Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for October, 2009

Speaking about the novus ordo mass, Tim Staples recently told a friend, “the Roman Missal was promulgated by the authority of the Pope, not Bugnini. Therefore, Catholics can know that it is valid and good for the Church. And so it is. Pope Benedict XVI is making it even better…thus, we can rest assured there is nothing in it that is contrary to the Faith. And there isn’t.”

SEE HOW STAPLES GETS HIMSELF IN A CONTRADICTION HERE….

Since Benedict himself said “The drastic manner in which Pope Paul VI reformed the Mass in 1969 provoked extremely serious damage to the Church…I am convince that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part upon the collapse of the liturgy, which at times is actually being conceived of etsi Deus non daretur: as though in the liturgy it did not matter anymore whether God exists and whether He speaks and listens to us.” (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, La Mia Vita, San Paolo Editor, 1997),

this means Benedict is admitting that the Church did something that Catholic Church said was impossible to do!

This means that the new mass is contrary to the faith since it was harmful, even by the words of Ratzinger.

In the past, Staples said, “I think if you would be honest you would admit that Benedict does not mean “harmful” as you do. Benedict would agree with me, not you.”

I replied back: “I think you would be honest if you would look at what he said again and admit that he meant harmful in the sense that the change caused the problem, therefore, it was objectively harmful. That change was a “break” and it had “tragic” “consequences” and it is because the liturgy “collapsed.” This is actually what the Church said it could not do. He doesn’t agree with you at all and you even admit that you don’t agree with him.”

Later Tim stated about this quote: “I don’t agree with Cardinal Ratzinger entirely here.”

I stated: “It doesn’t matter whether you agree with him here. He believes it, which is contrary to what the Church can do.”

TIM: I would attribute much more to the abuses than to the actual reforms. But good Catholics can disagree on these matters.

I stated: “Abuses, sure, but agree that the liturgy itself caused serious damage to the Church? This is precisely what the Church said it could not do. The Church cannot give us liturgy that was so harmful that it cause serious damage to the Church.”

TIM: But I also think you are taking Ratzinger out of context as well. He makes the distinction between the abuses of the reform and the reform itself as well.

I stated: “He says that reform itself cause the damage.”

TIM: But again, I don’t agree with everything Cardinal Ratzinger says. But most importantly, all Catholics, including Cardinal Ratzinger, agree that there is no universal legislation in the Church that is contrary to the Natural or Divine Law.

I stated: “We already know that the Church cannot issue a law contrary to the Natural or Divine Laws. The question I asked you is: Can the Church issue a discipline that is contrary to the truth in any way? Can a discipline objectively be problematic? Crippled? With error? The Church is perfectly clear. It cannot do so.”

How is this possible if the Church can’t do such a thing? Is not Benedict rejecting the Church’s teaching on disciplines? Of course he is, because he is a modernist.

TIM later said to me for condemning the new mass, altar girls, women acolytes, etc: “Pope Pius VI made very clear, in the Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei, of August 28, 1794 that it would be “at least erroneous” to say the Church could promote disciplines that would be “dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,–false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided.” Notice, he says it would be an error to say these things.”

IN OTHER WORDS, STAPLES IS SAYING POPE PIUS VI IS CONDEMNING ME FOR MAKING THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE VATICAN 2 WORSHIP PRACTICES.

NOW THINK ABOUT THIS…

WHAT ABOUT RATZINGER’S AKA BENEDICT XVI STATEMENT?

SINCE BENEDICT SAID THE LITURGY [NEW MASS] COLLAPSED AND PROVOKED EXTREMELY SERIOUS DAMAGE TO THE CHURCH, HIS STATEMENT, ACCORDING TO POPE PIUS VI, WOULD BE FALSE, RASH, SCANDALOUS, DANGEROUS, OFFENSIVE TO PIOUS EARS, INJURIOUS TO THE CHURCH AND TO THE SPIRIT OF GOD BY WHOM IT IS GUIDED.

NON-VATICAN 2 COOL-AID DRINKERS KNOW THAT RATZINGER WAS RIGHT BUT ALSO THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE CHURCH TO DO WHAT RATZINGER STATED PROVING SEDEVACANTISM!

