Of those things which the faithful are bound to believe explicitly, some must be believed by a necessity of means, or end; without which, even if inculpably unknown, no one can obtain the ultimate end; others, by a necessity of precept, without which, if they be inculpably omitted, the ultimate end may be obtained. — Sanchez, Azor, Valentia.

Resp. I.  By a necessity of means these two things are necessary: (1) To believe explicitly that God is, and is a rewarder of the good; according to that of the Apostle to the Hebrews, xi. 6: One must believe.  Council of Trent.  (2) After the sufficient promulgation of the Gospel, to believe explicitly, as says Molina; or at least implicitly, as some teach as probable with Coninck and Laymann, in Christ and the Most Holy Trinity.  See Escobar, where from Vasquez he teaches that culpable ignorance of these mysteries, or negligence in learning them, is a grave sin, distinct from that which is its cause.  See Diana.

Faith is thus defined: It is a theological virtue, infused by God, inclining us to firmly assent, on account of the divine veracity, to all that God has revealed, and by the Church has proposed to our belief.  It is said (1) A theological virtue, that is, which has God for its object; for faith, as also hope and charity, is aimed directly at God, and thus differs from the moral virtues, which refer to Him indirectly. (2) Infused by God; because faith is a supernatural gift of God. (3) Inclining us to firmly believe; for the assent of faith cannot be joined with fear, as was wrongly said in proposition 21 proscribed by Innocent XI, but must be absolutely firm.  (4) On account of the divine veracity.   For the infallible truth (which is God Himself) is the formal object of faith. (5) To all that God has revealed; for everything revealed by God is the material object of faith.  (6) And by the Church has proposed to our belief; for the divine revelation would not be made known to us, except by the Church, which proposes the things revealed; as it is otherwise evident, on account of the signs of credibility (among which are prophecies, miracles, the constancy of the Martyrs, and such like), that the Church can neither deceive nor be deceived.  Apart from which St. Augustine famously uttered the saying: I would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the Catholic Church so moved me.

2. Whether the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation must be believed explicitly?

It is asked: whether the Mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, after the promulgation of the Gospel, must be believed with an explicit faith by necessity of means or of precept?

The first opinion, which is more common and seems more probable, teaches that they are to be believed by a necessity of means.  Thus hold Sanchez, Valentia, Molin, Continuator Tournely, Juenin, Antoine, Wigandt, Concina with Ledesma, Serra, Prado, etc.; also Salmant., Cuniliati and Roncaglia.  But these last three say, that accidentally and in a rare case one may be justified with a faith that is only implicit. — This they prove from the Scriptures, from which they say is clearly proved the necessity of means.  They prove it also from reason: for, granting that before the promulgation of the Gospel an implicit faith in Christ was sufficient, yet after the promulgation, because the state of grace is more perfect, a more perfect knowledge is required, indeed an explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity.

The second opinion, which is also sufficiently probable, says, that by necessity of precept all are bound to believe these Mysteries explicitly; but by necessity of means, it suffices if they be believed implicitly. — Thus Dominicus Soto, where he says: Although the precept of explicit faith (that is, in the Trinity and the Incarnation) is absolutely obligatory upon the whole world, nevertheless many may be excused from this obligation on account of invincible ignorance.  Franciscus Sylvius writes: After the sufficient promulgation of the Gospel, explicit faith in the Incarnation is necessary for all for salvation by a necessity of precept, and indeed also (as is probable) by a necessity of means.  And in the conclusion that follows, he says the same about the mystery of the Trinity.  Cardinal Gotti says: I say (1) The opinion which denies that explicit faith in Christ and the Trinity is so necessary, that without it no one can be justified, or be able to be saved, is very probable.   And he asserts that Scotus holds this opinion.   Eusebius Amort, the recent and most learned writer, defends absolutely the same opinion.   Elbel writes, that today this opinion is held by the illustrious Doctors Castropalao, Viva, Sporer, Laymann, who says this (second opinion) is not less probable than the first, with Richardo, Medina, Vega, Sa, and Turriano. — Cardinal de Lugo calls the first opinion speculatively probable [footnote: Or more correctly: Lugo n. 90, calls the first opinion fairly common], but defends absolutely and in great detail this second one as more probable, with Javello, Zumel, and Suarez; and de Lugo writes, that this same opinion appears to be that of St. Thomas, where the Holy Doctor says: Before Baptism, Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues, through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit.   From which Lugo argues: as Cornelius obtained grace through implicit faith, because the Gospel was not yet perfectly promulgated in that region, likewise he can obtain it who is invincibly ignorant of these mysteries; for likewise to these the Gospel is not sufficiently promulgated.

