Feeds:
Posts
Comments

In the book of the Apocalypse, we see reference made about a mark or character of the beast (aka Antichrist). The Bible tells us that either Antichrist or the second beast (false prophet) will make the mark on “both little and great, rich and poor, freemen and bondmen…in their right hand, or on their foreheads. And that no man might buy or sell, but he that hath the character, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name (Ap 13:16-17).”

There is a conspiracy theory that the mark of the beast will be a microchip or tattoo id forced upon citizens of the world by a world government. This microchip or id will be used in place of a cashless society where men will not be able to buy and sell, drive, fly, etc. without the microchip/id.

The main problem with this theory is that the Bible also tells us that the reception of the mark of the beast is connected to “adoring the beast and his image (Ap 14:9).” Those who receive the mark will be damned (Ap 14:11, 16:2, 19:20, 20:4).

If such a mark is forced upon mankind without their consent, they will not be damned. God is just and will not damn an individual for being forced into doing something against his will. It appears that a voluntary slavery is necessary to accomplish the feat.

The mark of the beast could be a microchip or id, but St. John’s hearers wouldn’t know anything about microchips and tattoo id’s encoded with all our information. However, we should fight against a world government, a universal microchip/id, and a cashless society. Government tyranny should not be tolerated! No doubt, a world government that enslaves men fits Antichrist. But there’s another type of slavery and it’s been around for a long time. Antichrist’s slavery is sin, particularly abominable sin.

When St. John wrote the Apocalypse, his hearers would probably have a better understanding what he meant by mark or character of the beast. The literary genre of the Apocalypse, common among the ancient Semites, is filled with illusions, images, and other symbols.

Christians are baptized and anointed with oil on the head. The hands of priests are anointed. Christians believe and think rightly with their heads and work with their hands. The foreheads represent what man believes and thinks, and the hands represent what man does in action through work. Since Antichrist is the antithesis of Christ and Christianity, the mark of the beast on the head and hand is symbolic to believing and working contrary to Christ and Christianity. To “buy and sell” in Ap. 13:17 is figurative way of saying that Antichrist controls all aspects of the economy to the degree that the whole world will have to interact with the beast in different ways to survive civilization.

The mark of the beast is the name of Antichrist or his number, which is 666. Numbers have symbolic meanings in the Apocalypse. In the Apocalypse 4:8 four living creatures in heaven (Apostles or angels) praise God, saying, “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, who was, and who is, and who is to come.” The four living creatures repeat holy 3 times to emphasize perfect holiness. The number 7 also represents perfection and the number six represents imperfection. In repeating 6 three times, St. John might be telling us that Antichrist (666) is the perfect antithesis of perfection (or 7). Note also that God’s last day of creation was on the sixth day as He rested on the seventh. Heaven is the day of peace and rest, but hell is eternal chaos and unrest. The beast never rests. He operates on the seventh day, because he is stuck in the sixth day.

On the Lord’s Day, men do unnecessary work, which is a mark of the beast.

666 was also the weight of gold that came to Solomon every year (III Kings 10:14). This gold Solomon kept receiving ties from men working on the Sabbath to make money.

“For they that will become rich, fall into temptation, and into the snare of the devil, and into many unprofitable and hurtful desires, which drown men into destruction and perdition. For the desire of money is the root of all evils; which some coveting have erred from the faith, and have entangled themselves in many sorrows (I Tim. 6:9-10).”

When Jesus told the rich man to obey the Commandments to have eternal life, the rich man said, “All these I have kept from my youth, what is yet wanting to me? Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come follow me. And when the young man had heard this word, he went away sad: for he had great possessions. Then Jesus said to his disciples: Amen, I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 19:20-23).”

Christ was pointing out how the rich man did not keep the Commandments, because he broke the very first one:

“Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them (Ex. 20:3-5).”

The rich man had money for his god, but the love of money can ultimately lead man to think of himself as god who serves himself with a life of wealth, pleasure, and power.

Antichrist makes himself out to be a god in the same way. He worships himself.

In the first several centuries, Christians were martyred because they refused to give up on Christ, worship idols, and adore the emperor. In other words, they refused what might be called the mark of the beast in their day. St. John tells us, “And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world (I John 4:3).”

Throughout history, Christians had an option to follow Christ or believe and work contrary to Christ.

St. John also had in mind a final Antichrist, who would have his own particular marks. We live in a world where the spirit of Antichrist is everywhere in society. Not every wicked thing will constitute the mark of the beast, but it will have the same damning effect on souls. Receiving or not receiving the mark of the beast will affect our lives in society. In some cases, it will be difficult to get along without accepting Antichrist’s mark.

Antichrist involves society as a whole. Since Antichrist is the perfect antithesis of Christ, I would look for the sins of abomination and which cry to heaven for vengeance.

Idolatry, blasphemy, and rejecting the Lord’s Day would be at the top of the list as these are against the first of the 10 Commandments. Then again, all abominations are part and parcel with the idolatry of self.

Abortion, for instance, is wicked, but being against it will not prevent you from getting along in society. We can continue to buy and sell (i.e. live normally). Half of society is against abortion. However, vaccines are made by the tissue of aborted babies. Knowing this fact will not keep people from getting vaccines. They will scream against the evil of abortion and then happily receive vaccines they know come from the aborted children. Rejecting vaccines makes people outcasts and it may prevent them from attending schools or other parts of society. Since many people are unaware or don’t believe that vaccines are made by aborted children, receiving a vaccine would probably not constitute as a mark of the beast.

There are two abominable sins that everybody knows in their hearts to be against God, because they are against the natural law. These two sins affect society and rejecting these sins will hamper citizens from living normally. Homosexuality and feminism are two abominations that are contrary to the creation of mankind. These two abominations are forced upon mankind by law. Taxes are paid in support of both. Government, military, law and order throughout the world support and practice one or both and then force these abominations upon man.

When you accept homosexuality as an acceptable part of society even though it’s contrary to nature (Rom. 1, Jude 1:7), you accept the mark of the beast in your head. If you vote to make it so, you accept the mark on your hand.

When you say women are men’s authoritative equal, which is contrary to nature (I Tim. 2:12-13), you receive the mark of the beast on the head. When you put them in charge of government, military, police, etc., you accept the mark of the beast on the hand. When men give in to women as authoritative equals for a paycheck, they receive the mark of the beast on their hands.

So while “Christians” are looking at the future microchip/id as the mark of the beast, these same people will have already received the mark of the beast when they decided to do unnecessary work on the Lord’s Day for a paycheck, when they contributed to homosexuality and feminism by believing, deceiving, promoting, and voting, and when they give in and voluntarily go along with these and other abominations of Antichrist.

When man acknowledges these abominations as the accepted norm, he ultimately has placed himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God’s majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. “He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God” (II. Thess. Ii., 2). Man becomes Antichrist. He creates his own false religions, ideologies, and evil governments, which promotes himself as if he were God. He marks and idolizes himself.

