Archive for January, 2012

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

Presented in two Catholic Family News articles, authored by John Salza, are more silly arguments against sedevacantism. This New Jersey state lawyer continues to be regarded by the unsuspecting as an authority on Canon Law, which he is not. Reminiscent of Protestantism, Salza’s attempt to lampoon sedevacantism, results from his mangling of ecclesiastical laws, a gross misrepresentation of Matthew 18:17, and a misapplication of Galatians 2:11. He omits key quotes from Sts. Thomas Aquinas, Robert Bellarmine, Alphonsus Liquori, and two popes, so that his readers don’t see that these sources actually confirm those who believe the conciliar popes have lost the faith.

The big problem for Mr. Salza is that his fabricated explanations are contradicted by all the Vatican approved experts in Canon Law. Salza, anxious to win by default, either didn’t investigate and review any official commentaries on the law, or was simply dishonest about them. I’m reminded of the line in the movie, Star Wars, “Who’s the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?”

Confusing Censure and Vindictive Penalties

The first flawed argument presented by Salza is that only the Church (authorities) can determine if a manifest heretic is a manifest heretic and therefore, outside the Church. He skips Canon 2314.1 and continues to Canon 2314.2, and argues, “While canon 188.4 says the office becomes vacant when one publicly defects from the Faith, canon 2314.2 requires formal warnings followed by the obstinate refusal to heed the warnings before the public defection can be established.”

Canon 2314.1, ignored by Salza, states that all heretics incur ipso facto excommunication. An explanation of canonical penalties by Professor of Canon Law, Rev. P. Charles Augustine, O.S.B., D.D., shows that Salza’s assertion is erroneous:

“2) The penalties here enunciated are twofold: censure and vindictive penalties; besides, a distinction is drawn, according to can. 2207, n. 1, by reason of dignity, between laymen and clerics.

a) The censure inflicted is excommunication incurred ipso facto, which per se requires not even a declaratory sentence… Note that the term moniti [warnings] (2314 §1, n. 2) does not refer to the incurring of the censure. Consequently, no canonical warning or admonition is required.” (A COMMENTARY ON THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW, Volume VIII, Book V, Penal Code, Canon 2314, pp. 275-276; B. Herder Book Company, Imprimatur by John J. Glennon, Archbishop of Saint Louis, Friday, August 25, 1922)

In one clean sweep, Salza’s entire argument is wiped out.

As far as the papacy is concerned, not one of the three canons (1939.1, 2223.4, 2314.2) used in Salza’s argument could possibly apply. Another Professor of Canon Law, R. P. Udalricus Beste, O.S.B., I.C.D., explains why not: 

“Not a few canonists teach that, outside of death and abdication, the pontifical dignity can also be lost by falling into certain insanity, which is legally equivalent to death, as well as through manifest and notorious heresy. In the latter case, a pope would automatically fall from his power, and this indeed without the issuance of any sentence, for the first See [i.e., the See of Peter] is judged by no one.

“The reason is that, by falling into heresy, the pope ceases to be a member of the Church. He who is not a member of a society, obviously, cannot be its head. We can find no example of this in history.” (Introductio in Codicem. 3rd ed. Collegeville: St. John’s Abbey Press, 1946)

In addition to Augustine’s explanation of Canon 2314, Augustine also explains in Canon 2315 that there are three types of suspicion for heretics.

“Violent suspicion amounts to morally certain proof…and is to be considered as a positive proof and therefore rather falls under can. 2314.

Interestingly, under Canon 2315, repeated warnings are to be given to suspected heretic clerics, and if they don’t amend themselves, shall be deemed heretics and liable to the penalties thereof.  Under Salza’s silly rubric, those same heretics would have to be warned again and again to fulfill Canon 2314.2.

Using Ecclesiastical Law to Trump Divine Law

Another major problem with Salza’s entire argument is that he uses Ecclesiastical Law to trump Divine Law. He writes, ”While, according to Divine Law, formal heresy results in self-expulsion from the Church without the need for a declaratory sentence, ecclesiastical law (can 2223.4) requires a declaratory sentence (sententia declaratoria dari debet) of said heresy if the common good of the Church requires it.”

Salza apparently did read that Canon 2223.4 referred to a superior making the declaratory sentence. The pope has no superiors and therefore the law can’t apply as I mentioned earlier. All the expert canonists teach that a heretic pope automatically loses his office “without any declaratory sentence.” The pope is judged and warned by no one.

However, Salza doesn’t stop there. He also writes, “Popes St. Pius X and Pius XII’s legislation is clear that ‘by reason of any excommunication ‘whatsoever’ a Cardinal is not excluded from being elected to the papacy. “Any excommunication…whatsoever”necessarily includes a Cardinal’s excommunication for heresy. This means the governing ecclesiastical law – which Sedevacantists agree applies to the question at hand – presumes the validity of papal elections, until there is a determination by the Church of whether or not Divine Law has been violated. Ecclesiastical law, then, requires this formal determination to be made by the Church after the election.”

In other words, despite the Divine Law that heretics are outside of the Church (top quote from Pope Pius XII), Salza thinks two popes have legislated the permission for a known heretical non-member of the Church, while still in heresy, to be elected to the head of the Church only to be determined later by church authorities if the newly elected pope is, indeed, a heretic, and therefore not a true pope.  Yet, no one can judge the pope to be a heretic, anyway. Someone might argue that since the election wouldn’t have been valid to begin with because of an election of a heretic, then no one would be judging a true pope. However, if this were the case, then the papal legislation would simply be stupid, because it would be a complete waste of time, not to mention, dangerous. Why would the popes legislate the permission of a formal heretic to be elected at all? The answer is they wouldn’t.

Since Salza misinterprets Canon 188.4, 2314, and others, his error leads him to misapply Popes St. Pius X and XII’s legislation. Heretics lose all jurisdiction of authority therefore any cardinal who becomes a heretic ceases to be a cardinal. The cardinals being referred to in the papal legislation of Popes Pius X, and XII, are those that fall under different penalties. The experts in Canon Law such as, Maroto, Coronata, Werbz-Vidal, and Marietti explain that heretics and schismatics are barred from the papacy by Divine Law.

Anti-sedevacanters like to create their own novel interpretations, and in the end, their interpretations violate the Divine Law.

It Gets Comical

Salza states, “Sedevacantists are schismatic and hence automatically excommunicated from the Church under both Divine and ecclesiastical law (canon 1325, par. 2).”

So what? According to his own argument, we (sedevacantists) could still be validly elected pope with jurisdiction over the whole Church. Yet, he contradicts himself here, because he argued using Canons 1939, 2223.4, and 2324.2 that it takes investigations, warnings, and perhaps a trial before someone could be considered schismatic and automatically excommunicated. Salza is applying the very argument which he condemns as invalid. What baffoonery!

Finished With Salza

A couple of more commentaries that bury Salza’s arguments against sedevacantism:

Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.”

“The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity… Excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist.” (Eric F. Mackenzie, A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L. Rev., The Delict of Heresy, Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Univ. of America, 1932, p. 35. (Cf. Canon 2200.2)

Rev. P. Charles Augustine goes into more detail as he explains Canon 2216-2217 and the different penalties:

“Why can the Church, unlike the State, inflict a penalty latae sententiae? It appears unjust and unworthy of a perfect society to condemn one before he is heard. But we must not forget that the Church is a peculiar society, with a religious character that does not remain on the surface, but penetrates and encompasses the whole man. She reaches into the court of conscience. Besides, the most sacred offices might be neglected and abused without punishment because of lack of witnesses and plaintiffs, and the fear of penalty and final exposure may check malice and carelessness. Therefore the first traces of censures latae sententiae coincide with the spread of evil influences in the sixth and seventh century. In order to protect ecclesiastical discipline more efficaciously, this quasi self-executory remedy was found most efficient and secure. (pp. 74-75 Book Vol. VIII, book V)

Read Full Post »

A reoccurring argument against the position of sedevacantism that keeps popping up is: “We don’t have the authority to judge whether a pope is a true pope or not. Only a future pope can make that judgment.”