But they say it is repugnant to the divine goodness and providence, to damn adults who are invincibly ignorant, who live honestly according to the light of nature, against which there is: In every nation, he who fears Him, and works justice, is acceptable to Him? (Acts x. 35) — Indeed they respond that all Scriptures, and testimonies of the Holy Fathers that are opposed to this view, can easily be explained as of necessity of precept: either because ordinarily almost no one can be saved without explicit faith in these Mysteries, because after the promulgation of the Gospel almost no one labors under invincible ignorance of them; or because, says Lugo, they may be explained as referring to implicit faith, or explicit in desire. — Furthermore, says Laymann, an adult, if mute and deaf from birth, though he be baptized, could not receive the other Sacraments, although he so desired; indeed he could not be saved, because it is unbelievable that such a man could rightly apprehend and explicitly believe the mystery of the Incarnation, and especially of the Trinity.

It is noted by Tannerus, Silvius, Azor and Valentia, with Gulielmo Parisiensi according to Sanchez, that if one were so very untaught, that he could not grasp these mysteries, then he would be excused on account of inability, and compared to infants, and dunces. — But Sanchez says, that it is one thing to believe, another to know the mysteries, and to give an explanation of them.   Thus he thinks that all adults are bound by a necessity of means, to eventually believe such mysteries, but by a necessity of precept to know them; from which precept to know the slow of mind are excused; and he says that the authors cited are to be understood in this way. And he concludes with Gabriele, who says: It is sufficient … for them (that is, the untaught), that … they explicitly believe individual [articles] when proposed to them.

However, propositions 64 and 65 condemned by Innocent XI, say: A man is capable of being absolved, however ignorant he may be of the mysteries of faith, and even if through negligence, even culpable, he does not know the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ — It suffices that he should have believed them once; but Viva says with Marchant, that it is probably not necessary to repeat Confessions made in ignorance of the aforesaid Mysteries; since by the aforementioned opinion it is quite probable that they were valid, if the ignorance was inculpable.   For it is certain, that such ignorance, if it be vincible, is a mortal sin.   But the aforesaid proposition was justly condemned, because it said that even he is capable of being absolved, who at the time of confession suffers from ignorance of the aforesaid mysteries. — But the opinion of Father Viva is not sufficiently probable in my view.   For although the penitent probably made a valid confession, so that afterwards he appears exempt from repeating his confession, because he confessed in good faith before; yet out of respect for him who certainly sinned gravely, it should always be urged that above all one is obliged to make a confession, not only probably, but certainly valid.   On which account, when one becomes aware that his confession was possibly valid, but also possibly null, because of ignorance of the mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity or the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, he is obliged, after he has been instructed in these Mysteries, to repeat his confession.

Moreover, he is said to believe implicitly, who believes something explicitly, in which another thing is implicit; for example, if you believe what the Church believes.   See the Scholastics and Laymann. [2]

St. Alphonsus’ work won the high praise of the very learned Pope Benedict XIV.

In 1831, Pope Gregory XVI decreed it safe to follow all of St. Alphonsus’ opinions. No other saint has been given this approbation.

One Feeneyite refused to call St. Alphonsus a heretic for his teaching, but he labeled me as a heretic for agreeing with St. Alphonsus. The other Feeneyite denied St. Alphonsus wrote this section of his study despite the fact that it’s in all the translations. 

Not only do Feeneyites make dogmas out of opinions, but we’ve seen how pseudo-Catholics general who make the universal acceptance opinion a dogma. See The Universal Acceptance Doctrine Not Universally Accepted – How We Can Know a True Pope Rules

They also like to make a dogma out of the rare and extreme minority opinion that a public heretical pope remains pope until warned, declared, or deposed by authorities. Even if they don’t force this opinion on others, they inevitably force it upon themselves. Besides, it appears this opinion has been shot down by the Church by implication. See The First Vatican Council and the Pope.