When I think of the most wicked and notorious humans who’ve ever lived, Nero, Caligula, Diocletian, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot all come to mind. However, I would rank Martin Luther at the top of the list right behind Arius and Judas Iscariot.

Judas is #1 because he knew Christ, betrayed him, killed himself, and Christ told us that it would have been better had he never been born. He’s also the only person the Catholic Church has ever taught went to hell. [1] Luther taught that Judas was operating under God’s positive Will. This is just one of Luther’s many blasphemous heresies.

Arius argued against Christ’s divinity and it shook up the Church. Many bishops fell into Arianism throughout Christendom. St. John warned against those like Arius, “And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God. And this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh: and he is now already in the world (I John 4:3).”

Then we come to Martin Luther, the ex-Catholic German Augustinian priest. He was a narcissistic, foul-mouthed, blaspheming glutton and drunk. Luther sinned boldly. With striking parallels with Hitler, Luther led a German campaign against the Catholic Church and Jews. Like Hitler, his death is also controversial. It’s related by several different documented sources that Luther committed suicide. [2]

Luther was no reformer or savior of Christianity. The Church never needs to be reformed in doctrine or else the Church would not be pillar and ground of the truth (I Tim. 3:15). Luther essentially argued that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church for hundreds of years. He stood against all of Christendom with his own personal doctrines to fit his own personal religion.

Luther left his convent, broke all his solemn vows to God, married a nun, and began a revolution, which has led countless souls astray from the true Faith, the sacraments, and ultimately Christ. His revolt is felt heavily today, since most all so-called Bible Christians of Protestantism, Fundamentalism, and Evangelicalism follow Luther’s sola scriptura doctrine, which is the very foundation for the mess we see in today’s secular society. Every man for himself on what constitutes the Word of God and how it’s to be applied. Therefore, man becomes the final arbiter of truth and the Christian nation is ultimately destroyed. Christ is no longer recognized as the King of all nations. Man rules himself as he feigns love and devotion to God. Man ends up worshiping himself. Luther’s defection with the backing of the German princes has led the world down a path of destruction and the forming of the final Antichrist.

Luther, himself, was an anti-Christ who denied the Word of God of Sacred Tradition and the authority that gave us the Holy Bible. What pride Luther had and what folly by those that follow him or his doctrines.

That person, pride, and folly are praised by the Vatican 2 popes.

Following the Second Vatican Council, the Vatican began cozying up to the followers of Luther’s doctrines. It first acknowledged that these heretics are true Christians and their religions make up part of the Church of Christ. [3]

Rome issued a new mass devoid of nearly all of the prayers used in the ancient Latin Rite. In concocting this new mass, Rome allowed the collaboration of six Protestants, in order that the new rite would please Lutherans and Anglicans. Keep in mind the Catholic maxim, Lex orandi, lex credendi, the law for prayer is the law for faith.

On Nov. 6, 1983, John Paul II issued a letter, which praised Martin Luther. The letter was to mark the anniversary of Martin Luther’s 500th birthday. [4] On Dec. 11, 1983, John Paul II participated in a Lutheran religious celebration of Martin Luther’s legacy, again praising him.

In 1999, John Paul II approved the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, which acknowledges the Lutheran religion as part of the Church of Christ, which necessarily rejects the formal unity of the Church, a complete heresy.

John Paul II continued his ecumenical relationship with the Lutherans through joint prayer celebrations and events. His successor, Benedict XVI, would follow in his footsteps.

On March 14, 2010, in a Lutheran temple in Rome, Benedict XVI preached on the anniversary of the joint declaration on justification.

On September 23, 2011, Benedict XVI met with the Lutheran council in Erfurt and celebrated an ecumenical service in the chapel of the Lutheran monastery of St. Augustine. There, Benedict XVI would bow towards the Lutheran altar devoid of sacrifice and prayed alongside a woman bishop. [5]

Apparently in Lutheranism (as with the rest of the world), women are seen as authoritative equals to men. At the 500th anniversary of Luther’s posting his 95 theses (Oct. 31, 2017 Halloween or Protestant Day) German Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Frank-Walter Steinmeier attended several ceremonies in Wittenberg, starting with a service at All Saints’ Church (Schlosskirche), the church Luther posted his gripes. Merkel’s father was a Lutheran pastor.

“Pope” Francis has taken the veneration of Luther to a whole new level. On Oct. 16, 2016, Francis held a papal audience with a group of Protestants. However, he first ordered a relatively large statue of Luther to be placed in the Vatican for the event (see above picture). The Protestants would later give Francis a copy of the 95 theses, which he happily accepted. [6]

On Halloween, 2016, the joint Lutheran and “Catholic” common prayer in Lund, Sweden, was concelebrated by Francis and Bishop Munib A. Younan, the President of the Lutheran World Federation. They signed a joint statement with the commitment to continue the ecumenical journey together towards the unity Christ prayed for, (cf. John 17:21). [7] Apparently, they believe that Christ’s prayer for unity has failed for 500 years.

On Nov. 23, 2017, the Vatican issued a postage stamp featuring Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon, marking the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Revolution. [8] The stamp presents the heretics at the foot of the Cross as symbol of their faithful witness of Christ. I can easily see Chancellor Merkel involved in issuing such a stamp, but the Vatican? Why not? After all, they’ve been venerating Luther for over 30 years.

What’s next from ole “Pope” Francis and the Vatican? Perhaps, it will be the beatification and canonization of Luther. [9] A priest told me that in his seminary days, there was talk about canonizing Luther.

It is beyond my comprehension how anyone claiming to be Catholic can’t see how praising Luther and Protestantism is 100% proof that the Vatican 2 popes are not Catholic popes of the Catholic Church. The Vatican 2 popes are not just feeding people with the poisonous food of error of history, doctrine, and practice, but they become the very gates of hell that Christ guarantees will not prevail against His Catholic Church. [10]

Now that I think about it, I probably should list the Vatican 2 popes in front of Luther, Arius, and even Judas as the most wicked and notorious men in all of history. They have done more damage to the Catholic Church than all the heretics, heathens, and infidels put together.

 

Footnotes:

[1] Twice this Catechism teaches that Judas Iscariot went to hell by implication.

“Such certainly was the condition of Judas, who, repenting, hanged himself, and thus lost soul and body.”  (p. 264 Catechism of the Council of Trent, TAN Books.)

“they derive no other fruit from their priesthood than was derived by Judas from the Apostleship, which only brought him everlasting destruction. (p. 319)

[2]  http://www.catholicityblog.com/2016/11/the-death-of-luther.html

Monday, November 28, 2016

How did Luther Die?

The official Protestant version narrates that the greatest architect of the Christian rupture died of a natural death on February 15, 1546, after a trip to Eisleben and suffering from angina pectoris; Was it really like this?

