Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Church History’ Category

Hello Tim,

My replies below…

Tim: Hello Steven,

Since I have been around and around with you on this for scores of pages in the past (I am sure we went well over a hundred), I don’t see the need to do this all again. I will respond to this one email, but I really don’t see how any good will come of another several hundred pages with you. Don’t you agree? So please do not expect another back-and-forth because it is not going to happen.

SPERAY2: I didn’t start this thing. I simply asked if you believed if Vatican 2 was infallible in virtue of itself. After you gave your answer, you attacked me on sedevacantism which I had no intention of getting into. So I’m going to defend myself and my position.

Tim: See below:

Dear Tim Staples,

On Catholic Answers Live, July 10, 2012, you gave the wrong answer on three separate points against me on the position of sedevacantism.

First point:

Tim, you argued that since Church law requires that only cardinals can elect a pope, sedevacantism fails because it adherents recognize that the cardinal elect is extinct and there is no way to get another pope. Thus, Christ’s promise of the gates of hell not prevailing, failed, because Vatican I dogmatically defined that there are perpetual successors until the end of the time.

Your argument is a straw-man, because you misrepresented the law and its application. The inability to apply a church law can’t prohibit the Divine right that Peter has successors. Vatican approved experts explain:

“When it would be necessary to proceed with the election, if it is impossible to follow the regulations of papal law, as was the case during the Great Western Schism, one can accept, without difficulty, that the power of election could be transferred to a General Council…Because natural law prescribes that, in such cases, the power of a superior is passed to the immediate inferior because this is absolutely necessary for the survival of the society and to avoid the tribulations of extreme need.” (De Ecclesia Christi, Billot)

Tim: As I said on the air, I would need magisterial authority here. In order to make a claim that papal law could be declared null and void and a “General Council” could exercise such authority I would need to see it taught by the Church and not just by a “Vatican approved expert” as you claim.

SPERAY2: What Church teaching is Cardinal Billot rejecting by saying the cardinal-elect could become extinct? I would like to see that magisterial teaching that states what you’re implying, Tim.

Tim: There are multiple problems here. First, a “General Council” has no authority without a Pope.

SPERAY2: It would have the same authority as the conclave. Why wouldn’t it?

Tim: Second, the Great Western Schism was not settled by a Council taking authority over the Pope.

SPERAY2: Agreed!

Tim: It was settled when Pope Gregory XII graciously submitted his letter of resignation at the Council of Constance. If he had not done so, the Council would have had no authority to depose him and the subsequent election of Martin V would have been invalid.

SPERAY2: Not exactly. You’re assuming Gregory was a true pope. He most certainly was recognized as one by many and his stepping down allowed for Martin to come into the picture, but it wasn’t over yet. Clement VIII was elected and some confusion still remained until Clement abdicated, and then there was absolutely certainty.

Tim: You are presenting a conciliarist argument here, but conciliarism was condemned by both Pius II in his Papal Bull Exsecrabilis and by Vatican I, both of which you acknowledge as valid.

SPERAY2: I’m not presenting a conciliarist argument at all, because I’m not saying that a council had anything to do with it. I’m arguing that reasonable doubt remained until one claimant was left and he was recognized by the rest of the faithful.

“.. . by exception and by supplementary manner this power (that of electing a pope), corresponds to the Church and to the Council, either by the absence of Cardinal Electors, or because they are doubtful, or the election itself is uncertain, as it happened at the time of the schism.” (De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, Cajetan, OP)

Tim: Interesting theory, but no Church teaching to back it up.

SPERAY2: Where’s the Church teaching to back up your theory, Tim? At least, I present experts that support my position. Can you cite an expert to support yours?

“Even if St. Peter would have not determined anything, once he was dead, the Church had the power to substitute him and appoint a successor to him … If by any calamity, war or plague, all Cardinals would be lacking, we cannot doubt that the Church could provide for herself a Holy Father…Hence such an election should be carried out by all the Church and not by any particular Church. And this is because that power is common and it concerns the whole Church. So it must be the duty of the whole Church.” (De Potestate Ecclesiae, Vitoria)

Tim: We have the testimony of Scripture in Acts 1 with St. Peter clearly stepping in and declaring how Judas’ replacement would be chosen and the testimony of our fourth Pope St. Clement who explicitly tells us that the apostles did in fact make provision that after their deaths “other approved men should take up their office” (see Pope St. Clement I, Letter to the Corinthians, 42, 44).

SPERAY2: I have no problem here, so how does it apply. Vitoria isn’t disagreeing with it, he’s saying “even if” and then the position I’m advocating still works.

Tim: Also, I would note that as a matter of history, the entire Catholic world received Pope John XXIII as Pope and not only the Cardinals who elected him. The whole Church has also received each of his successors right down to Benedict XVI. A handful of disgruntled clergymen does not the Church make.

SPERAY2: Not everybody. Dr. Elizabeth Gerstner never accepted Roncalli. She was the Vatican insider who leaked out that Roncalli was going to be elected because it was all planned ahead. She knew them all personally. There are 10,000 Catholics who never received Benedict XVI as pope. Also, Pope Paul IV was clear that it didn’t matter if a heretic is acknowledged as pope by the whole world such a person is not pope. I submit that this teaching is part of the Divine law which is immutable. So your argument is moot.

Hence, the experts presuppose that the cardinal elect could become extinct despite Church law. So, who should we listen to? Tim Staples or the Vatican approved experts?

Tim: Listen to the teaching and directives of the Church.

SPERAY2: So where is that Church teaching that teaches your theory on this matter?

Also, I could point out that the Catholic Church had many true popes in the past who were unlawfully elected. Popes Vigilius, St. Eugene, John XII, and Alexander VI are just a few examples. Therefore, from historic precedent, it’s not absolutely necessary to have a true pope through lawful election. This being said, if Benedict XVI renounced his errors, got conditionally consecrated bishop, we radical traditionalists would accept him as pope for the good of the universal Church. After all, some antipopes in the past just assumed the Chair of Peter by the acceptance of the faithful. If it happened before, it could happen again.