THE FACT IS THE NEW MASS was promulgated by an antipope who had ties to the Communists and was a Mason (even though Vat2 apologists don’t want to believe it.) Pope Pius XII was not happy at all with him. However, we can rest assured that it is totally Lutheran/Cramner’s mass with words at the Consecration that are not what Christ said or meant! Only those drinking the Vatican 2 cool-aid, thinks it is totally Catholic. In actuality, it is almost completely Protestant.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Days after I wrote a rebuttal to his article that states that Catholics can reject 3 Catholic Councils, I was bombarded with comments in support of Cortes.

First, Cortes wrote in a comment in attempt to refute me.

After I had thoroughly debunked his anti-Catholic attempt, comments came in from a Debbie Samuals, John Dern, Martin Sabel, Andrew Webb, Miguel Cintron, Charlie White, Mike Lewis, and Dave Peterson, supporting Cortes as a champion of orthodoxy and honesty.

However, this group of Cortes supporters is none other than Cortes himself masquerading as eight different personalities.

How do I know?

Computers leave an identification number that can be traced. Service providers such as the ones that Cortes uses assign specific, long term IP addresses to each individual computer.

Four of the comments came from the same computer that Efrain Cortes had first commented using his real name. The other four were also from the same computer. Cortes probably used his work computer since the times from the other four came in at the proper work hours. SEE BELOW FOR THE EVIDENCE.

In one of his comments from his fake name Mike Lewis, Cortes states, “cortes… is honest.”

In another comment under his fake name Charlie White, Cortes states, “Speray should give up this cherade. Why does he feel like he has to respond to every single person that disagrees with him? Cortes is right on. Speray is really childish. can’t he take a little criticism? and by the way, cortes did not put me up to this. grow {up} speray!! “

Other funny comments from Cortes under his fake names include:

“You really are funny Speray. Cortes Rocks!!!”

“Speray just does not see this because he is blinded by Satan.You go Efrain!!!

“Cortes’ contradiction argument is awesomely logical.”

“Sorry Speray, you lose badly!”

The last three comments, I replied to him by hinting that I knew who it was by saying,

HELLO ANDREW WEBB, OR SHOULD I SAY EFRAIN CORTES?

THANK YOU MIQUEL OR SHOULD I SAY EFRAIN?

THIS IS SO SIMPLE MARTIN SABEL, OR SHOULD I SAY EFRAIN CORTES.

What does Cortes do?

He replies back under another fake name John Dern and states:

“You lost the argument fair and square. Get over it Speray and move along. Why does it surprise you cortes has so many supporters? I’ve known Cortes through his website Against All heresies for years. I also have seen his e-mail debates with you and the Haltom fellow.”

“Cortes is light years ahead of you. Not only as it pertains to apologetics but in class and humility.”

How sad it is that Mr. Cortes would go to such great lengths to win an argument.

Perhaps, the line that goes, “He believes the truth is so important, he’s willing to lie about it” applies in this case.

The fact is Mr. Cortes is through.

He will never be credible again (not that he ever was.)

Mr. Efrain Cortes is a complete fraud and now the world knows the truth about him.

Recent blog comments:

Efrain Cortes (IP: 74.131.141.186 , 74-131-141-186.dhcp.insightbb.com)

john dern (IP: 74.131.141.186 ,  74-131-141-186.dhcp.insightbb.com)

Charles white (IP: 74.131.141.186 , 74-131-141-186.dhcp.insightbb.com)

mike lewis (IP: 74.131.141.186 ,  74-131-141-186.dhcp.insightbb.com)

Dave Peterson (IP: 74.131.141.186 , 74-131-141-186.dhcp.insightbb.com)

debbie samuels (IP: 139.55.71.49 , h49.71.55.139.static.ip.windstream.net)

martin sable (IP: 139.55.71.49 , h49.71.55.139.static.ip.windstream.net)

Andrew webb (IP: 139.55.71.49 , h49.71.55.139.static.ip.windstream.net)

Miguel cintron (IP: 139.55.71.49 , h49.71.55.139.static.ip.windstream.net)

Read Full Post »

CAFETERIA CATHOLIC EFRAIN CORTES DEFENDING HIS MODERNIST RELIGION

The latest article by Efrain Cortes “AS LIMBO GOES, THERE GO THE VACANCY THEORISTS (SEDEVACANTISTS)” was the result of an email exchange that I had with him during September and October of 2009. SEE BELOW FOR LINK TO HIS ARTICLE

The exchange involved the de fide teaching that unbaptized infants go to eternal hell. With this dogma, I demonstrated how John Paul II and Benedict XVI could not be considered Catholics for rejecting this teaching.

My argument is simple.

