Feeds:
Posts
Comments

We are in my favorite month of the year. In June, the days are the longest, work is plentiful, the first batch of honey is ready to be harvested, and the delicious tart cherries, blueberries, strawberries, mulberries, etc are ready to be picked and eaten. Most importantly, this is the month of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.

In honor of Our Lord and the Catholic Church, I designed a banner and made bumper stickers out of it. They come in two sizes. Small ones are roughly 3.5 by 7 inches and the large ones are 7 by 14 inches. The actual stickers are much brighter and cleaner than pictures shown below.

If you are interested in having one for your car or truck, you may email me at catholicwarrior@juno.com for pricing, which will vary depending where you live.

 

 

“Extreme Unction” part of The Seven Sacraments by Rogier van der Weyden (1445-1450)

The most important moment of your life is arguably the moment of death. Your eternal destiny is determined by the state of your soul at that moment. Our Lord instituted the Sacrament of Extreme Unction or Last Rites for those sick and dying. However, the Vatican 2 religion has changed the sacrament to nothing more than a blessing for the sick and changed both the matter and form of the sacrament. It appears to be no longer valid. This is absolutely tragic for those ignorant Catholics who need this invaluable sacrament.

The Catholic Encyclopedia offers a wonderful explanation of the doctrine, power, and effects of this awesome sacrament. [1] Also, the late Fr. Coomaraswamy MD wrote a nice piece on Extreme Unction from which I used to write this study.

From the very beginning since St. James’ explanation in Holy Writ, it has ever been the custom to employ pure unadulterated olive oil, sometimes with a mixture of balm, water, or wine depending on which Catholic rite that’s used. This oil is blessed by the Bishop at the magnificent Mass of Maundy Thursday in Holy Week, a Mass so sacred that the Bishop is traditionally attended and assisted by twelve priests, seven deacons, and seven sub-deacons in order to say it properly. The bishop blesses three oils: Oil of Catechumens (Oleum Catechumenorum O.C. or Oleum Sanctorum), Oil of the Infirm (Oleum Infirmorum O.I.), and Holy Chrism (Sacrum Chrisma S.C.). The prayer reads: Emitte, quaesumus Domine, Spiritum sanctum tuum Paraclitum de coelis in hanc pinguedinem olivae, quam de viridi ligno producere dignatus es and refectionem mentis et corporis…(“Send forth we pray, Your Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, from heaven into this rich substance of oil…”)

Pope Eugene IV’s 1439 Bull “Exultate Deo” of the Council of Florence declared that the matter for Extreme Unction is “olive oil.”

Fr. Nicholas Halligan, O.P. tells us on p. 344 in his 1963 book, Administration of the Sacraments, (which is an instruction for priests):

The valid matter of Extreme Unction is olive oil duly blessed for this purpose by a bishop or priest who has obtained the faculty to do so by the Apostolic See. Although for lawfulness it must be pure, an admixture of extraneous matter renders it invalid, if it is no longer olive oil. If the supply of blessed oil (O.I.) becomes too diminished, other olive oil may be added, even repeatedly, but in a less quantity. Although it is not certain that the oil of the infirm alone renders the administration of Extreme Unction valid, in practice and outside of necessity the proper oil of this sacrament is to be used. In a case of necessity and in the absence of the proper oil (O.I.), another sacred oil (S.C.) may be employed under the condition (si haec est materia valida), but the sacrament must be conditionally repeated with the proper oil.

The matter specified by Paul VI in his new Vatican 2 Rite of Anointing and Pastoral Care of the Sick (promulgated November 30, 1972) is the oil of any plant. The new blessing of the oil, which may come from any plant, no longer invokes the Holy Ghost. It reads,May your blessing come upon all who are anointed with this oil, that they may be freed from pain and illness and made well again in body and mind and soul.” Interestingly, the blessing is also devoid of “forgiveness of sins” and emphasizes pain and illness only. One might interpret illness of soul as sinfulness, but it doesn’t actually say it.

It wasn’t enough for Paul VI to change the matter of the sacrament. He also changed the form as he did with all the other sacraments.

The traditional form of the sacrament reads, PER ISTAM SANCTAM UNCTIONEM ET SUAM PIISSIMAM MISERICORDIAM, INDULGEAT TIBI DOMINUS QUIDQUID PER… DELIQUISTI(“Through this Holy Unction or oil, and through the great goodness of His mercy, may God pardon thee whatever sins thou hast committed [by evil use of sight – smell, touch etc. – depending on which organ is anointed.”)

The new Vatican 2 rite of Paul VI reads, PER ISTAM SANCTAM UNCTIONEM ET SUAM PIISSIMAM MISERICORDIAM ADIUVET TE DOMINUS GRATIA SPRITUS SANCTI, UT A PECCATIS LIBERATUM TE SOLVAT ADQUE PROPITIUS ALLEVIAT(on the forehead – “Through this holy anointing may the Lord in his love and mercy help you with the grace of the Holy Spirit”, and on the hands – “May the Lord who frees you from sin save you and raise you up”)

Since Pope Leo XIII declared, “All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which they signify,” it’s reasonable to presume that “INDULGEAT TIBI DOMINUS” (God pardon thee), “QUIDQUID DELIQUISTI” (whatever sins) and “SANCTAM UNCTINEM” (Holy Unction)are the essential words.

The new form omits all these essential words, which leads to a different meaning.