Tim: You assume the nefarious events that surrounded the elections of these Popes means they were invalid.

SPERAY2: I didn’t say they were invalid. They were valid, but they were unlawfully elected.

Tim: The law concerning elections has changed over the years. The Popes have the authority to change those laws. Vigilius’ crimes of simony and at least complicity in murder do not invalidate his election.

SPERAY2: I never said it did. I said he was a pope, but he began unlawfully.

Tim: St. Eugene being elected while his predecessor was still Pope is an interesting case. His election, it is presumed, was validated after the death of St. Martin.

SPERAY2: St. Eugene started off unlawfully. He wasn’t pope until St. Martin abdicated.

Tim: John XII was quite the immoral fellow, but there is nothing about his election that is in question.

SPERAY2:  Oh yes, there was. His election violated the decree of Pope St. Symmachus (March 1, 499 A.D.) forbidding agreements during a pope’s lifetime about the choice of his successor.

Tim: Though some argue against it, there was most likely simony involved in Alexander VI’s election, but the Cardinals certainly and freely elected him.

SPERAY2:  The papal law at that time forbade simony as a nullifying factor in papal elections. Pope St. Pius X changed it. Alexander VI was unlawfully elected.

Tim: And this leads to another point. Even among the various theories of how a Pope could be “deposed” (all of which I reject),

SPERAY2: I agree with you. No one can depose a pope, except the pope himself.

Tim: you first have the theory that an Ecumenical Council could do so (which is absurd because a Council has no authority apart from the Pope as I said).

SPERAY2:  I absolutely agree that a council can’t depose a true pope.

Tim: You also have the theory that the same people who elected the Pope could depose him. Or you have the theory that “the whole Church” could elect or depose. Though I reject all of these theories, none of them apply in the case of sedevacantists today.

SPERAY2: I agree with you 100%. I would even go so far as to say those theories are contrary to the Divine law, and yes, they don’t apply in the case of sedevacantism, because the position of sedevacantism doesn’t hold to anything like that. Only a pope can depose himself.

Tim: The Cardinals who elected Pope Blessed John XXIII were alive and well for years after his election without a peep. The Universal Church received and loved Pope John and all of his successors.

SPERAY2: I submit that this is radically false, but even if it were true which it is not, it doesn’t mean a thing. The whole Church could possibly recognize an antipope as it has done before.

Tim: And I don’t recall Vatican II ever deposing him. So even if any of these theories were true, this little “sedevacantist” sect does not fit the criterion. A couple or three bishops do not make an Ecumenical Council. A handful of sedevacantists (relatively speaking) do not equal “the whole Church.”

SPERAY2: Believe it or not, I agree with this statement 100%. The problem, Tim, is that you don’t really understand sedevacantism at all. You think that you do, but you’ve simply got us wrong.

When asked if you could provide the Church teaching that gives an interregnum limit, you said the Church gave it with Pope Pius XII’s decree and the death of the last cardinal. This is your mere private interpretation of the law which contradicts the experts and simple logic. You may disagree with sedevacantism, but you can’t use the false argument that a true pope can’t be elected without cardinals.

Tim: I argue that a true Pope cannot be elected without the law of the Church.

SPERAY2: The Natural and Divine laws are also part of the Church, but you are incorrect, because I just demonstrated how we have true popes apart from the law of the Church.

Tim: And he certainly cannot be elected by a handful of disgruntled bishops fifty-four years after the election of the last Pope.

SPERAY2: To a certain extent that may be true, because I don’t automatically exclude all novus ordo Catholics as outside of the Catholic Church. Many are just in error, but they are certainly Catholic.

Tim: You do not have the law of the Church on your side.

SPERAY2: I do have the law on my side because I don’t hold to what you think I’m holding. Again, I gave an alternative with Benedict XVI himself.

Second point:

Tim, you argued that we know who the true popes were during the Great Schism. I submit that you may believe who they were, but you can’t say with absolute assurance.

Again the experts explain: “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, Fr. Francis X. Doyle, S.J.)

Tim: It has been believed generally by the overwhelming majority of theologians for hundreds of years now that Gregory XII was the valid Pope who resigned at Constance. My faith is not rooted in the details of past elections, it is rooted in Matthew 16:18-19 as it has been definitively understood in the Church at least since Vatican I. God cannot go back on his own word. He said the gates of Hell would not prevail and they cannot. Your sect bases its existence on nothing but the opinions of this theologian and that theologian.

SPERAY2: That is where you are wrong. I agree with your statement above except the last sentence. You’re not presenting a case against me, because you don’t understand sedevacantism at all.

Tim: And even those are taken out of context. There is nothing in those statements that says they would agree with your interpretation of them nor would they have necessarily agreed with your application of them. You say I don’t have absolute assurance of the line of Gregory XII. You don’t have absolute assurance of anything.

SPERAY2: Of course, I do. You’re not paying attention.

The official list of popes, Annuario Pontificio, is technically not an official Catholic document. It isn’t authoritative and binding on Christians. The Catholic Church has never defined who all has reigned as Roman Pontiffs. As a matter of fact, the Annuario Pontificio has altered the list several times. Boniface VII was removed from the list in 1904 after a thousand years of recognition as true pope.

Tim: I think you are stretching the truth when you say Boniface VII was recognized as true pope for a thousand years. That may well be true, I don’t know, but there is no evidence he was ever validly elected.

SPERAY2: What difference does that make?

Tim: That I do know. And though there is little information at all about Popes of his time, we do know that he was dragged through the streets naked and mutilated after death. He did not seem to be the most beloved of Popes. And he did commit murder a couple times in attempting to gain the Papal throne. While that would not invalidate him per se it does seem to cast some question as to his validity. But again, my faith is not resting in the particulars of history surrounding our 264 successors of St. Peter (depending of course on how many times you count Benedict IX). It rests in Christ and the teachings of the Church, in particular for our purpose here, Session Four of Vatican I, which graces us with infallible assurance that there is and always will be (except for the interregnum periods, which are provided for in the law of the Church) a successor of St. Peter on the throne in the Bishop of Rome.