More and more, we see well-intended Catholics making dogmas out of opinions, whether it’s the Cassiciacum Thesis, home-aloneism, or what’s absolutely necessary to maintain apostolicity.

We want to be very careful not to make dogmas out of opinions. We must be level-headed in this great apostasy and stay focused. God tells us through our first Pope, “Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour” (I Peter 5:8). Satan is trying to rip the last of us apart. Be on guard!

 

Footnotes

[1] Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB, [1955], pp. 144-145

[2] Theologia Moralis, Lib. II, tract. 1, cap. 1

https://archive.org/details/theologiamoralis01ligu_0/page/212/mode/2up

Feeneyism, named after the late excommunicated priest Leonard Feeney, has rapidly grown due to the aggressiveness and deceptive tactics of today’s Feeneyites. For the past several decades, groups such as Most Holy Family Monastery and Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary have been arguing that the doctrine of Baptism of desire is a heresy because it contradicts Scripture and the teaching of the Council of Trent.

The doctrine of Baptism of desire is simply the doctrine that God can justify individuals apart from the Sacrament of Baptism in extraordinary circumstances. There may be no greater absurdity ever concocted by a group passing themselves off as Catholic as declaring heretical a doctrine that’s emphatically taught by the very council they claim it contradicts.  

In Session VI, Chapter IV, the Council of Trent declared:

A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

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, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

In Session VII, Cannon IV, the Council of Trent added an anathema when it declared:

If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

Literally every single theologian and canonist has understood these passages to mean that man can be justified either by the sacrament of baptism itself or the desire for it. Some examples of the greatest saints and theologians can be found in the footnote. [1]

Most importantly, all the Fathers of Trent have given us proof that they understood the decrees as meaning that desire for baptism will suffice in place of the sacrament. [2] All the acts of the Council of Trent have been meticulously recorded. In them we find precisely how the Fathers of Trent understood their own documents and how they approached them. They all undoubtedly believed man can be saved without the sacrament in extraordinary circumstances.

A few days after the Council adopted the decrees of the sixth session, they discussed all the possibilities on how man can be saved without the sacrament. One particular and striking example was Cardinal Cajetan’s theory that:

“Children who die in the womb of their mother can be saved, (as we have said above of those infants who die before it is possible to administer baptism to them)…They can be saved, I say, by the sacrament of baptism received not really, but ‘in voto’ [by the desire] of their parents [who would give] a blessing to the infants and invoke the Trinity.

Two reasons prompted me to come to this conclusion. First of all, it is proper that the divine mercy provide for the salvation of men in every natural condition, in such a way that in whatever state man may be found, he could not allege the impossibility of salvation. Now that impossibility would exist for an infant dying in the womb of his mother if the faith of his parents could not save him.

In [the womb] the infant is capable of receiving baptism of blood; if a child yet enclosed in the womb of his mother could receive death for Christ, he would be a martyr as the holy innocents. It is then reasonable to admit that the faith of his parents could produce the same result as suffering born of infants.

Thus then one could be acting prudently and wisely in the case where children come to die in the womb of their mothers, whether because of the mother’s sickness or a difficulty in birth, in giving the children a blessing with the invocation of the Sovereign Judge. Who can say the divine mercy would not accept that baptism received by the desire of the parents. This embraces no contempt of the sacrament, since it is the impossibility of the sacrament which forces parents to have recourse to it.”

For thirteen days the Fathers of Trent cast their ballots for or against the proposition: “Children in the wombs of their mothers can be saved by blessing and invocation of the Trinity.”

Over 50 votes were cast. Twenty-six asked for a condemnation. Six asked for a condemnation but with reservations that were not exactly what Cajetan proposed. Three bishops suggested that condemnation should be placed on the certainty of the proposition. The remaining twenty-one bishops said nothing or defended Cajetan’s proposition.

After the vote, it was sent back to the theologians for revisions, which left out Cajetan’s theory. The council was too divided over the issue but it never condemned Cajetan or his proposition. Pope St. Pius V did not eliminate the proposition as often asserted. However, the pope did eliminate Cajetan’s commentary on St. Thomas. There’s no solid historical evidence that St. Pius V had any influence on the decision.