Paul VI specifically forbade the use of the traditional rite after Jan. 1, 1974 in his Apostolic Constitution. [2]

Traditionally, the sacrament is executed very reverently, as the priest carries Our Lord in his pyx and only speaks when necessary. Lighted candles and bells are used accompanied by an acolyte. Catholics keep silent, kneel, and pray as the priest passes by. On arrival, the priest will pray, hear confession if possible, and administer the Viaticum. He will pronounce an exorcism over the patient and invoked the Holy Trinity, Our Lady, Angels and Archangels, saints, etc., and anoint the patient with the holy oils with the prescribed prayers, who will then return as quickly as possible to the sacristy.

Not so in the new rite.

Priests are no longer required to wear priestly vestments, no longer are reverent or silent. Rarely if ever are candles and bells or acolytes used. The Confiteor is omitted along with other traditional prayers. “Catholics” no longer are silent nor do they kneel before Our Lord and priest. On arrival, hands are laid and the anointing is limited to forehead and hands. Afterwards, all run down for coffee and donuts in under 15 minutes, much like any weekend novus ordo mass.

In the traditional rite, the priest will administer the sacrament conditionally to a person who had already died within a period of three hours. The reason is that we don’t know precisely when the soul leaves the body.

In the new rite, the instruction says that, “when a priest is called to attend those who are already dead, he should not administer the Sacrament of anointing. Instead, he should pray for them, asking that God forgive their sins and graciously receive them into the Kingdom.”

It should be noted that the Church has never had any objection to blessing the sick. The Roman ritual contains three such blessings. One of those blessings uses a relic of the true Cross in honor of St. Benedict and St. Maurice. These three blessings prove that Extreme Unction is not just another blessing as in the new rite.

I’ve personally heard Fr. Malachi Martin repeatedly say in public interviews that the new rite is a joke and confers nothing. It came sort of as a shock to me at the time. Now that I’ve held to the position of sedevacantism for the past 2 decades and looking back, I’m surprised the Vatican 2 religion even has an “anointing of the sick” for the dying. They act as if everyone goes to heaven anyway, except maybe the really, really bad people, like the Hitler’s and Stalin’s. 

In the 1970’s, Hutton Gibson gave the following explanation of Paul VI’s “sacrament”:

According to the new rite “the priest takes the oil and anoints the sick person on the forehead” (new, perhaps for professional wrestlers who head-butt) “and the hands” (and that’s all) “saying: ‘Through this holy anointing and his great love for you, may the Lord fill you with the power of His Holy Spirit’ (This approximates the new “ordinations”.) ‘Amen. In his goodness may He ease your suffering and extend his saving grace to you, freed from all the power of sin. Amen.’ There follow the prayer best suited to the person’s condition,”* (Now I lay me down to sleep?) the Lord’s Prayer recited by all, and the blessing. Try as I will, I can determine no specific intent or form in this new “celebration.” [3]

I have from a reliable source that the late Most Rev. Bishop Richard Ackerman C.S.Sp., S.T.D. (notable Vatican 2 conservative and Bishop of Covington, KY and part founder of the Sisters of St. Joseph the Worker who live and work in my hometown Versailles, Ky) refused the new rite and requested that Fr. Joseph Greenwell, a SSPV sedevacantist priest, to administer the traditional rite. The bishop obviously knew how ineffective the new rite is and wanted no part of it.

Lastly, my own priest Fr. Michael Oswalt has told us some actual miracles he’s witnessed from the administration of Extreme Unction. For instance, after Father gave the sacrament to a person about to die, the patient immediately got up and remained physically healthy.

The bottom line is that the new rite is highly doubtful, which means Catholics are forbidden to take part in it. The traditional rite is not only the rite used from time immemorial; it has proven itself effective with miracles.

What’s more, the Catholic Church can’t give doubtful sacraments, which proves the Vatican 2 religion is not the Catholic Church. The Vatican 2 religion is an evil counterfeit religion that’s not interested in saving souls, since it already holds in practice that nearly everyone is saved. Its administration of the “sacrament” is merely a theatrical performance that has little to no meaning.

 

 

 

Footnotes:

[1] CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Extreme Unction (newadvent.org)

EXTREME UNCTION (the-pope.com)

[2]  The Sacrament Of Anointing Of The Sick – Papal Encyclicals

[3] Hutton Gibson – Is the Pope Catholic – PDFCOFFEE.COM

Communium Rerum – On St. Anselm of Aosta – Pope Pius X – April 21, 1909

More bitter shall be the consequences of these threats when the vices of society are being multiplied, when the sin of rulers and of the people consists especially in the exclusion of God and in rebellion against the Church of Christ: that double social apostasy which is the deplorable fount of anarchy, corruption, and endless misery for the individual and for society.

Editae Saepe – On St. Charles Borromeo – Pope Pius X – May 26, 1910

9. This wonderful working of Divine Providence in the Church’s program of restoration was seen with the greatest clarity and was given as a consolation for the good especially in the century of Saint Charles Borromeo. In those days passions ran riot and knowledge of the truth was almost completely twisted and confused. A continual battle was being waged against errors. Human society, going from bad to worse, was rushing headlong into the abyss. Then those proud and rebellious men came on the scene who are “enemies of the cross of Christ . . .Their god is the belly…they mind the things of earth.”[18] These men were not concerned with correcting morals, but only with denying dogmas. Thus they increased the chaos. They dropped the reins of law, and unbridled licentiousness ran wild. They despised the authoritative guidance of the church and pandered to the whims of the dissolute princes and people. They tried to destroy the Church’s doctrine, constitution and discipline. they were similar to those sinners who were warned long ago: “Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil.”[19] They called this rebellious riot and perversion of faith and morals a reformation, and themselves reformers. In reality, they were corrupters. In undermining the strength of Europe through wars and dissensions, they paved the way for those modern rebellions and apostasy. This modern warfare has united and renewed in one attack the three kinds of attack which have up until now been separated; namely, the bloody conflicts of the first ages, the internal pests of heresies, and finally, in the name of evangelical liberty, the vicious corruption and perversion of discipline such as was unknown, perhaps, even in medieval times. Yet in each of these combats the Church has always emerged victorious.

