Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

St. Paul told the Ephesians, “the days are evil.” The days are still evil as is evident by the wickedness found in the world all around us. Today’s reading comes from the same chapter in Ephesians, where St. Paul tells us how to behave in these evil days:

“Be ye therefore followers of God, as most dear children; And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odour of sweetness. But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you, as becometh saints: Or obscenity, or foolish talking, or scurrility, which is to no purpose; but rather giving of thanks. For know you this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words. For because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief. Be ye not therefore partakers with them. For you were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord. Walk then as children of the light. For the fruit of the light is in all goodness, and justice, and truth.” (Eph. 5:1-9)

The Sunday reading ended here, but St. Paul continued…

“Proving what is well pleasing to God: And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For the things that are done by them in secret, it is a shame even to speak of.” (Eph. 5:10-12)
How many of us are guilty of fornication, uncleanness, covetousness, obscenity, foolish talking, or scurrility? How many of us partake or delight in it in some way? How many of us don’t reprove the evil works or aren’t ashamed to speak of them? Not only do these things keep us from attaining Heaven, but they cause scandal and influence others to do evil. We become part of the world and enemy to Christ and His Church. 
Getting to Heaven should always be on our minds as our final end. We want as many as possible to follow us in this goal. That means we should despise everything that stands in the way! We must love what God loves and hate what God hates.
St. Paul also told us, “And be not conformed to this world; but be reformed in the newness of your mind, that you may prove what is the good, and the acceptable, and the perfect will of God.” (Rom. 12:2)

Read Full Post »

In 2001, Michael Rose published “Ugly as Sin,” which showed how the Vatican 2 religion builds its new churches. Over the past several years, http://www.NovusOrdoWatch.com has published numerous posts showing more of the same in Germany, Austria, and Italy. [1] (See Footnote for a list of them.) N.O.W. included American churches as well.

Paul Joseph Watson has posted two interesting videos explaining the purpose of the new architecture throughout the world and why architecture is important:

Why Modern Architecture SUCKS – YouTube

Latest Atrocities in Modern Architecture – YouTube

(There may be bad language in some of Watson’s videos)

I don’t have to look any further than my surrounding communities in Kentucky and find the same hideous buildings called “Catholic Churches.”

In my hometown, St. Leo’s is one of those churches built in 1989. The late Fr. McDonald (one of my old confessors) was responsible for this design and he loved it. I remember telling him I how Protestant it looked. 

I took the following pictures of St. Leo Church on 1/22/23. 

The entrance isn’t that bad as you’re welcomed with big statues of Mary and Joseph.

The Protestant-styled outside is reflected in the inside. It’s big, cold, and mostly empty. It smelled nice, but it didn’t feel nice. There was a lady praying up front behind the altar. When I grew up in the Vatican 2 sect, we didn’t hang out in the sanctuary, because that was considered a sacred area. We didn’t feel entitled to do anything but clean the sanctuary after mass. There’s obviously not the same reverence anymore. Then again, these churches reflect the irreverent Vatican 2 faith.

The old St. Leo’s is still standing and now used for Chiropractics. It’s small but has a traditional Catholic style. It was built in 1893.  

The next town just north of us is Frankfort, the capital city of Kentucky. Their church is Good Shepherd. The old Church was absolutely beautiful! Pictures of the old church are found here. 

However, the new Good Shepherd Church built in 1997 is quite the contrary. I’ve been told by reliable sources that another one of my old confessors, the late Fr. Keller designed the new church. We considered him a staunch conservative, too. 

I took the following pictures of Good Shepherd on 1/20/23. As I was taking these pictures, one of the parishioners said to me, “Isn’t it a beautiful church?” God love the man, but how sad. It looks like anything but a Catholic Church. In fact, when I showed my non-Catholic friend the following picture, he said, “That’s a church? I drive by it all the time and didn’t know what it was.” 

The inside feels cold and completely devoid of God. At least, there’s a fairly nice crucifix.  