What’s interesting about the whole affair is that it demonstrates that all of the Fathers of Trent understood that desire of those of the age of reason would suffice, but not necessarily the desire of parents for their unbaptized infants. However, Cajetan’s opinion is permitted to be held by the Church.

This brings us to the Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442 which declared:

“Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…”

We know now based on the teaching of the Fathers of Trent that we are not bound by a strict interpretation of the Council of Florence’s teaching on this point. Florence was only advancing a general principle much like Our Lord does in John 3:5. There is no other remedy for infants than baptism generally, but that doesn’t leave out possible exceptions. Florence wasn’t dealing with exceptions.

Another fascinating point about the incident was how Cajetan speaks as a matter of fact that all the Fathers understood that infants in utero can receive baptism of blood if the mother is martyred. Baptism of blood is also denied by Feeneyites, even though all the Fathers of Trent believed it and the whole Church has recognized saints through Baptism of blood. [3]

We see clearly and understand how Trent is and was understood by the Church. However, the Feeneyites have to interpret Trent exactly contrary to the meaning that all the Fathers of Trent intended. According to Feeneyites, it’s heresy to believe in Baptism of desire.

Feeneyites claim that the definition of Trent was making the distinction on all that is necessary for the unbaptized. They say if Trent taught ‘and’ a desire for it, it would have invalidated all infant baptisms. Had Trent merely stated “laver of regeneration” [baptism] without mentioning a desire for, it would have been inadequate since desire is necessary for adults. It is simply telling us what cannot be missing in infants, and what cannot be missing in adults for justification.

Feeneyites further argue that Canon 4 should be interpreted in light of Canon 2 which states, “if anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ (John 3:5), are distorted into some sort of metaphor: Let him be anathema” and Canon 5 which states: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.”

When people are bent on believing something despite the obvious facts, they will evidently make fools of themselves with their explanations as Feeneyites do with Trent.

Desire for baptism is presumed with adults. It’s not the only thing needed for adults getting baptized. Faith is what is most needed. If Trent specified what must not be missing for adults, “faith” would be the optimal word, not “desire.” Baptism of desire is not accomplished by mere desire but great faith also.

Baptism of desire does not distort Canon 2 into some kind of metaphor. This Canon was simply condemning the Protestant heresies at that time. Some Protestants say the water, which Christ referred to, was a metaphorical expression being washed in the word of God and not actual water. Baptism is a work needed for salvation and Protestants reject works as necessary for salvation. This is what Trent was condemning in Canon 2.

As for Canon 5, Baptism of Water is not optional. One cannot opt out of it and be saved. Baptism of desire is for those who don’t have an option.

Feeneyites prefer their own erroneous interpretation of Trent over the interpretation of all the Fathers of Trent and all the theologians since. The very Fathers that taught the dogma on the absolute necessity of baptism that Feeneyites turn to, prove their case, would be heretics for not believing in the very thing they were defining. It just doesn’t get anymore ridiculous.

Of course, they won’t apply their own logic – by calling the popes, saints, and fathers heretics as they do with the average Catholic who follows their teaching on Baptism of desire. The Feeneyite goes from one absurdity to another. His reaction to articles such as this one is not to be humbled, but rather to get enraged, have a debate challenge, and condemning as cowardly if failure to engage.

They have proven to be like devils with their irrational thinking and debating them would be like arguing with devils deserving no recognition and only to be shunned. They have made themselves the final arbiters of truth as all antichrists do. They have a sickness of soul that can’t be fixed with facts, logic, and common sense, but only with prayer, fasting, and perhaps an exorcism or two.

 

 

Footnotes:

[1] St. Charles Borreomeo superintended the redaction of the original Italian text of the Roman Catechism, which, thanks to his exertions, was finished in 1564. It was then published in Latin and Italian as “Catechismus ex decreto Concilii Tridentini ad parochos Pii V jussu editus, Romae, 1566” (in-folio). Translations into the vernacular of every nation were ordered by the Council (Sess. XXIV, “De Ref.“, c. vii).