17. The reformers that Borromeo opposed did not even think of this. They tried to reform faith and discipline according to their own whims. Venerable Brethren, it is no better understood by those whom We must withstand today. These moderns, forever prattling about culture and civilization, are undermining the Church’s doctrine, laws, and practices. They are not concerned very much about culture and civilization. By using such high-sounding words they think they can conceal the wickedness of their schemes.

18. All of you know their purpose, subterfuges, and methods. On Our part We have denounced and condemned their scheming. They are proposing a universal apostasy even worse than the one that threatened the age of Charles. It is worse, We say, because it stealthily creeps into the very veins of the Church, hides there, and cunningly pushes erroneous principles to their ultimate conclusions.

19. Both these heresies are fathered by the “enemy” who “sowed weeds among the wheat”[29] in order to bring about the downfall of mankind. Both revolts go about in the hidden ways of darkness, develop along the same line, and come to an end in the same fatal way. In the past the first apostasy turned where fortune seemed to smile. It set rulers against people or people against rulers only to lead both classes to destruction. Today this modern apostasy stirs up hatred between the poor and the rich until, dissatisfied with their station, they gradually fall into such wretched ways that they must pay the fine imposed on those who, absorbed in worldly, temporal things, forget “the kingdom of God and His justice.” As a matter of fact, this present conflict is even more serious than the others. Although the wild innovators of former times generally preserved some fragments of the treasury of revealed doctrine, these moderns act as if they will not rest until they completely destroy it. When the foundations of religion are overthrown, the restraints of civil society are also necessarily shattered. Behold the sad spectacle of our times! Behold the impending danger of the future! However, it is no danger to the Church, for the divine promise leaves no room for doubt. Rather, this revolution threatens the family and nations, especially those who actively stir up or indifferently tolerate this unhealthy atmosphere of irreligion.

20. This impious and foolish war is waged and sometimes supported by those who should be the first to come to Our aid. The errors appear in many forms and the enticements of vice wear different dresses. Both cause many even among our own ranks to be ensnared, seducing them by the appearance of novelty and doctrine, or the illusion that the Church will accept the maxims of the age. Venerable Brethren, you are well aware that we must vigorously resist and repel the enemy’s attacks with the very weapons Borromeo used in his day.

21. Since they attack the very root of faith either by openly denying, hypocritically undermining, or misrepresenting revealed doctrine, we should above all recall the truth Charles often taught. “The primary and most important duty of pastors is to guard everything pertaining to the integral and inviolate maintenance of the Catholic Faith, the faith which the Holy Roman Church professes and teaches, without which it is impossible to please God.”[30] Again: “In this matter no diligence can be too great to fulfill the certain demands of our office.”[31] We must therefore use sound doctrine to withstand “the leaven of heretical depravity,” which if not repressed, will corrupt the whole. That is to say, we must oppose these erroneous opinions now deceitfully being scattered abroad, which, when taken all together, are called Modernism. With Charles we must be mindful “of the supreme zeal and excelling diligence which the bishop must exercise in combating the crime of heresy.”[32] · 

29. Matt. 13:25. · 30. Conc. Prov. I, sub initium.·  31. Conc. Prov. V, Pars I. ·  32. Ibid.

Notre Charge Apostolique

Our Apostolic Mandate – Pope Pius X – Aug. 15, 1910

We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the “Kingdom of God”. – “We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind.” And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.

Rerum Omnium Perturbationem

St. Francis De Salles – Pope Pius XI – Jan. 26, 1923

Like those brilliant examples of Christian perfection and wisdom to whom We have just referred, he seemed to have been sent especially by God to contend against the heresies begotten by the Reformation. It is in these heresies that we discover the beginnings of that apostasy of mankind from the Church, the sad and disastrous effects of which are deplored, even to the present hour, by every fair mind.

An old 2012 First Things article by Thomas Pink is making a second round among some recognize and resist folks, like my younger anything but sedevacantism brother. [1] Apparently, they’re waking up to their error of resisting (rejecting) magisterial documents. Therefore, they’re taking another look to see if the documents of Vatican 2 can really be interpreted with the “hermeneutic of continuity.” After all, if an ecumenical council ratified by a pope can be heretical, what’s the foundation to believe anything outside of dogmatic definitions? Perhaps, some recognize and resist folks realize they can’t really be recognizing and resisting as they are.

Their first obstacle to overcome is the religious liberty issue from Vatican 2’s Dignitatis Humanae. They turn to Professor of Philosophy at King’s College London, Thomas Pink who spins the Vatican 2 document to make it mean exactly opposite to what it says.

He begins by giving examples from Popes Gregory XVI and Leo XIII and said they, “taught that the state should not only recognize Catholic Christianity as the true religion, but should use its coercive power to restrict the public practice of, and proselytization by, false religions—including Protestantism. Yet in its declaration on religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, the Second Vatican Council declared that the state should not use coercion to restrict religion—not even on behalf of the true faith. Such coercion would be a violation of people’s right to religious liberty.”

Professor Pink explains: The declaration is not a statement about religious liberty in general but about a specifically civil liberty: religious liberty in relation to the state and other civil institutions. It does not oppose religious coercion in general, but coercion by the state. The state is forbidden to coerce in matters of religion, not because such coercion is illicit for any authority whatsoever, but because such coercion lies beyond the state’s particular competence.”

