Feeds:
Posts
Comments

The Road to Jerusalem by Gustave Doré, 1877

St. Paul taught, “Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God.  Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things? And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.” (II Thess. 2:3-11)

The wicked one is Antichrist. Different interpretations have been offered as to whom or what holds back the coming of Antichrist, the “son of perdition.” Some Church fathers believed it was the grace of the Spirit, while others say it was the Roman Empire. [1] Card. Manning presented a case that it’s the pope. [2] However, I’ll present another opinion.

Antichrist’s power comes from Satan according to St. John, “And the beast, which I saw, was like to a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his own strength, and great power…  And they adored the dragon, which gave power to the beast: and they adored the beast, saying: Who is like to the beast? and who shall be able to fight with him?” (Ap. 13:2, 4)

The Beast is Antichrist. There’s another beast, called the “False Prophet.” He also has the same power as Antichrist: “And I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns, like a lamb, and he spoke as a dragon. And he executed all the power of the former beast in his sight; and he caused the earth, and them that dwell therein, to adore the first beast, whose wound to death was healed.” (Ap. 13: 11-12)

However, before the devil can give power to Antichrist and False Prophet, he must be let loose from the abyss. Again, St. John, “And I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit, and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon the old serpent, which is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. And he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should no more seduce the nations, till the thousand years be finished. And after that, he must be loosed a little time…And when the thousand years shall be finished, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go forth, and seduce the nations, which are over the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, and shall gather them together to battle, the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.” (Ap. 20:1-3, 7)

A thousand years is not to be taken as a literal thousand years since apocalyptic language uses numbers symbolically. In these verses, the thousand years specifically refers to the time of Christ until the reign of Antichrist. St. John doesn’t tell us who the angel is that came down from heaven. However, he does mention St. Michael in Ap. 12:7 who with his angels fight Satan and his angels.

It’s generally held that St. John wrote the Apocalypse around 96 AD about 50 years after St. Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians. I submit that Ap. 20:1-7 and II Thess. 2:6-7 are referring to the same event. Satan is let loose and seduces the nations with Antichrist and False Prophet to whom he gives power.

St. Paul implies that the Thessalonians know who holds back the coming of Antichrist and perhaps, Paul told them. It would seem improbable that the Thessalonians would have a developed understanding of the papacy to conclude that Peter [or his successors] is the one holding back the coming of Antichrist.

Pope Leo XIII seems to suggest that it’s St. Michael. His composition of the Prayer to St. Michael is one of the most fascinating and prophetic events in modern era.

On September 25, 1888, following his morning Mass, Pope Leo XIII fell into a trance leaving those in attendance thinking that he had just died. After coming to, Leo immediately went into his private chambers and composed the prayer to St. Michael. Afterwards, the Pope described what he had seen: a terrifying Vision of Christ and Satan speaking to each other over the tabernacle. The devil told Jesus, “I could destroy the Church and convert it to myself if I had more time and power over those who will give themselves to my service.” Christ asked Satan, “How much time will you need?” Satan said, “75 years.” Our Lord, said, “So be it, you will have the time and power” and the vision vanished.

From the vision, it sounds like Satan was let loose and Pope Leo XIII’s prayer to St. Michael confirms it. The relevant part of the prayer reads:

“That cruel, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil or Satan, who seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with his angels. [Chained] Behold, this primeval enemy and slayer of men has taken courage.  Transformed into an angel of light, he wanders about with all the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out the name of God and of his Christ, to seize upon, slay and cast into eternal perdition souls destined for the crown of eternal glory.  This wicked dragon pours out, as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity.” [Satan has been loose for a time.] [3]

Pope Leo XIII commanded that his Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel to be recited after all Low Masses. The full prayer can be read in footnote [4].

As we see from the prayer, Pope Leo XIII implies that it’s St. Michael who withholds the devil, which keeps Antichrist from coming. St. Michael is the angel St. John sees “coming down from heaven” and laying hold of the “dragon the old serpent, which is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.” St. Michael is commanded by Our Lord to let the devil loose and we are beseeching Our Lord and St. Michael to “again make him captive in the abyss, that he may no longer seduce the nations.”

This means that Antichrist and the False Prophet have probably manifested and are in the world.

Check out my book “The Key to the Apocalypse”

and find out who I believe the Antichrist and False Prophet are.

In the meantime, develop a devotion to St. Michael. Buy a St. Michael Combat Chaplet and learn to pray it. Attached are promises of St. Michael to those who pray the chaplet. [5]

His Holiness, Pius IX., by a decree of the S. Congr. of Rites, Aug. 8, 1851, granted to all the faithful, every time that, with at least a contrite heart and devotion, they shall say this chaplet:

An indulgence of seven years and seven quarantines.

An indulgence of one hundred days indulgence, ever day, to any one who shall carry this chaplet about him, or kiss the medal, representing the holy angels, appended to it.

A plenary indulgence, once a month, to all who shall say this chaplet every day, on any day when, being truly penitent, after confession and communion, they shall pray especially for the triumph of holy Mother Church, and for the welfare of the Sovereign Pontiff.

A plenary indulgence, on the conditions given above, on: The feast of the Apparition of St. Michael, May 8.

The dedication of St. Michael, September 29.

St. Gabriel the archangel, March 18.

St. Raphael the archangel, October 24.

Holy guardian angels, October 2.

To gain these indulgences, a chaplet must be used, consisting of the Our Father, nine times, with the Hail Mary three times after each Our Father, and the Our Father four times at the end, saying at the same time, in order, the corresponding salutations, with the antiphon, versicle and prayer, at the end. These chaplets by order of His Holiness, Pius IX., by rescript of the S. Congr. of Indulgences, Feb 4, 1877, must be blessed by a priest who has from the Holy See the general faculty of blessing beads, medals, etc. [6]

 

Footnotes

[1] http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/23054.htm

[2] https://novusordowatch.org/2015/04/the-pope-and-the-antichrist/

[3] The Raccolta, 1930, Benzinger Bros., pp. 314-315.