SPERAY2: I see that you don’t know your papal history very well and that is fine. You’re right about the rest, and I have always agreed with it.

Tim: Your sect is left to a situation where there is no Pope and there is no valid way to elect one.

SPERAY2: What? I explained how we can have a lawful election, and I demonstrated how to have valid pope through an unlawful election. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about! By the way, we aren’t a sect. You’re the sect since you can’t find the Vat2 particulars of your religion prior to Vat2.

We are free as Catholics to accept or not accept the Roman line during the Great Schism.

Tim: Yes, but we are not free to conclude from that that Pope Pius XII was the last valid Pope.

SPERAY2:  I didn’t say or imply it. I’m giving historic precedent. That’s all.

Third point:

Tim, you denied that Benedict XVI ever bowed towards Mecca. This fact is so devastating that you and Catholic Answers Live have to deny that it ever happened, but it most certainly did as you can read here: http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/m012rpRatzingerInMosque.html

Tim: This is an example of why it is near impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you, Steven. You misrepresent what I say time and again. This is just like the old days. And it is never enough with you to simply disagree respectfully, you have to publish every word I say and try to make me (or any of your opponents) look as bad as you can. I truly feel sorry for you.

SPERAY2: This is simply untrue! You said Benedict XVI never bowed towards Mecca. If I’m publishing every word you say and you look bad, that’s not my fault. I’m trying to show people the truth which Catholic Answers doesn’t do all the time.

Tim: But at any rate, what I said was the Pope did bow and pray. In fact, I did a little more research and found that he took off his shoes as well. I’m sure you are upset about that as well. I am not. This he did out of respect. I think that is a good thing. The Pope simply bowed and prayed in the same direction everyone else did. And yes, it was toward Mecca. And BTW, this is also the same direction as Jerusalem. Hmmmmm.

SPERAY2: But you said he didn’t bow towards Mecca and that’s my point. Why couldn’t you just admit that you were wrong instead of falsely accusing me of misrepresenting you? BTW, Benedict XVI also folded his arms like the Muslims and I’m sure you think that’s a good thing too. Shoes off, arms folded, bowing towards Mecca while praying with Muslims, and you think this is a good thing! I rest my case!!!!

Tim: But why do Muslims bow to Mecca in the first place? It is believed that the Ka’aba (the black square building toward which Muslims face) contains an altar that was built by Abraham, our Father in the Faith according to Scripture. The Pope may well have been praying in the direction of Mecca to show our solidarity with Muslims in our belief in the one God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I really don’t believe he was rejecting Christ and acknowledging Muhammad as his prophet, nor was he involving himself in some sort of syncretism. The reason why I did not agree with you is because of your conclusion from the fact that he bowed and prayed, not that he bowed and prayed. You assume the worst; I choose to give the benefit of the doubt unless I can be given reason not to. Reason that you and your article did not supply.

SPERAY2: Inter-religious worship is what you think is a good thing. I’m sorry, but this is where you depart from historic Christianity.

Tim, you stated that bowing towards Mecca would only constitute a sin and not a loss of the pontificate. Are you more Catholic than your pope? Benedict XVI doesn’t think it’s a sin. He promotes his actions as good Catholic discipline. Last year, he bowed before a Lutheran altar and prayed with a woman bishop. Watch the devastating video here: http://youtu.be/UD53KzHx-2Q By the way, would this be a venial or mortal sin for a knowledgeable theologian like Ratzinger?

Tim: Once again you misrepresent me. I said, “even if he did” fall into some sort of sin that would not result in the loss of his pontificate. I did not say he actually did. Can you at least see why I would not want to have an on-going dialogue with you? Just like last time where I spent an enormous amount of time trying to help you, I have to spend a huge proportion of the time just correcting your mis-representations of what I say. No, thank you. This will end my discussion with you.

SPERAY2: You also misrepresent me, when I’m trying to help you. You didn’t get the difference between unlawfully elected and invalidly elected. What about bowing towards the Lutheran altar and praying with a women bishop? Good thing, too?

Benedict XVI, as did John Paul II, teaches and promotes inter-religious worship which the Catholic Church has always taught as contrary to the Divine law. In 1986, John Paul II actually wore a pagan stole as he actively participated with a priestess in a Zoroastrian worship ceremony. Look at photos here: http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A281rcJPII-Zoroastrian.htm

Tim: I’ve been down this road with you before. Why are you doing this again?

SPERAY2: What are you talking about? You never dealt with this with me.

I could give many more examples but these suffice. Your “great popes” aren’t mere sinners, but radical apostates. Apostates aren’t popes! We have many saints who gave up their very lives for refusing to bow or worship in pagan temples. John Paul II and Ratzinger even receive public blessings from shamans. Read one such example: http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A111rcWojtylaShaman.htm

Tim: There is a qualitative difference between being forced to offer adoration to false Gods and freely choosing to acknowledge legitimate agreements we have with other religions. But here we go again. We’ve done this before. And for a lot of pages. In fact, I still have all of them.

SPERAY2: There is a qualitative difference between being forced to receive blessings from heathens and freely choosing to be blessed by heathens. There’s also a qualitative difference between being forced into pagan temples and wearing their outfits and freely choosing to do so. Your “popes” freely do so and that’s my point!!!!

The Church considers blessings from heretics as curses, but your Vatican 2 popes think nothing of receiving blessings from heathens. Canon XXXII states, “It is unlawful to receive the blessing of heretics, for they are rather curses, than blessings.” (The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 14, Hendrickson Publishers, 1995)

Tim: A heretic is someone who has knowingly and willingly left the Catholic Faith that they possessed. That canon does not apply to a situation where a person of another religion wishes to bless someone.

SPERAY2: The principle most certainly applies.

The Vatican 2 popes mock the papacy established by Christ, the Catholic Faith and the blood of those martyrs, all the while Catholic Answers defends these claimants to the papacy as greats.

Tim: Just as before, you haven’t given me any examples of this.

SPERAY2: You’re right, this discussion is useless.