There’s a nice image of Our Lady of Guadalupe in the following picture. It has no big statues worth noting. The Stations of the Cross are just pitiful. We had bigger and nicer ones in St. Lawrence Catholic Church back in the 1970’s and 80’s, which is a church that could barely hold a hundred people. 


I thought Good Shepherd was the worst ever until I visited the next church. I took the following pictures on 1/26/23

You are looking at the back view of Pax Christi of Lexington, Ky, which you see from Man-O-War Blvd. The following picture is the front of the Church where you enter. 

The next pictures are the east and west sides of the building.

If you think the outside is bad, it actually gets worse in the inside. The other two churches felt cold and empty, but this makes you feel like you’re being mocked. Catholic architecture should give glory to God, but Pax Christi is anti-Catholic. If you remember my post 

Breakfast with a Novus Ordo Priest

 you’ll remember the celebrated Larry Hehman, who just so happens to be the priest behind Pax Christi. 

The following pictures show the altar.

The left side of the altar is the choir and family room.

They went out of their way with the Stations of the Cross (3 examples below). All I can say is it’s SORRY!

The following picture is an armless Christ without the Cross, which is mounted behind the “sanctuary.” Think about the symbolism of this image. The devil hates the Cross and behold, it’s missing. We work with our arms and hands. Priests who represent Christ have their hands anointed. Why are the outstretched arms and hands of Christ amputated? This blasphemous depiction is par for the course for such a satanic church. 

Not only is the Vatican 2 faith devoid of the sacred, so are their church buildings. I guess they gutted the churches to reflect the gutted sacredness of the Catholic faith from the Vatican 2 religion. There’s no reason why the churches should look traditional, when the religion and its leaders aren’t. 

The Catholic Faith heals and strengthens souls. Not so with the Vatican 2 religion. It’s a sick religion that makes souls sick. Their architecture alone demonstrates this fact. The heresy of modernism is even in their architecture, which is more of the rotten fruit of Vatican 2. Millions of dollars are spent on these awful churches and their parishioners keep giving more money to the organization that keeps feeding them garbage in their giant garbage can churches. Most of them love their churches or don’t care at all. Their sickness of soul is beyond me. 

I could have continued in my leg work of going from church to church. I could have included several more churches in Lexington, such as St. Elizebeth Ann Seton or Mary Queen of the Holy Rosary. I think the cathedral is bad, too, but you get the idea. I’m sure every big city has its own new ugly so-called Catholic churches.

For the road, I’ve included below 3 more modernists church buildings found in the diocese.

The following pictures were taken from https://cdlex.org/parish-finder/?swLat=32.45131389745787&swLng=-90.817062415625&neLat=43.25875336670313&neLng=-78.204757728125

Jesus Our Savior Church in Morehead, KY

Sts. John and Elizabeth Church in Grayson, KY

St. Sylvester Church in Waynesburg, KY



Footnote [1]

No Holy Spirit here: Welcome to the “Tent” Church of the Unholy Ghost – Novus Ordo Watch

Church of the Squashed Mushroom? St. James the Apostle Parish in Ferrara, Italy – Novus Ordo Watch

Spiritually Diseased Architecture: “Resurrection Church” in Viareggio, Italy – Novus Ordo Watch

Where the Sacred IS the Profane: St. Nicholas Church in Neuried, Germany – Novus Ordo Watch

New Churches for a New Religion: Welcome to “Most Holy Trinity Church” in Austria – Novus Ordo Watch

Blasphemous Architecture: Holy Family Church in Salerno, Italy – Novus Ordo Watch

The Novus Horror Church of St. Martin – Novus Ordo Watch

Welcome to Monster Church! – Novus Ordo Watch

Introducing… Autobahn Church! – Novus Ordo Watch

Welcome to ‘Garnet Chapel’ in Austria – Novus Ordo Watch

MUST-SEE: St. Jacob “Catholic” Chapel in Austria – Novus Ordo Watch

Introducing “God’s Castle” – Novus Ordo Watch

Read Full Post »

Chair of Unity Octave

Today the Church begins her Chair of Unity Octave which she prays for all those who are not Catholic for their conversion to the true Catholic Faith. We pray the following prayers from the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter at Rome (Jan. 18) to the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul (Jan. 25): 