Catholic Answers, Tradition in Action, Dr. Robert Sungenis, and many others have used this argument. However, the burden of proof is on them to provide a Church doctrine, teaching, or law that suggests such a thing.

However, I submit that such an argument is seriously flawed and below provide a counter argument.

Let’s say the current pope is an antipope. Some of his official teachings from Vatican 2 are heretical and some of the laws and disciplines, including sacraments, that have been issued since the 1960’s are evil, harmful, and even invalid. The Catholic Church has already declared that She cannot issue problematic sacraments. If the people believe the current pope is a true pope, they would be bound to accept the evil, harmful and invalid sacraments, and would have to follow those evil and harmful laws, etc. If they believe or suspect that something is wrong, but hold fast to the belief that they can do nothing until a future pope fixes things, they would be obligated to follow the antipope.

Let’s say the next pope (Pope X) declares the last five claimants to the papacy antipopes. He condemns Vatican 2, the new mass, and declares the new rite of orders invalid. This means many, if not all, of the teachings for the past fifty years would be declared invalid. All priests and bishops ordained in the new rite for the past forty years would be considered invalid and would have to be reordained or consecrated. All the past annulments and remarriages would be declared invalid. So on and so forth. Many people will think something is wrong with Pope X, but will say only a future pope can decide on his fate, and so they wait. Pope X reigns for twenty years and dies.

Pope Y gets elected and says Pope X was a heretic for rejecting Vatican 2, and the mass, sacraments, etc. and therefore excommunicates Pope X and declares all his teachings for the past twenty years worthless or wrong. Everything goes back to way things were before Pope X. Pope Y reigns for twenty years and dies.

Pope Z gets elected and says Pope Y was one of the heretics that came out of Vatican 2 and therefore he was an antipope, and Pope X was a true pope. The Church would have to flip-flop again and reject the whole Vatican 2 way of things again. This means the last ninety years had been nothing but a complete mess with no end in sight. The process could be endless, and you would never know for sure what you should believe.

One’s faith would only be as good as the so-called pope that reigns at that time. A Catholic could never be sure if a true pope is reigning or not. It would be impossible to defend a Church teaching, because there would be no ground for the current papacy. This means the system of the papacy would be flawed since one would HAVE to be in error until some future moment. It would all be just an illusion. Being Catholic would be reduced down to an absurdity. One might argue that this scenario would never happen. Nevertheless, this principle behind their argument is present, and so the absurdity remains.

Christ built His Church on a rock. The position that only a future pope can decide about whether a current pope is valid is not a position with a rock foundation. It has no foundation. It’s illogical, and contrary to Scripture. Our faith should be placed in Christ and His promise. While the papacy is an important part of the Faith, it is to be understood correctly in light of Tradition, the Fathers of the Church, and the laws and teachings of the Church.

Secondly, the only-a-future-pope-can-decide argument is impractical, especially for the current situation.

If one had some doubt about whether the last five claimants have been true popes and are waiting because they believe that they’re in no position to judge, they might be waiting for a very long time. It’s been fifty years and it hasn’t happened yet. Only the cardinals that were handpicked by the last four claimants will do the electing. They all believe in the same heresies, laws, etc. as the last four claimants and only they will be elected to the papacy. In other words, the modernist conciliar popes have rigged the system to keep the same type of heretics and apostates in office. In fact, no orthodox cardinal exists. The new religion of Rome has been completely established. Therefore, all hope is gone for those waiting for a future pope from this new religion to fix things back. You don’t fix a new religion back to an old one, anyway. That’s the concept of Protestantism.

Also, you can have no doubt about whether a pope is true or not. He doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt for precisely the reason I just provided.

Rev. Francis X Doyle, S.J. explains: “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, and hence, where there is any doubt about whether a person has been legitimately elected Pope, that doubt must be removed before he can become the visible head of Christ’s Church. Blessed Bellarmine, S.J., says: ‘A doubtful Pope must be considered as not Pope’; and Suarez, S.J., says: ‘At the time of the Council of Constance there were three men claiming to be Pope…. Hence, it could have been that not one of them was the true Pope, and in that case, there was no Pope at all….” (The Defense of the Catholic Church, 1927)

In light of this teaching, a doubtful pope would lead the faithful to doubt everything he does as pope. What good would that do?

Based on the current situation with the Catholic Church, it would appear that we are in the time of the Great Apostasy foretold in Holy Scripture.

Those who are determined to hold to the personal and non-existent dogma that only-a-future-pope-can-decide argument HAVE LOCKED themselves in the Great Apostasy because they refuse to see the obvious. They must accept evil practices and blasphemous heresies until they die or until the Second Coming, whichever comes first, because they can’t break free from the confines of their own minds and hearts fixated on a lie.

The only way out is to abandon the illogical and impractical position and realize that a heretic can’t be pope since one can’t be the head of the Church of which he is not a member. A true pope loses his office automatically without any further declaration. This is the universal position of the popes and saints. Therefore, one must be able to judge for himself.

Everybody must use his private judgment. It’s inescapable. However, private judgment should be based on facts and logic. If you couldn’t make private judgments on who claims to be pope, you would have been obligated to follow several antipopes in history, such as Anacletus II. He was an antipope and most of the cardinals recognized him. Benedict X was an antipope and reigned for nine months. It would have taken Catholics to use their private judgment to reject them.

It would be silly to say that you don’t get to use your private judgment on such a serious matter. Catholics are not puppets on a string. We are demanded to use our minds to think and make decisions. All decisions ultimately are private ones. As Christians, it is our responsibility to judge. We all have to make judgments of some kind, whether right from wrong, truth from error, good from evil, and safe from danger. We must particularly be able to judge what is and who is or isn’t Christian, especially if he claimed to be pope.

God tells us many times in Holy Scripture to beware of evildoers. These require making judgments. For instance, Jesus states in Matt 7:15-20, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits…the bad tree bears evil fruit…Thus you will know them by their fruits.”

Unless, you can make judgments on men, this verse is meaningless. You must be able to judge men to know when to beware of them. Those bent on accepting an antipope as pope are telling Jesus, sorry Lord but I don’t have the authority to do what you command.

In Matthew 7, Christ warned against judging hypocritically, and in John 7, He warned against judging rashly, but nevertheless, Jesus says to “judge with right judgment.”

We have to judge everything to make decisions on how to act with one another. Love of God and truth requires judgment. When judgment concerns whether the claimant to the papacy is a true pope, one of the first things that needs to be assessed is whether he is a Catholic.

In De Romano Pontifice, II, 30, St. Robert Bellarmine taught:  “… for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.” In the same writing, St. Bellarmine continues to tell us that a heretic can’t be pope.

This teaching of St. Bellarmine, along with all the saints who unanimously teach the same, is confirmed in the Catholic Encyclopedia, “Papal Elections,” 1914, Vol. 11, p. 456: “Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female [as Pope] would be null and void.”

The bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio by Pope Paul IV would be meaningless if private judgment was out of the picture. The good pope presumes that in order to reject a heretic as pope, even if he is elected by all the cardinals and given obedience by all, a Catholic must use his private judgment. Pope Paul IV implied that this scenario is possible.

How would the bull apply if all the cardinals and the whole Church recognized a heretic as pope? What good is the statement in the Catholic Encyclopedia if a Catholic couldn’t use his right judgment by refusing to acknowledge an election of a heretic by all the cardinals?

Pope Innocent III taught, “The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because he who does not believe is already judged.  In such a case it should be said of him:  ‘If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.” 

Christ built His Church on a rock and the unanimous consent of the fathers on Matt 16:18 is that the rock is Peter and his faith. The Office of the Papacy can only be occupied by one like Peter, a man with the Faith whom you must be able to recognize. It’s that simple.