Pink encapsulates his point: We can now see how Dignitatis Humanae does not change doctrine after all. Religious coercion by the state is now morally wrong, and a violation of people’s rights, not because religious coercion by any authority is wrong, but because the Church no longer authorizes it. The Church is now refusing to license the state to act as her coercive agent, and it is from that policy change, and not from any change in underlying doctrine, that the wrongfulness of religious coercion by the state follows.”

First of all, Popes Gregory and Leo condemned freedom to error in religion publicly declaring that it is not a right given by nature of man. [2] This is the key issue, a person’s God-given right by his nature as a human person. Not even the Church can violate a God-given right by nature of man. Professor Pink is saying something entirely different than Vatican 2. Pink makes Vatican 2 out to be merely changing policy on civil matters when, in fact, Vatican 2 is changing the doctrine based on the rights of man.

Vatican 2 defines what is meant by coercion:

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

It’s true that neither the Church nor the state can force someone to be Catholic, but that’s different from granting freedom to be publicly anti-Catholic. That’s precisely what Vatican 2 continues to teach by granting false religions to publicly profess and spread heresy and error as a God-given civil right. [3] According to Vatican 2, the foundation for this right is the dignity of the human person:

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. (2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right. [4]

Gaudium et spes of Vatican 2 reinforces the above teaching in Dignitatis Humanae. [5] Ratizinger wrote in his Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 381: “If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus… As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution, was, to a large extent, corrected…”

Professor Pink is proven entirely wrong. It is a doctrinal change and it’s about the intrinsic rights of man, which necessarily condemns the Catholic doctrine taught by Popes Gregory and Leo.

Regardless, the state does not need the Church to grant authorization to prohibit public error against God. The Church does not govern non-Catholics, the state does. Pope Leo XIII declared that it was quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship. For, if nature had really granted them, it would be lawful to refuse obedience to God, and there would be no restraint on human liberty. It likewise follows that freedom in these things may be tolerated wherever there is just cause, but only with such moderation as will prevent its degenerating into license and excess. And, where such liberties are in use, men should employ them in doing good, and should estimate them as the Church does; for liberty is to be regarded as legitimate in so far only as it affords greater facility for doing good, but no farther.[6] That means the state must NOT demand, defend, or grant such freedoms, regardless whether it’s a Catholic state or not, because it contrary to divine law. Pink’s explanation that the state is forbidden to coerce in matters of religion, not because such coercion is illicit for any authority whatsoever, but because such coercion lies beyond the state’s particular competence IS CONDEMNED by the very pope he cites. 

Vatican 2 is clear that religious liberty is a human right that not even the Church can prohibit. It declared that this “right” be made into constitutional law. The results were dissolving the Catholic Nations and Catholic Constitutions around the world. The Catholic State is being declared by the Second Vatican Council as a violation of the rights of man. Countries, such as Spain and Colombia, were forced to give up their Catholic constitutions and follow this document.

Vatican 2 implies religious liberty for non-Catholics is a right by nature of man because of the dignity of the human person. The teachings of Popes Gregory XVI and Leo XIII say it’s not a right given by nature of man, just the opposite.

The dignity of the human person concept is the basis for Vatican 2 popes to condemn capital punishment, too.

Francis declared: Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide. [7]

The Vatican 2 religion is attempting to raise the dignity of the human person to the level of God Himself. According to the council, man has an intrinsic right to publicly blaspheme God’s Name, His Nature, His Church, His Mother (which all heresy does) and he can never be put to death for any cause.  

 IT TRULY TOUCHES UPON THE DOCTRINE OF ANTICHRIST.

 

Footnotes

[1] https://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/08/conscience-and-coercion

[2] Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 15), Aug. 15, 1832: “Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor.  We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice.”

      Pope Leo XIII, Libertas (# 42), June 20, 1888: “From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature of man.”

[3] Dignitatis Humanae # 4: “In addition, religious communities are entitled to teach and give witness to their faith publicly in speech and writing without hindrance.”

[4] Dignitatis humanae (vatican.va)

[5] 28. Respect and love ought to be extended also to those who think or act differently than we do in social, political and even religious matters. In fact, the more deeply we come to understand their ways of thinking through such courtesy and love, the more easily will we be able to enter into dialogue with them.

This love and good will, to be sure, must in no way render us indifferent to truth and goodness. Indeed love itself impels the disciples of Christ to speak the saving truth to all men. But it is necessary to distinguish between error, which always merits repudiation, and the person in error, who never loses the dignity of being a person even when he is flawed by false or inadequate religious notions.(10) God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts, for that reason He forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone.(11) Cf. Matt. 22:37-40; Gal. 5:14.

60. It is now possible to free most of humanity from the misery of ignorance. Therefore the duty most consonant with our times, especially for Christians, is that of working diligently for fundamental decisions to be taken in economic and political affairs, both on the national and international level which will everywhere recognize and satisfy the right of all to a human and social culture in conformity with the dignity of the human person without any discrimination of race, sex, nation, religion or social condition. Therefore it is necessary to provide all with a sufficient quantity of cultural benefits, especially of those which constitute the so-called fundamental culture lest very many be prevented from cooperating in the promotion of the common good in a truly human manner because of illiteracy and a lack of responsible activity.

THE LIFE OF THE POLITICAL COMMUNITY

73. In our day, profound changes are apparent also in the structure and institutions of peoples. These result from their cultural, economic and social evolution. Such changes have a great influence on the life of the political community, especially regarding the rights and duties of all in the exercise of civil freedom and in the attainment of the common good, and in organizing the relations of citizens among themselves and with respect to public authority.

The present keener sense of human dignity has given rise in many parts of the world to attempts to bring about a politico-juridical order which will give better protection to the rights of the person in public life. These include the right freely to meet and form associations, the right to express one’s own opinion and to profess one’s religion both publicly and privately. The protection of the rights of a person is indeed a necessary condition so that citizens, individually or collectively, can take an active part in the life and government of the state.