[4] O Glorious Archangel St. Michael, Prince of the heavenly host, be our defense in the terrible warfare which we carry on against Principalities and Powers, against the rulers of this world of darkness, spirits of evil.  Come to the aid of man, whom God created immortal, made in his own image and likeness, and redeemed at a great price from the tyranny of the devil.

Fight this day the battle of the Lord, together with the holy angels, as already thou hast fought the leader of the proud angels, Lucifer, and his apostate host, who were powerless to resist thee, nor was there place for them any longer in Heaven.

That cruel, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil or Satan, who seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with his angels.  Behold, this primeval enemy and slayer of men has taken courage.  Transformed into an angel of light, he wanders about with all the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out the name of God and of his Christ, to seize upon, slay and cast into eternal perdition souls destined for the crown of eternal glory.  This wicked dragon pours out, as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity.

These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions.  In the Holy Place itself, where has been set up the See of the most holy Peter and the Chair of Truth for the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the Pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.

Arise then, O invincible Prince, bring help against the attacks of the lost spirits to the people of God, and give them the victory.  They venerate thee as their protector and Patron; in thee holy Church glories as her defense against the malicious power of hell; to thee has God entrusted the souls of men to be established in heavenly beatitude.  Oh, pray to the God of peace that He may put Satan under our feet, so far conquered that he may no longer be able to hold men in captivity and harm the Church.  Offer our prayers in the sight of the Most High, so that they may quickly conciliate the mercies of the Lord; and beating down the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, do thou again make him captive in the abyss, that he may no longer seduce the nations.  Amen

Behold the Cross of the Lord; be scattered ye hostile powers.

The Lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered, the root of David.

Let thy mercies be upon us, O Lord.

As we have hoped in thee.

O Lord, hear my prayer.

And let my cry come unto thee.

Let us pray.

O God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we call upon thy holy name, and as suppliants we implore thy clemency, that by the intercession of Mary, ever Virgin immaculate and our Mother, and of the glorious Archangel St. Michael, thou wouldst deign to help us against Satan and all other unclean spirits, who wander about the world for the injury of the human race and the ruin of souls.  Amen.

[5] The Chaplet of St. Michael

O God, come to my assistance. O Lord, make haste to help me. Gloria Patri…

On the first bead pray a Pater Noster, and on the next 3 beads pray Ave’s. Repeat after each of the following prayers.

  1. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Seraphim may the Lord make us worthy to burn with the fire of perfect charity, Amen!
  2. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Cherubim may the Lord grant us the grace to leave the ways of wickedness to run in the paths of Christian perfection, Amen!
  3. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Thrones may the Lord infuse into our hearts a true and sincere spirit of humility, Amen!
  4. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Dominations may the Lord give us grace to govern our senses and subdue our unruly passions, Amen!
  5. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Virtues may the Lord preserve us from evil and suffer us not to fall into temptation, Amen!
  6. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Powers may the Lord vouchsafe to protect our souls against the snares and temptations of the devil, Amen!
  7. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Principalities may God fill our souls with a true spirit of obedience, Amen!
  8. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Archangels may the Lord give us perseverance in faith and in all good works in order that we gain the glory of Paradise, Amen!
  9. By the intercession of St. Michael and the celestial Choir of Angels may the Lord grant us to be protected by them in this mortal life and conducted hereafter to eternal glory, Amen!

O glorious prince, St. Michael, chief and commander of the heavenly hosts, guardian of souls, vanquisher of rebel spirits, servant in the house of the Divine King and our admirable conductor, you who dost shine with excellence and superhuman virtue vouchsafe to deliver us from all evil, who turn to Thee with confidence and enable us by Thy gracious protection to serve God more and more faithfully every day.

Pray for us, O glorious St. Michael, Prince of the Church of Jesus Christ, that we may be made worthy of His promises.

Almighty and Everlasting God, Who, by a prodigy of goodness and a merciful desire for the salvation of all men, has appointed the most glorious Archangel St. Michael, Prince of Thy Church, make us worthy, we beseech Thee, to be delivered from all our enemies, that none of them may harass us at the hour of death, but that we may be conducted by him into the august presence of Thy Divine Majesty. This we beg through the merits of Jesus Christ Our Lord, Amen!

The Chaplet was given to the Portuguese Carmelite nun, Antonia d’Astonac, by St. Michael through a vision in 1751. He told Antonia to honor him by nine salutations to the nine Choirs of Angels. St. Michael promised that whoever practices this devotion in his honor would have, when approaching Holy Communion, an escort of nine angels chosen from each of the nine Choirs. In addition, for those who would recite the Chaplet daily, he promised his continual assistance and that of all the holy angels during life and after death deliverance from purgatory for themselves and their relations.

[6] The New Raccolta,

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZLgQAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA363&lpg=PA363&dq=Pope+Pius+IX.,+Aug.+8+1851,+granted+to+all+those+who+shall+say+this+chaplet&source=bl&ots=-WDSqySviZ&sig=ACfU3U0ci9hR1vfEGVtUFrGbl6Wjr0Yo-A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbmLjXtJPmAhWrd98KHc3gASkQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Pope%20Pius%20IX.%2C%20Aug.%208%201851%2C%20granted%20to%20all%20those%20who%20shall%20say%20this%20chaplet&f=false

 

In part 1, we analyzed statements made by John Salza in a youtube interview on sedevacantism. There were two things from the interview that stood out. First was how at 3:45, John Salza claimed that he and Robert Siscoe looked into sedevacantism with an open mind. Yet, they misrepresented every pope, saint, theologian, canonist, and sedevacantist on the topic. Second was how Salza pointed to his book “True or False Pope” which had big names endorsing it, such as Rev. Brian Harrison and the late Arnaldo Xavier de Salveira. Salza’s incompetence, which I’m pointing out, is also found in his book. Did Harrison or de Salveira not actually read the book or do they not know basic theology and law? One endorser told me that he didn’t agree on the specifics in the book but only the conclusion that sedevacantism is the improper way to deal with the crisis. Perhaps, this is also the case with Harrison and de Salveira. But if sedevacantism is the improper way to deal with the crisis, is it not also improper to deal with sedevacantism with straw-man arguments, bad theology, misrepresentations, and half-truths? The hypocrisy of anti-sedevacantists is astounding.