The Popes are the Gates of the Church according to Pope Leo XIII. The Gates of Hell are heresies and heretics according to Popes Vigilius and Leo IX. Therefore, the Gates of the Church can’t also be the Gates of Hell or else Christ’s promise is broken and the Church of Christ becomes Hell.

Christ’s Church doesn’t contradict itself. It’s not an illusion. It’s not illogical. It’s not impractical. It’s perfect, indefectible, and infallible because it’s built by Christ on a rock!

Read Full Post »

Thu, Jan 12, 2012 11:35 AM

Shannon, against my better judgment I answer your email in bold. I won’t bother opening another email from you. I’m tired of your goofball replies.

Dear Steven,
Pax Christi!
You suggested that I look up the term “micro-evolution.” Actually, I have looked into the topic for awhile because of the way modern, atheistic science uses it. Remember, they call micro-EVOLUTION, not just variation and adaption. Evolutionists suggest that new organs and biological functions can develop in a certain species which they call MICRO-evolution which, by the way, has never been shown in nature nor in a laboratory despite all their radiation inflicting instruments. From this false claim of micro-evolution, they extrapolate to the even more absurd idea of macro-evolution. But we, modern men that we are, have taken what is simply variations and adaptations within a species, and have labeled it micro-evolution. Yes, we have embraced the language of the ungodly revolution and, by extension, we have embraced the devil’s main battle plan…evolution.

Evolution just means change and when you have variations and adaptations, then you have a change, an evolution. However, we know that bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics over the years. This is a classic example of micro-evolution. The fact that we have different races is proof positive of micro-evolution. That’s if you believe that we all came for the same two parents (dogma).

Would you suggest that there has been a micro-EVOLUTION in Dogma over the years or rather a proper, organic development? Modernist don’t need much room to change the Faith, remember.

Of course you can’t have a change from one thing to another (macroevolution), but isn’t a development a change in a sense?

The thing is, Steven, you and I, and perhaps every person on this unmoving earth, have been infected by this liberal, ungodly, and disordered revolutionary spirit.

We were all affected the moment Adam and Eve sinned. It’s called Original Sin.

We talk its language…we all want to be seen as good progressives.

Progression can be a good thing. Without progression, we wouldn’t be communicating right now, and the Church wouldn’t have all its dogmas. Progression is only a bad thing when it leads you away from Holy Law and Sacred Tradition and ultimately away from Christ.

And Holy Church, in her members mind you, has not be exempt from this sickness.

It’s only a sickness when it concerns sin.

The reason I brought up issues surrounding so-called modern science, is because it is an area where the magisterial figures of the Church have dropped the ball.

You mean your Church. Mine has not.

The Church, in her members, has retreated and backed itself so far into a corner that we now hold onto an outrageous Big Bang Theory in order to save the notion of Creation ex nihilo.

I don’t think you have to make that connection. Many Catholics reject the Big Bang but still hold to a symbolic understanding of the six days. I don’t know why you insist that someone can’t hold to an outrageous scientific theory as long as they hold to the Catholic Faith, which you can do so with a symbolic understanding of Genesis.

How Mighty and Wonderful is our Modern God Who makes the universe like a modern artist paints a canvas with explosive bursts of paint…certainly a god I would find hard to worship.

I feel sorry for you that you’ve put Almighty God in your small box. I don’t know how God did any of it, but I’ll accept whatever is the truth on the matter. I don’t put HIM in a box.

Science is the idol of the modern age that demands acts of faith and latria.

That’s Scientism, not science.

 Popes for the past century and a half, as well as many bishops, have failed to meet this challenge because they fear another Galileo case. So what happens? The revolution sinks further into the membership of the Church. And so from this failure in the beginning to meet the challenges to the Holy Faith, we have the modern churchman. Failure to more fully face the evil of evolution and even allowing its study and discussion, has led to theistic evolutionists and the Year of Darwin at the Vatican a few years back.

That’s your NEW Vatican which also removed Crucifixes in rooms so that Jews aren’t offended in the Vatican during the commemoration of the Holocaust and in Assisi. However, the problem is not in allowing the study and discussion of Darwin, anymore than allowing the study and discussion of Protestantism. The problem is allowing it to be given credence of truth. If that’s what you meant, then I agree with you, but that’s your religion, not mine.

From Churchmen embracing Copernicus and Galileo’s revival of a heliocentric model…which was and is considered revolutionary…we now have Copernicus’ body moved to a special crypt at a Polish Cathedral under its main altar and Bl. JP II flying around in a Vatican Jet called the Galileo.

LOL. Again, that’s your religion, not mine.

Of course, the modern duped Catholic responds…well, the Church allows it to be held and believed.

Allows Outrageous scientific beliefs to be held? Is it antifaith and immoral?

How many times have I heard this…altar girls…the Church allows them so accept it. The Fathers of the Church and any true lover of the Most High, would be ripping their clothing and crying out blasphemy.

Now you’re getting into the issues of faith and morals involving the liturgy. THAT’S YOUR RELIGION, NOT MINE! IT’S IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST TO ALLOW SUCH EVIL!!!!

That our good God would bring about Adam’s body through millions of years of death, mutations, disease, failure, etc.; and then to be raised and nursed at the breast of an ape. How dare would any Catholic hold such a monstrous idea of our Good and Perfect God. Our God, in the order of Creation, made all things perfect and complete. He is a perfect Artist Who arranges all things well and sweetly.

THAT’S MACRO-EVOLUTION WHICH IS CONDEMNED BY THE CHURCH. If your religion is allowing it, then you’re proving to me that you’re not part of the Catholic religion.

The Fathers knew the heliocentric system which goes back to the Ancient Greeks, yet they, unanimously, rejected it.

Now you’re back in the scientific realm where dogma is not necessarily affected. They didn’t all reject it. Even the popes allowed Copernicus to lecture on it and Galileo was permitted to hold it. Only when Galileo made the pope look like fool was he condemned.

The earth would be the place that the Son of God would walk as the Son of Mary. It is the place…the rock earth…where Holy Church would be established. Yet Popes for the past two centuries have quietly given in.

What? Copernicus was giving lectures on it to the Church in the early 1500’s.

From being formally heretical and Galileo’s books being forbidden, to being embraced.

Not at first!

Again, we hear the refrain…the Church allows it. Yes, Christ came to an insignificant, distant “planet” that has no central place in the cosmos.

Christ came to an insignificant cave born around insignificant animals with the smell of manure all around. So what’s your point?

How many condemnations were made of usury during the 20th by popes? It is a forgotten topic…so is it surprising that the Vatican issued a credit card not too long ago?

Your religion perhaps?

Also, the correction of Fr. Feeney back in 1949…note the year…1949. Not only during the Pontificate of Pius XII, but also a full four years before Fr. Feeney’s denial of Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire as being sufficient for Beatitude. Fr. Feeney’s defense of Extra Ecclesiam nulla Salus included his rejection of all this talk about implicit desire…a very dangerous notion to say the least, especially since explicit Faith in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation is required for salvation according to most Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

I wrote a book about it. You should read it. The 1949 letter is unofficial and has no authority whatsoever! Fr. Feeney (though meaning well) was wrong. He said that one could die unbaptized but justified and he wouldn’t go to heaven. Where would a justified unbaptized person go? I don’t know, he said, but not heaven. Feeney didn’t use good sense. We poor Irish (well Irish descent) sometimes have that flaw.

Today…well, we now have Assisi.

If you think JP2 and Ratzinger are popes after these events, then you’re simply as ignorant as an infant, or you’re not Catholic.

Liturgically, Pope Pius XII radically altered Holy Week. You wrongly equate such changes to Pope St. Gregory the Great’s miniscule adjustments. Every major liturgist states that the changes made under Pius XII were totally unheard of before.