Official Prayer

Antiphon: That they all may be one, as Thou, Father, in Me and I in Thee; that they also may be one in Us; that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me. (John 17:21)  

V. I say unto thee that thou art Peter,  R. And upon this Rock I will build My Church. 

Let us pray: O Lord Jesus Christ, Who didst say to Thine Apostles: peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you; look not upon my sins, but upon the faith of Thy Church, and vouchsafe unto her that peace and unity which are agreeable to Thy Will. Who livest and reignest God forever and ever. Amen. 

 An indulgence of 300 days during the octave of prayers for the unity of the Church from the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter in Rome to the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul. A plenary indulgence on the usual conditions at the end of the devout exercise. 

Other Prayers 

 Almighty and everlasting God, whose will it is that all men should be saved and that none should perish, look upon the souls that are deceived by the guile of Satan, in order that the hearts of them that have gone astray may put aside all the perverseness of heresy, and, being truly repentant, may return to the unity of Thy truth. Through Christ our Lord. Amen. 

From the Roman Missal. An indulgence of 3 years. 

Lord Jesus, merciful Saviour of the world, we humbly beseech Thee by Thy Most Sacred Heart, that all the straying sheep may turn unto Thee, the Shepherd and Bishop of their souls: Who livest and reignest world without end. Amen. 

An indulgence of 500 days (Pope St. Pius X, rescript in his own hand, Oct. 26, 1905, S. P. Ap., June 5, 1933.

Read Full Post »

To purchase the $2 ebook. Click The Sacred Passion of Jesus Christ

All the proceeds go towards hosting much needed clergy in India.



Read Full Post »

Feeneyism, named after the late excommunicated priest Leonard Feeney, has rapidly grown due to the aggressiveness and deceptive tactics of today’s Feeneyites. For the past several decades, groups such as Most Holy Family Monastery and Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary have been arguing that the doctrine of Baptism of desire is a heresy because it contradicts Scripture and the teaching of the Council of Trent.

The doctrine of Baptism of desire is simply the doctrine that God can justify individuals apart from the Sacrament of Baptism in extraordinary circumstances. There may be no greater absurdity ever concocted by a group passing themselves off as Catholic as declaring heretical a doctrine that’s emphatically taught by the very council they claim it contradicts.  

In Session VI, Chapter IV, the Council of Trent declared:

A description is introduced of the Justification of the impious, and of the Manner thereof under the law of grace.

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

In Session VII, Cannon IV, the Council of Trent added an anathema when it declared:

If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.

Literally every single theologian and canonist has understood these passages to mean that man can be justified either by the sacrament of baptism itself or the desire for it. Some examples of the greatest saints and theologians can be found in the footnote. [1]

Most importantly, all the Fathers of Trent have given us proof that they understood the decrees as meaning that desire for baptism will suffice in place of the sacrament. [2] All the acts of the Council of Trent have been meticulously recorded. In them we find precisely how the Fathers of Trent understood their own documents and how they approached them. They all undoubtedly believed man can be saved without the sacrament in extraordinary circumstances.

A few days after the Council adopted the decrees of the sixth session, they discussed all the possibilities on how man can be saved without the sacrament. One particular and striking example was Cardinal Cajetan’s theory that:

“Children who die in the womb of their mother can be saved, (as we have said above of those infants who die before it is possible to administer baptism to them)…They can be saved, I say, by the sacrament of baptism received not really, but ‘in voto’ [by the desire] of their parents [who would give] a blessing to the infants and invoke the Trinity.

Two reasons prompted me to come to this conclusion. First of all, it is proper that the divine mercy provide for the salvation of men in every natural condition, in such a way that in whatever state man may be found, he could not allege the impossibility of salvation. Now that impossibility would exist for an infant dying in the womb of his mother if the faith of his parents could not save him.

In [the womb] the infant is capable of receiving baptism of blood; if a child yet enclosed in the womb of his mother could receive death for Christ, he would be a martyr as the holy innocents. It is then reasonable to admit that the faith of his parents could produce the same result as suffering born of infants.