A contemporary German scholar, Dietrich Emme, offers a very different version in a review of events. In his book “Martin Luther, Seine Jugend und Studienzeit 1483-1505. Eine dokumentarische Darstelleng “[1] (“Martin Luther: Youth and Years of Study from 1483 to 1505. Bonn 1983”) points out that Luther committed suicide, and he is not alone in pointing this out.

Likewise, a Freudian psychoanalyst, M. Roland Dalbiez, in his study Luther’s Anguish [2], attributes him “… a very serious neurosis of anguish, so grave that one may wonder whether it has not been due to a border-state between neurosis on the one hand and “suicide raptus” on the other, a teleological anti-suicidal automatism”[3].

Indeed, Luther had suicidal tendencies, as it can be corroborated in his own “Tischreden” (“Table Talk”), where one of his conversations with Pastor Güben Leonhard Beyer, in 1551 is documented:

“He told us that when he was a prisoner the devil had wickedly tormented him and that he had laughed heartily when he (Luther) took a knife in his hand, saying:” Go ahead! Kill yourself! “(…). This has happened to me very often, so much as to put a knife in my hand … and what evil thoughts came to mind in this way, so evil that I could no longer pray “[4].

In 1606, Franciscan Heinrich Sedulius in his “Preaescriptiones adversus haereses”, narrates something analogous bringing up the valuable testimony of Ambrosio Kudtfeld, a witness and man of confidence of the “reformer” who, far from accounting a death from angina , says:

“On the night before his death, Martin Luther let himself be overcome by his habitual intemperance and in such excess that we were obliged to take him, completely drunk, and place him in his bed. Then, we retired to our bedroom, without sensing anything unpleasant! The next morning, we went back to our lord to help him get dressed, as usual. Then – oh, what a pain! – we saw our master Martin hanging from the bed and strangled miserably! His mouth was crooked, th right part of his face was black, his neck was red and deformed.”[5]

Indeed, at that time raised beds supported by columns were used.

“In the face of this horrible spectacle, we felt great fear! We ran, without delay, to the princes, his guests of the day before, to announce to them the execrable end of Luther! They, full of terror like us, immediately promised us, with a thousand promises and the most solemn oaths, to observe, with respect to that event, an eternal silence. Then they ordered us to remove the rope from Luther’s hideous corpse, lay him on his bed, and then report to the people that “Master Luther” had suddenly abandoned this life!”[6]

Maritain himself points out that Dr. De Coster, who examined Luther, explained that the deceased’s mouth was crooked with the face black and the neck red and deformed [7].

Likewise, Oratorian priest Bozio, in his book “De Signis Ecclesiae”, published in 1592 [8], points out that one of the reformer’s household indicated that his lord was found hanged from the columns of his bed; Dr. Géorges Claudin says the same: [9].

As Villa points out, “Luther, then, did not die a natural death, as has been falsely written in all the history books of Protestantism, but died as a suicidal, hanged from his bed after a splendid dinner,  in which, as usual, he had drunk too much and was satisfied with food beyond all bounds!”[10].

Paradoxically, that February 15, 1546, feast of the Chair of St. Peter, he, who had railed against the Church, the Papacy, and the Catholic doctrine, voluntarily abandoned his mortal life at three in the morning, the anti-hour of Redemption that Our Lord Jesus Christ brought to us on Calvary.

It’s sad: but that’s the end of those who live in a bad way.

Don’t let them deceive you…

  1. Javier Olivera Ravasi

SOURCE. Translated from Spanish by Catholicity blog.

[1] It is worth saying that the two most competent historians in Germany on Luther’s life: Dr. Theobald Beer and Prof. Remigius Baumer, have corroborated both the material and the documents cited by Emme.

[2] Roland Dalbiez, L’angoisse de Luther, Tequi, Paris 1974.

[3] Luigi Villa, Martin Lutero, Homicidal and Suicidal, Civilta, Brescia s/f, 5 (http://www.chiesaviva.com/lutero%20omicida%20e%20suicida/lutero%20homicida%20y%20suicida.pdf),

[4] Luigi Villa, op. cit., 12 13.

[5] Ibídem, 16. The text in Latin can be seen in Heinrici Seduli ex Ordine Minorum, Praescriptiones adversus haereses, Officina Plantiniana, Antwerp 1606, 257 pp. (online version here: http://bajarlibros.co/libro/f.-heinrici-seduli-ex-ordine-minorum-praescriptiones-adversus-haereses/bwjIJTfTtzjt2o2G/)

[6] Ibídem.  An interesting coincidence is that Maritain narrates in his book “Three Reformers” that several friends, companions and first disciples of Luther also committed suicide.

[7] Maritain’s information is contained in the French edition, not the Spanish one.

[8] Tomás Bozio, De signis Ecclesiae, Pedro Landry, Lyon 1593-1594, 3 vols.

[9] Géorges Claudin, La mort de Luther, Noisy-Le-Sec, Paris 1900, 99 ( http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9323938.r).

[10] Luigi Villa, op. Cit., 17.

[3] https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/fathers-of-mercy-priest-enters-subsists-debate/

Also,

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.

Comment:  It’s saying Lutherans are part of the Body of Christ the Church and that the Church of Christ is not even visibly unified. Edward Cardinal Cassidy (President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity) informed us that John Paul II approved and blessed the Joint Declaration.

[4] https://www.nytimes.com/1983/11/06/world/pope-praises-luther-in-an-appeal-for-unity-on-protest-anniversary.html

[5]

https://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A357rcRatzLuther.html

and https://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A438-Erfurt.html

[6] https://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A700-Luther.html

[7] https://zenit.org/articles/joint-statement-for-end-of-commemoration-of-reformation/

[8] https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/11/vatican-issues-stamp-featuring-martin-luther-reformation-anniversary/

[9] https://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/195bev09_30_2016.htm

[10] https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2020/02/12/the-gates-of-hell-and-the-gates-of-the-church-revisited/

 

St. Isidore and his wife, St. Mary de la Cabeza

Today is the Feast Day of St. Isidore, the Farmer. He is the patron saint of my business, which is named after him, St. Isidore Landscape. His feast day on March 22 lands about the time my landscape and lawn service begins. I’m getting very excited to work again after the winter months of cold and hard work of chopping wood by hand to warm my home. I want to honor him by posting Rev. Alban Butler’s writing about him.