However, those political systems, prevailing in some parts of the world are to be reproved which hamper civic or religious freedom, victimize large numbers through avarice and political crimes, and divert the exercise of authority from the service of the common good to the interests of one or another faction or of the rulers themselves.

Gaudium et spes (vatican.va)

[6] Pope Leo XIII, Libertas (# 42), June 20, 1888.

[7] New revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty – Rescriptum “ex Audentia SS.mi” (vatican.va)

Last Saturday morning, I spoke to Jeff, a hard-core conservative in the Novus Ordo world, who told me that he was a big fan of John Paul 2 and Steubenville University. I was told he was a walking Catholic encyclopedia that could give an answer to sedevacantism. Not only had he never heard of sedevacantism, his one quote from our entire exchange was from the 3rd grade Baltimore Catechism on salvation.

After showing him all the heretical teachings from his Vatican 2 popes, he told us that religious assent must only be given to dogmas ignoring the fact that popes can’t teach heresy regardless.

When we quoted Pope Pius IX’s Quanta Cura on the pope’s plenary power and giving assent to more than just dogmas, [1] he doubled-down and told us he didn’t have to give religious assent to Pope Pius IX’s teaching. How ironic that he would deny the very document that points to a dogma he’s rejecting, condemns what he’s saying as he’s implying the Baltimore Catechism holds more theological weight than Quanta cura and Vatican I’s definition of the pope’s plenary power.

Then I told him about John Paul 2’s (his favorite pope) teaching on religious assent from his 1993 Catechism of the Catholic Church:

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent”422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it. 

Footnote 422 is reference to Lumen Gentium 25 of Vatican 2.

He was done and ready to go after that.

Yesterday, my younger brother made the same argument. He’s an anything but sedevacantist guy who told me that the pope can deviate from the faith with heresy when teaching with non-dogmatic teaching. I told him, what I told Jeff. I quoted 892 from their catechism and said, “You don’t even follow your own religion. So you become the pope’s pope to determine when your pope deviates from the faith that you may NOT give religious assent?”

My brother doubled-down and quoted Cum ex Apostolatus from Pope Paul IV:

“The Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.”

He continued to tell me the quote means the pope doesn’t automatically lose office if he deviates from the faith.

Apparently, my brother thinks Pope Paul IV is teaching that we are to be the pope’s pope when the pope uses his mere ordinary magisterium.  

Pope Paul IV is not saying or implying that a pope can deviate from the faith in official documents whereby each person in the Church can decide when to contradict his official teaching. The context is that a pope who deviates from the faith (not in official documents) ceases to be pope, which is why he can be contradicted. [2] Bellarmine says the same thing. [3] Pope Paul IV also tells us in the document that heretics can’t become popes to begin with, which is the application of sedevacantism today.

Jeff, my brother, and all those like them go much further against Pope Pius IX’s condemnations, because they actually withhold assent to judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See that do touch upon dogmas of faith and morals. They reject the teachings from what they claim comes from an ecumenical council ratified by a pope.

They ultimately believe each Catholic is to be the pope’s pope when their pope isn’t defining a dogma. That’s their fatal flaw. They forget that Christ gave us a pope to keep the Church from deviating from Christianity, not the other way around. They should take note of what St. Robert Bellarmine rightly taught:

The Pope is the Teacher and Shepherd of the whole Church, thus, the whole Church is so bound to hear and follow him that if he would err, the whole Church would err.

Now our adversaries respond that the Church ought to hear him so long as he teaches correctly, for God must be heard more than men.

On the other hand, who will judge whether the Pope has taught rightly or not? For it is not for the sheep to judge whether the shepherd wanders off, not even and especially in those matters which are truly doubtful. Nor do Christian sheep have any greater judge or teacher to whom they might have recourse. As we showed above, from the whole Church one can appeal to the Pope yet, from him no one is able to appeal; therefore necessarily the whole Church will err if the Pontiff would err. (De Romano Pontifice, Book IV, Chapter 3; Grant translation.)

Looking at the Vatican 2 church with its heresies on religious liberty to the death penalty, its evil practices of altar girls to giving Communion to non-Catholics and those living in mortal sin, from the acceptance of homosexuality to the hideous architecture of churches, from their liberal clerics promoting abominations to their most conservative believers having to reject magisterial teaching is proof enough that the Vatican 2 religion is not Catholic. Therefore, their popes can’t be true popes. They must reject Catholicism to save their Vatican 2 religion. In rejecting their papal teachings and criticizing how awful and divided their church is, they bear witness to the truth of sedevacantism despite themselves.

 

 

Footnotes

[1] “And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim. 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its right and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.” There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church…Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.” (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, Dec 8, 1864.)

[2] Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (strobertbellarmine.net)

 [3] Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reasonhe can be judged and punished by the Church.

Growing up in Kentucky, we spent most of our time outdoors. When we got hungry, we just grabbed an apple off our apple tree that we grew in our field. We also had several tart cherry trees, peach trees, and pear trees, but perhaps the neatest thing we had were beehives. My father is a beekeeper and every year we get to eat delicious clover honey. What an awesome treat! Little did I know just how important the honeybee truly is for our lives and our holy Catholic Faith.

The honeybee may be the most important animal on earth. Pollination is vitally important for life on earth and the bees are the number one pollinators. Honey is a superfood. Bacteria can’t live in it. It’s used for ailments such as the common cold. It will help clean your teeth by killing the bacteria buildup. Bee venom is also used for healing. The honeybee is truly a gift from God.