You’re wrong. It was totally unheard of to insert words into the canon. The Romans wanted to kill St Gregory for it.

Also during his pontificate, experimentation with Mass facing the people and con-celebration were tried in various monasteries and liturgical workshops.

Masses in the first centuries were facing the people. Were you aware of that? [since making this statement, I was shown to have a faulty source and that other sources say that they always faced the East] I will concede to be wrong if this is indeed the case. If this is so, then when did we stop facing the East?

And then, oh how I rue the day, the butchering of the Holy Psalter with a horrible translation that virtually destroyed the traditional Psalter under Pius XII.

It didn’t virtually destroy anything. It wasn’t even made obligatory. [Correction: It was obligatory. I apologize for the mistake. However, nothing is wrong with the 1955 missal.]

Today…well, we have the Novus Ordo,

Protestant mass!

extra-ordinary ministers,

Women on altar condemned by the true Church as evil!

and mass con-celebrations, as well as a breviary, for the new rite, that is more a liturgy of the minutes than a liturgy of the hours.


Religious life, too, suffered when Pius XII asked some orders to modify their traditional habits designed by their very founders and some by our Lady herself.

What were they?

Today…well, now we have few if any habits worn by the major religious orders.

They don’t even have the Faith!

The Liberal Revolution has been a plague upon mankind with its perverse notions of individuality and personal autonomy.


Every man is his own king …his own pope…his own god.

It’s called antichrist!

Liberalism loves separation…separating the Holy Faith from reason…separating theology from science and Church from state. The revolution will not hear of Divine Revelation and it will not stomach the notion of authority and tradition. And yes, Steven, I do believe that it is very present in the members of Holy Church on earth including her highest members.


As Cardinal Suenens stated enthusiastically: Vatican II was the Church’s French Revolution.

The Church can’t produce a revolution against itself. You’re only proving me right with this reply.

Granted that some of the documents are helpful, especially Perfectae Caritatis for religious like myself, there were revolutionary new orientations taken in other documents that have caused untold confusion where many traditional minded Catholics cannot find continuity. But then again the revolution was in place well before the start of the council and the reign of Bl. John XXIII.

Even Pope Pius XII said so.

Sedevacantists are just another example of the revolution. They are truly novus ordo people. That is, any true revolutionary wants a new order. They want to destroy and start from scratch. In order to have a new beginning, the old order must be cast out.

WRONG. WE’RE THE COUNTER-REVOLUTION. We never left the old order, therefore we don’t want to start from scratch. We want the revolutionaries to be rejected as the anti-catholics they are, and get our churches back.

For the sede, there is no pope and all those who would vote for a pope are imposters.

For those like yourself, there’s a pope regardless if he’s a Catholic and member of the Church. You’ll keep accepting apostates as true popes despite the Divine law.

Thus, it is left to the sedes to form a new order from the rubble of the old…true revolutionaries all of them.

That’s not how it works at all and if you actually studied the Catholic faith, you would know it.

You charge me with not answering any of your personal observations regarding the seat being empty. Answers to your personal pronouncements have been made by various traditional Catholics, including good men like John Salza, as well as a recent contributor to your website who writes under the label of Veritas.

I’ve already debunked Salza several times on my website. He’s a liar and a deceiver! Veritas hasn’t answered anything yet. If you actually read the comment posts, you’d see that. AND NO ONE HAS DEALT WITH THE APPROVED APPARITION THAT SAID THE CHURCH WOULD GO WITHOUT A PRELATE AND FATHER TO WATCH OVER IT DURING THE 20TH CENTURY.




With these answers being provided, I seek to simply show that the sedevacantists are not counter-revolutionary, but rather part of the revolution itself.

I’ve thorough debunked all of your goofball assertions!

Like Lucifer they see an empty throne that they would wish to take from Christ and His chosen Vicar. They are truly New Order “Catholics.”

What a fool you make yourself by saying such silly nonsense!

Well, let me remind you, that your new order sede Church will require every element to make it a perfect society.

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Therefore, you could use a pope.

Of course, we could use a pope. We need a pope! We don’t deny that at all!

There is a “Gregory XVII” in Quebec available and various other claimants.

Antipopes are not the answer, and to suggest it means that you’re being a smart aleck.  And you’re doing what people like Karl Keating do, by pointing to extremists as a way of suggesting we’re all a bunch of kooks. 

You will also need various tribunals and congregations to watch over all aspects of your perfect society. Who will grant an annulment in an invalid marriage? Who will grant dispensations? Who will grant indulgences? Who will receive religious vows? Who will approve anything in your perfect society? Peter assigned the apostles certain territories…what territories are sede bishops assigned to?

We answer all your questions the same way the Church did it for the many years it’s been without popes before.

Upon further reflection, the sedes are like the rapture theorists among Protestant groups. Sedevacantists have been “raptured” from the so-called “Modernist” Church to live a life of blissful traditionalism in various gardens of Eden on earth. We, the “unenlightened” and uninitiated, are left behind to fight the battle of the counter-revolution.

Wrong! We’re not caught up from the modernist church of yours. You must presuppose that we were the same religion as yours at one time, which is silly. Your religion was created by modernists who usurped Rome. And we aren’t in blissful traditionalism. It’s called the Great Apostasy!

Oh, that’s right, the sede life is not always so Eden like if we look at the disastrous fall out associated with Christ the King Monastery in Simcoe, AL.

Yes, they lost the faith and joined your false religion right?

Our dearest Lord stated that towards the end not only will apostasy rise, but charity will grow very cold.

That Apostasy means falling away, or total desertion of the true doctrine of religion. Therefore, when St. Paul speaks to the Thessalonians about a great apostasy, he could only be speaking about a falling away from the true religion. Your billion strong religion came out of my Catholic religion. You’ve already spelled out your apostasy quite well above.

With little or no charity, unity of love will be dissolved and schisms and spits will increase. It is impossible, humanly speaking, to correct a sedevacantist because they have an imprudent zeal. Their sin is not gross or obvious like lustful actions or theft. Rather, they see themselves as the pure ones…the virtuous ones who hold onto the true Faith. Thus, they are incorrigible. Steven, you have great zeal. You have spent much energy and time fighting a battle. But you zeal is imprudent in the highest degree. Come down from being raptured and help fight the battle here below. The true counter-revolution could use you.
In Jesus and Mary,
Fr. Shannon Collins

Only someone in union with the great apostasy would make such statements. Like I said before, and I repeat myself:  You can’t be a counter-revolutionary and be in union with the revolutionaries at the same time. That would be like fighting for the British Loyalists while, at the same time, establishing and being in union with the Independent Patriots during the American Revolution. You have to take a side. You can’t have your church cake with a heretic pope, too.

Your position is illogical and goes against the Divine Law! Please don’t email me again.


Read Full Post »

More Smoke and Mirrors from Rev. Shannon

Rev. Shannon ignored the real issues at stake with his reply on Mon, Jan 09, 2012 09:01 AM.

Well, dear Steven, you have personally determined that you are part of the remnant who have the real Faith. Without being led, you have gone off the reservation. This decision is on your shoulders….and you’re not impeccable, inerrant, nor infallible. A person in your condition is never going to be open to my influence until there is a change in you. But since our will is a moved mover, the good Lord can move that will to embrace Him and His Mystical Body, His Holy Bride, a Wife that He will never divorce. As a final note, your dismissal of “scientific” truths and historical truths by extension as not being a part of doctrine is quite disturbing and shows that the revolution is very much in you. Every Father of the Church believed in Fiat Creation and so did Vatican I…every Father of the Church (with the exception of St. Augustine who had a bad translation of the Bible which led him to believe that God created all things in kind and species at once on the first day) believed in six days of creation. To deny such a thing is to deny that the Sabbath rest is part of the very beginning of creation. Creation is a doctrine…a teaching that goes far beyond ex nihilo. The Bible clearly states that the earth was present before our dearest Lord called out Fiat Lux. Evolution has been condemned by the Church, not only at the Council of Colongne right after Darwin’s Origin of Species was published, but also condemned at Vatican I. Historical truths, too, touch on doctrine all the time, especially in regards to our Lord’s human genealogy. Yes, you have that liberal, Masonic, enlightenment mentality that hates all authority. Like Galileo, you place the Holy Bible as the last to be consulted on scientific and historic questions. But, if you want to leave Moses and head back to Egypt, that’s up to you. I just pray that you will see that there is a mystery here that we cannot easily solve, and that you will return.
In Jesus and Mary,
Fr. SC

 MY REPLY 1/10/12:

Dear Rev. Shannon,

I never left the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body of Christ. I believe in all the laws and teachings of the Church. You apparently don’t believe them or else you would have given a real answer to my questions about crucial matters, but you didn’t so.