The Roman Catechism taught that adults “are not baptized at once…The delay is not attended the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any foreseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.” (p 179)  http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Baptism.shtml

In 1582, 27 years after Canisius’ catechism was written, the English College of Rheims published the Rheims New Testament. It was the official English translation approved by Rome. In the commentary of John 3:5, the Rheims Bible reads, “…this sacrament [Baptism] consisteth of an external element of water, and internal virtue of the Holy Spirit…Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have the Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it.” 

1582 Douai Rheims Douay Rheims First Edition 3 Of 3 1582 New Testament : Douay (Douai) Rheims College – scanned by www.fatimamovement.com : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Francisco Suarez, S.J. (1548-1617) cites St. Robert Bellarmine S.J. on Baptism of Desire in his 1602 work Opus de triplici virtute theologic, a Tractus de fide, Disp.XII, sect.4, n.22 : [As to] what is further added, that outside the Church there is no salvation, some say, as Cano, that this proposition is to be understood of the Church in general, as it always was, and not only of the Church, as it was specially instituted by Christ. But this response is unsatisfactory, both because the Church is always one, and also because the Councils really speak of this Church of Christ, and one must hold as true in some sense concerning it, that outside of it nobody is saved. Thus it is better to reply according to the distinction given between necessity in fact, or in desire [in re, vel in voto]; for thus nobody can be saved, unless he should enter this Church of Christ either in fact, or at least in will and desire. Bellarmine responds thus to a similar question. And it is manifest, that nobody is actually inside this Church, unless he is baptized, and yet one can be saved because the will to be baptized is sufficient, and likewise the will to enter the Church; thus we say the same of any faithful person who is truly penitent and is not baptized, whether he shall have come to explicit faith in Christ, or only to implicit faith : for by that faith he can have at least an implicit desire, which is sufficient with regard to baptism, as St. Thomas teaches in the aforesaid places.  Suarez, Francisco, S.J. Opus De Triplici Virtu, Te Theologica, Fide, Spe, Et Charitate. Cum superiorum permissu & Privilegio Caesareo. Sumptibus Hermanni Mylij Birckmanni, Excudebat Balthasar Lippius, 1922.

St. Robert Bellarmine  who taught in his De Controversiis: De Sacramento Baptismi. Lib. I, cap. 6., 1596 A.D.

First proposition: Martyrdom is rightly called, and is a kind of Baptism. 

Second proposition: Perfect Conversion, and Penance is rightly called Baptism of wind, and it supplies for Baptism of water at least in cases of necessity. Note that not just any conversion is called Baptism of wind, but perfect conversion, which includes true contrition, and charity, and also desire, or will to receive Baptism.

Secondly, note that this proposition was not as certain with the ancients, as was the above. For as regards Martyrdom none of the ancients, as far as I know, denied that it could supply for Baptism of water: but as regards conversion and penance there were some who denied it. Indeed the book written on the dogmas of the Church, which is falsely attributed to Augustine, chap. 74. openly teaches that a Catechumen is not saved, although he should have lived in good works, unless he be purified by the baptism of water or of blood. Also it is clear from epistle 77 of St. Bernard, that some in his time believed the same.

But without doubt it is to be believed, that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water, when not through contempt but through necessity someone dies without Baptism of water. For this is expressly held by Ezech. 18: If the impious shall do penance for his sins, I will no more remember his iniquity. Ambrose openly teaches the same in his oration on the death of Valentinian the younger: “He whom I was to regenerate, I lost; but that grace, for which he hoped, he did not lose.” Likewise Augustine book 4 on Baptism, chap. 22. and Bernard epist. 77. and after them Innocent III. chap. Apostolicam, of an unbaptized priest. Thus also the Council of Trent, sess. 6. chap. 4. says that Baptism is necessary in reality or in desire. Finally, true conversion is associated with Martyrdom, and with Baptism of water, in the name of Baptism and in two effects; therefore it is credible that it also be associated in another effect, which is to forgive guilt, and to justify man, and in this way to supply for Baptism of water.