The Councils of Florence and Lyons II both taught as a matter of faith that those who die in actual mortal sin or original sin only immediately go to hell but suffer different kinds of punishments.

Earlier, the Church at the Council of Carthage under Pope St. Zosimus solemnly stated: “If anyone says that, because the Lord said ‘In My Father’s house are many mansions,’ it might be understood that in the Kingdom of Heaven there will be some middle place, or some place anywhere, where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without Baptism, without which they cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven which is life eternal: Let him be anathema.

With these three statements, we have repeated Catholic teaching that unbaptized infants do not go to heaven.

This is a Catholic dogma!

John Paul II and Benedict XVI both said that Catholics may hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants.

This means that they either reject the de fide teachings outright or they are calling them into question by implication.

However one looks at it, they are saying that you may hope against a dogma.

One cannot hope against this dogma anymore than you can hope the Calvinists are right about justification or the pope is not infallible.

Over the years, saints and popes have disagreed whether unbaptized infants actually suffer any fire or some other terrible torment.

Limbo was a word used to describe the possible place in eternal hell for these children. Limbo or on the border of the fires of hell was positively accepted as an answer by Pope Pius VI against the Jansenists who misunderstood Carthage and said they absolutely suffer fire. One side could not condemn another side for either viewpoint.

Now, Cortes wrote to me boastfully rejecting all these Councils on the point that unbaptized infants go to hell because he thinks they all contradict one another as he attempts to demonstrate in his article.

Cortes begins his article with the run of the mill line that sedevacantists reject Christ’s promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail. I answer this elsewhere on my webpage.

After the preliminary paragraphs, Cortes immediately cuts to the chase.

He admits that rejecting a dogma would amount to heresy. Therefore, he attempts to show that these teachings are not dogmatic.

However, he misrepresents the argument because limbo is not the issue at all. I made this clear to him in our email exchange.

It is about hell.

If all Benedict XVI did was to say that limbo was a “theological hypothesis” you would not hear any argument from sedevacantists.

But John Paul II and Benedict XVI went much farther by saying that we can hope that those unbaptized infants go to heaven which means they hope the heretic Pelagius was right and the entire history of the Church especially those 3 councils were wrong.

The entire argument of Cortes hinges on trying to prove that Carthage, Florence, Lyons II are not de fide on this point.

How does he try to do that?

He thinks by showing that contradictions in the Councils and papal teachings, then by that fact alone the doctrine that those who die in original sin only would not be a de fide teaching.

To take Efrain’s own words,

{“Thus, a truth revealed by God (a dogma) must, by definition, be unobstructed by contradiction. For a dogma entangled in contradiction makes but a common perjurer out of the Living God.”}

That being said, let’s look at the argument Cortes proposes.

The Second Council of Lyon, in the year 1274 A.D., stated:

“The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished however with disparate [different] punishments.

The Council of Florence in 1439 A.D. also stated:

“We define also that…the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”

In 418 A.D., the Council of Carthage stated:

“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: ‘In my Father’s house there are many mansions’ [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema.”

Cortes states that this statement by Carthage was contradicted by Florence and Lyons because of the clause, “or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live…”

Why?

Cortes says,

{“For if, there is no middle place or some place anywhere, as declared by Carthage, then where in hell can those who die with the stain of original sin alone, suffer a differing sentence than those who die in mortal sin?”}

Cortes continues that the African Fathers understood Carthage to mean that un-baptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned and therefore contradicts Florence and Lyons that speak of sufferings of different kinds.

The problem with this argument is simple.

What Cortes doesn’t want to see is that the whole context of Carthage was about the mansions in the Father’s house or places in heaven. That some place anywhere is not about hell but heaven. It actually plainly states, “that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere.”

This statement could rightfully be translated: “In my Father’s house there are many mansions’…that it might be understood that there will be some middle place or some place anywhere in the kingdom of heaven where the blessed infants…”

The African Fathers simply understood Carthage correctly that unbaptized infants don’t go to heaven.

The Catholic Encyclopedia rightly points this out with:

Some codices containing a ninth canon (Denzinger, loc. cit., note 3): Children dying without baptism do not go to a “middle place” (medius locus), since the non reception of baptism excludes both from the “kingdom of heaven” and from “eternal life”.

However, the very next line in the Encyclopedia erroneously states:

These clearly worded canons, which (except the last-named) afterwards came to be articles of faith binding on the universal Church, gave the death blow to Pelagianism; sooner or later it would bleed to death.