Now to clear the smoke, I believe in a young earth and instant creation on each of the days given in Holy Writ. I already told you that I don’t believe in the Big Bang. I even said that it has been debunked by science. However, I (as with the Catholic Church) don’t condemn Big Bang theorists for their symbolic interpretation of six days of creation. You apparently think you know more than the Church. I also believe that the earth doesn’t move. I should say fixed earth in space, because the earth may rotate slowly.

I totally reject macro-evolution! However, micro-evolution is a fact. We’ve seen it happen within our own lives. But of course, you don’t know what the definition of micro-evolution is.

Where you got the idea that I reject the historic nature of Scripture is beyond me.

You condemn me for what you think is a rejection of traditionally held scientific views, but have no problem rejecting what you think are the teachings of the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium (Vatican 2). You have no problem ignoring and rejecting the Divine and Church laws, or the teaching of the church that they are spotless, perfect, and not crippled. You ignore or reject the papal teachings on what makes sacraments valid. I could go on and on, but what difference does it make? You’ll follow whoever claims to be pope and you’ll pick and choose from what they give you. On this point, you’re no different from the radical liberals who call themselves Catholic.          

Your last 4 sentences are lies and you should be ashamed of yourself for stating them! I gave you the laws and teachings of the Church, and you gave me absolutely nothing. I asked you questions, and just like Rickert, you answered none of them. I dealt with everything you gave me and in return you replied with smoke and mirrors. As a matter of fact, you were dishonest with me from the beginning. You told Matt and I that “subsists” was wrong, and Vatican 2 was wrong using it. You made it clear to us at that time that Tromp’s understanding of the word was faulty. We asked if you had spoken to Rickert and adopted his view, and you didn’t answer.

You attempted to degrade sedevacantism with an argument that Our Lady never warned of an empty see for a long time, but I provided an answer that, in fact, an approved apparition (along with a possible two others) said the Church will go through a dark night without a prelate and father to watch over it. I guess you only accept the approved apparitions that don’t warn of sedevacantism, which means any warning of such a thing by Heaven would only be rejected anyway.

It’s no mystery that Rome has lost the Faith. It’s Rome that needs to return, not me. You were shown that it is the universal testimony of the early Church Fathers that Rome shall apostatize from the Faith, and the Church will be scattered and seem to have been swept from the face of the earth. Where do you think they got that idea?

I actually believe what the early Church Fathers taught, but you don’t. Your position won’t allow you. Who’s the real one that’s liberal, Masonic, with an enlightenment mentality, hating all authority? IT’S YOU!



Read Full Post »

Rev. Shannon of the Fathers of Mercy continues discussion/debate with his reply from Dayton, Ohio, on Sat, Jan 07, 2012 08:48, and my reply back on Jan. 8, 2012.

Dear Rev. Shannon,

Again, I answer below in bold.

Dear Steven,
Pax Christi!
I have started a new email stream. A good friend of mine was brought into the Church…that is, the Visible Catholic Church which our dear Lord wanted people to find without much difficulty…anyway, this friend of mine was brought into Holy Church via a SSPX priest. Over the years, this friend has seen a lot of confusion and wonders if the Church for him is just a Church of one member or perhaps just a couple. After some time, however, he has realized that the true Church is visible.

I never denied that the Church is visible. Even when 99% of the apostolic sees were filled with Arians, or during the Great Schism when 3 men claimed to be pope, or when the Church was underground in Rome the first few centuries, the Church remained visible.

You know the requirements…Sacramental Baptism, Profession of the True Faith, and under the hierarchy especially the successor of good St. Peter.

Well, it appears you don’t know the requirements: A profession of the True Faith which is what the conciliar popes don’t have. That’s my point. A radical apostate claiming to be pope is not a successor to St. Peter. It also appears you don’t know what constitutes the abandoning of the true religion revealed by God, according to the Magisterium, as explained below.

Our dearest Lord wants us to be assured about this one thing. We may not absolutely know if we are in the state of grace since it is a spiritual thing that cannot be measured, but He does want us to be very certain that we are a member of His Mystical Body. I have no confusion here. I am in the baptismal register of a parish in Massachusetts…I have not been accused of nor have I willingly and formally held to a false teaching….and I am under a local bishop who is under the pope, ergo, I am a member of the True Church.  You have compared my orders to that of the Anglicans who are re-ordained absolutely if they happen to come into the true Church and are called to serve at the altar. But then you suggest that I be re-ordained conditionally. Do you have just a little doubt that perhaps the modern holy orders are valid?

Not really. You have not demonstrated how your orders are different than the Anglican’s, condemned by Pope Leo XIII. According to Pope Leo, the Anglican’s form is deficient, your orders appear to have the same deficiencies, so what makes your orders valid? Besides, why should I believe Pope Leo’s teaching that the Anglican orders are invalid? How is it anymore binding that Vatican 2? You must be able to answer these questions. I would love to know that you have valid orders. In one way, I wish Rome never altered the sacraments, but on the flip side of the coin, it’s one more thing against them. They leave no doubt about their apostasy. It’s total. That’s why all the arguments you give (as well as those on my blog) about a pope merely making an error are so blatantly contrary to the current situation, such as Rome’s numerous serious erroneous teachings, plus the numerous apostate meeting with the mixing of religions, and the radical change in the sacraments causing the reasonable doubt, only proves sedevacantism. They leave us with no doubt whatsoever. You haven’t a leg to stand on by defending them.

Perhaps you could refer to me, at least conditionally, as Fr. Shannon…or Fr. Collins, because I may a priest.

Are you? Why should I believe it?

As for good Fr. Anthony Leonardo, you seem to have trouble understanding that he has no right to serve…no right to preach…no right to hear confessions and grant absolution…and certainly has no right to be a pastor souls. Such a right can only be granted by the Visible Church which has a visible directory with official Catholic Church parishes.

Where does the Church teach that you have to have a visible directory under extreme conditions? I submit that Fr. Leonardo has been granted by the Visible Church to serve. So far, you have not demonstrated that you are a true priest under the Visible Church given that you were ordained by a rite which seems to fit Leo’s XIII’s condemnation.

Your assembly hall is only present in the Yellow Pages.

Wrong. We are organized, too. You just don’t see it, because you don’t want to. Your church only claims to be the Catholic Church, but you pointed out above regarding professing the true Faith, you have absolutely no foundation for such a claim. We have the historic Catholic Faith, and you have a modernist invented religion by radical apostates who have usurped Rome. 

Ask him for his faculties one day…and if he produces them for you from a bishop ordained in Holiday Inn Cathedral…then ask him for the paperwork that allows him to exercise his priesthood in the Louisville Archdiocese.

Since the Louisville Archdiocese has abandoned the historic Catholic Faith, it has no authority. It’s not a Catholic diocese anymore.

Jurisdiction is required for validity in confessions and for marriages and that cannot be supplied by some independent bishop without an assigned territory.

It can under extreme conditions. You can prove otherwise?