ST. ISIDORE OF MADRID, LABORER, PATRON OF MADRID

It is a misfortune which deserves to be lamented with floods of tears, that ignorance, obstinacy, and vice should so often taint a country life, the state which of all others is most necessary and important to the world; the most conformable to a human condition and to nature; the state which was sanctified by the example of the primitive holy patriarchs, and which affords the most favorable opportunities for the perfect practice of every virtue and Christian duty. What advantageous helps to piety did the ancient hermits seek in the deserts, which the circumstances of a country laborer do not offer? The life of St. Isidore is a most sensible proof of this assertion. He was born at Madrid, of poor but very devout parents, and was christened Isidore from the name of their patron, St. Isidore of Seville. They had not the means to procure him learning or a polite education; but, both by word and example, they infused into his tender soul the utmost horror and dread of all sin, and the most vehement ardor for every virtue, and especially for prayer. Good books are a great help to holy meditation; but not indispensably requisite. St. Irenaeus mentions whole nations which believed in Christ, and abounded in exemplary livers, without knowing the use of ink or paper. Many illustrious anchorets knew no other alphabet than that of humility and divine charity. The great St. Antony himself could not so much as read the Greek or Latin languages: nay, from the words of St. Austin, some doubt whether he could read even his own barbarous Egyptian dialect. Yet in the science of the saints, what philosopher or orator ever attained to the A B C of that great man? Learning, if it puffs up the mind, or inspires any secret self-sufficiency, is an impediment to the communications of the Holy Ghost: simplicity and sincere humility being the dispositions which invite him into the soul. By these was Isidore prepared to find him an interior instructor and comforter. His earnestness in seeking lessons and instructions of piety made him neglect no opportunity of hearing them; and so much the more tender and the deeper were the impressions which they left in his soul, as his desire was the stronger and the more pure. His patience in bearing all injuries and in overcoming the envy of fellow-servants by cordial kindnesses, his readiness to obey his masters, and in indifferent things to comply with the inclinations of others, and humbly to serve every one, gave him the most complete victory over himself and his passions. Labor he considered as enjoined him by God in punishment of sin, and for a remedy against it. And he performed his work in a spirit of compunction and penance. Many object that their labors and fatigues leave them little time for the exercises of religion. But Isidore, by directing his attention according to the most holy motives of faith, made his work a most perfect act of religion. He considered it as a duty to God. Therefore he applied himself to it with great diligence and care, in imitation of the angels in heaven, who in all things fulfil the will of God with the greatest readiness and alacrity of devotion. The more humbling and the more painful the labor was, the dearer it was to the saint, being a means the more suitable to tame his flesh, and a more noble part of his penance. With the same spirit that the saints subdued their bodies by toils in their deserts, Isidore embraced his task. He moreover sanctioned it by continual prayer. While his hand held the plough, he in his heart conversed with God, with his angel guardian, and the other blessed spirits; sometimes deploring the sins of the world, and his own spiritual miseries, at other times in the melting words of the royal prophet, raising his desires to the glory of the heavenly Jerusalem. It was chiefly by this perfect spirit of prayer, joined with, or rather engrafted upon a most profound humility and spirit of mortification, that St. Isidore arrived at so eminent a degree of sanctity as rendered him the admiration of all Spain. In his youth he was retained servant by a gentleman named John de Vargas of Madrid, to till his land and do his husbandry work. The saint afterwards took a most virtuous woman to wife, named Mary Toribia. Those who call her de la Cabeza were deceived by a chapel to which that name is given, because her head is kept in it. After the birth of one child, which died young, the parents, by mutual consent, served God in perfect continency.

St. Isidore continued always in the service of the same master. On account of his fidelity, he could say to him as Jacob did to Laban, [1] that, to guard and improve his stock, he had often watched the nights, and had suffered the scorching heats of summer, and the cold of winter; and that the stock, which he found small, had been exceedingly increased in his hands. Don John de Vargas, after long experience of the treasure he possessed in this faithful ploughman, treated him as a brother, according to the advice of Ecclesiasticus, [2] Let a wise servant be dear to thee as thy own soul. He allowed him the liberty of assisting daily at the public office of the church. On the other side, Isidore was careful by rising very early, to make his devotions no impediment to his business, nor any encroachment upon what he owed to his master. This being a duty of justice, it would have been a false devotion to have pretended to please God by a neglect of such an obligation; much less did the good servant indulge his compassionate charity to the poor, by relieving them otherwise than out of his own salary. The saint was sensible that in his fidelity, diligence, and assiduous labor consisted, in great part, the sanctification of his soul; and that his duty to his master was his duty to God. He also inspired his wife with the same confidence in God, the same love of the poor, and the same disengagement from the things of this world: he made her the faithful imitatrix of his virtues, and a partner in his good works. She died in 1175, and is honored in Spain among the saints. Her immemorial veneration was approved by pope Innocent XII. in 1697. See Benedict XIV., de Canoniz. 1. 2, c. 24, p. 246.

St. Isidore being seized with the sickness of which he died, foretold his last hour, and prepared himself for it with redoubled fervor, and with the most tender devotion, patience, and cheerfulness. The piety with which he received the last sacraments drew tears from all that were present. Repeating inflamed acts of divine love, he expired on the 15th of May, 1170, being near sixty years of age. His death was glorified by miracles. After forty years, his body was removed out of the churchyard into the church of St. Andrew. It has been since placed in the bishop’s chapel, and during these five hundred years remains entire and fresh, being honored by a succession of frequent miracles down to this time. The following, among others, is very well attested. Philip III., in his return from Lisbon, was taken so ill at Casarubios del Monte, that his life was despaired of by his physicians. Whereupon the shrine of St. Isidore was ordered to be carried in a solemn procession of the clergy, court, and people, from Madrid to the chamber of the sick king. The joint prayers of many prevailed. At the same time the shrine was taken out of the church, the fever left the king; and upon its being brought into his chamber, he was perfectly cured. The year following the body of the saint was put into a new rich shrine, which cost one thousand six hundred ducats of gold. St. Isidore had been beatified a little before by Paul V., in 1619, at the solicitation of the same king. His solemn canonization was performed, at the request of king Philip IV., on the 12th of March, 1622; though the bull was only made public by Benedict XIII. See the life of St. Isidore, written by John of Madrid, one hundred and forty years after his death; and Card. Lambertini, de Canoniz. SS. t. 3.

Endnotes

1 Gen. xxxi. 40; xxx 30.

2 Eccles. vii. 28.

(Taken from Vol. V of “The Lives or the Fathers, Martyrs and Other Principal Saints” by the Rev. Alban Butler, the 1864 edition published by D. & J. Sadlier, & Company)

The Vatican 2 document Lumen Gentium declares:

 “16. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.”

The first part clearly implies that Muslims acknowledge the one true God, because they profess to hold the faith of Abraham. The second part is interesting, because many Muslims actually do believe that Jesus (Mahdi) will judge mankind on the last day, but they don’t adore Him as God. Another Muslim opinion is that the Mahdi (not Jesus but someone sent by God with Jesus) will judge mankind. So what gives?

Vatican 2 implies that Muslims worship Jesus although not realizing it as they reject Him as God.