The fact remains, however, that Benedict XVI bowed towards Mecca which you denied on the radio with your outright silly explanation about how you might accidently bow towards Mecca while praying in your California chapel.

Tim: That was called an “analogy.” The reason why I gave it is because I was trying to help you to see that bowing and praying in a Mosque does not mean that one is committing a sin ipso facto. It may mean, as I said before, he is acknowledging what we have in common with Muslims. This is not heresy nor is it a sin.

SPERAY2: That is not what you meant on the radio. Come on, Tim.

In my first question over the radio, you were dishonest in your reply about your debate several years ago with Sungenis over the infallibility of Vatican 2. Back in 2003, Sungenis clearly explained that Vatican 2 was not infallible in virtue of itself and you argued against him because (as you wrote), “It was an Ecumenical Council that was ratified by the Pope and used language that was very clear, for example, as I said before, in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church and the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. Did you catch that word ‘Dogmatic’?”  Based on your position now, you couldn’t admit that back then, you were wrong and Sungenis was right. I have the full debate on file.

Tim: I have it as well. And Bob and I agreed that there is much in Vatican II that is infallible, but there were no new infallible declarations made extraordinarily. That is what he meant by “it is not infallible.” He was correct. I just thumbed through our dialogue and I did not see anywhere where I claimed that there were extraordinary infallible statements. But if I did, I would be wrong. However, I did see where I pointed out that there are other means whereby the Church can declare something infallibly. For example, the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. I pointed out that we have to listen to the language of the Council (do we see words like, “we must believe…” or “the Church holds definitively…” or words to that effect), and if we have teachings that have been repeated in the Church over time, we may well be seeing infallible teaching communicated in that way as well. Let me use another analogy. Pope John Paul II, in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis,  declared the Church does not have the authority to ordain women and it uses very strong language. However, it was not an ex cathedra statement. But does that mean it was not infallible? By no means! It was infallible by virtue of the fact that it was repeating what was already the teaching of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. We may well have examples analogous to this from the Council. For example, when the Council taught, in Gaudium et Spes 22, “… we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery.” Is this a new and infallible declaration of the Extraordinary Magisterium? No. But it may be (notice, I said “may be,” which means good Catholics can disagree on this) that this is a reiteration of a teaching that was already infallible by the fact that it is taught by the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium. In fact, I argue that this statement has antecedents as far back as the Council of Trent, in Pope Leo XIII, John Paul II and more, but at any rate, that is just an analogy.

Lastly, Patrick Coffin and you manipulated the discussion and used the 10 second delay in airtime to edit out my comments you didn’t want to deal with. My views were therefore misrepresented to an audience unsuspecting of your tactics. In the end, you made me and sedevacantism look foolish over the airwaves. If you were so sure that you’re right, then you would have given both sides a fair hearing. I only got a couple seconds to answer before you interrupted with your long replies (several minutes apiece). What you did is supremely dishonest, and uncharitable.

Tim: Actually, I let you speak while you interrupted me more than once.

SPERAY2: Not true. You never let me speak.

Tim: The only time I interrupted you is when you started plugging your website while refusing to answer the question at hand.

SPERAY2: I was trying to plug my website because you weren’t letting me speak. I knew as soon as I started to say something, you would interrupt me, and you did.

Tim: And I don’t have to “make” sedevacantism look foolish. It does that all by itself. It is a foolish position to take.

SPERAY2: Then you should have had no worries letting speak. Clock the time I spoke after you went after me on sedevacantism.

When it comes to topics concerning the papacy and sedevacantism, you should call yourselves Not-so-Catholic Answers Live.

Tim: In your opinion, which is ultimately what your sect is based upon. Your opinion and the opinions of others. Your sect is void of any Magisterial authority precisely because you have left the living Magisterium of the Church.

SPERAY2: Right back at ya!

Tim: God Bless,

Tim

Sincerely,

Steven Speray

TIM STAPLES REPLIES AGAIN IN ANOTHER LETTER BELOW

Tim,

I knew you couldn’t resist replying to me again. Now I will leave you with another reply since you ignored or misrepresented the issues as usual.

Steven,

As I said before, after 118 pages with you before I am not going to re-argue everything. But I did read your letter and I must say it was painful to read. When I said the whole world accepted the elections of John XXIII, you said, “Not everybody. Dr. Elizabeth Gerstner never accepted Roncalli.” Dr. Elizabeth Gerstner. Really? Is that really your answer?

SPERAY: That’s right. She’s not the only one, of course, but she is important because she proved that something was wrong. But you also said that the whole world accepted Benedict XVI and that’s simply false. You forgot 10,000 Catholics who rejected him on the basis that he is a radical modernist. You know, the kind of guy who likes to invite pagans to pray to their pagan gods, or bows toward Mecca with Muslims in a Mosque, and towards Lutheran altars and praying alongside women bishops. But you know what, my original letter was about 3 wrong answers you made and instead of admitting that you’re wrong, you’ve attacked my position more and have made this a debate about sedevacantism. My intention was not to debate sedevacantism, but to simply show where and why you were mistaken on those 3 points.

Moreover, if you don’t know the difference between a Papal conclave, which has the authority of the Pope behind it, and a group of bishops without Papal authority, I don’t know what to say.

SPERAY: Why would a group of bishops not have the same authority as a papal conclave in extraordinary circumstances? If you can’t understand the simple explanation of the experts, I don’t know what to say.

There is a qualitative difference here akin to the difference between a dog and a human being. There is a substantial difference between the two.

SPERAY: Are you serious? That’s the best you can do? It’s hard for me to believe you had the nerve to send this to everybody. I asked you to give me that magisterial teaching that supports your theory which Cardinal Billot is rejecting and you give me nothing, but a… I don’t know what to say.

I will leave you with this. You can multiply theories from Cardinals long past and recount disciplinary documents from over 1,500 years ago that have been superseded all you want, but Pope St. Pius X and later Pius XII (long after Cardinal Billot, BTW) declared the way in which Popes would be chosen. Roma locuta est, causa finite est.