In the early Church, the honeybee was considered a sacred creature and is a uniquely Catholic symbol.

The bee is found six times in the Bible: Deut. 1:44, Judges 14:8, Psalm 117:12, Sirach 11:3, Isaiah 7:18, and it’s also found in an addition to the Septuagint version of Proverbs of chapter 6, “Go to the ant, O sluggard, and consider her ways, and learn wisdom …. Or go to the bee, and learn how industrious she is, and how her industry deserves our respect, for kings and the sick make use of the product of her labor for their health. Indeed, she is glorious and desired by all, and though she be frail, she is honored, because she treasures wisdom.” Deborah is also the Hebrew word for bee.

Honey is mentioned 61 times in the Old Testament and 5 times in the New Testament and honeycomb is mentioned 11 times in the Bible. Samson and John the Baptist ate honey.

Christians have looked to the honeybee as a model for the Christian life. They symbolize hard work, chastity, and sacrifice. St. John Chrysostom wrote in his 12th Homily, “The bee is more honored than other animals, not because it labors, but because it labors for others.” 

The traditional tabernacle and the triple tiara are shaped like a beehive and the altar candles are made from 100% beeswax, which is a symbol of purity. Honey represents sweetness, which the Word of God in Scripture, Tradition, and the Eucharist certainly is.

Honeybees also stay with the Queen. They guard, protect, and follow her. Wherever she goes, they go. When bees sting an intruder in their hive, they will ultimately die. In other words, they will give up their own lives to save the others, especially the queen. Let us stay with Our Lady and guard and protect her honor and follow her as she followed Our Lord.

The patron saint of beekeepers and candle-makers is St. Ambrose. Legend has it that when he was an infant in his cradle, bees swarmed his mouth leaving no sting but only honey. It came to pass that he would be called the “Honey Tongued Doctor.” The beekeeper term Ambrosia (from the name of the saint) is a mixture of pollen and nectar used to feed bee larvae by worker bees.

Cardinal Maffeo Barberini changed his coat of arms from 3 horseflies to 3 honeybees to gain status. He would later became Pope Urban VIII in 1623 and he spread the imagery of honeybees throughout Rome. You can see his bees in the huge columns of the Altar of the Confession in St. Peter’s Basilica.   

Monument to Pope Urban VIII-St Peter’s Basilica – Walks in Rome (Est. 2001)

Pope Pius XI tells us that the Christian teacher imitates the bee “which takes the choicest part of the flower and leaves the rest” (Divini illius Magistri, n. 87).

Lastly, Pope Pius XII gave an address on honeybees on Nov. 27, 1948. He declared, “Bees are models of social life and activity, in which each class has its duty to perform and performs it exactly…Ah, if men could and would listen to the lesson of the bees…how much better the world would be! Working like bees with order and peace, men would learn to enjoy and have others enjoy the fruit of their labors…” [See footnote for full papal address. ]

The next time you see a honeybee, be reminded of the words of our popes and let it be. It has a lot of important work to do and so do we.

 

 

Footnote

On Bees | EWTN

“When one loves the pope, one does not stop to debate about what he advises or demands, to ask how far the rigorous duty of obedience extends and to mark the limit to this obligation. When one loves the pope, one does not object that he has not spoken clearly enough, as if he were obliged to repeat into the ear of each individual his will, so often clearly expressed, not only viva voce, but also by letters and other public documents; one does not call his orders into doubt on the pretext- easily advanced by whoever does not wish to obey-that they emanate not directly from him, but from his entourage; one does not limit the field in which he can and should exercise his will; one does not oppose to the authority of the pope that of other persons, however learned, who differ in opinion from the pope. Besides however great their knowledge, their holiness is wanting, FOR THERE CAN BE NO HOLINESS WHERE THERE IS DISAGREEMENT WITH THE POPE.” Address to the priest of the Apostolic Union, Nov. 18, 1912 In Acta Apostolicae Sedis 4 [1912] p. 695 

Now apply this teaching of Pope St. Pius X to the following… 

Pope names homosexual to Vatican commission (traditioninaction.org)

Francis holds hands with pro-homo priest (traditioninaction.org)

Pro ‘Gay’ Finnish Lutheran bishop received by Francis (traditioninaction.org)

Homosexual couple welcomed at the Vatican (traditioninaction.org)

Homosexual invited to be lector at papal Mass (traditioninaction.org)

Pope Bergoglio Kisses the Hand of a Pro-homosexcual Priest (traditioninaction.org)

Pope Benedict praises homosexual Archbishop Juliusz Paetz; L’Osservatore Romano praises Oscar Wilde (traditioninaction.org)

Benedict XVI blessed by a rabbi in Sao Paulo, Brazil @ TraditionInAction.org

Benedict XVI visiting a mosque in Constantinople @ TraditionInAction.org

Benedict XVI promotes women on the Altar; pictures of a Mass at the St. Peter’s Basilica @ TraditionInAction.org

 

Paul VI presiding over the introductory ingress of the Council, flanked by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani (left), Cardinal Camerlengo Benedetto Aloisi Masella and Monsignor Enrico Dante (future Cardinal), Papal Master of Ceremonies (right), and two Papal gentlemen.

 

The Second Vatican Council declared in Lumen Gentium ch2, “15. For several reasons the Church recognizes that it is joined to those who, though baptized and so honored with the Christian name, do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve communion under the successor of St. Peter.”

The council continued in Unitatis Redintegratio: 3. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, (19) which the Apostle strongly condemned. (20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church – for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. 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)”

This last sentence is false on several levels and sounds much like the fundamental heresy of the Protestant Revolt of the 16th century, once saved, always saved.