As a side note, the Koran (Qur’an) says that Jesus and Mary are sinless, but not Muhammad. The Koran also says that Jesus comes back to fight antichrist but not anti-Muhammad. My question, why is Muhammad and not Jesus the great prophet in Islam? I digress.

In the Vatican 2 document Nostra aetate (Declaration on the church’s relation to non-Christian religions), the council declared:

“3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting….Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.”

Footnote 5 references a 1076 A.D. letter written by Pope St. Gregory VII to Anzir (Nacir), King of Mauritania (present day Algeria) (Pl. 148, col. 450f.). The relevant part of saint’s letter reads:

“Almighty God, who wishes that all should be saved and none lost, approves nothing in so much as that after loving Him one should love his fellow man, and that one should not do to others, what one does not want done to oneself. You and we owe this charity to ourselves especially because we believe in and confess one God, admittedly, in a different way, and daily praise and venerate him, the creator of the world and ruler of this world.”

The key Latin phrase “unum Deum, licet diverso modo” does not say that we worship the same God. Pope St. Gregory VII chose his words carefully. He didn’t say they believe and confess a false god or the true God. As Novus Ordo priest Rev. John L. Ubel puts it, “Pope St. Gregory VII was a skilled diplomat.” The pope was thanking the Muslim king for freeing Christian prisoners, for sending gifts, and for requesting that he (pope) send a bishop to minister to the Catholics living under Anazir’s jurisdiction. The pope’s letter was a response to the good-will gesture of a Muslim king. The pope also suggested in the letter to send two aides in hopes of establishing commercial ties. [1]

Vatican 2 implies that Pope St. Gregory VII wrote that Muslims “adore the one God.” He didn’t. On that point, Vatican 2 gives a subjective interpretation, but it’s not objectively accurate. However, is Vatican 2 right that Muslims worship the true God? In the past, I’ve argued absolutely not and that it’s one of the main heresies in Vatican 2. See Why Sedevacantism?

This article was going to reemphasize that point until I began to think hard about each argument. I thought maybe it is possible Muslims acknowledge the same God as Christianity, but with a complete misunderstanding of Him. I figured if the Apostles worshiped God but not Jesus (before they came to believe in Jesus) that by logical extension, it’s possible that God can be acknowledged but not Jesus as with Muslims.

I think the best people to answer the question are those who’ve converted out of Islam into Catholicism. Catholic convert Daniel Ali from Islam gives us the answer to the question. Daniel Ali emphatically tells that we don’t worship the same God. [2]

Conclusion

Vatican 2 and the Vatican 2 popes teach that Muslims worship the same God as Christianity.

Pope St. Gregory VII did not say Muslims and Catholics worship the same God as Vatican 2 implies. The pope said, “we believe in and confess one God,” which is a fact.

Catholic converts from Islam admit that Allah is not the same God as Christianity.

 

Footnotes:

[1] https://www.cathedralsaintpaul.org/sites/default/files/files/2014-09-07_weekly%20column.pdf

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBdG59TSDog See 15:15 to 15:23 and 17:25 where Daniel Ali repeated that we don’t have the same God.

The following video is a short, well done documentary on the Battle of Lepanto. Unfortunately, the video ended with a reference to “Pope St.” John XXIII, but despite this one flaw, it’s well worth watching.

“Paul VI gave back to the Muslims the Standard of Lepanto. The history of the flag was venerable. It was taken from a Turkish admiral during a great naval battle in 1571. While Pope St. Pius V fasted and prayed the Rosary, an out-numbered Christian fleet defeated a much larger Moslem navy, thus saving Christendom from the infidel. In honor of the miraculous victory, Pius V instituted the Feast of Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary to commemorate her intercession. In one dramatic act, Paul VI renounced not only a remarkable Christian victory, but the prayers and sacrifices of a great pope and saint.” (Mark Fellows, Fatima in Twilight, Niagara Falls, NY: Marmion Publications, 2003, p. 193)

,

In 2015, I posted The Gates of Hell and the Gates of the Church (The Best Defense for Sedevacantism)

I thought it necessarily to revisit my argument against the Recognize and Resist position. Below is a much shorter edited version.

In perhaps the greatest document ever written by a pope, Leo XIII declared in Satis Cognitum on June 29, 1896:

The words – and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it proclaim and establish the authority of which we speak. “What is the it?” (writes Origen). “Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church or the Church? The expression indeed is ambiguous, as if the rock and the Church were one and the same. I indeed think that this is so, and that neither against the rock upon which Christ builds His Church nor against the Church shall the gates of Hell prevail” (Origenes, Comment. in Matt., tom. xii., n. ii). The meaning of this divine utterance is, that, notwithstanding the wiles and intrigues which they bring to bear against the Church, it can never be that the church committed to the care of Peter shall succumb or in any wise fail. “For the Church, as the edifice of Christ who has wisely built ‘His house upon a rock,’ cannot be conquered by the gates of Hell, which may prevail over any man who shall be off the rock and outside the Church, but shall be powerless against it” (Ibid.). Therefore God confided His Church to Peter so that he might safely guard it with his unconquerable power.

Pope Vigilius at the Second Council of Constantinople, in 553 called “the tongues of heretics” the “gates of hell.” Pope St. Leo IX’s, In terra pax hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, declared to Michael Cerularius that “the gates of Hell” are the “disputations of heretics.”

Pope Leo XIII called the Roman Pontiffs “the Gates of the Church” in his 1894 encyclical letter Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae.

Therefore, Roman Pontiffs can’t be heretics or else the gates of the Church and the gates of hell would be one and the same thing implying the Church and Hell are identical.

However, many R&Rer’s have admitted that they personally think John Paul II, Ratzinger and Bergoglio have all been heretics. This means they personally think the gates of hell and the Gates of the Church are one and the same thing.

The phrase “private judgment” can have four meanings with a possible combination of the following: A personal judgment… (a) opposing official Church law or teaching, (b) not made publicly, (c) in accepting Church law and teaching, (d) made without an official declaration.

R&Rer’s meaning is the fourth. They personally believe their popes have been heretics. Until a public judgment is made by their bishops, their popes must be considered popes and not heretics until an official judgment is made by the bishops. However, before their bishops can make that public judgment against the pope, they must first make a private one. In doing so, they would believe the gates of hell and the Gates of the Church are one and the same thing, which is impossible.

Therefore, the entire scenario of needing warnings, declarations, etc. to make an official determination that a true pope is not a true pope is impossible. No one can even suspect the pope of heresy without the consequence of suspecting that the Head of the Church forms the gates of hell. There can be no doubt about the pope for as Rev. Francis X Doyle, S.J. so elegantly explained in 1927, “The Church is a visible society with a visible Ruler. If there can be any doubt about who that visible Ruler is, he is not visible…Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope.’”