SPERAY: UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH I AGREE! The law about only cardinals electing was in play during Billot’s time too. That’s why Cardinal Billot stated, “if it is impossible to follow the regulations of papal law” THEN WHAT, TIM?Your Protestant-like personal interpretation of the law isn’t found anywhere in Church teaching or even by theologians. You can’t cite one source to support your theory. Thanks for proving me right again!

Whatever the Pope binds on earth is bound in heaven.

SPERAY: No kidding?

Though these matters are not infallible, that does not mean the Holy Spirit does not guide the Pope. The Holy Spirit guides the Church even in matters juridical. For Catholics, when the Pope speaks the matter is settled and the power of heaven will move heaven and earth to back up the Church. You may have had an argument a few hundred years ago (though even then there would need to be more things happen to give your sect claim to even a hint of a legitimate argument), but the Holy Spirit saw your little sect coming. The Church (the Kingdom of God) is as a grain of mustard seed (Jesus said that, remember), it starts small and grows becoming more and more distinguishable and defined.

SPERAY: You sound like a fifth-grader. I cited an approved manual by a famous Bishop and I believe that manual was used in the Pontifical Schools in Rome and yet, you can’t admit that you were wrong.

The Church has moved on from Conciliarism. It has moved on from questions as to whether or not a Pope’s personal sins can depose him automatically. They cannot.

SPERAY: You obviously didn’t read my reply very well or you wouldn’t have stated any of this. I don’t believe in conciliarism, and I don’t believe that a pope’s mere personal sins can depose him. So what is it, Tim? Where do we stand? You don’t know, because you don’t care to know. Your reply shows just how you’re being deliberately ignorant on the subject.

I have already gone over the difference between a Pope losing his authority de more verse de jure. All of your questions concerning the election of Popes have been answered by our Popes. The Pope has spoken. There is nothing more to say. We’ve been back and forth on this and a lot more.

SPERAY: You may do good against Protestants, but you lose every time to Catholics.

The way I see it, your sect has lost the Faith because it lost its faith in God to keep his word. Read Luke 22:29-32 and notice the emphasis on 1. the juridical authority of the Popes and bishops in union with the Pope (notice the emphasis on Jesus making the Apostles “judges”) and 2.

SPERAY: Another fifth-grade answer, from one who refuses to know where we stand. You don’t have the faith at all, unlike Sungenis who knows that inter-religious worship is contrary to the Divine law. I can recognize Sungenis, Tradition in Action, etc. as Catholics even though they reject sedevacantism. I respectfully disagree with them, on that point. However, you’re a radical modernist who hates the traditional Catholic Faith, and what’s worse, you’re egotistical. No one at Catholic Answers is quite like you. Akin, Keating, and Serpa, at least sound humble, but not ole Tim. He’s got to go overboard with the Scripture verses to show how much he knows. I could listen to Jimmy all day answer questions. I don’t want to sound uncharitable, but someone has to tell you. I’d be surprised if at least one of your co-workers didn’t think the same. Go ask them to give you an honest answer, and if they all think I’m nuts, then maybe it really is just me.

It is the devil that loves to intervene in these matters juridical to divide the Church. Unfortunately, your sect has fallen prey to the Devil’s schemes to divide the Church resulting in a few disgruntled clergy and laity throwing pebbles to try and knock down Mt. Everest.

SPERAY: I feel like I’m having rocks thrown at me by a child in elementary school.

Finally, if I couldn’t help you in 118 pages of back-and-forth, I don’t think 118 more will help. So please note for the record that I will not respond to any more emails from you.

SPERAY: We’ll see, but I suggest you keep quiet too, since you keep digging yourself a deeper grave.

Believe it or not, Steve, I respond to hundreds and hundreds of emails. I have to be judicious about who I spend time with as there are only 24 hours in a day. I have spent more time on your emails than 99% of people who email me. But there has to be a time when someone decides to stop. That someone is going to be me and that time is now. So please respect my decision on this and leave me out of any further of these email exchanges.

God Bless,

Tim Staples

SPERAY: I’ll be praying for your conversion, at least one of humility if nothing else.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Click here to read

Read Full Post »

There are several Feeneyite groups such as the Dimond Brothers of the Most Holy Family Monastery, and Elias Talani of catholic-saints.net. These groups have argued against the doctrine of Baptism of Desire and Blood as a heretical doctrine.

They all use very clever arguments that seem to affirm their position.

In my book, “Baptism of Desire or Blood (A Defense in Brief Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam)” you will find sound arguments defending the Catholic doctrine of BOD/BOB.

However, there is one particular never-before-seen argument that I use that definitively proves that BOD/BOB is true or else rejecting this doctrine will amount to blasphemy against Christ.

It is the single most important argument in proving BOD/BOB and the end to all arguments against it.

You will only find this argument in my book on pages 67-68.

Read Full Post »

In the past, the Catholic Church promoted the practice of the death penalty for sodomites as a just punishment because the Church considers sodomy an abominable crime against God and society.

At the Council of Nabluse, 1120 AD, under the Patriarch of Jerusalem Garmond of Picquigny and King Baldwin II, three canons [8-10] were issued that called for death by the stake sodomites who participated either actively or passively, unless it was a child or an elderly person acting against his will.

Four centuries later, the Fifth Lateran Council decreed that sodomites be executed by secular authorities.

In one of his very first acts as pope, St. Pius V in Cum Primum on April 1, 1566 ordered that sodomites be executed by the secular authorities.

Two years later, he declared in a Constitution:

“That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.

Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: “Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature, given that the wrath of God falls over the sons of perfidy, be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery” (chap. 4, X, V, 31).

So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.

Therefore, wishing to pursue with greater rigor than we have exerted since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss.” (Constitution Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568, in Bullarium Romanum, Rome: Typographia Reverendae Camerae Apostolicae, Mainardi, 1738, chap. 3, p. 33)

Catholics must recognize that the Catholic Church’s teaching and practice of the death penalty for such crimes as sodomy is moral and just or else the Gates of Hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church for teaching and practicing an unjust and immoral act.