Continuing…

Salza’s Fifth Error – A pope denying the existence of hell would be material heresy.

At 1:13:35, Salza said, “If Francis indeed said that hell doesn’t exist, he made a materially heretical statement.”

Not only is Salza’s statement false, it’s ridiculous. It shows that Salza doesn’t know what material heresy is.

Formal and material heresy is terminology used to explain the individual advancing the heresy. When an individual inculpably advances a heretical proposition by inadvertence, it is said to be material heresy. The denial of hell is inexcusable. If Francis said hell doesn’t exist, he made a formally heretical statement.

Salza’s Sixth Error – Popes in the past have engaged in public acts of apostasy and heresy.

At 4:03, Salza said there were popes in the past that engaged in public acts of apostasy and heresy and “yet, they didn’t lose their office. In fact, we can’t think of one single Catholic bishop throughout the history of the Catholic Church who lost their office for heresy.”

As noted in part 1, St. Robert Bellarmine implied that Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, lost his office for heresy. He defected from the faith with his preachings. In today’s canon 188.4, Nestorius would be tacitly resigning from office without declaration. [1]

“And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.” [2]

Salza wrote a critique of me in his book on my position of Nestorius. On page 252, he wrote that Nestorius was deposed by the Council of Ephesus 3 years later and I was wrong to say Nestorius lost his office ipso facto immediately for preaching heresy. What Salza seems not to understand is that before the declared deposition at Ephesus, Nestorius already lost jurisdiction, which is why his excommunications were null. He lost his office. If he still retained his office, his excommunications would have been valid.

St. Bellarmine was using Nestorius as an example, for he just finished saying, “the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church, but also that they are “ipso facto” deprived of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity. St. Cyprian (lib. 2, epist. 6) says: ‘We affirm that absolutely no heretic or schismatic has any power or right’; and he also teaches (lib. 2, epist. 1) that the heretics who return to the Church must be received as laymen, even though they have been formerly priests or bishops in the Church. St. Optatus (lib. 1 cont. Parmen.) teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot have the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor bind nor loose. St. Ambrose (lib. 1 de poenit., ca. 2), St. Augustine (in Enchir., cap 65), St. Jerome (lib. cont. Lucifer.) teach the same.”

As for claiming that popes in the past have engaged in public acts of apostasy and heresy, this is misleading, because Salza’s trying to say there’s historic precedent for his Vatican 2 popes.

The only so-called pope in history that might (and that’s a big might) be said to have voluntarily engaged in public acts of apostasy was John XII and he was deposed by Emperor Otto for apostasy. No warnings were given to John XII and he was finally murdered. He definitely lost his office the hard way, if he actually had the office to lose. Obviously, popes lose office when they die. It appears to be the common opinion that he was a true pope. If he were a public apostate, he would have lost his office. It’s that simple. However, no pope in history voluntarily engaged in a public act of heresy. Perhaps Pope St. Marcellinus was a pope Salza had in mind because at 38:08, he said Pope Marcellinus offering incense to the god Jupiter. If true, it was under duress and the pope succumbed to human weakness, later recovering and dying heroically as a martyr. St. Augustine didn’t believe the pope ever caved to apostasy. It doesn’t matter, because Pope St. Marcellinus can’t be compared to the Vatican 2 popes who have freely chosen to engage in their acts of apostasy and heresy over and over again, which Salza admitted from 7:40 to 7:50. He also admitted the Vatican 2 popes have attacked the First Commandment and Francis participated in false worship [of his own free will].

Salza’s Seventh Error – Sedevacantism produces bitter fruit and loss of charity.

At 48:48, Salza attributes sedevacantism of having bitter fruits and loss of charity.

I suppose Salza is applying to sedevacantism the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 7: 16-20, by their fruits you shall know them. [3]

This is odd coming from a man who spent much time talking about the bad fruit found in his own church. Surely, he wouldn’t accuse the Catholic Church of producing bitter fruit and loss of charity. So what is the cause? Jesus told us that it’s not a what but who in verse 15:

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” (Matt. 7:15)

It’s not the Church or the position of sedevacantism. It’s people who choose not to follow the Catholic Faith. Haydock wrote in his bible commentary: “Beware of false prophets, or heretics. They are far more dangerous than the Jews, who being rejected by the apostles, are also avoided by Christians, but these having the appearance of Christianity, having churches, sacraments, &c. &c. deceive many. These are the rapacious wolves, of whom S. Paul speaks, Acts xx. Chry. hom. xix. Origen styles them, the gates of death, and the path to hell. Com. in Job. lib. i. Tom. 2.” [4]

Cornelius a Lapide wrote in his bible commentary that false prophets in Matt 7 refer to “false teachers, whether they be heretics, or Gentiles and Pagans.” He wrote about the bad fruit as 1. Of false doctrine; 2. Of bad morals and wickedness. Luther and Calvin have given examples in this age.” [5]

“Pope” Francis and the Vatican 2 popes have clearly produced bitter fruit and loss of charity. They are the wolves in sheep’s clothing because they are false teachers bringing in false doctrine and bad morals and wickedness. Salza tells us we are duty bound to resist his popes when they bring false doctrine and bad morals and wickedness. Salza is indirectly calling his Vatican 2 popes wolves in sheep’s clothing.

The pope is a shepherd, not a wolf. Therefore, the Vatican 2 popes are not popes because they are not shepherds. They are wolves!