Being justified in baptism does not mean one automatically remains justified, nor does it mean one will always remain a member of Christ’s body. Even Scripture tells us so.

“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  (John 15: 6).”

To be cast off as a branch, one must first be a member of the tree. This verse implies that a member of Christ can be cut off from Christ. 

“See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God, if thou abide in goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again (Rom 11: 22).”

The context is in believing. Has every baptized individual remained believing in our day?  None has fallen away and been cut off? That’s the implication of Vatican 2.

The next problem with Vatican 2’s declaration that “all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian” is the fact that if it were true, then no one, not even the Church, would have a right to call such persons heretics, schismatics, or apostates. They could only be called Christians in error or separated brethren.

The Vatican 2 religion is quite aware of this, because you might find the word heresy, schism, or apostasy in their language, but you’ll be hard-pressed to find them officially calling someone a heretic, schismatic, or apostate. If you did, it would only show their hypocrisy and/or ignorance of their own teaching.

Even the Vatican 2 saint Faustina claimed that Jesus identified Protestants as heretics and Eastern Orthodox as Schismatics. In St. Faustina’s Diary, she records Our Lord’s words in 1937, long before Vatican II, for the fifth day of the Divine Mercy Novena: “Today, bring to Me the souls of heretics and schismatics and immerse them in the ocean of My mercy.”

However, the Vatican 2 religion’s Official Novena for Congregational use declared:

It was decided to adopt the designation “separated brethren” in place of heretics and schismatics because of Vatican II’s unambiguous designation concerning the relationship of Christians not in communion with the Apostolic See of Rome in the Body of Christ. The continuous and consistent use of that designation by every Pope since the Council reaffirms that decision.

However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation, those who at present are born into these communities, and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers.For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.,span>

Apparently, the Vatican 2 religion didn’t think Our Lord knew how improper it was to call baptized non-Catholics heretics and schismatics, since they have a right to be called Christian.

True popes have been abundantly clear that only Catholics are Christians.

Pope Pius XII declared: “To be Christian one must be Roman. One must recognize the oneness of Christ’s Church that is governed by one successor of the Prince of the Apostles who is the Bishop of Rome, Christ’s Vicar on earth” (Allocution to the Irish pilgrims of October 8, 1957).

Pope Leo XIII declared in Satis Cognitum, “5 So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a hereticthe life of the spirit follows not the amputated member.”

The implication of the Vatican 2 teaching is that the Church was guilty of prohibiting a God-given right of certain individuals to be called Christian, which necessarily means the Church was evil. It also means the Church has been wrong for years.

Vatican 2 is good at accusing the Catholic Church of being evil for prohibiting God-given rights to individuals. It also taught in Dignitatis Humanae that men have a God-given civil right to give witness to their faith publicly in speech and writing without hindrance. [1]

Again, the implication is that the Church was guilty of prohibiting this right to Muslims at the Council of Vienne in 1312. [2] It also means that Martin Luther was right “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit” which was condemned by in Bull Exsurge Domine, June 15, 1520 by Pope Leo X. Not only would it be against the will of the Spirit to burn them, but to call them heretics to begin with. All have a right to be called Christian.

To follow Vatican 2 is to reject the Catholic Faith as it was believed before the council. In other words, Vatican 2 is taking its queues from the Protestant Revolt with its own revolution. The Church was wrong and we’re going to set it right.

So the next time a pseudo-Catholic calls you a heretic, tell them their magisterium tells you we have a right to be called Christian. Get with your program or get out of your religion.

Footnotes

[1] Dignitatis Humanae # 4: “In addition, religious communities are entitled to teach and give witness to their faith publicly in speech and writing without hindrance.”

[2] Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “It is an insult to the holy nameand a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens (i.e., The followers of Islam, also called Muslims) live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests, commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place… This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful.      These practices cannot be tolerated without displeasing the divine maje sty.  We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands.  We enjoin on Catholic princes, one and all. They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet… Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.”

 

According to Pope Pius XII, only those are to be included as members of the Church… .

1. who have been baptized

2. who profess the true faith

3. who have not separated themselves from the unity of the Body

4. who have not been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed [1]

Baptism is presumed to be valid if water is used over the head with the correct form and intention.

Professing the true faith means publicly acknowledging and declaring the belief that all the doctrines, disciplines, laws, and liturgies of the Catholic Church are holy and true without exception. It’s an external act.

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

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….

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… 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.

Those united to Bergoglio reject the teachings of popes  Leo XIII and Pius XII and have reduced professing the true faith to merely calling oneself Catholic and Bergoglio the pope. Outside of these two declarations, pseudo-Catholics can profess whatever heresy they want and act anyway they want. They will recognize each other as Catholics and members of the Church as long as they say and do those two things and have not been excommunicated.

I was recently told by a pseudo-traditionalist that Biden and Pelosi are Catholics and members of the Church even though they profess heresy publicly. This pseudo-Catholic thinks warnings and declarations of excommunications are needed first. Professing all the Catholic dogmas, etc. isn’t really necessary to be members of the Church for him.

Pseudo-Catholics will tell us (true Catholics) that we’re in heresy for rejecting their interpretation of visibility of the Church, apostolicity, jurisdiction, papacy, dogmatic facts, or unity of the Church. Yet, they fail to acknowledge that professing the true faith as Pope Leo XIII taught is necessary for visibility, apostolicity, jurisdiction, papacy, dogmatic facts, and unity of the Church.

They have no problem saying Biden, Pelosi, and Bergoglio are Catholics when they profess heresy but when we sedes profess (what they call) heresy, we’re done for. We see that it’s not the heresy they’re really concerned with, it’s the fact we won’t call Bergoglio pope. 