In John Paul II’s hallmark encyclical, Evangelium vitae, 1995, he implies that the historic teaching and practice of death for sodomites was immoral and unjust.

He writes…

27. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.

40. Of course we must recognize that in the Old Testament this sense of the value of life, though already quite marked, does not yet reach the refinement found in the Sermon on the Mount. This is apparent in some aspects of the current penal legislation, which provided for severe forms of corporal punishment and even the death penalty. But the overall message, which the New Testament will bring to perfection, is a forceful appeal for respect for the inviolability of physical life and the integrity of the person. It culminates in the positive commandment which obliges us to be responsible for our neighbour as for ourselves: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Lev 19:18).

41. The commandment “You shall not kill”, included and more fully expressed in the positive command of love for one’s neighbour, is reaffirmed in all its force by the Lord Jesus. To the rich young man who asks him: “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?”, Jesus replies: “If you would enter life, keep the commandments” (Mt 19:16,17). And he quotes, as the first of these: “You shall not kill” (Mt 19:18). In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus demands from his disciples a righteousness which surpasses that of the Scribes and Pharisees, also with regard to respect for life: “You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ?You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment’. But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment” (Mt 5:21-22).

Notice that John Paul II ignores the fact that the death penalty is also a punishment, not merely a deterrent for future crimes.

In his misrepresentation of the New Testament, he actually implies that the love of neighbor is equal to God. If one commits a crime against God deserving of death, then he shall be put to death. Love of neighbor should not be used to justify the life of man over the due punishment to God’s justice. John Paul is saying that man should be given the type of respect that his life is inviolable which would necessarily place man’s dignity on equal status with God. The love of God is first and the love of neighbor is second. You will find that Vatican 2 does not make this distinction when it stated, “This is why the first and greatest commandment is love of God and of neighbor.” Gaudium et Spes #24 This is an outrageous lie!

While love of neighbor does reflect love for God, it does not mean that love of neighbor is the same as love for God.

John Paul made the argument that the death penalty goes against Christ and the Commandment “You shall not kill.”

John Paul II continues…

56. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”. [Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2266.] Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. [Cf. ibid.]

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

According to John Paul II, the death penalty is justified only when it defends public order and ensuring people’s safety. Such cases where men cannot be kept from being a threat to society are, of course, practically non-existent. Maximum security would take care of any real problems.

In the past, sodomites were a threat to society as St. Pius V implied, but even though they could have been locked away and given time to reform, the historic Catholic Church didn’t do so.

The new religion of Rome raised the level of man’s dignity equal to God with the teaching that the love of God and neighbor are one and the same.

Modernist Rome has necessarily rejected the historic teaching and practice of the Catholic Church of putting sodomites to death thus undercutting the very foundation of their own religion.

Evangelium vitae is a typical modernist document since truth yesterday is not true today.

One might argue that it is not an infallible document and therefore no doctrine has been infringed.

Regardless, John Paul II has personally rejected Catholic doctrine and practice and his document will now be accepted by millions leading them astray.

Read Full Post »

The New Oxford Review is another liberal so-called Catholic magazine that prizes itself as being a staunchly orthodox Catholic publication.

They even go so far as to advertise whether you have the guts to subscribe and read what they think is so orthodox while adding the little comment, “No bozos or sissies, please.”

However, after sending my article to two different NOR email addresses back in the month of June, I never so much as received an email confirmation from either one.

Now, you can see what it is they don’t want their readers to read.

Hardly Playing Devil’s Advocate

by Steven Speray

John Paul II mostly likely will be canonized by Benedict XVI.

And why shouldn’t he be?

Tom Bethell’s article “Playing Devil’s Advocate” gives possible reasons why this canonization should perhaps be put on hold, but hardly plays devil’s advocate as to the reason why this process should not take place. In the end, Bethell dismisses his entire advocate thesis with, “Obviously, John Paul was a man of personal holiness” and “should proceed without haste in formally discerning his sanctity.”

Bethell states, “only the Church can declare someone a saint,” but the fact remains that great Catholic saints of the past were recognized by the faithful while never being declared so by the Church.

St. Patrick is a prime example!

John Paul II, who like St. Patrick, is recognized by many as a saint. But is John Paul II really like Patrick, a great Catholic leader filled with personal holiness?

To question John Paul’s personal holiness among Vatican 2 “Catholics” is like questioning whether Mohammed was a true prophet among Muslims. It cannot be done without greatly upsetting the devout lovers of such men.

However, truth doesn’t man-please and truth is what matters.

What makes John Paul II a man of holiness or unholiness?

Like St. Patrick, John Paul II did seem to be a deeply prayerful man.

Obviously, orthodoxy would be a necessary part of holiness.

Was John Paul orthodox in his teaching? Did he knowingly believe and teach any kind of heresy by way of word or action that would be contrary to the faith keeping or leading men into heresy and apostasy?

In Ireland, St. Patrick didn’t waste any time condemning the Druid religion as one that worships the Devil. He went about the countryside declaring the Gospel while denouncing druid paganism. He did not welcome druids to pray to their gods for peace. He did not go inside their pagan temples and pray with them at all, and he certainly never received as a bishop the blessings from leaders of this pagan religion. He actually broke their laws in public and prayed incessantly that his life be spared from death by the druid hand.

St. Patrick was concerned of the Druid spells and poisons precisely because he knew the evils of false religion with its black laws of heathenism, false laws of heresy, and the deceits of idolatry.

The result of Patrick’s witness to Christ in Ireland was the complete conversion of the entire country to Catholicism which, in turn, saved civilization as the Scriptures (as well as many other great works) were preserved by his monks.

How does this contrast with John Paul II?

In 1985, John Paul II prayed “with” African Animists known as “witch doctors.” (L’Osservatore Romano, August 26, 1985, p. 9.)

On February 5, 1986, in the city of Chennai (Madras for the Zoroastrians) India, John Paul II, alongside Dr. Meher Master Moos, actively participated in a Zoroastrian ceremony by lighting a candle while wearing a pagan stole with the symbols of the pagan religion.