You also suggest that I could be re-ordained conditionally for “we” have churches to do this in. Who is “we?” Don’t tell me you are part of that group We Are Church? It sounds almost cult-like. For members of the Visible Church, we generally refer to her being Christ’s Church.

We are the remnant of what’s left of the Catholic Faith.

The problem with sedevacantists is that they are just like neo-Catholics…they truly believe that the pope can never err and that everything written by them or an ecumenical council is infallible.

Wrong again! Popes can err and have done so. My book goes into it. They can’t be heretics and apostates! You are the real neo-Catholics since you pick and choose what papal teachings and laws you will follow.

For the neo-Catholic, everything that Bl. JP II wrote or said is gospel and so they embrace Assisi and condemn capital punishment as immoral.

The Assisi Events alone are grounds for sedevacantism! Pope Pius XI has condemned the idea of the Assisi Events as apostate in Mortalium Animos. Look at this quote in light of the Events:

“For which reason conventions, meetings and addresses are frequently arranged by these persons, at which a large number of listeners are present, and at which all without distinction are invited to join in the discussion, both infidels of every kind, and Christians, even those who have unhappily fallen away from Christ or who with obstinacy and pertinacity deny His divine nature and mission. Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little. turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.

3. But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians.”

For the sede, falling into the same trap, they reject him as pope because he actually did something wrong.

Wrong. He is rejected because he doesn’t believe in the Catholic Faith. You call the Assisi Events just something JP2 and Ratzinger did wrong? A mere error? Really? It’s totally apostate! It’s as evil as anything anyone could do!

You suggest that all of Vatican II must be believed…what gives you this ridiculous idea?

What gives you the ridiculous idea that you can reject it (if were legit)? It doesn’t really matter anyway, since the conciliar popes believe and promote it, and they even tell you that you can’t reject it. But I guess you get to pick and choose what you want to believe in your religion, right? Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura and Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum condemned what you’re suggesting.

Should I believe with divine Faith the document on the Media and Social Communications at VAtican II?

Not with divine faith, but with religious assent if it concerns faith and morals.

Should I hold as de Fide every statement of a Wednesday audience? Come on, dear Steven, wake up.

I never even implied such a notion! All you’re giving in this reply is smoke and mirrors.

The charism of infallibility is quite narrow.

I actually agree with you here! But as the Church teaches, you must also hold to some non-infallible teachings, too.

Vatican II has not bound me to believe anything against the Catholic Faith.

Yes it has! You must hold to the heresies with religious assent and you can’t reject it according to Paul VI and B16.

I can reject ecumenism…a very bad policy for sure…and still be a Catholic in good standing.

You are bound to reject it to be Catholic in good standing, especially if you have the theological credential of Ratzinger. Or should we assume as doctrinal watchdog, he was ignorant?

By the way, I never stated that Pope Benedict was a formal heretic.

So he’s unaware or not intentionally going against the historic Faith, perhaps? You know, I know, our children know, but he doesn’t? Sorry, but we can’t give the pope the luxury of such ignorance, besides he’s the expert.

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

Ratzinger has no excuses! He knows precisely what he’s doing.

Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.”

“The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity… Excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist.” (Eric F. Mackenzie, A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L. Rev., The Delict of Heresy, Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Univ. of America, 1932, p. 35. (Cf. Canon 2200.2).

Rev. P. Charles Augustine goes into more detail as he explains Canon 2216-2217 and the different penalties:“Why can the Church, unlike the State, inflict a penalty latae sententiae? It appears unjust and unworthy of a perfect society to condemn one before he is heard. But we must not forget that the Church is a peculiar society, with a religious character that does not remain on the surface, but penetrates and encompasses the whole man. She reaches into the court of conscience. Besides, the most sacred offices might be neglected and abused without punishment because of lack of witnesses and plaintiffs, and the fear of penalty and final exposure may check malice and carelessness. Therefore the first traces of censures latae sententiae coincide with the spread of evil influences in the sixth and seventh century. In order to protect ecclesiastical discipline more efficaciously, this quasi self-executory remedy was found most efficient and secure. (pp. 74-75 Book Vol. VIII, book V)

Interestingly, Pope Innocent IV stated at the First Council of Lyons, 1245: “The civil law declares that those are to be regarded as heretics, and ought to be subject to the sentences issued against them, who even on slight evidence are found to have strayed from the judgment and path of the Catholic religion.” (Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 283.)

Finally, in relation to the situation today, St. Robert Bellarmine would comment on the Liberius case: “For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.” (St. De Romano Pontifice, lib, IV, c. 9, no. 15)

We’re not talking about a slip of the tongue, or some simple error that can be overlooked with Ratzinger. We’re talking about many major errors and violations of the law that affect everyone. He’s a super modernist! What you have now is a new religion coming out of Rome. They give approval to nearly every other religion in the world except one; they condemn the traditional Catholic religion and those who hold fast to the historic Catholic Faith.

Also, you suggest that the Sacraments and liturgical acts approved by the pope are perfect and not to be touched. Why is it then, that the Sacrament of Confirmation has changed its form on a number of occasions in past centuries? What is perfect and complete should never be changed.

Wrong once again! I never said “not to be touched.” However, just because something changes doesn’t necessarily mean that there is something wrong with it. When I was kid in the first and second grade, mom and dad told me to go to bed at 8:30pm. This is a discipline. When I was in the 6th and 7th grade that discipline changed to 9:30pm. When I was in high school, it changed again to 10pm and later. Each discipline was perfect and spotless. Disciplines can change and be spotless. Are you suggesting that there was something wrong with the Canon of the Mass for 500 years that Pope Gregory had to change it? I gave you the words of the popes and theologians themselves, but I guess you can pick and choose not to believe all those popes that said the sacraments are perfect and spotless, or not even crippled.

When I state that the Sacraments of the New Rite are faulty, I do not doubt that grace flows purely through them. RAther, the accidentals of the rites are certainly mitigated in such a way that the person receiving the Sacrament, as well as the priest and witnesses, may not be as well disposed to receive that grace well. Be good.
In Jesus and Mary,
F.r SC

Well then, you still have a flaw present. The Church teaches to the contrary. You’re rejecting the teachings of the Church, but I guess you don’t have to believe all the teachings of the Church; just the ones you like. We Catholics find that alien to the Catholic Faith.

So far, you haven’t really answered any of my questions or dealt directly with my points. I have dealt directly with each of your points.

You added the following email on Sun, Jan 08, 2012 10:06 AM before I sent you the reply from above…

Dear Steven,
Pax Christi! Just a small correction regarding Bl. JPII and evolution. You are using a faulty translation. The actual statement made in 1996 was:Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.*.

An explanation is then added: The English edition at first translated the French original as: “Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of more than one hypothesis within the theory of evolution.” The L’Osservatore Romano English Edition subsequently amended the text to that given in the body of the message above, citing the translation of the other language editions as its reason.

Okay fine. It doesn’t really matter to me. It sure doesn’t help your cause, though.

Another thing to keep in mind is all the Church teachings, including those on matters touching upon science. Consider, for example, the following statement approved by Pope Urban VIII and sent, by the pope, to all inquisitors, papal nuncios of Europe notifying all clergy and professors: The proposition that the sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to the Holy Scripture. The proposition that the earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves….is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith.

As you know from your reading, the Fathers are unanimous in holding a geo-centric and geo-static system, though they were presented with a heliocentric model by the Greeks. I have been a geo-centric, geo-static guy for years, although I at once fell into the heliocentric model. I guess I was in material heresy at least for a bit. You might say that this is not an article of the Faith, and you might be right. At the same time, however, the fact that the world was created “in the beginning” cannot be proved by science, for this world could have been eternal with the Creator, albeit always dependent. It is Scripture that assures us that the world is not eternal, but created in time. For the past 200 years, the members of Holy Church have dropped the ball on this issue, including popes that have allowed the heliocentric model to be discussed….heresy discussed?