Jesus is the Good Shepherd and He wouldn’t leave a wolf to be the head shepherd of His flock, but that’s exactly what Salza implies. It’s utter blasphemy!

Salza may have inadvertently directed us to the best argument for sedevacantism yet. I used this argument in 2010 [6] but have forgotten it. It’s time to start using it again.

Salza’s Eight Error – If it’s not infallible, it can be heretical.

At 1:06:30, Salza claims that sedevacantists believe that everything the pope teaches must be infallible.

No, sedevacantists understand that Non-infallible Church Teaching Can’t Be Heretical.

Salza’s Ninth Error – Sedevacantists use their own private rule of faith.

At 1:03:33, Salza said we sedes “are no longer Catholic because you choose to follow another rule, your own rule, or the rule of private judgment. You don’t follow the ecclesiastical magisterium.”

The very next question…

At 1:04:19, when Salza was asked, is it permissible to submit completely to the Magisterium of Francis? He answered, “No, we have a duty to recognize and resist him, to the extent he teaches what the church teaches, of course we follow it. But if he deviates from that, we have to resist it. I mean we have to know our faith. That’s different than what the sedevacantists do. The sedevacantists don’t recognize and resist. They simply don’t recognize. They don’t recognize that this is the Holy Father and that there is a magisterium…We submit to the magisterium unto the Holy Father and if he deviates, then we resist. It’s as simple as that. This is what’s been going on for 2000 years. This isn’t the first pope who’s deviated from the faith.”

The rule of faith for Salza is Salza’s private judgment. He submits or resists the magisterium when he determines the magisterium is teaching or deviating from the faith. However, when sedevacantists don’t recognize the magisterium that Salza resists (rejects), we use the rule of private judgment and aren’t Catholic. If Catholics are to judge the magisterium’s teaching on whether it’s faithful or deviating from the faith, what’s the point of the magisterium?

It’s true that we don’t follow the ecclesiastical magisterium of Salza’s church, but neither does Salza. He says he follows it, but he no more follows his magisterium than the liberals in the pews of his church.

 

 

 

Footnotes:

[1] Canon 188.4, 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.”

[2] (On the Roman Pontiff, 30)

[3] By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them. (Matt. 7:16-20)

[4] The Haydock Bible. Matthew 7:15.

[5] THE GREAT BIBLICAL COMMENTARY OF CORNELIUS À LAPIDE

[6] https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/countering-the-anti-sedevacantist-position/

 

 

 

 

 

Salza’s recent interview demonstrates how far from Catholicism he is. NovusOrdoWatch did an outstanding piece on Salza’s answer to a question they asked during the interview. I planned on posting a response to each lie, half-truth, contradiction, and absurdity, but it came out to be 4 pages long of Salza’s 60 plus errors alone. My rebuttals would have tripled the length of the article, which is too much for anyone to read, much less write. Therefore, I’m only going to highlight four main errors and continue with a part 2.

Salza’s First Error – A heretical notion of the Church’s holiness.

At 6:25, Salza implied that Vatican 2 and the new mass are contrary to the faith. He would reiterate this point several times throughout the interview. At 50:15, Salza said falsely that sedes have declared the Church to be defected all the while explaining how his church has defected into error and heresy and how we have a duty to resist it.

At 50:29, Salza said, “If you ask a sedevacantist where the Catholic Church is, they can’t tell you.” But Salza will tell you that his religion with heretical popes, cardinals, bishops and teachings from an ecumenical council and liturgy that’s contrary to the Faith is the Catholic Church. When asked at 1:13:36, which cardinals and bishops that are not professing heresy since they believe in Vatican 2, he couldn’t tell us a single cardinal or bishop that absolutely doesn’t profess heresy. He mentioned that he never heard a heresy from Burke and Schneider, but the problem is that they do hold to Vatican 2, which Salza says is contrary to the Faith.

All this concerns the second mark of the Church. The Church is holy but Salza’s understanding of holiness of the Church is the same as the Protestant understanding, not the Catholic understanding. See The Catholic Bottom Line – Part II

We’ve heard him preach it before, but at 50:50, he said, “The Church is going through her bitter passion just as Our Lord.” He’s actually right except he’s got the wrong church. His church is suffering because of his Vatican 2 popes, the so-called Vicars of Christ. For Salza’s religion to be that church would mean Christ was the cause of His own passion. Did Our Lord beat, scourge, and crucify Himself?

Salza makes clear that his church lacks the four marks that identify the true church. See Missing the Marks – The Church of Vatican 2

Salza’s Second Error – Heresy and heretics are occult until declared notorious by the Church.

At 8:55, Salza says Francis is not a manifest heretic according to the judgment of the Church. From 44:00 to 45:15, Salza claims that if the Church hasn’t judged heresy as notorious, it remains occult and that according to Cardinal Billot (at 44:47). At 1:07:35, Salza stated, “If the pope commits the sin of heresy, not the public and notorious act of heresy whereby he would lose his office, for example, if he privately denied the divinity of Christ, he would be a formal heretic and would severe his spiritual bond with the Church, but he would not be a heretic in the external forum unless he adheres to another religion or the church judges his sin as notorious.” At 1:01:21 – 1:01:59, In answering the question: Does Francis Profess Heresy? Salza answered yes, but continued to say that until the Church deems the heresy notorious, then it’s occult. Francis would only be considered an occult heretic.

Nothing could be farther from the truth or sillier. First of all, how could the Church judge a private sin notorious if no one knows it? A private or secret sin is the definition of occult.

Most, if not all, of Salza’s claims are false in the interview. So I’m sure Cardinal Billot didn’t make such a claim since the distinctions are found in canon law 2197 under the penal code no less. Popes and cardinals don’t fall under the penal code.