This fact refutes every argument or proposition ever put forth by any and all theologians, canonists, etc., that a pope can be heretical or else Peter and his successors who’ve been handed the Church by God for safekeeping from the gates of hell can themselves be the gates of hell.

Only a pope can cease to be pope by himself, and every individual Catholic must recognize that fact by his personal judgment in the third sense, which is to believe and accept the laws and teachings of the Church and the Divine laws of God. A heretic is not a member of the Church.

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:

“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:

“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics…”

St. Antoninus, O.P. (1389-1459):

“In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. ‘A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church.  He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church.’”  (Summa Theologica cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)

 

 

Racism is completely incompatible with Catholicism. Yet, it’s existence can be found all throughout the history of the Catholic Church. Within the last couple of years, white supremacists within the Church have been causing some problems. I was telling my friend over at the website https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2020/ about how I was going to write an article on the subject. He informed me that he was already working on one and he graciously granted me permission to publish it.

 Below is Introibo’s excellent article…

It was the First Saturday Mass in January at the Ave Maria Chapel, twenty-four years ago. Father DePauw, my spiritual father who led me to the One True Church, would always have the first pews reserved for the children so he could quiz them on their monthly catechism lessons. It was also the Feast of the Epiphany. There was a beautiful and large manger outside the Chapel. Inside all could see an equally beautiful (yet decidedly smaller) one, on the Epistle side of the altar, just outside the Sanctuary. After his quiz, Father would deliver an approximately 10 minute sermon aimed at teaching the kids.

From the pulpit Father pointed to the indoor manger. “Do you see the Three Wise Men? They were blessed to be among the very first to see the Infant Savior. I want you to notice that one of the three has decidedly black skin, and the others have white skin. In life, you will meet some people with white skin who will tell you to hate people with black skin. You will also meet people with black skin who will tell you to hate people with white skin. These people who hate other people with different skin color would like everyone to live apart according to their color, and they also want you to believe that one skin color is better than others. This is stupid and not Catholic. Jesus Christ did not die on Good Friday for the black race, the white race, or the yellow race. He only died for one race–the human race to which all skin colors belong.” (Written from my memory as best I remember. Father used that same sermon for the children virtually every First Saturday in January).

There is a disturbing trend among Millennials to take extreme positions. As a Generation Xer, I believe it is the effect of growing up in a world where all remaining vestiges of Catholicism were eliminated in the Great Apostasy by the Vatican II sect. If you look at the supporters of Communist Senator Bernie Sanders, there are overwhelming numbers of 23-38 year olds. There is a tendency among this generation to take extreme right-wing positions as well, such as Fascism/Neo-Nazism. Add to the mix the fact that four in ten millennials now say they are religiously unaffiliated, according to the Pew Research Center; therefore large numbers of young people are left without any thought of God and remain feeling empty. The extreme positions give the definitive answers regarding right and wrong/good and bad that the Church used to give before Vatican II created a new sect falsely claiming the title “Roman Catholic Church.” (See https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/).

As a result of these sad circumstances, a new racism is being touted among some young people calling themselves “Traditionalist.” Many of them are attracted to the fact that sedevacantism “sounds extreme” and are not really searching for the Truth. Their knowledge of the Faith is very superficial. Adding fuel to the fire, the media and political climate cause distrust among races. The liberals are making non-whites “victims” and want job quotas (think Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ), while conservatives are claiming racial superiority in the form of “White Nationalism.” Both are causing a new and real hatred based on skin color. Some of these racists also think they can be Traditionalists simultaneously without contradiction in their beliefs. This post will explore Church teaching on racism, and the correct type of nationalism we need today.

Essential Unity of Humanity

In his first encyclical, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum (1914), Pope Benedict XV declares that the relations between people should be one of brothers and sisters, i.e., of those who are one in nature because they are of the same family created by God. Discussing the ravages of the First World War (1914-1918), His Holiness writes, “Who would imagine as we see them thus filled with hatred of one another, that they are all of one common stock, all of the same nature, all members of the same human family?” (para. #3; Emphasis mine).

In Mortalium Animos (1928), Pope Pius XI teaches, “… it is easily understood, and the more so because none now dispute the unity of the human race, why many desire that the various nations, inspired by this universal kinship, should daily be more closely united one to another.” (para. #1; Emphasis mine). The same holy pontiff ordered the Sacred Congregation for Seminaries and Universities to compose a letter refuting and condemning racism and Nazi “Aryan race” ideology in order to prevent it from infecting Catholic educational institutions. The result was a privately circulated document entitled Instruction Concerning Racism, Its Doctrinal Errors and the Measures to be Employed Against Their Spread (hereinafter “Instruction”). The Instruction was dated April 13, 1938 and a complete English translation was made by canonist Bouscaren in the Canon Law Digest-Supplement 1941 (pgs. 165-167). The Congregation’s Instruction condemns no less than eight (8) propositions as being both “pernicious” and “absurd:”

I. The human races, by their natural and immutable characters, are so different from each other that, the humblest of them is further from the highest race than of the highest animal species.

II. We must by all means, preserve and cultivate strong race and purity of blood, so that all which leads to this result is therefore honest and permitted.

III. It is blood, seat of the characteristics of the race, that all the intellectual and moral qualities of man derive as their main source.

IV. The basic purpose of education is to develop the characters of the race and inflame the minds of a burning love of their own race as the supreme good.

V. Religion is subject to the law of race and must be adapted to it.

VI. The first source and the supreme rule of law and order is racial instinct.

VII. There exists only the Cosmos or living universe; all things, including humans, are only various forms growing over the ages of universal life.

VIII. Each man exists only by the State and for the State. All that he rightly possesses derives exclusively from a concession to the State.

It shouldn’t be too hard to understand that racism is inexorably linked to the damnable doctrine of Social Darwinism. It is taken from the false teaching of Charles Darwin (d. 1882) regarding evolution. The term “evolution” is used to refer to the general theory that all life on earth has evolved from non-living matter and progressed to more complex forms with time; humans are not special in any way–both body and soul (or “consciousness”)– comes from brute matter. This stands condemned by the Church.

As the late leading evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson observed:

“In the world of Darwin, man has no special status other than his definition as a distinct species of animal. He is in the fullest sense a part of nature and not apart from it. He is akin, not figuratively, but literally, to every living thing, be it an amoeba, a tapeworm, a seaweed, an oak tree, or a monkey—even though the degrees of relationship are different and we may feel less empathy for forty-second cousins like the tapeworm than for, comparatively speaking, brothers like the monkeys….” (See George Gaylord Simpson, “The World into Which Darwin Led Us,” Science, Vol. 131 (1960), p. 970).

As a consequence of this error, when Darwinism is applied to society (“Social” aspect), you will get one of two malevolent results:

(a)  All higher forms of life are to be considered equal. Hence, there was a case here in New York, where a lawyer argued to give legal rights (and constitutional protections) to chimpanzees.
(See https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/do-apes-deserve-personhood-rights-lawyer-heads-n-y-supreme-n731431).