Cortes went with this statement and based his argument on it. The Encyclopedia is simply in error on this point since Florence and Lyons defined that unbaptized infants go to hell, which confirms Carthage that they don’t go to heaven.

Perhaps, this was one of the reasons Pope St. Pius X, when presented with the Catholic Encyclopedia, through it to the ground and called it modernist.

In the end, it doesn’t matter.

There are no and were never any contradictions between the councils and popes as Cortes says about this doctrine.

He asks,

{“is the Lord Our God indeed but a common perjurer? We think not!”}

Cortes must think God is indeed a perjurer since he denies the de fide teachings of Carthage, Florence, and Lyons while saying they contradict one another.

Lastly, Cortes has one more trick up his sleeve.

He says about those teachings of the Councils,

{“if these declarations are in fact defined dogma, binding upon all Catholics, then this would mean that every Catholic – layman, Priest, Bishop, Cardinal, and Pope must adhere to the teaching of these ecumenical councils without deviation.”}

{“For a truth revealed by the immortal God cannot be contradicted by mortal man.”}

And then waves his wand with…

{“Why then, do we find Pope Pius IX in Quanto conficiamur moerore, in the year 1863, stating the following in regard to eternal punishments:

“Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.”}

{“Is an unbaptized infant guilty of deliberate sin?”}

{“Here, Pius IX, long before John XXIII or the Second Vatican Council, contradicts the teaching of Lyon II and Florence.”}

{“For Lyon II and Florence teach “infallibly” (according to Vacancy Theorists) that those who die “in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell…to undergo punishments of different kinds.”}

{“Yet, in spite of this “infallible” teaching, by two ecumenical councils, Pius IX asserts that those who die in original sin alone do not suffer eternal punishments at all. For one must be guilty of deliberate sin in order to undergo such punishments.”}

{“Thus, un-baptized infants by virtue of their inability to sin deliberately, according to Pius IX, could indeed attain the kingdom of heaven.”}

And pulls the rabbit out of his hat with…

{“Therefore, according to Vacancy Theorist ideology, Pius IX must also be a heretic.”}

With every illusion, there is something you don’t see. What Efrain hides from you is the context of Pope Pius IX.

I’ll provide it here:

(7)…There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments. QUANTO CONFICIAMUR MOERORE, POPE PIUS IX AUGUST 10, 1863

As you can see, Pope Pius was referring to those other than unbaptized infants since infants cannot observe the natural law and its precepts and ready to obey God while living honest lives.

All infants can do is eat, sleep, dream, cry, etc.

Therefore, Pope Pius IX was not contradicting anything. All he was doing was illustrating the doctrine of Baptism of Desire which only those of reason can have. The Councils of Florence and Trent, and the Trent’s catechism all state that infants cannot have eternal life without the sacrament of Baptism.

Oh yea, Cortes didn’t quote that part of Florence: “With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God.”

But for the sake of the argument, let’s say that Pope Pius IX was referring to those infants. Did he say they go to heaven? No, he didn’t but rather said “to suffer eternal punishments.” This still does not contradict the three councils. The limbo in hell is explained by St. Thomas Aquinas as not suffering eternal punishments in the sense that they don’t suffer torments.

No matter how you interpret it, Pope Pius IX remains in line with historic Catholic teachings.

The rest of Cortes’s article was referring to the controversies over the centuries of what kind of punishments these children have while thinking it has to do with what he thinks are contradictions between the councils.

The Catholic Church has never defined it. Pope Pius VI did condemn one side for saying that it is the fires of hell or some other torment is de fide.

What is clear though and according to every saint, pope and theologian, is that it is a de fide or dogmatic teaching the unbaptized infants don’t go to heaven. What they suffer is not the issue.

John Paul II and Benedict reject the dogma.

During our email exchange, I asked Efrain Cortes, give me de fide from another Council and tell me how it is de fide but Carthage, Florence, and Lyons are not.

He refused to answer the question.

If you follow the logic of Cortes, you can reject the teaching of baptism of desire, abortion, artificial contraception and many more since you won’t find any de fide teachings on them (at least not by his standards.)

Again, he boastfully said that he rejects Carthage, Florence, and Lyons because they are not de fide.

How do we know for sure Cortes is wrong and they are in fact dogmatic on this point?

Vatican I made it perfectly clear.

[The object of faith]. Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed. (Dogmatic Constitution concerning the Catholic Faith, Ch. 3, FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL, Pope Pius IX) (Denz. 1792)

Did the popes at the councils intend this to be held universally? Yes.