The following year, “During his visit to Phoenix in 1987, John Paul II received a ritual ‘blessing’ from the Pima Indian shaman Emmet White using an eagle’s feather. John Paul said that the act had ‘enriched the Church.'”

In 1986 and 2002, John Paul II invited all the world’s religious leaders to come to Assisi, Italy and pray and offer sacrifices to each of their individual gods for world peace. Leaders from Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Tenrikyo, Shintoism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, and Voodoo attended with prayers and even with animal sacrifices from the Voodooists all in the name of peace.

John Paul II also promoted Islamic culture when he stated in his message to “Grand Sheikh Mohammed,” Feb. 24, 2000: “Islam is a religion. Christianity is a religion. Islam has become a culture. Christianity has become also a culture… I thank your university, the biggest center of Islamic culture. I thank those who are developing Islamic culture…” (L’Osservatore Romano, March 1, 2000, p. 5.)

This is a culture that blasphemes the Most Holy Trinity while misleading literally a billion people away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Later, John Paul II, on March 21, 2000, stated: “May Saint John the Baptist protect Islam and all the people of Jordan…” (L’ Osservatore Romano, March 29, 2000, p. 2.)

In his Feb. 4, 1993, address to the Voodoo representative of Benin at Cotonou, John Paul II actually promoted the African religion of Voodooism implying that man may be saved in Voodoo.

Voodoo priests saw John Paul’s “Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in Africa” as an endorsement of their religion. In a paper by N. Adu Kwabena-Essem entitled “Pope’s Apology to Africans,” the Voodooist said, “African religions had their biggest boost two years ago when Pope John Paul II, on a visit to Benin, apologized for centuries of ridiculing African cultural beliefs by the Western world. Benin is the home of Voodoo…The crucial question is whether the Pope’s ‘penance’ will force others to start respecting African cultures, in particular the belief in African religions.”

In 1993, the L’Osservatore Romano estimated the adherents of Voodoo in Benin to comprise a mere 25 percent of its population and dying.

What was the result of John Paul’s visit?

Voodoo grew a staggering 60 percent in that same country, according to a January 1996 Associated Press report. Now, Benin celebrated the rebirth of voodoo as an officially recognized religion.

Many more examples of John Paul II mixing religions and taking part in non-Christian religious services, not to mention his recognizing Protestant sects as holy and righteous worthy of papal blessings could be given but these suffice.

Unlike St. Patrick, John Paul knowingly and freely taught by way of word and action complete and total apostasy from true Catholicism.

Unlike St. Patrick who converted millions to the true Catholic Faith, John Paul kept and led millions in the darkness of false religion including his own subversion of Christianity as Our Lady of Good Success, La Salette, and Fatima warned about and he did so in the name of Catholicism as one dedicated to Our Lady. His totus tuus was a cover as was the papal throne which he obviously never truly possessed.

Benedict XVI most likely will canonize John Paul II, and why shouldn’t he?

John Paul II is the saint of the new religion of Rome masquerading as Catholicism.

Read Full Post »

In a week, the Church will remember the events that took place in Fatima, Portugal in 1917.

The mysterious third secret has remained a secret.

Lucia said that the Secret was to be revealed in 1960 because that would be the time that the world would understand it.

Since that time, at least two alleged third secrets have been revealed.

In 2000, Rome revealed what they said was the real third secret. However, we know it was a lie because no one would have understood it in 1960 since Rome claims the Secret came to pass in 1981 with the shooting of John Paul II.

The second alleged third secret reads as follows (from http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B352_Secret.html) …

Tuy September 1, 1944 or April 1, 1944


JMJ

Now I am going to reveal the third fragment of the secret: This part is the apostasy in the Church!

Our Lady showed us the individual who I describe as the ‘holy Father’ in front of a multitude that was cheering him.

But there was a difference from a true holy Father, his devilish gaze, this one had the gaze of evil.

Then, after some moments we saw the same Pope entering a Church, but this Church was the Church of hell; there is no way to describe the ugliness of that place. It looked like a gray cement fortress with broken angles and windows similar to eyes; it had a break in the roof of the building.

Next, we raised our eyes to Our Lady who said to us: You saw the apostasy in the Church; this letter can be opened by the holy Father, but it must be announced after Pius XII and before 1960.

In the kingdom of John Paul II the cornerstone of Peter’s grave must be removed and transferred to Fatima.

Because the dogma of the faith is not conserved in Rome, its authority will be removed and delivered to Fatima.

The cathedral of Rome must be destroyed and a new one built in Fatima.

If 69 weeks after this order is announced, Rome continues its abomination, the city will be destroyed.

Our Lady told us that this is written,[in] Daniel 9:24-25 and Matthew 21:42-44


Why I don’t believe this alleged third secret is authentic

1.      Lucia said the secret would be clearer in 1960. Yet, JPII didn’t exist until 18 years later. This is the same reason why the alleged secret revealed by Rome in 2000 doesn’t work. Rome claims the Secret came to pass in 1981 with the shooting of John Paul II.

2.      The authority of Rome was not transferred to Fatima as the alleged secret says, “will be” done. It cannot be transferred to Fatima unless a true pope moves there like it happened at Avignon.

3.       This secret would not have scared very many Catholics in 1960, or cause them to go to confession as Fr. Malachi said the Third Secret would if they heard it.

Not only does Ratzinger have an evil gaze, but also, John XXIII and Paul VI had very evil gazes!

The Tradition is Action website makes the “holy father” with an evil gaze to be Ratizinger but notice that the secret was referring to one BEFORE the kingdom of John Paul II.

This would not be Ratzinger!

I know the real secret didn’t allude to the Church being without a pope as in sedevacantism, but notice that this secret says that “In the kingdom of John Paul II…the dogma of the faith is not conserved in Rome, its authority will be removed and delivered to Fatima” CAN ONLY MEAN THAT JOHN PAUL II DOESN’T CONSERVE THE FAITH EITHER WHICH MEANS HE IS ALSO AN APOSTATE WITH THE REST OF ROME!

FR MALACHI WOULD HAVE NOTICED THIS AND NEVER ACCEPTED JOHN PAUL II AS A TRUE POPE!!!!!