Fr. Cornelius à Lapide, S.J. (1567- 1637) a Flemish Jesuit and renowned exegete wrote in his great biblical commentary on John 3:5 around 1615: “Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Lastly, born of water ought here to be understood either in actual fact, or by desire. For he who repents of his sins, and desires to be baptized, but either from want of water, or lack of a minister, is not able to receive it, is born again through (ex) the desire and wish for baptism. So the Council of Trent fully explains this passage (Sess. 7, Can. 4).

Some are of opinion that the sacrament of baptism was at this time instituted by Christ. But it is not probable that Christ secretly, in the presence of only Nicodemus, instituted the universal sacrament of baptism. Rather, He publicly instituted it at His own baptism in the river Jordan. Baptism, however, although it had been publicly instituted by Christ, was not binding upon the Jews and other men until after Christ’s death, at Pentecost. For then the promulgation of the Evangelical Law took place, whose beginning is baptism. Of this time Christ here speaks. As though He said, “The time for the obligation of the Law of the Gospel is close at hand. When that shall have come, the ancient Law, and circumcision, will cease, and in its place the new Law will succeed, and baptism, in which none save those who are born again of water and of the Holy Ghost will be able to enter into the kingdom of God.” Wherefore this precept of Christ has rather reference to the time after Pentecost, than the present.

Moreover, the expression, unless any one shall have been born again, intimates that baptism had been already a short time previously instituted by Christ. For Christ spake these words to Nicodemus shortly after His own baptism. And He would not have told him that baptism was necessary for salvation, unless He had already instituted it.

St. Alphonsus Liquori, (1696-1775 Doctor of the Church) who taught in his Moral Theology, Bk. 6, n. 95-7. Concerning Baptism:

Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water [“fluminis”], of desire [“flaminis” = wind] and of blood.

We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and 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”.

Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality [“non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John.

Again, St. Alphonsus Liquori

Truly Baptism of Blood is the pouring forth of blood, or undergone for the sake of the faith, or for some other Christian virtue; as teaches St. Thomas, Viva; Croix along with Aversa and Gobet, etc. This is equivalent to real baptism because [it acts] as if it were ex operato and like Baptism remits both sin and punishment. It is said to be quasi – as if, because martyrdom is not strictly speaking like a sacrament, but because those privileged in this way imitate the Passion of Christ as says Bellarmin, Suarez, Sotus, Cajetane, etc., along with Croix; and in a firm manner, Petrocorensis.

Therefore martyrdom is efficacious, even in infants, as is shown by the Holy Innocents which are indeed considered true martyrs. This is clearly taught by Suarez along with Croix and to oppose such an opinion is indeed temerarious. In adults it is necessary that martyrdom be at least habitually accepted from supernatural motives as Coninck, Cajetan, Suarez, Bonacina and Croix etc. teach. ….

Not in passing that such was also the teaching of Coninck, Cajetan, Suarez Bonacina and Croix.

[2] Concilium Tridentinum: Actorum pars altera: Acta post sessionem tertiam usq… – Google Books

[3] The Breviary states:

“Emerantiana, a Roman virgin, step-sister of the blessed Agnes, while still a catechumen, burning with faith and charity, when she vehemently rebuked idol-worshippers who were stealing from Christians, was stoned and struck down by the crowd which she had angered. Praying in her agony at the tomb of holy Agnes, baptized by her own blood which she poured forth unflinchingly for Christ, she gave up her soul to God.”

This virgin and martyr died in Rome about the year 350. A church was built over her grave. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908), some days after the death of St. Agnes, Emerentiana who was still a catechumen, went to the grave to pray, and while praying she was suddenly attacked by the pagans and killed with stones. Her feast is kept on January 23 and she is again commemorated on Sept 16 under the phrase in caemeterio maiore (where she is buried). She is represented in the iconography of the church with stones in her lap and a palm of lily in her hands.

The liturgy has some more instances: 

In the Breviary in the office of Nov. 10, is that of St. Respicius.