Did the popes at the councils use either universal ordinary or extraordinary teaching power? Yes.

Those three councils were teaching an object of faith that unbaptized infants don’t go to heaven.

This is confirmed in the great work of Dr. Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma with the highest form of approval with both the Nihil Obstat by Censor Deputatus and the Imprimatur by the Ep. Corgagiensis et Ap. Adm. Rossensis on the 7 October, 1954.

Even if they were not infallible (although they are) can you reject them as a Catholic?

Efrain says, of course you can, and he does. The very pope that he uses to defend his modernist religion is the very pope who condemns him here.

Pope Pius IX stated: “And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim. 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its right and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.” There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church.” (Pope Pius IX Quanta Cura Dec 8, 1864)

The position I’ve given is harmonious. All the teachings work together without any contradictions. Cortes’s position does not work at all and he has to contradict Pope Pius IX in the process.

The reason he rejects the three councils on hell is simple.

To be united to Modernist Masonic Rome, you have to reject historic Catholic teachings. I told him that in my email. I also told him that you won’t find me rejecting a single universal teaching from the historic Catholic Faith.

The Vatican 2 religion was founded in the 1960’s with new doctrines and worship services. I have given over 10 dogmas and practices clearly rejected by the Vatican 2 religion elsewhere on my website.

He quoted a Bible passage to help his position.

“People were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them, and when the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. Jesus, however, called the children to himself and said, “Let the children come to me and do not [hinder] them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” (Luke 18:15-16)

Notice that this passage does not support his position. Jesus is implying that children can be hindered by not letting them come to Him. If infants are not baptized they are hindered and neglectful parents can do so. Christ says don’t. He didn’t say that they couldn’t.

This poor attempt of Efrain Cortes to defend the heretic/apostates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI only proves sedevacantism while making Cortes a formal heretic by his own words.

I warned him over and over.

He wanted to go to press to prove himself right, but in the end, only proved sedevacantism was correct.

I was trying to use discretion while trying to convert him by way of sound logic and reasoning.

Some people are just too prideful to admit when they are wrong.

EFRAIN ATTEMPTED TO REFUTE MY ARTICLE BELOW, BUT AS YOU WILL SEE, IT IS FUTILE. I GIVE THE REPLY TO EVERYTHING HE WROTE TO ME IN THE COMMENT SECTION AS WELL THAT HE Submitted on 2009/10/22 at 12:54am.

SINCE MANY PEOPLE MAY MISS THE COMMENT SECTION, I THOUGHT I WOULD JUST PLACE THIS ONE AFTER THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE. SINCE EFRAIN PUT THIS IN PUBLIC IN MY COMMENT SECTION, I WILL RESPOND IN BOTH PLACES SO THAT YOU CAN SEE HIS ILLOGICAL AND FALSE ARGUMENTS.

EFRAIN, Steven, Steven , Steven. You sure have become childish – and confused beyond that.

REPLY: SORRY, BUT YOU ARE THE ONE CONFUSED AND CHILDISH SINCE YOU NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS I ASKED YOU. I WARNED YOU, AND NOW YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED IN PUBLIC!

EFRAIN: First off, the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia is a highly credible source for hundreds of thousands of Catholics. Therefore, it is amaturish on your part to attempt to discredit such a source with absolutely no source of your own when claiming Pius X threw it on the floor, calling it “modernist.”

The fact is, this highly credible source, for hundreds of thousands of Catholics, specifically states that Carthage is NOT binding on the Universal Church.

Your response against this highly credible source is simply that the Encyclopedia is:

“Simply in error.”

REPLY: YOU SPEAK AS IF THE ENCYCLOPEDIA IS DE FIDE AND YET YOU COULD NEVER GIVE THAT DE FIDE TEACHING FROM A COUNCIL AND TELL ME HOW IT IS DE FIDE AS OPPOSED TO CARTHAGE, FLORENCE, AND LYONS.

THE ENCYCLOPEDIA IS NOT INFALLIBLE NOR IS IT EVEN A CHURCH DOCUMENT.

IT IS IN ERROR SINCE FLORENCE AND LYONS DEFINED THAT INFANTS GO TO HELL. YOU NEVER ADDRESS THOSE COUNCILS OR THE OTHER EVEN HIGHER AND CREDIBLE SOURCE OF DR OTT’S FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA THAT PLAINLY STATES THAT FLORENCE AND LYONS IS DE FIDE ON THIS POINT.