While we must be good stewards of all God has given us, and not abuse the animals God gave to Earth, it is insanity to assert (as some “animal rights activists” have done) that eating meat is “murder.” According to the “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals” (PETA), “We are taught the Golden Rule as young children, and all major religions teach principles of nonviolence and kindness. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Ethical treatment—the Golden Rule—must be extended to all living beings: reptiles, mammals, fish, insects, birds, amphibians, and crustaceans.” To include animals in the Golden Rule, which was given to humans by Christ, is blasphemous.(See https://www.peta.org/features/what-peta-really-stands-for/).

(b) As a consequence of the Darwinian principle of the “survival of the fittest,” the superior have the right to dominate the inferior. Humans are animals and each race is different, insofar as it is alleged that certain races are inherently superior to others (Hitler’s “Master Race”). According to the National Socialist Movement’s (Neo-Nazi) website:

National Socialism is a worldview that is based upon the application of Natural Law to the individual, the family, the economy, and the nation. Natural Law is the organic expression of Truth found within all of nature. The nation within National Socialism is made up of a people who share the same language, heritage, culture, customs, and blood. (This is a perverted definition of “Natural Law” and there is no mention of God or religion; Emphasis mine) We seek to preserve and advance our culture, traditions, and our genetic inheritance based upon the principles of love and duty for our Faith, Family, and Folk. This can be summed up in the famous Fourteen Words “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.”( See https://www.nsm88.org/; Emphasis mine)

You also can’t get more blunt than “King Shamir Shabazz” the leader of the New Black Panther Party’s Philadelphia chapter, who said in a National Geographic documentary (January 2009), “I hate white people. All of them.” The Panthers believe that the “superior race” is “Afro-centric.”

True Nationalism and National Unity Can Only Be Built Upon The One True Church

As Pope Pius XI taught in his 1937 encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, “Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community – however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things – whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.” (para. #8).

The Teachings of the Popes

1. In the absence of a restraining principle by which individual passions are controlled, moral unity of a nation becomes impossible.

Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, para. # 21: Nor can it be said that these atrocities are a transitory phenomenon, the usual accompaniment of all great revolutions, the isolated excesses common to every war. No, they are the natural fruit of a system which lacks all inner restraint. Some restraint is necessary for man considered either as an individual or in society. Even the barbaric peoples had this inner check in the natural law written by God in the heart of every man. And where this natural law was held in higher esteem, ancient nations rose to a grandeur that still fascinates – more than it should – certain superficial students of human history. But tear the very idea of God from the hearts of men, and they are necessarily urged by their passions to the most atrocious barbarity. (Emphasis mine)

2. People can choose the form of government they want, as long as it is not opposed to the Church and Her teachings.

Pope St. Pius X: Notre Charge Apostolique,  In the Encyclical on political government which We have already quoted, they could have read this: ‘Justice being preserved, it is not forbidden to the people to choose for themselves the form of government which best corresponds with their character or with the institutions and customs handed down by their forefathers.’ (Emphasis mine)

3. The State has an obligation to be a Catholic State, and the Church will bring blessings upon the people.

Pope Leo XIII: Immortale Dei: As a consequence, the State, constituted as it is, is clearly bound to act up to the manifold and weighty duties linking it to God, by the public profession of religion…Now, it cannot be difficult to find out which is the true religion, if only it be sought with an earnest and unbiased mind; for proofs are abundant and striking. We have, for example, the fulfillment of prophecies, miracles in great numbers, the rapid spread of the faith in the midst of enemies and in face of overwhelming obstacles, the witness of the martyrs, and the like. From all these it is evident that the only true religion is the one established by Jesus Christ Himself, and which He committed to His Church to protect and to propagate…the abundant benefits with which the Christian religion, of its very nature, endows even the mortal life of man are acquired for the community and civil society. And this to such an extent that it may be said in sober truth: “The condition of the commonwealth depends on the religion with which God is worshiped; and between one and the other there exists an intimate and abiding connection.” (para. #6, 7, 19; Emphasis mine).

4. Errors Concerning The One True Church and the State

Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, CONDEMNED PROPOSITIONS:

27. The sacred ministers of the Church and the Roman pontiff are to be absolutely excluded from every charge and dominion over temporal affairs.
40. The teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to the well- being and interests of society.
42. In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law prevails.
48. Catholics may approve of the system of educating youth unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly social life.
55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.
Conclusion

Father DePauw’s Chapel is approximately 30% non-white, and always was that way. It showed me the true “universal” (i.e., “Catholic”) Nature of the Church. I remember one Sunday sitting between an Hispanic man and a Haitian woman. Neither spoke English other than a few simple phrases. Yet here we were at the same Mass. I looked over and saw one hand Missal was in French and English and the other in Spanish and English. Christ came to all three of us in Holy Communion that day regardless of race, language, or other worldly consideration.

God created one race, the human race. While we are composed of different skin colors, it should neither unite us like the Nazis or divide us like so-called “separatists.” Let the One True Church unite us all in He Who is Truth Itself. “There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28).

Sola Scriptura (by Scripture Alone) is the Protestant doctrine, by which the Protestant religions were founded and by which they stand or fall. It means:

     a. The Scriptures alone are the supreme and sufficient authority in all spiritual matters.

     b. All truth necessary for salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.

     c. The Word of God is found in the Scriptures alone.

     d. The Scriptures are the final interpreter of Scripture.

     e. The Scriptures alone are infallible.

Problems with Sola Scriptura

     a. It’s not historical. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not found in Christian history prior to the Reformation. Not a single Church father can be used to justify its existence.

     b. It’s not biblical. Bible verses used to defend Sola Scriptura don’t work, nor can they work for 2 reasons: (A.) For as soon as a Bible verse is used to defend Scripture alone, the Scriptures that were written afterwards would necessarily be negated. (B.) The Bible itself rejects the notion of Scripture alone (as shown in the next section).

     c. It’s a man-made tradition that nullifies the Word of God (Mark 7:13), because the Word of God is found in both written and oral form, not written alone (II Thess. 2:14).  The Scriptures provide information that the Church makes the final decisions, not each individual (I Tim. 3:15, Matt. 18:17-18, Titus 2:15, Matt. 16:18).

     d. It has no foundation. There is no inspired table of contents. Therefore, no authority could definitively provide a Canon of Scripture. An infallible collection of infallible books is impossible without an infallible authority outside of Scripture. Sola Scriptura-ists must hold that the Bible is a fallible collection of books necessarily leaving no absolute assurance that the Bible is God’s Word. A sure belief in the Bible is essentially groundless.

     e. It’s self-refuting because it’s not really Sola Scriptura. The quantifying state of sola is one and only. However, the final authority comes down to each individual interpreting Scripture and what Scripture interprets what Scripture. Therefore, it’s the Scriptures and the person’s best guess, which has the supreme authority, not the Scriptures alone.

     f. It’s impractical. Sola Scriptura is a recipe for a divided body of believers, not a unified body of believers as Christ intended (Eph. 4:3-5).