With this being said, how can the authority of Rome be transferred to Fatima, when only a true pope with the Catholic Faith can make it happen?

It took many years for Fr. Malachi to reject John Paul II as a true pope, doing so near the end of his life.

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 »

(TAKEN FROM MY BOOK “THE GREATEST CONSPIRACY EVER”)

THE ASSISI EVENTS

-In 1986 and 2002, John Paul II invited all the world’s religious leaders to come to Assisi, Italy and pray and offer sacrifices to each of their individual gods for world peace. Leaders from Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Tenrikyo, Shintoism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, and Voodoo attended with prayers and even with animal sacrifices from the Voodooists all in the name of peace.

These Events were praised by Mother Theresa and were defended and justified by theologians around the world using the writings of great saints such as St. Thomas Aquinas.

Such is the New World Religion of the New World Order. Butchering the very meaning of the great saints to justify evil.

In 2006, Benedict XVI celebrated the 20th anniversary of the first Assisi Events.

Throughout Catholic history, we see the Church condemn false beliefs and proselytize pagans, Protestants, and all infidels. In looking at these Events in the modern world, we see a clear-cut contradiction to the teachings of the Catholic Church and Her practice. To demonstrate this, we could look at Mortalium Animos by Pope Pius XI as a recent example, or go back to the Apocalypse of Holy Writ on Babylon’s Harlotry. However, the following anecdotes will best illustrate the contradiction between the Assisi Events and historic Christianity.

The Assisi Events are like:

-St. Peter and St. Paul inviting pagan Romans to come to the catacombs and pray to Jupiter, Saturn, and Mercury for world peace rather than seeing them as antichrists.

-St John inviting over Cerinthus to pray instead of refusing even to use the same bathhouse as John did.

-St. Thomas inviting Hindus to pray to Vishnu for guidance and peace rather than telling them that only Christ can save them.

-St. Athanasius inviting Arians to pray to their anti-Trinitarian god for peace and reconciliation rather than slap them in their face as St. Nicholas did at Nicea.

-St. Ambrose and St. Augustine inviting Pelagians and Manicheans to come and pray with them rather than calling them agents of the devil.

-St. Patrick inviting the Druids of Ireland to offer sacrifices to their gods rather than proselytizing them to become faithful followers of Holy Trinity.

-St. Leo the Great inviting Attila and the rest of the Huns to come inside St. Peter’s so they can pray to all their gods so that there will be peace rather than telling them to leave Rome.

-St. Francis of Assisi praying with the Muslims rather than telling them to believe in Jesus and convert to Catholicism.

-St. Anthony of Padua inviting Cathars to come in the local Catholic Church and pray for unity and peace, not tell them they are on the road to perdition unless they repent and be reunited to the faith.

-St. Francis Xavier inviting the local Buddhists to chant and pray their beads while he prayed his Rosary by demonstrating that it’s okay to be Buddhists.

-Hernando Cortez and Bishop Zumarraga recognizing as a religion deserving of respect and honor Aztec Paganism and inviting the Aztecs to pray to Quetzelcoatl and Huitzilopochtli rather than seeing it as devil worship.

-Pope St. Pius V inviting all the new Protestants to come to Rome and pray with Catholics rather than condemning them for holding to heretical beliefs and practices.

-Pope St. Pius X inviting all the Modernists to come and pray that we all get along rather than anathematizing and saying that modernism is the synthesis of all heresies. Yea, right!

That’s what the Assisi Events are like but anybody of goodwill can see they are so far off the mark of true Christianity that it is not funny.

Oh, and there is one more thing: The Catholic Church has decreed in her canons: “If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion.” “If any clergyman or laic shall go into the synagogue of the Jews, or the meetings of heretics, to join in prayer with them, let him be deposed, and deprived of communion”. (Canons 44 and 63 – of Bishop George Hay (1729-1811 in GENERAL LAWS OF GOD, FORBIDDING ALL COMMUNICATION IN RELIGION WITH THOSE OF A FALSE RELIGION).)

So also, in one of her most respected councils, held in the year 398, at which the great St. Augustine was present, she speaks thus: “None must either pray or sing psalms with heretics; and whosoever shall communicate with those who are cut off from the Communion of the Church, whether clergyman or laic, let him be excommunicated”. (Council of Carthage. iv. 72 and 73)

Many Catholics think the Events were scandalous, but the fact is the Assisi Events within themselves are more than scandalous. They are acts of apostasy.

John Paul II arranged for all crucifixes to be removed or covered. He gave each false religion their own special room they asked for such as an unblessed room for the Jews where Christ had no part of, or one with windows for the Zoroastrians as the smoke of their god Adar could escape. John Paul provided all the pagans and infidels the special rooms to aid in their worship.

It is a total and disgusting lie that there were underlying theological principles keeping the Events from being heretical. In fact, they were Masonic and are not backed by any Catholic theology whatsoever. Again, some even go so far as to use statements of St. Thomas Aquinas to justify these abominable events.

Holy Writ says:

“For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils…” (Psalm 95)

“But the things which the heathens sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to god. And I would not that you should be partakers with devils.” (I Cor. 10:20)

The Assisi Events are unspeakable crimes because they tell us that Masonic Rome wants us to be partakers with devils.

Note again, that even Voodoo priests were invited by Rome to sacrifice animals to their demons and it happened not once but twice.

Anyone who acted, promoted or defends these diabolical acts is in no way Catholic but rather apostates.

The Assisi Events are proofs that John Paul II and Benedict XVI who recently celebrated the 20th anniversary of the events are both non-Catholic apostates much less heretics which makes them both antipopes. They both reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ and accept the gospel of Masonry (antichrist).

IF YOU’RE IN UNION WITH BENEDICT XVI BY GOING TO A MASS UNITED TO MODERNIST NON-CATHOLIC ROME, THEN YOU ARE IN UNION WITH THE VERY AGENTS OF HELL.

THERE IS SIMPLY NO OTHER WAY AROUND IT.

Read Full Post »