EFRAIN: The argument you present throughout your article is weak precisely for this reason. Because your article is filled with your own claims and interpretations and no credible sources, whatsoever, to substatiate any of them.

REPLY: BOY, ARE YOU FUNNY. YOUR WHOLE ARTICLE IS FILLED WITH YOUR OWN CLAIMS AND INTERPRETATIONS AND YOU DON’T THINK THAT OTT IS A CREDIBLE SOURCE? THE FACT IS YOU ALONG WITH YOUR ANTIPOPES HAVE TO OUTRIGHT REJECT 3 COUNCILS.

EFRAIN: True you cite Vatican I. But then you butcher it with your own interpretation.

REPLY: WHAT INTERPRETATION? I JUST GAVE YOU WHAT IT STATES AND YOU REJECT IT.

EFRAIN: True you cite Carthage. But then you butcher it with your own interpretation.

REPLY: BUTCHER IT? YOU’RE THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS BUTCHERED IT. EVEN THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA AGREES THAT CARTHAGE WAS REFERRING TO HEAVEN NOT HELL.

EFRAIN: true you cite Pius IX. But then you REALLY butcher it with your own interpretation.

In fact let’s look at the entire section from Pius IX’s document. Pius states:

“Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching.

There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments”

In the first paragraph Pius is clearly speaking about those who sin deliberately when he says there are:

“…some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity.”

If you will notiice, Pius says nothing of “baptism of desire.”

REPLY: THAT’S RIGHT SINCE BAPTISM OF DESIRE DOES NOT INVOLVE WITH THOSE WHO ARE SIMPLY LIVING IN ERROR BUT OF THOSE WHOM HE DESCRIBES IN THE NEXT LINE…

EFRAIN CONTINUES: In fact, since Pius specifically refers to these people as Catholics, we must believe these people are actually baptized. For this is how an irreligious person is initiated into the Catholic faith – through baptism. Thereby, earning the name Catholic.

REPLY: WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. PIUS IS REFERRING TO CATHOLICS WHO BELIEVE THAT THOSE WHO ARE NOT CATHOLICS CAN ATTAIN SALVATION SINCE THOSE ARE THE ONES HE SAYS ARE…ALIENATED FROM THE TRUE FAITH.

YOU SIMPLY DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. NOT TO MENTION, YOU ARE THE ONE BUTCHERING UP PIUS HERE WITH YOUR OWN RIDICULOUS INTERPRETATIONS.

EFRAIN CONTINUES: In the second paragraph, Pius clearly speaks of those who do not sin deliberately when he states there are:

“…those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion.”

Again, Pius makes no mention of “baptism of desire.”

This is simply wishful thinking on Steven’s part.

REPLY: NOT AT ALL, SINCE BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS THAT TEACHING OF THOSE TRYING AND THIS IS THE SOURCE CATHOLICS GO TO EXPLAIN THE DOCTRINE. YOU’RE SIMPLY MISSING THE POINT.

EFRAIN CONTINUES: What Pius is clearly doing is, distinguishing between those who sin deliberately and those who do not.

Hence, my question is still valid.

Can infants sin deliberately?

REPLY: WRONG AGAIN. YOUR QUESTION IS NOT INVOLVED IN THE CONTEXT. I’VE ALREADY POINTED THIS OUT IN MY ARTICLE. GO BACK AND READ IT. THOSE WHO SIN DELIBERATELY AND THOSE WHO DON’T ARE THOSE WHO TRYING TO LIVE HONEST LIVES OBSERVING THE NATURAL LAW.

EFRAIN CONTINUES: For Pius then states emphatically:

“Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments”

Where in this section does Pius refer to “baptism of desire?” In fact where in the entire document does he do so?

the answer is:

NOWHERE!

REPLY: YOU MISS THE POINT. BAPTISM OF DESIRE IS WHAT HE IS DESCRIBING WHICH IS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE ATTAINED REASON. WHERE DOES PIUS IX EVEN COME CLOSE IN REFERRING TO INFANTS?

NOWHERE!

EFRAIN CONTINUES: The fact is, Pius does contradict Lyon II and Florence.

REPLY: NOT AT ALL. FLORENCE AND LYONS WAS NOT ADDRESSING THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE SUCH AS DESIRE. I QUOTE OVER 20 POPES IN MY BOOK ON BAPTISM OF DESIRE THAT SAY THE SAME THING AS FLORENCE AND LYONS AND THEY ALSO SPEAK ABOUT EXCEPTIONS. EVEN FLORENCE ITSELF DOES THAT. I QUOTED THAT PART IN THE ARTICLE.