Rev. Charles Augustine makes the distinctions in his commentary on canon law:

  1. A crime is public if committed under, or accompanied by, circumstances which point to a possible and likely divulgation thereof. Canonists enumerate different degrees of publicity: almost occult (pene occultum), which is known to at least two witnesses; famosum or manifestum, which not only can be proved, but is known to many; and, finally, notorium. From this it will be seen that a real intrinsic distinction between a public crime and a crime notorious in fact can hardly be established. (We shall point out one distinctive trait below.) To fix the number of persons required for making a crime a public one is rather hazardous, though it may furnish a certain rule which will enable the judge to decide as to the secrecy or public character of a crime. Many canonists hold that at least six persons in a community, even the smallest (for in stance, a religious house of 10 or 12 inmates), must know of a crime, to render it public. Nor should there be any doubt about the character of the persons who are witnesses to the crime. Furthermore, the interest they may have in the crime should be weighed.
  2. A crime is notorious by notoriety of law (notorietate iuris) if it has become an adjudged matter, according to can. 1902-1904, or judicially confessed, according to can. 1750. Extrajudicial confessions do not render a crime notorious by notoriety of law. Here we must take issue with the assertion that the Code acknowledges such confessions. Thus it has been stated 14 that it would be a notorium juris if the bishop or vicar-general would catch a clergyman in flagranti! The Code contains nothing to that effect, but requires (can. cit.) a confession before the judge sitting in court.                                                                                                                                               A crime is notorious notorietate facti when it is publicly known and has been committed under such circumstances that it cannot be concealed by any artifice or be excused by any legal assumption or circumstantial evidence. The term nulla tergiversatione celari is equivalent to the other used in the Decretals. The second clause refers to imputability, which may be lessened by extenuating circumstances, according to can. 2201-2206. Hence not only the fact itself must be notorious, but also its criminal character. Thus, for instance, the fact of alienation may easily be proved by a legal deed, but whether it was criminal must be ascertained by other means; because it may be that the administrator or procurator had due permission and therefore acted lawfully. It is this element of inexcusability or of knowledge of the criminal character of the deed that appears to distinguish a public from a notorious crime. For the text manifestly lays stress on divulgation with regard to public crimes and emphasizes the criminal character as known and in excusable.
  3. Every crime which is not public, says our text, is occult or secret. The Code distinguishes a twofold secrecy, viz.: merely material (materialiter occultum), which exists when the fact is unknown, or known only to the perpetrator and a few reticent persons; and formal (formaliter occultum), when the moral and juridical guilt is unknown. An example may illustrate the distinction. If a percussor cleric orum beats a pastor at night, his identity may remain unknown, though the effects point to a crime; if the priest was beaten in a public row, there may be a reasonable doubt as to the real perpetrator. The authors, therefore, assumed that a crime committed at night could not be notorious or public. However, this theory cannot be accepted in this general sense. Take, for instance, a sacrilegious burglary. If a sufficient number of persons witnessed such a crime and recognized the perpetrator, the crime could not be styled occult. Neither does it seem true that a duel is always a secret crime, as some maintain. For although duels are generally held in a secret place, yet there are, as a rule, witnesses and signs which admit of a perfectly safe judgment that a duel has taken place. [1] 

It’s the public sin of heresy that causes a pope to lose office, which is that manifest and notorious act that needs no official judgment. How does Salza know that Francis professes heresy? Because it’s manifest! Duh. See The Sin of Heresy – Why John Salza and Robert Siscoe Get It Wrong (Part II) and A Note to John Salza: Heresy ‘Does’ Automatically Sever One from the Church

Salza’s Third Error – All theologians say that the pope has to be warned to establish that he is pertinacious.

At 9:08, Salza says sedevacantists have used and abused St. Robert Bellarmine.

No one is guiltier of using and abusing St. Robert Bellarmine than John Salza and Robert Siscoe. Salza misrepresents and maligns St. Bellarmine throughout his entire interview. We’ll see it highlighted again in his fourth error. At 13:30 to 13:44 Salza says that all the theologians say that the pope has to be warned to establish that he is pertinacious.

In fact, almost no theologian says warnings are necessary to establish pertinacity. They say the opposite. However, you will get a handful of theologians saying it such as John of St. Thomas, but no post 1917 code of law theologian and canonist says it.

St. Bellamine taught: “For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly be taken from him: for men are not bound or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.” [2]

This teaching from St. Bellarmine completely demolishes Salza’s entire thesis.

Even John of St. Thomas criticized St. Bellarmine for objecting to warnings. He wrote:

Bellarmine objected that the Apostle [St Paul] says that we must avoid the heretic after two admonitions, that is to say, after he clearly appears pertinacious, before any excommunication and sentence of a judge, as St. Jerome says in his commentary, for heretics separate themselves by the heresy itself (per se) from the Body of Christ.

And here is his reasoning:

  • A non-Christian cannot be Pope, for he who is not a member [of the Church] cannot be the head; now, a heretic is not a Christian, as commonly say the Fathers; thus, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
  • One cannot object that a character remains in him, because if he remained Pope because of a character, since it is indelible, it could never be deposed.  This is why the Fathers commonly teach that a heretic, because of heresy and regardless of excommunication, is deprived of any jurisdiction and power, as say St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose and Jerome.

Answer:

“I answer [to Bellarmine] that the heretic should be avoided after two admonitions legally made and with the Church’s authority, and not according to private judgment…” [3]

Notice also that John of St. Thomas acknowledges that a manifest heretic is not necessarily one who has been judged by the Church. Salza doesn’t agree with the most important theologian on his side. John of St. Thomas believed a pope could be a heretic until judged by the Church as not the pope. Earlier in the same document he taught:

I answer that the pontiff cannot be deposed and lose the pontificate except if two conditions are fulfilled together:

  1. That the heresy is not hidden, but public and legally notorious;
  2. Then that he must be incorrigible and pertinacious in his heresy.

If both conditions are fulfilled the pontiff may be deposed, but not without them; and even if he is not unfaithful interiorly, however if he behaves externally as a heretic, he can be deposed and the sentence of deposition will be valid. [4]

Salza’s Fourth Error – A pope as pope can be convicted of heresy.