“During the reign of the emperor Decius, as Tryphon was preaching the faith of Jesus Christ and striving to persuade all men to worship the Lord, he was arrested by the henchmen of Decius. First, he was tortured on the rack, his flesh torn with iron hooks, then hung head downward, his feet pierced with red hot nails. He was beaten by clubs, scorched by burning torches held against his body. As a result of seeing him endure all these tortures so courageously, the tribune Respicius was converted to the faith of Christ the Lord. Upon the spot he publicly declared himself to be a Christian. Respicius was then tortured in various ways, and together with Tryphon, dragged to a statue of Jupiter. As Tryphon prayed, the statue fell down. After this occurred both were mercilessly beaten with leaden tipped whips and thus attained to glorious martyrdom.”

St. Victor of Braga of Portugal is a saint who is commemorated in the Breviary on April 11. During the reign of Diocletian, he refused to adore an idol and with great courage confessed his belief in Jesus Christ. He was severely tortured and then decapitated being baptized in his own blood.

Crisis Magazine has recently posted an article that perfectly demonstrates how Vatican 2 Catholics misunderstand Catholicism and particularly the papacy and the nature of the Church. Two striking features that stand out to me is the lack of critical thinking and the enormous amount of ignorance with the sedevacantist position. It’s as if they’ve never read a single thing we’ve ever written on the subject. However, I’m very thankful for the article since it gives us great opportunity to set the record straight once again.

The author of the piece, Kennedy Hall begins by stating, “mainstream diocesan bishops and clergy are questioning whether Pope Francis has published material or formal heresy.”

This immediately struck me. Has theological training become so bad that there’s such questioning?

Material heresy is when someone inculpably advances a heretical proposition by inadvertent ignorance. Formal heresy happens the moment one sufficiently knows the existence of the rule of the faith in the Church and that, on any point whatsoever, for whatever motive and in whatever form, one refuses to submit to it.

Theologians know what the Church teaches. Therefore, when they put forth a heresy to be believed, obstinacy is presumed, and it’s considered formal heresy. There should be no question about the matter when the subject is the papal claimant, because there’s no such thing as a true pope advancing material heresy only.

Hall continues with “there has never been a definitive teaching on how a pope could lose his office, or what we should do if he did.”

Sedevacantists do not think the Vatican 2 popes have lost the papal office. We believe they never had the Office to lose. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if there’s never been an explicit and definitive answer about how a pope can lose office or what to do if it happens. I would like to offer four explicit and definitive teachings that actually do tell us something concerning the crisis in which we can make a judgment call.

The First Vatican Council defines how a pope must be. [1] In light of the Council’s definition, has Francis kept the Catholic religion unsullied and teaching holy and remained unimpaired by any error? Does Francis have unfailing faith from Christ’s prayer and does he strengthen his brethren with the Catholic Faith? Has Francis turned the poisonous food of error away from the flock of Christ and nourished the Catholic flock with heavenly doctrine? Has Francis removed all occasion of schism that the Church might be saved as one and does he stay firm against the gates of hell?

If Francis fulfills the Vatican Council’s description, there’s no need to question his orthodoxy, how do depose him, etc. He would be the pope and that would be the end of it.

In his Encyclical, Mystici Corporis Christi, June 29, 1943, Pope Pius XII declared:

“Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed…For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

Does Francis profess the true faith? If not, can a public heretic, schismatic, or apostate be the Head of the Catholic Church?

Pope Leo XIII declared in his Encyclical, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896:

“St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “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, De Haeresibus, n. 88)…

In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others.”

Pope Leo is very clear about it. Yet, it’s as if Vatican 2 Catholics won’t listen at all to his teaching nor will they apply it.

Lastly, we have Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law: “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.”

Very Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac taught in his “General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law,” pp. 349-350: Loss of Ecclesiastical Offices. Canons 185-191, “applies to all offices, the lowest and the highest, not excepting the Supreme Pontificate.” [p. 346] (d) Public defection from the faith, by formal heresy or apostasy, with or without affiliation with another religious society. The offense must be public, that is, generally known or liable to become so before long. (Can. 2197.)

Kennedy Hall says he can’t follow the arguments of sedevacantists, because he believes “it is not fitting for there to be no pope.” My question for him is how is it fitting there can be a heretical pope in light of the four explicit and definitive teachings I just mentioned?

It’s clear from this article that Hall doesn’t know the sedevacantist arguments in order to follow them. He makes a “Sedevacantist Wager,” but what is there for us to wager based on the teaching and law of the Church?