REMEMBER FLORENCE… “With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God.”

THIS IMPLIES THAT ADULTS CAN HAVE ANOTHER REMEDY AVAILABLE TO THEM IN ORIGINAL SIN THAT CAN’T RECEIVE BAPTISM. IT IS DESIRE. THIS IS THE EXCEPTION FOUND RIGHT IN THE COUNCIL ITSELF. INFANTS DON’T QUALIFY FOR THE EXCEPTION.

THE CATECHISM OF TRENT SAYS THE SAME THING AS FLORENCE AND LYONS BUT THEN GIVES THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE BY MENTIONING THOSE WHO DESIRE.

THIS IS SO SIMPLE EFRAIN, AND YET YOU CAN’T GET IT!

EFRAIN CONTINUES: For these councils state “infallibly” according to our desperate friend, Steve, that “those who die in original sin descend into hell to undergo…punishments”

REPLY: IT IS INFALLIBLE! YOU COULDN’T EVEN GIVE AN INFALLIBLE PRONOUNCEMENT FROM ANOTHER COUNCIL AND TELL ME WHAT MAKES IT INFALLIBLE. YOU, EFRAIN ARE DESPERATE IN DEFENDING YOUR DEVIL POPES.

EFRAIN CONTINUES: But Pius says they don’t. for in order to suffer eternal punishments one must be “guilty of deliberate sin”

And so my statement still stands:

Either Lyon II and Florence are not DE FIDE or Pius IX is a heretic as Steven claims Pope John Paul II and Benedict are for contradicting these two councils.

REPLY: I’VE ALREADY GIVEN THE REPLY ABOVE ABOUT EXCEPTIONS. ANTIPOPES JPII AND BENEDICT ARE THE ONES CLEARLY CONTRADICTING THE COUNCILS, NOT POPE PIUS IX. AGAIN, I EVEN GIVE AN ANSWER IN THE ARTICLE FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARGUMENT. IT’S CLEAR AND PRECISE!

EFRAIN: Lastly, Steven never makes mention of the fact that he contradicts his fellow Sedevacantists whom I cite.

REPLY: I DID TOO! POPE PIUS VI CONDEMNS THEIR VIEW WHICH IS THAT IT IS DE FIDE THAT INFANTS SUFFER FIRE. YOU MAY HOLD THAT INFANTS SUFFER FIRE BUT YOU CAN’T SAY IT IS DE FIDE. THOSE SEDEVACANTISTS ARE DEAD WRONG!

EFRAIN: These Sedevacantists happen to agree with me, to a certain extent. Because they admit there are many contradictions in the limbo “dogma.”

REPLY: THE ONLY CONTRADICTIONS ARE ABOUT SUFFERING WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DEFINED. I ANSWER THIS IN THE ARTICLE. PERHAPS YOU SHOULD READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE MAKINGS SILLY COMMENTS LIKE THIS.

EFRAIN: While they still believe Carthage, Lyon, and Florence are dogmatic, they admit that everyone from Popes on down contradict each other on the very point I make in my article.

And so my entire argument still stands:

For a dogma (a truth revealed by God) cannot entangle itself in contradiction.

REPLY: I’VE PROVEN THAT THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTIONS. THEY ONLY EXIST IN YOUR MIND EFRAIN.

EFRAIN: Yet a more interesting question arises in all of this:

Which Sedevacantist sect is right?

Nice try Steven – POOR, POOR CONFUSED STEVEN.

REPLY: THE CATHOLIC SEDEVACANTISTS LIKE ME ARE RIGHT! I’VE PROVEN IT.

BUT MY COMMENTS STILL STAND AS WELL…

EFRAIN AUTOMATICALLY LOSES ALL PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE ARGUMENTS AND DEBATES ABOUT WHAT IS AND IS NOT CATHOLIC SINCE HE CAN’T TELL WHAT IS AN INFALLIBLE DOCTRINE AND WHY AS HE ALSO REJECTS NON-DOGMATIC TEACHINGS WHICH POPE PIUS IX CONDEMNS.

IT’S OVER FOR EFRAIN AND HIS DEVIL POPES!

ADDENDUM:

“FR” BRIAN HARRISON BROUGHT UP TO A FRIEND THAT FLORENCE AND LYONS SAID, “THOSE IN ORIGINAL SIN ONLY” AND NOT “UNBAPTIZED INFANTS” THEREFORE ROME HAS NOT NECESSARILY GONE AGAINST THE TWO COUNCILS.