At 14:21, Salza claims to be quoting Bellarmine as saying the pope as pope can be convicted of heresy.

Here’s what Bellarmine states: 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 reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. [5]

Notice that being judged and punished by the Church happens after the pope ceased to be pope by himself.

At 16:27, Salza claims that St. Robert Bellarmine calls the judgment “the antecedent judgment. It’s the judgment that must precede the ipso facto loss of office.”

St. Robert Bellarmine said no such thing. The good saint said the loss of office happens immediately. He gave the example of Nestorius.

“And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.” [6]

Nestorius lost jurisdiction and could not depose or excommunicate anyone after he began to preach heresy. He was not warned. He was not judged by bishops or the pope to have lost jurisdiction until after the fact he already lost it, which is why Pope St. Celestine declared that his excommunications were null at the time. They recognized what had already taken place, viz., Nestorius was no longer a member of the Church by his own doing and he didn’t join another religion. He defected from the faith by preaching heresy alone. This teaching from Bellarmine, again, demolishes Salza’s entire argument.

See also Canon 188.4 and Defection of Faith – Why John Salza and Robert Siscoe Get It Wrong (Part III)

To be continued…John Salza on Sedevacantism – Part 2

 

 

Footnotes

[1] https://archive.org/details/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary/page/n3549

[2] (On the Roman Pontiff, 29).

[3] http://www.dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-2-of-2/

[4] http://www.dominicansavrille.us/on-the-deposition-of-the-pope-part-1-of-2/

[5] (On the Roman Pontiff, 30).

[6] ibid.

 

The female judge put a gag order on Texas dad so he can’t talk about the case with the media and ruled that he doesn’t have to pay his attorney fees. The full story and video of dad telling his side can be seen here.

The David Knight Show posted Will Texas Gov. Save James?

 

 

Court Allows Chemical Castration of 7-Year-Old Boy, Forces Father to Take Classes on Transgenderism

The story concerns:

  1. Transgenderism, which is a reversal of creation and God’s Will. It’s widely accepted by the free world.
  2. In-vitro fertilization, which is contrary to divine law. It, too, is widely accepted by the free world.
  3. Chemical castration of a child which is child abuse.
  4. The state deciding against the divine law and enforcing child abuse.
  5. Feminism, because the judge is female.
  6. Acceptance by the public that a woman can be judge, state deciding against God, and enforcement of child abuse.
  7. Parent forced to accept and be educated in evil by the state.
  8. Law enforcement that enforces this evil would be substantially no different than Nazi officers carrying out the evil orders of Hitler.

St. Margaret Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus have always been a part of my life.

I remember as a child gazing at a picture of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in my grandparent’s bedroom. The eyes of Our Lord followed me wherever I went. I was aware that it was St. Margaret Mary Alacoque to whom Jesus appeared to spread this greatest of devotions because my other grandmother was named after the French saint and she told us the story.

When I got married, the first picture I bought for our home was that same picture of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. My daughter’s first word was “Jesus” as she pointed to Him in the picture. It just so happens that my wife is also named Margaret.

Rev. Alban Butler records the remarkable life of St. Margaret Mary Alacoque in his Lives of the Saints. She was a 17th century French nun and her entire life was filled with prayer and mortification. However, the Catholic Encyclopedia records a particular striking aspect of the saint’s life that should give us pause.

When Margaret was seventeen, the family property was recovered, and her mother besought her to establish herself in the world. Her filial tenderness made her believe that the vow of childhood was not binding, and that she could serve God at home by penance and charity to the poor. Then, still bleeding from her self-imposed austerities, she began to take part in the pleasures of the world. One night upon her return from a ball, she had a vision of Christ as He was during the scourging, reproaching her for infidelity after He had given her so many proofs of His love. During her entire life Margaret mourned over two faults committed at this time–the wearing of some superfluous ornaments and a mask at the carnival to please her brothers. [1]

Do we mourn over our faults that are far greater? Do we even think about them and how every sin, even venial sin, is great in the eyes of God?

In 1690, when the priest administered the Extreme Unction while at the fourth anointing of the lips, St Margaret Mary died.  She was canonized in 1920.

It took the Catholic Church 230 years to canonize this holy nun. Compare that with the counterfeit religion of Rome taking only 9 years to canonized the Koran-kissing, Wailing Wall weeping, Zoroastrian participating, crucifix covering, animist praying, schismatic con-celebrating, Martin Luther praising, anti-Catholic apologizing, and multiple pagan blessed “Pope” John Paul II.

St. Margaret Mary mourned her whole life for having worn a mask at a carnival to please her brothers when she was 17 years old. Compare that with the old Vatican 2 popes wearing clown noses and pagan headdresses along with all their other ghastly errors to please men.

The world is completely upside down.

Saint Margaret Mary pray for us.

Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

 

 

Footnote:

[1] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09653a.htm

 

The subject of whether Protestants and Orthodox are Christians and their religions are part of the Church of Christ comes up frequently on “Catholic” Relevant Radio, youtube, etc.

According to the religion of Vatican 2, which falls in line with  some Protestants, membership in the Church includes all who are baptized and profess Christ while rejecting dogmas of the Catholic Church.

The Vatican 2 religion has gone out of its way to say that the Eastern Orthodox religion is part of the one Church of Christ in the Balamand statement. [1] It also implied that the Lutheran churches are part of the Church of Christ. [2]

Vatican 2 apologists such as Msgr. Stuart W. Swetland, S.T.D., and Patrick Madrid don’t hesitate for a second to say that the Church has never changed a doctrine while in the same breath saying Protestants and Orthodox are Christians but without the fullness of truth.

To the contrary, the great Pope Leo XIII reiterated in Satis Cognitum what the Church has always taught and practiced. Below are the relevant parts.

“4 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 The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a tertian portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. “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)….