I don’t believe so. It’s not important as to whether the earth moves, sun moves, or both move, provided that you believe in the inerrancy of Holy Writ in all that it asserts. You can believe that God created it all in the beginning and still hold to any of the 3 propositions. I believe Urban’s teaching is false. It’s not heretical since he isn’t going against a doctrine, but since the First Vatican Council, teachings are to fall under faith and morals, not science, to be doctrinal. Although, it is interesting that Urban and even St. Bellarmine thought that the issue was indeed about faith since it goes against Holy Writ. Pope Benedict XV in writing Praeclara Summorum believed that the earth moves. Holy Writ is infallible when asserting a scientific fact, but the question is if Holy Writ was asserting that the earth doesn’t move. Since the issue is a scientific one, can the Church make a doctrine on a scientific issue if the Scripture asserts it?  It’s definitely a fascinating topic!

Pope Pius XII not only opened the door for the false science of evolution,

I don’t agree that he opened the door to the false science of evolution, but I could believe that he left the door unlocked. Many popes have failed in their duty. Once Pope St. Pius X died, his successors let the modernists come back to the same posts from which Pope St. Pius fired them. However, it’s a far cry from the conciliar popes who are the modernists.

but he also spoke at papal audiences about the big band theory, another total joke scientifically speaking, as if explosions are creative.

Wait a second. Was the Big Bang theory telling how the world was created? After all, the original ball of all material had to be created for an explosion to happen. Can you not accept the theory without contradicting the Faith?  I don’t believe in the theory anyway. I’m pretty sure it’s been debunked by science itself.

Evolution and the big bang theory are blasphemous treatments of the good Lord Who, at the beginning, creates and orders all things sweetly, without explosions, without mutations, without death and disease.

I don’t necessarily agree with you here. We know that micro-evolution is a fact, but macro-evolution is what we’re speaking about. Scientists have to give us an old earth theory to make it believable, and they can’t give very good evidence for that theory. It may be old, but no one really knows, or could know for sure. We also see explosions all the time with volcanoes, and they are magnificently beautiful. God couldn’t have ordered these explosions in the beginning? And finally, I have to give ole Jimmy Akin credit for an explanation for how death and disease is a possible scenario for animals that lived before man (in case the days of Genesis didn’t represent literally 24 hours, which he also give a possible explanation for). He may be wrong, but I don’t think we can say for sure that he isn’t. We can only give our opinions why or why not. Quite frankly it doesn’t matter provided the parameters of interpreting Holy Writ are kept secure in the doctrine that they are the infallible Word of God and don’t go outside the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

The modern, revolutionary spirit, in other words, has been within the membership of Holy MOther Church for more than a century, dear STeven, not just in the past 50 years.
Be good…Fr. SC

The revolutionary spirit has been within the Church for 2000 years, but we aren’t talking about the revolutionary spirit, but the actual revolutionaries. I have a revolutionary spirit, but I don’t act on it.




Read Full Post »

Rev. Shannon of the Fathers of Mercy continues discussion/debate with his reply on Thu, Jan 05, 2012 08:56 AM, and my reply back on Jan. 6, 2012.


Dear Rev. Shannon,

I’ve decided to answer all of your email reply below in bold print.

Dear Steven,
Pax Christi!
At certain times in Holy Church, as you well know, there have been various claimants to the Throne of Peter. Many saints, including St. Vicent F., the angel of the last judgment, supported the wrong pope. The good Lord did not fault him.

I wrote a book on the issue. The whole Church falsely recognized an antipope at one time. One of the big differences between all the antipopes of the past and the conciliar antipopes today, is the fact that the antipopes of the past held the Catholic Faith, unlike the conciliar antipopes today. Benedict XVI openly rejects the historic Catholic Faith. You have admitted that he is a revolutionary against the Faith. According to Divine law and Church law, he cannot be pope. By accepting him as pope, knowing and believing that he is a heretic and revolutionary, you are openly rejecting the laws of God and Church.

My moral certitude is based on externals, i.e., no council has been called to deal with a heretical pope and no members of the curia have begun the process of an investigation and removal. Maybe it will happen…maybe a council will be called to correct all the problems connected with the conciliar and post-conciliar ambiguities and errors.

If Benedict were a true pope, no council could remove him! Your suggestion is a rejection of the dogma proclaimed at the First Vatican Council. Since you imply that Ratzinger is a “heretical pope”, by Divine and Church law, he has condemned and removed himself. It’s automatic with no declaratory sentence. This is the unanimous teaching of all the canonists (something I proved to Rev. Rickert who’s only answer was silence.)  You’ve got it exactly backwards!

It’s out of my hands as I seek to cling to Tradition and follow a confused “Peter,” who denied our dear Lord on three occasions yet kept his office.

Confused Peter? Ratzinger is merely confused? Sorry, but that doesn’t fly at all. Ratzinger knows precisely what he is doing! Peter denied that he knew Christ out of fear for his life! Popes would not lose their office if under duress! Besides, wasn’t the papal office put in effect after Christ’s death? We celebrate the birth of the Church at Pentecost. Moreover with Peter, the circumstances are quite a bit different. The argument you propose doesn’t fit, since Ratzinger is not under any duress, he isn’t confused, and the laws are quite clear that a heretic can’t be pope!

Judas, too, though an infidel and apostate who betrayed our Lord, was ordained and kept his office, for as the prophecy of ps. 108 states…let his office or episcopate be given to another.

You’re making a terrible mistake here! The office of Holy Orders (episcopacy) and office of the papacy are two entirely different things. You can’t equate the jurisdiction of Orders (episcopate prophecy referred in Acts 1:20) with the office of the Papacy. A pope who lost his office, would continue to be a bishop. On a side not, even the Office of Peter isn’t filled by direct lineage of Peter himself. Some have come from the East, which means popes came from St. Andrew’s and Philip’s lineage, or some other Apostle.

The past few popes, though very confused in their teachings and very suspect in their actions, have not bound me to believe anything against the Holy Faith. This is the problem, yet also the “out” that we have over the past 50 years…nothing is binding…no more canons are listed with anathemas. There have been no formal errors because there have been no formal teachings.

Wrong! Assuming it was a legit council, you are bound to believe in Vatican 2 regardless of its level of authority. You can’t reject the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium. Pope Pius IX was clear on this point in Quanta Cura. Besides the teachings of Vatican 2, you have all the laws and disciplines that you are bound to follow by these conciliar popes. You have admitted that the sacraments are problematic but that they still work. Are you not aware of all the Catholic Teachings that the Church can’t give any law, practice, and discipline (such as a sacrament) that are problematic? Let me quickly run by you a few examples:

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, 78 (1794), and Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 9 (1832) who stated: “Furthermore, the discipline sanctioned by the Church… must never be called crippled, or imperfect.”  In Quo Graviora, 4-5 (1833), Pope Gregory reemphasized the same point.

You have contradicted this teaching by implying that the sacraments are crippled but still work.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 66 (1943): “Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments,…in her sacred laws imposed on all.”

You most certainly don’t believe the sacraments are spotless!

You’ll also find theologians such as 2:91 (1958) stating: “The Church’s infallibility extends to….ecclesiastical laws passed for the universal Church for the direction of Christian worship and Christian living”

P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258: “The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. . . . “If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”

Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D.  in Dogmatic Theology, A Dorsch in Institutiones Theologiae Fundamentalis, R.M. Schultes in De Ecclesia Catholica, Valentino Zubizarreta in Theologia Dogmatico-Scholastica, Serapius Iragui in Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, and, Joachim Salaverri in Sacrae Theologiae Summa all teach the same!

You are going against the Church!

Lastly, you are bound by Divine law and Church law which says a pope can’t be a heretic. So it is in your hands to do something. You can’t give non-sequiturs, and red-herring excuses as you’ve done in this reply.

Listen, dear Steven, I am a simple priest of God with some learning gained at seminary and in my own private studies. Do I see problems with the new rites…absolutely…they are impoverished yet they work.