Let’s think about this…

Who are those who die in original sin only?

Catechumans sincerely wanting baptism go to heaven by desire.

Catechumans not sincere would not be in original sin only since it would be a mortal sin not to sincerely wanting to do Christ’s will.

Pius IX speaks of those who are trying to live honest lives obeying the natural law, and they go to heaven by implicit desire.

Those not living honest lives would be in mortal sin.

Who’s left?

Infants and mentally challenged which I’ll put together.

Both of these can go to heaven by Baptism of Blood.

Sure, there might be other exceptions but they would still be exceptions.

Who’s left?

Infants and mentally challenged with no exceptions such a Baptism of Blood.

Therefore, the only ones Florence and Lyons could be speaking about would be this last group.

Again, Florence speaks of no other remedy for infants but the sacrament (presuming no other exception like BOB).

Unless Rome is excluding the mental cases, Rome says we can hope they both go to heaven, which would mean that…we may hope that all those who die in original sin only go to heaven?

What good is the dogma if there is nobody who goes to hell in original sin only?

Rome would be making the exceptions go across the board, so-to-speak, which would make the dogma meaningless, not to mention the clause at Florence, “no other remedy.”

Either Rome is saying that you may hope against a dogma, or that a dogma is meaningless.

Which is it?


click here to see the article by Efrain Cortes

Read Full Post »

Popes can be evil provided they are not heretics or apostates. The Assisi Events are acts of apostasy.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II, Q. 12, A. 1, Obj. 2: “… if anyone were to…worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate.”

Yet, the Assisi Events were worse and following the logic of St Thomas Aquinas, John Paul II and Benedict who celebrated the anniversary of such atrocious events most certainly would be deemed apostates. Not merely bad or evil popes, but rather non-popes/antipopes since a pope cannot also be an apostate.

Just in case you’re not satisfied, Benedict XVI even prayed and worshiped barefoot with arms crossed in a Mosque on Nov. 6, 2006.

As for heresy, Liberius and Honorius are often brought up.

Click on my category on Church History and Papal Anomalies to understand what exactly happened and how to deal with it.

John XXII taught a heresy but it didn’t contradict any defined doctrine, making him a material heretic only. Great saints have also taught heresies such as Sts Chrysostom, Anselm and Thomas Aquinas who taught that Mary was not immaculate. The doctrine came after they all died.

As you will see, this doesn’t compare at all with John Paul II or Benedict XVI who bluntly and arrogantly reject Catholic Dogmas such as the Descent into Hell by Christ (JPII calls it a metaphor) or the Resurrection of the Body (Benedict says not body but person.)

Some so-called Catholics say Vatican 2 was not binding and therefore can ignore or resist it.

Since Vatican 2 is heretical and clearly contradicts previous Catholic dogmas and doctrines which is why those same people say ignore or resist it, to believe it as John Paul II or Benedict means to be outside the Church since the Catholic Church teaches de fide that if anyone knowingly rejects any point of doctrine he is ipso facto outside the Church.

Benedict has stated that Vatican 2 is a counter-syllabus which means he knows that it goes against the infallible Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX.

I’m trying to keep this simple since so many people are not thinking logically.

Sedevacantism is not a religion founded in the 1960’s. It is simply the only logical position of Catholics when no popes or antipopes are running the show. As a matter of fact, Catholic sedevacantists hold the faith exactly as before Vatican 2.

However, the Vatican 2 religion was founded in the 1960’s. It is the counterfeit Catholic Church. It is a new religion complete with new teachings and worship services.

Read my page, Why Sedevacantism and get a better of picture of the position.

See if you can answer the question.

What would it take for you to be a sedevacantist?

If you say it’s an impossible position, then prove it to me right here in the comment section. Put your full name on it and be ready for any rebuttal. I will approve any argument in full provided but will edit any foul language.

But before you give an argument I’ve heard a dozen times before, read the above pages with Chris Ferrara, Tim Staples, “Fr” Brian Harrison, and John Salza and see if you can come up with something new. My book “The Greatest Conspiracy Ever” covers 33 answers to the best objections I’ve seen.

If you can’t give a good reason or argument or show why sedevacantism is impossible while saying you don’t believe it, then you are saying that sedevacantism is true but will not accept this truth.

You are saying that you would rather live in a false world.

Read Full Post »