Bible Verses Used to Defend Sola Scriptura and the Catholic Response

     2 Tim. 3:16-17: “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.”

This verse concerns the qualitative aspect of Scripture, not the quantitative aspect of Scripture. Sola Scriptura is about the quantitative aspect, hence the numerical sola or one and only. Since the New Testament wasn’t formed at that time, St. Paul was specifically referring to the Old Testament. We could easily fill in the words “All scripture” with “The Torah” or “The Gospel of Matthew” or any specific book in the Bible and the teaching by St. Paul would still be true, because each book in the bible is inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work. In fact, the Greek word “All” in verse 16 means “Every.” 2 Tim. 3:16-17 doesn’t support the doctrine of Sola Scriptura whatsoever.

     1 Cor. 4:6: “But these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollo, for your sakes; that in us you may learn, that one be not puffed up against the other for another, above that which is written.”

Cornelius a Lapide explained this verse in his biblical commentary 400 years ago: Ver. 6.—And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself, &c. “Above that which is written” may refer (1.) to ch. i. 2, 3;  or (2.) with S. Chrysostom it may mean “contrary to that which is written” in Holy Scripture against pride. It is foolish, therefore, for the Protestants to abuse this passage into an argument against tradition.  S. Paul evidently means that what he had said against their idle boasting of the gifts of their teachers, and about not caring for the applause and opinion of men, but only for God’s, had been said of them in the person of himself and Apollos. He had been speaking of others in his own name, so as to avoid offending any of the Corinthian teachers, or their disciples, by mentioning their names. That ye might learn in us, therefore, is the expression of his desire, that when he speaks of himself or Apollos, they may apply what he said to the other teachers, who had been the occasion of the schism, of which he and Apollos were guiltless. He urges the Corinthians by his own example of moderation and conciliatory disposition not to be puffed up, or boast of one against another, viz., for this or that catechist or teacher, by saying, “I was baptized by Paul; I was converted by Apollos.” It is, too, an exhortation to the teachers not to be proud and puffed up because they might be wiser or more eloquent than other teachers, or boast of their disciples as being better instructed than those of other teachers, above that which he had just now written. For in what follows he is reproving the teachers rather than disciples; but he does it in a mild way and under another name, the teachers, I mean, who has been the chief cause of the empty contention and divisions among his Corinthian disciples. This will be seen by reference to ch. v. 15, 18, 19, and also ch. iii. 10, as well as to the whole of ch. xi. of the Second Epistle. For the false teachers whom he here speaks of mildly, because they had not yet disclosed their true nature, are the same apparently as those that in 2 Cor. xi. he speaks more severely of as imposters, and guilty of Judaising, and teaching false doctrine. Hence, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Œcumenius point put, S. Paul first censures the teachers in the words, “that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written,” i.e., that you, teachers, might learn from me and Apollos that you are, as I said before, merely stewards of God. Then he proceeds to rebuke the disciples in the words, “that no one of you be puffed up for one against another,” i.e., that no disciple boast of his teacher as wiser or more eloquent than another.  S. Paul, then, while he seems to continue his address to the Corinthians, is in them and through them reproving their teachers. Just so a tutor endowed with tact and judgment will, when he wishes to chide a king’s sons, chide their servants, as if they were guilty, that so the princes may take it to themselves.

     Rev. 22:18-19: “To all who hear the words of prophecy this book contains, I give this warning. If anyone adds to them, God will add to his punishment the plagues which this book threatens; and if anyone cancels a word in this book of prophecy, God will cancel his share in the book of life, in the holy city, in all that this book promises.”

“This book” is referring to the Book of Revelation only. It’s not referring to the Bible, since the Bible is the collection of Books that constitute the Word of God, hence the name “bible” which means book of books. Even if this verse in Revelation meant the whole Bible, what would have constituted the whole Bible when St. John wrote Revelation? It wasn’t until the Fourth century, when Catholic Bishop St. Athanasius was the first person ever to acknowledge the 27 books of the New Testament as we have it today. For centuries, the Church was unclear as to what precisely constituted the Word of God in Holy Writ. The Bible was first given by the authority of the Catholic Church affirming the Canon of Scripture in 380 AD at the synod of Rome. There was no Bible when St. John wrote Revelation.

Bible Verses that Torpedo Sola Scriptura

II Thess. 2:14: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.”

The Word of God is passed down in both written and oral form. To hold fast only to that what is written to the exclusion of what is passed down orally is a tradition of men that nullifies the Word of God. Mark 7:13: “Making void the word of God by your own tradition, which you have given forth. And many other such like things you do.”

Matt. 28:20: “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.” Rom. 10:17: “Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ.” And John 21:25: “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.”

Luke 10:16: He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.”

I Thess. 2:13: “Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.”

II Thess. 3:6: “And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.”

II John 12: Having more things to write unto you, I would not by paper and ink: for I hope that I shall be with you, and speak face to face: that your joy may be full.”

II Tim. 2:2: “And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also.”

John 16:13: “But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.”

 

Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga

Fr. Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga in Mexico City, March 1966

Father Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga (October 12, 1899 – April 28, 1976) was a Mexican theologian, who held doctorates in Sacred Theology, Philosophy, and Canon law.

He was one of the first Catholics to declare the Chair of Peter vacant. He led the fight against the anti-catholic reforms of the Second Vatican Council. In 1971, he published, “The New Montinian Church” which documents the modernist anti-Catholic teachings and practices of John XXIII and Paul VI.

Fr. Sáenz y Arriaga gathered other Mexican priests such as Frs. Moisés Carmona and Adolfo Zamora to join in the fight against the modernism of the Vatican 2 movement. Later, the two priests were consecrated bishops from Vietnamese Bishop Thuc.

Bishop Adolfo Zamora, Bishop Pierre Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc, Bishop Moisés Carmona

In 1972, Mexican Cardinal Miranda declared Fr. Sáenz y Arriaga excommunicated. Fr. Moisés Carmona wrote, “They excommunicated you for your fidelity to Christ, His teachings and His Church. Blessed excommunication! As long as it is for this reason, may all (such) excommunications come upon me!”

Today, many Mexicans and Americans have faithfully remained loyal to the historic Catholic religion due largely to Fr. Sáenz y Arriaga. He was a courageous priest! He stood against the world as a humble faithful Catholic. Had there been a dozen more like him in the ranks of bishops, we may not be in the mess we’re in today.

I thank Almighty God for giving us this great champion of the Catholic faith!

The following video can be found at Wynn Young’s Youtube channel.