The third point from Pope Pius XII on separating oneself from the unity of the Church happens either by heresy, schism, or apostasy. Pope Pius XII tells us these three things are what sever a man from the BODY of the Church by its very nature. [2] He only reiterated what Pope Leo XIII taught in Satis Cognitum:

“For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others…

Jesus Christ did not, in point of fact, institute a Church to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible after that manner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess: ‘I believe in one Church.’ ‘The Church in respect of its unity belongs to the category of things indivisible by nature, though heretics try to divide it into many parts… And so dispersed members, separated one from the other, cannot be united with one and the same head. ‘There is one God, and one Christ; and His Church is one and the faith is one; and one the people, joined together in the solid unity of the body in the bond of concord. This unity cannot be broken, nor the one body divided by the separation of its constituent parts’…. 5 So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a hereticthe life of the spirit follows not the amputated member… 9 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” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos)….

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)…

Again, unity of faith for pseudo-Catholics is merely professing to be Catholic and calling Bergoglio pope. As long as you do that, you’re part of the Body of the Church, you’re professing the true faith, you’re one in faith. That’s the absurdity of the fake Catholics around the world. 

Lastly, the Catholic Church can excommunicate persons for grave crimes such as abortion to selling relics. Merely professing the Catholic Faith doesn’t make a person a Catholic and member of the Church, but that doesn’t matter anyway for pseudo-Catholics. Just make sure you call Bergoglio pope. That’s the bottom line for these fake Catholics.

 

 

Footnotes

[1]  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 in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered — so the Lord commands — as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

17. I Cor., XII, 13.     18. Cf. Eph., IV, 5.     19. Cf. Matth., XVIII, 17.

[2]  Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi: “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.”

I recently found a gem in a military documentary. On Christmas, my son gave me a dvd on the Navajo Code Talkers of World War II. It was a perfect gift for one interested in war movies and the different cultures of the world particularly the Native American Indians. For those unaware, the Navajos played a major part in our battle with Japan. Several of these brave men tell their stories in the documentary. However, one of stories stood out to us. Marine Samuel Nakai Tso tells us some of the horror and the grace he experienced in one particular battle:

This is for real. Keep your eyes open all the time and keep your bullets in there, just lock it. While we were doing that, all of a sudden, he said, “Here they come. Here they come.” He starts blasting away, so we just grabbed our rifles. All you could do was just to start shooting, and all the rest of the guys start shooting. As soon as I went over that sandbar, this crater hole there, there’s a guy still leaning down. I though he was still alive with his helmet, and then a blast from that shell took his head off. From then on, the sergeant starts screaming, “Loosen your chinstrap,” so we’ll loosen them up. Those forces out there, it has a lot of force it can push your neck in. So that’s why we loosen our chin straps. If it blows it up, he blows it away, but some guys get saved like that. It did not take long for them to go across. We cut them across so they won’t exchange any water, footd, or ammunition. Marines went that way and we went north on the other side. By that time, from here, the ships were all out there blasting away. On the other side, they had some ships over there on the other side. That’s real deafening. When it explodes over there, you can hear it. You look over to the ship, and that sound goes back to the ship…

I didn’t know we were going to hit Iwo Jima at all, but somewhere on February the 16th or 17th, we were coming in early in the morning. We saw the mountain right there looming up. It was this little island, we just overrun that thing with all these ships coming in. We just run over that little island and go on home. But we land there and we fought, and it anybody says, many people ask me if I was scared. I say, “Yeah, I was scared.” I don’t want to tell no lies or anything. I was scared, I say. But one thing for sure, one night I dreamed a young Indian maiden came to me and gave me something. She says you wear this, you’ll come to us. I dreamed about it. One of my buddies in the foxhole kicked me and woke me up. They asked me if I had a nightmare. I woke up and that dream was so clear in my mind. I just sat there. Everybody went to breakfast. Came back, I was still sitting there thinking about it. All of a sudden, they said mail call. I don’t get no mail from anybody. I didn’t know anybody. My parents, my sisters and brothers, they are uneducated. They couldn’t write to me. So I don’t go to mail call. All of a sudden, one guy comes running back and says, “Hey, Chief, you got a letter. You got a letter.” We tore open that letter, and there was an Indian made sort of like, a rosary from a Catholic Church made out of cedar beads with a cedar cross on it, and then I just looked at it. Who would write to me? No address on it. Then “Oh, yeah, I’m supposed to wear this.” So I reached over and put it over my neck. Just the moment I put that thing on my neck, all fear disappeared, and I keep saying, “I’m going home. I’m going home.” Up to this day, I have not found who ever sent me that rosary. Nothing. So if you believe in your dreams, I quit believing, but that helped me. When I say that it helped me, I went to the rest of the time without any fear even when we ran across death valley.

I was so intrigued over his story, that after the film, I looked up Sam Tso to find out more about him. I immediately discovered more interview clips from him here: >https://www.c-span.org/video/?459728-1/navajo-code-talker-samuel-tso-oral-history-interview

The Navajo Times had a nice write up about him 8 days after Mr. Tso’s death on May 9, 2012 with pictures of his funeral. It appeared that Samuel Nakai Tso had a funeral mass at St. Isabel Mission Catholic Church for Navajo Indians, in Chinle, Arizona and buried with full military honors at Veteran’s Navajo Cemetary.

50% of all US Marines of World War II were Catholic. Let us never forget the sacrifice of these brave American heroes and the Navajo warriors like Samuel Tso who said, “I found out my land and my people. I found out my land was the whole United States, my people were all citizens of the United States. That was my people.”

In these dark days of America and the world, let us also pray for our country and the Church and not let the sacrifice of these men be in vain. And pray most fervantly for those souls in Purgatory.