Hall writes: Suppose there is a pope and we have to be in the Church where he reigns in order to be saved—normally speaking. Then we ought to do just that. If we submit to the pope—in a manner properly understood—then we lose nothing ultimately and stave off the risk of losing everything. If there is no pope but in our Catholic sense we act as if there is, what could we lose?

The problem here is that it’s much more than having a false pope, but an entire religion with doubtful sacraments, heretical papal teaching, and evil and harmful disciplines and laws. Graces are lost that could be gained from valid priests and sacraments. Vatican 2 is directly responsible for the abolition of the Catholic state where religious liberty is not a God-given civil right. You lose the truth by following false teaching such as believing the death penalty is contrary to the dignity of the human person. Belonging to a religion that has as its mission (in certain areas) the LGBTQ lifestyle blessed with the tacit approval of the so-called pope is formal cooperation with evil, not to mention all of its other heretical teachings.

Hall asks: Will we stand before God at the end of our lives and be chastised for praying too much for Francis or any other pope?

This has nothing to do with sedevacantism since we still pray for all our enemies. What we will be chastised for is vincible ignorance and/or cowardice for not doing the right thing. We have plenty of Catholic and Biblical teaching about false teachers and wolves in sheep’s clothing. Popes are not false teachers or wolves. 

Hall asks: It is Catholic to believe and act as if there is a pope, as this is how Catholics have always lived. In a word, it is fitting to live and think as such.

Not when the entire religion has become Protestant and practically atheistic (modernist). It’s one thing to be honestly wrong about a false pope while the rest of the Church is Catholic. We’ve seen this numerous times in Church history with antipopes. The Vatican 2 religion has dozens and dozens of erroneous beliefs and practices. It can’t possibly be the Catholic Church. How do you live and think correctly as a Catholic in a false and counterfeit religion by which you’re constantly resisting?

Hall states: Even if the sedevacantists were right—which I don’t believe is true—they run a great risk if they are wrong.

There’s absolutely no risk of being wrong or else the Church has been wrong in the past. For the sake of the argument, if sedes are honestly wrong, we would still be members of the soul of the Church. Mortal sin requires knowledge and full consent of the will to do what he thinks is evil. 

Hall makes an observation that’s not true for most sedevacantists. He writes: Of course, if someone is confused, that is one thing—God knows the heart; but if one lives a life of anathematizing other Catholics for an opinion they have no business to dogmatize, then this presents a grave problem.

Sedevacantists are not living a life of anathematizing others. We are simply following what Pope Leo XIII and Pius XII taught above and applying it. Recognizing what’s Catholic is our duty. We are reaching out to Novus Ordo Catholics to tell them what’s going on. We want them to realize they’ve been duped by imposter popes leading them astray from Catholicism. All of us were once there in ignorance. [2] 

Finally, Hall states: In the end, if we wager that there is a pope, then we live as Catholics have always lived and we hope to die as Catholics ought to hope to die. Ultimately, wagering that there is no pope offers us little if anything, other than a great risk if we aren’t careful.

Hall has got it all wrong. You don’t live as Catholics correctly if you follow a religion that has so many blatant errors with a pope who doesn’t profess the faith. In the end, there are only two options: The Vatican 2 popes are false popes or the gates of hell have truly prevailed. There is no middle ground.

I’ve said it many times, if you’re not going to consider sedevacantism, you’re not ever going there. We have enough Church teaching to know that the Vatican 2 religion is not Catholic. The very fact that a Catholic must resist it proves it. After all, the Catholic Church must be one in faith and holy in doctrine and practice.

 

Footnotes

[1] “‘For the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors, made this solemn profession: ‘The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true Faith. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ Who said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ (Matt. 16:18), should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy.’ …for they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples, ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren’ (Luke 22:32)

“‘So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of heavenly doctrine, that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of hell.”

[2] Unfortunately, non-Catholic sedevacantists such as the Feeneyites do condemn everyone but themselves. They have become their own authority against the Roman Catechism, canon law, and popes who’ve taught and supported baptism of desire. Ironically, they do what R&R trads do by following only what they believe is dogmatically pronounced and resist everything else they believe is contrary to those dogmas. They ultimately think the Church is heretical.