But you haven’t demonstrated why they work. I submit that they most likely don’t work based on the teachings of previous popes that tell us why not. Again, you can’t say that there are problems with the new rites without violating the Divine law as taught by all the saints and theologians. Are you aware that Fr. Amorth, Rome’s chief exorcist, called John Paul II’s new exorcism rite, “dangerous,” “ineffective,” and “a blunt sword” against the devil”? Amorth has positively demonstrated that Rome is not Catholic by implication, since it’s impossible for the Catholic Church to do what Amorth said Rome has done. Anyway, it’s too bad Amorth has been fooled into thinking that Rome is still Catholic, and missing this teaching of the Church about laws and disciplines.

Our dear Lord allows a lot, including the virtual destruction of the Latin Rite, but His grace still flows through these channels, albeit faulty ones.

As I’ve demonstrated, by calling the rites “faulty” you have set yourself a part from the Catholic faith. Either they are not Catholic, or they are not faulty. Our dear Lord would not allow faulty rites and the virtual destruction of the Latin Rite.

Christ truly wishes His good people to be assured that their sins are forgiven and that they have received His actual Body and Blood, and that their children are being baptized.

Of course He does! That’s why I’m trying to get you to understand why sins may not be forgiven by way of your confessions. Baptism is valid by anyone, even a pagan, if correct matter, form, and intention are present. Anglicans could make the same argument that you’re making, but their sacraments (except Baptism) are invalid!

Catholics can only come to acknowledge this through visible, external signs.

Again, Anglicans could give the same argument, but the Church has dogmatically told us what must be present for these sacraments to be valid. Just because you have a visible sign doesn’t make it valid.

I was ordained on June 10, 2000, in the Cathedral of the Incarnation in Nashville, TN, by Bishop Kmeic, who traced his line back to one of the many Pope Innocents, I’m not sure of the number.

If Bishop Kmeic had a faulty form in his sacramental orders, then he can’t trace his line at all. That’s my point! If you were ordained by an invalid bishop, then you can’t be a true priest regardless whether your form was correct or not! This is the problem with the new rites. They cause serious and reasonable doubt about the validity!

I am listed in the Catholic directory and I have faculties to preach, offer Holy Mass, the Sacraments, and to hear confessions. I have permission to reside in a diocese and to serve. You, who have no authority whatsoever, claim that I do not.

If you’re doubtfully ordained, then I’m bound by God and the Catholic Church to claim that you do not! The Catholic directory, and the dioceses permitting you to do the sacraments either don’t have any authority themselves (because they hold fast to the revolution) or they do have authority and have made a huge error in permitting you to do so. Neither of the two sources you give me is infallible! You have not given a guarantee of your orders being valid by merely listing those sources. It means nothing. You must explain (with a solid foundation) why the 1968 rite of orders doesn’t violate the condemnations and teachings of Popes Leo XIII, and Pius XII. So far, I’ve not seen one good explanation that removes the doubt! If you can’t do so, you’re in serious trouble regardless whether you believe me or not.

You suggest that I get re-ordained…which would be a sacrilege.

I said “conditionally” re-ordained, which would not be a sacrilege. It would be a sacrilege for you to continue down your path knowing and acknowledging that the rites are faulty when that’s an impossible thing according to the all the teachings of the popes and theologians who have taught on the issue!

Perhaps I should do it in a hotel room and thus add to the sacrilege.

We have Catholic Churches, but if we didn’t, yes, wherever you can do it.

Fr. Leonardo has no faculties to hear confessions (which are required for validity)…no faculties to preach…and although his Mass may be valid, it is certainly illicit.

You keep saying so, but you have nothing to back up your claim. You never give a reason. What authority do you have to say so? So far, you haven’t given a reasonable explanation why I should believe that you’re a valid priest.

No thank you, I will continue the counter-revolution within the Visible Church not some sort of invisible one where only the true spiritual ones reside.

You’re not part of the Visible Church if you are joined to the revolutionaries! You’re suggesting that you can be a revolutionary against the Catholic Faith as you say Ratzinger is, and yet be part of the Visible Church at the same time. Don’t you see how contradictory this is? Also, we’re no more invisible than when the Church was underground in Rome during the first few centuries. You know who we are. We actually can trace our lineages with the same sacraments as the historic Faith has always used. We actually hold to the historic Faith wholly and inviolate. Which teachings are we denying? You can’t say that we are not part of the Visible Church. Material schism is the best you can accuse of.

The first revolutionary liturgical pope was Pius XII who radically changed Holy Week. He committed an act that had never been done before, liturgically speaking.

Wrong! Pope Gregory the Great added  “diesque nostros in tua pace disponas” to the Hanc Igitur of the Canon. The Romans were outraged at this act and threatened to kill the pope because he had dared to touch the Sacred Liturgy.

Why, Holy Communion is now distributed even on Good Friday…receiving the Resurrected Body of our Lord on the day of His Death…all thanks to Pius XII.

I don’t dare criticize it either, since it would be against the Divine law to suggest that a pope did do something wrong with the liturgy. I could give several other examples of changes or permissions from popes concerning the liturgy that you would criticize, but none of them are like the novus ordo missae. You can’t even compare your argument with that liturgical catastrophe!

No, this good pope did not force us to believe in evolution, but he opened the door leading to Pope John Paul II’s assertion that evolution was more than an hypothesis.

 John Paul II actually stated, “Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of more than one hypothesis within the theory of evolution.”  You have a mistranslation of his words.(That’s pretty bad if I have to defend JP2).

As an aside, I am reading the book Of Human Hands by a sedevacantist priest from Norwood, OH. Good book…but he and Bishop Dolan seem to fall into error as well. Consider the fact that Bishop Dolan and his sidekick told the good people of St. Gertrude the Great that Michael Schiavo was perfectly correct in his dealings with his wife, Terri Schiavo. They told their flock that husbands have such rights over their wives…yikes! Terri was a woman in her 40s who just needed a feeding tube to eat. Now she’s dead. But for the likes of Bishop Dolan and his sidekick, everything was licit. Maybe Bishop Dolan has lost his office, too?!

Actually, I have problems with their orders as well. Their lineage (which comes from Lienart) is problematic for me, since Lienart was a Luciferian six years before he was made a bishop. But regardless, your argument doesn’t help your case one iota!
Are you sure that you were baptized? I mean, it was the new rite…the form didn’t change, but did that priest say the right words? I mean a lot of weird things happened in the 70s.

I’m pretty sure I was validly Baptized, since it was by a very old priest in 1970. But if I wasn’t validly baptized, I have faith that God will help me in the end!

I am sure that you have been re-confirmed…was it conditionally or absolutely?

Conditionally, of course! Like I said, I call the new rites questionable leaving reasonable doubt, but not absolutely invalid.

Who was your bishop? Does he pass through the Thuc line? The Vatican…yes the post-conciliar Vatican has basically accepted the Thuc line bishops and priests since such a priest went into Clear Creek monastery and was not re-ordained as far as I know.

My line comes from Thuc, des Lauriers, my friend Mckenna, to Slupski. They all are valid! That’s reasonably for sure!

But then again, who can trust the Vatican.

I don’t, since I have proven that they’ve lied about a great many things!

Did not our Lord tell us not to be filled with anxiety?

I’m not filled with anxiety! I know I’m right, and so far, no one has come close in showing where or how I’m wrong.

Habe fiduciam…have confidence, dear Steven. Furthermore, take that heavy yoke of the entire Church’s problems and put it back on our dear Lord. He has the shoulders to carry His Bride…you don’t. Be good and Happy Epiphany!
In Jesus and Mary,
Fr. Shannon

I’m in the Visible Church! I’m sure of it! I’m happy, but I’m not satisfied; not until I’ve helped as many people as possible to see the truth about Rome’s counterfeit religion!



Read Full Post »