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)…

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). …

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 Pius XI continued with the subject and declared in Mortalium animos:

11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.

For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head.

Since the Second Vatican Council, Rome now calls heretics and schismatics Christians or separated brethren, and even denies that they are heretics and schismatics.

For instance, Vatican II states:

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…. 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, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” (Second Vatican Council, Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio, Chapter 1, para. 3)

Children born and raised in false churches would be accused of the sin of separation if they come to know or should know better and remain separated. We don’t presume that everybody remains invincibly ignorant. Regardless, only God can read hearts. We don’t presume to know if one is truly guilty or innocent. To say they all “are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian” is a reversal in Church teaching.

We demonstrated that Pope Leo XIII taught exactly the opposite in Satis Cognitum.

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).

The terms heretics and schismatics are canonical and doctrinal Catholic terminology referring to the baptized some of whom were justified by faith at one time. Non-baptized persons aren’t called heretics and schismatics, but rather infidels, heathens, pagans, etc. We have long standing and official Catholic terminology which the Vatican 2 religion deems inappropriate, inaccurate, and counterfactual.

We might call heretics “Christians” in conventional language, but to claim they have a “right” to the Christian name would make calling them heretics and schismatics wrong and hateful. Yet, Popes have called Protestants and Orthodox heretics in official documents. Just a few examples include Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo (On the Euchologion – 1756), Pope Pius VI in Charitas (In the Civil Oath in France – 1791), Pope Gregory XVI in Summo Iugiter Studio (On Mixed Marriages – 1832) and Probe Nostis (On the Propogation of the Faith – 1840), and Pope Pius IX in Omnem Sollicitudinem (On the Greek-Ruthenian Rite – 1874). Pope Leo XIII used it the most in several documents.

Pope Leo XIII also declared in Satis Cognitum: “Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man… but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See.”

 

Footnotes:

[1] The 1993 Balamand Statement approved by John Paul II on May 25, 1995, in Ut Unum Sint, n. 59, declared:

  1. In fact, especially since the panorthodox Conferences and the Second Vatican Council, the re- discovery and the giving again of proper value to the Church as communion, both on the part of Orthodox and of Catholics, has radically altered perspectives and thus attitudes. On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to his Church – profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops – cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches.
  2. It is in this perspective that the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognize each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity. According to the words of Pope John Paul II, the ecumenical endeavour of the Sister Churches of East and West, grounded in dialogue and prayer, is the search for perfect and total communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love (cf. Slavorum Apostoli, n. 27).

[2]  JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION

by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church Nov. 1, 1999

  1. We give thanks to the Lord for this decisive step forward on the way to overcoming the division of the church. We ask the Holy Spirit to lead us further toward that visible unity which is Christ’s will.

John Paul II approved and blessed the Joint Declaration as seen below.

PRESENTATION OF THE JOINT STATEMENT

Edward Cardinal Cassidy

President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity

  1. On the Catholic side, the Official Common Statement and the Annex have been approved by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. His Holiness Pope John Paul II has been informed accordingly and has given his blessing for the signing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, together with the Official Common Statement with its attached Annex on the date and in the place to be decided by the two partners.

 

 

The Truth or a Lie

The Temptation of Christ by my favorite artist Gustave Doré

The Father of Lies tempts Truth Himself.

 

Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me (John 14:6).

You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof (John 8:44).

The end for everyone is either Heaven where the Truth is or Hell where the Truth is not.

Everything boils down to the truth or a lie.

Every sin involves a lie, whether to God, ourselves, or to others. That makes every sinner a liar to one degree or another.

But God is true; and every man a liar, as it is written, That thou mayest be justified in thy words, and mayest overcome when thou art judged (Rom. 3:4).

However, not all sinners are of the same degree because not all sins are of the same degree. St. John tells us, “He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask. All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death (I John 16-17).

Therefore, not all liars are mortal sinners.

The word liar is found 19 times in Holy Scripture and St. John uses the word “liar” 9 times, far more than anyone else. He points to one particular lie which is blasphemy, “If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us (I John 1:10).”

If we say we have not sinned, we are saying God is a liar because He told us that we all are sinners in the Lord’s Prayer. He also tells us in Psalm 142:2 and Proverbs 24:16.

St. John declares, “Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son (I John 2:22)”

Cornelius a Lapide’s commentary on this verse reads:

Ver. 22.—Who is a liar, but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He here explains what kind of lie he means, the heresy of denying that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of God, as Simon Magus, Ebion, Cerinthus, and other Judaisers, against whom S. John wrote, both ancient and modern. For, as Bede says, “Compared with this all other lies are little or nothing.” Indeed, what more pernicious lie could be uttered or invented than this, cutting off as it does all faith and hope of salvation? He then that maintains it, is pre-eminently a liar, because he is heretical, sacrilegious, an atheist, an antichrist. The word is commonly used of those who mean one thing and say another. And this is the case with these very persons, for they knew or ought to know that Jesus was the Christ. So writes Tertullian (de Præscript. Heret. cap. xxxiii.): “John in his Epistle specially calls those persons antichrist, who said that Jesus had not come in the flesh, as Marcion and Ebion maintained.” And as Œcurnenius tells us, “Simon stated that Jesus and Christ were different persons. Jesus who was born of Mary, Christ who had come down from heaven.” S. Cyril (Catech. vi.) says that Simon Magus was the author of all these heresies, and then enlarges on them and his impostures.

Cornelius here says much of the heresies and follies of the Anabaptists, for which he quotes their history by Arnold Meshovius.

All heresy is blasphemous lies because they are lies about God and the Church.

Most Reverend Eric MacKenzie wrote on page 19 in his – “The Delict of Heresy”:

“The heinousness of apostasy and heresy is found in the fact that misbelieve or unbelief is a blasphemous imputation of error deceit to God Himself. A further blasphemy is at least implicit, in that the apostate or heretic thinks, or seems to think, that he has some means of distinguishing truth from error, which operates more certainly and more infallibly than does God’s own Infinite Intelligence. Hence, sins against faith are basically blasphemies against God Himself. As such they are considered, next to odium Dei, the most heinous that man can commit. Nor is there any essential distinction between the guilt of heresy and of apostasy, since the same blasphemy is implicit in both.”

The last time we see “liar” in Holy Writ:

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, they shall have their portion in the pool burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death (Apoc. 21:8).

The “liars” to whom St. John is referring in Apoc. 21 are the ones who die in the mortal sin of lying or else everyone would go to Hell.

One of the worst sins is blasphemy. Again, St. John points to the specific lying blasphemy that Jesus is not the Christ. There are different types of blasphemy but all are odious to God.

Blasphemy, Blasphemed, Blasphemeth, etc. are mentioned in Holy Scripture 91 times.

God destroys the blasphemers (Daniel 3:96).

Blasphemers are punished severely, sometimes by death (Lev. 24:16).

One form of blasphemy is unforgiven (Matt. 12:31).

Jesus was mocked, beaten, spit upon, and ultimately put to death because He was falsely accused of it (Matt. 26:65-68).

All heresy is lying blasphemy, therefore all heretics are liars and blasphemers.

The degree of culpability varies and those who are guilty in the eyes of God have eternal hell as their destination. All lies are deceptions that ultimately takes us away from Heaven, which is our true destination.

Recently, my children have been watching the old TV series titled “The Tall Man” which is about Billy the Kid played by Clu Gulager. The TV series has reminded me of the true story of Sister Blandina Segale who once confronted Billy the Kid. I first learned about Sister Blandina 15 years ago from homeschooling my children. The nun’s story is told in “Christ and the Americas” by Anne W. Carroll. In looking up more about the good nun, I found the following 1967 TV episode titled “Lost Sheep in Trinidad” from the TV series “Death Valley Days.” It’s about Sister Blandina’s meeting with Billy the Kid.

 

 

Sister Blandina had another run-in with Billy the Kid not shown in the episode. Apparently, Billy the Kid was about to rob the stagecoach that Sister Blandina was riding. When they pulled out their guns, the nun commanded them to put them away. As Billy rode up to the stagecoach, he tipped his hat and bowed at Sister Blandina, then rode away. Only she knew who it was.

I’ve included another episode of Sister Blandina from “Dark Valley Days.” The episode is titled “The Fastest Nun in the West.”

 

 

Can the Faithful recognize and resist the pope? I dealt with this question in a 2015 article. However, I recently stumbled upon some teachings from Pope Pius XI that castigates the recognize and resist theology. I highlighted the relevant parts within the context that’s contra R&R-ism.

In Mortalium animos Jan. 6, 1928, Pope Pius XI declared, “#5 Admonished, therefore, by the consciousness of Our Apostolic office that We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil; for We are confident that by the writings and words of each one of you the people will more easily get to know and understand those principles and arguments which We are about to set forth, and from which Catholics will learn how they are to think and act when there is question of those undertakings which have for their end the union in one body, whatsoever be the manner, of all who call themselves Christians…

#7…There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it.”

#11…Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?

The words “recognize and obey” are exactly opposite to “recognize and resist.”  The R&R crowd doesn’t obey those they call the legitimate successors of Peter. They ignore him, resist him, and reject his teachings. They are most certainly trying to stand in the way of the Vatican 2 popes and implementing Vatican 2 and the novus ordo. Of course, the R&R crowd is correct in rejecting the modernism of the Vatican 2 popes, but their reasoning for doing so is heretical, blasphemous, and just plain stupid.

The underlying principle of Mortalium animos is rejected by the R&R crowd. But then again, every papal document is the Roman Pontiff putting forth his papal authority for the faithful to obey, not to resist.

On Dec. 31, 1929, Pope Pius XI declared in Divini Illius Magistri – On Christian Education: “18. Hence it is that in this proper object of her mission, that is, “in faith and morals, God Himself has made the Church sharer in the divine magisterium and, by a special privilege, granted her immunity from error; hence she is the mistress of men, supreme and absolutely sure, and she has inherent in herself an inviolable right to freedom in teaching.'[10] …20.The Church does not say that morality belongs purely, in the sense of exclusively, to her; but that it belongs wholly to her. …25. The extent of the Church’s mission in the field of education is such as to embrace every nation, without exception, according to the command of Christ: “Teach ye all nations;”[17] and there is no power on earth that may lawfully oppose her or stand in her way. In the first place, it extends over all the Faithful, of whom she has anxious care as a tender mother.”

The whole document is about the importance of getting a good, holy, and true Christian education, which can only come about by following and obeying the teachings of the Roman Pontiff and following his rules for this education. What’s the point if the Catholic Church is propagating error like every other religion as the R&R claim?

The proposition of the R&R crowd makes the Catholic Church out to be the biggest hypocritical organization in the world. It would mean that only the Catholic Church can lead people astray with error while all other religions are condemned by the Catholic Church for doing so. It would mean only the Catholic Church can be heretical while Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy are condemned by the Catholic Church as false religions when they do so.

That’s why the R&R position is blasphemous.

On Dec. 31, 1930, Pope Pius XI promulgated Casti Connubii – On Christian Marriage.

Once again, the pope is implementing his supreme authority over the faithful. He declares in #104:

Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.

The approach of the R&R crowd is to be able to resist, dismiss, and disdain every papal teaching that they think comes short of proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas affected by the mark of infallibility. In principle, the R&R crowd is really no different than the liberals who also reject the teaching of Casti Connubii against contraception. [1]

The pick and choose mentality of the R&R crowd is what makes them the worst of hypocrites. They profess to be obedient and faithful Catholics but are neither.

Jesus told us where the hypocrites go in Matt. 24:51 and it’s not paradise.

 

Footnote:

[1] 54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious. (Casti Connubii)