Thus then one could be acting prudently and wisely in the case where children come to die in the womb of their mothers, whether because of the mother’s sickness or a difficulty in birth, in giving the children a blessing with the invocation of the Sovereign Judge. Who can say the divine mercy would not accept that baptism received by the desire of the parents. This embraces no contempt of the sacrament, since it is the impossibility of the sacrament which forces parents to have recourse to it.”

For thirteen days the Fathers of Trent cast their ballots for or against the proposition: “Children in the wombs of their mothers can be saved by blessing and invocation of the Trinity.”

Over 50 votes were cast. Twenty-six asked for a condemnation. Six asked for a condemnation but with reservations that were not exactly what Cajetan proposed. Three bishops suggested that condemnation should be placed on the certainty of the proposition. The remaining twenty-one bishops said nothing or defended Cajetan’s proposition.

After the vote, it was sent back to the theologians for revisions, which left out Cajetan’s theory. The council was too divided over the issue but it never condemned Cajetan or his proposition. Pope St. Pius V did not eliminate the proposition as often asserted. However, the pope did eliminate Cajetan’s commentary on St. Thomas. There’s no solid historical evidence that St. Pius V had any influence on the decision.

What’s interesting about the whole affair is that it demonstrates that all of the Fathers of Trent understood that desire of those of the age of reason would suffice, but not necessarily the desire of parents for their unbaptized infants. However, Cajetan’s opinion is permitted to be held by the Church.

This brings us to the Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442 which declared:

“Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…”

We know now based on the teaching of the Fathers of Trent that we are not bound by a strict interpretation of the Council of Florence’s teaching on this point. Florence was only advancing a general principle much like Our Lord does in John 3:5. There is no other remedy for infants than baptism generally, but that doesn’t leave out possible exceptions. Florence wasn’t dealing with exceptions.

Another fascinating point about the incident was how Cajetan speaks as a matter of fact that all the Fathers understood that infants in utero can receive baptism of blood if the mother is martyred. Baptism of blood is also denied by Feeneyites, even though all the Fathers of Trent believed it and the whole Church has recognized saints through Baptism of blood. [3]

We see clearly and understand how Trent is and was understood by the Church. However, the Feeneyites have to interpret Trent exactly contrary to the meaning that all the Fathers of Trent intended. According to Feeneyites, it’s heresy to believe in Baptism of desire.

Feeneyites claim that the definition of Trent was making the distinction on all that is necessary for the unbaptized. They say if Trent taught ‘and’ a desire for it, it would have invalidated all infant baptisms. Had Trent merely stated “laver of regeneration” [baptism] without mentioning a desire for, it would have been inadequate since desire is necessary for adults. It is simply telling us what cannot be missing in infants, and what cannot be missing in adults for justification.

Feeneyites further argue that Canon 4 should be interpreted in light of Canon 2 which states, “if anyone shall say that real and natural water is not necessary for baptism, and on that account those words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit’ (John 3:5), are distorted into some sort of metaphor: Let him be anathema” and Canon 5 which states: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema.”

When people are bent on believing something despite the obvious facts, they will evidently make fools of themselves with their explanations as Feeneyites do with Trent.

Desire for baptism is presumed with adults. It’s not the only thing needed for adults getting baptized. Faith is what is most needed. If Trent specified what must not be missing for adults, “faith” would be the optimal word, not “desire.” Baptism of desire is not accomplished by mere desire but great faith also.

Baptism of desire does not distort Canon 2 into some kind of metaphor. This Canon was simply condemning the Protestant heresies at that time. Some Protestants say the water, which Christ referred to, was a metaphorical expression being washed in the word of God and not actual water. Baptism is a work needed for salvation and Protestants reject works as necessary for salvation. This is what Trent was condemning in Canon 2.

As for Canon 5, Baptism of Water is not optional. One cannot opt out of it and be saved. Baptism of desire is for those who don’t have an option.

Feeneyites prefer their own erroneous interpretation of Trent over the interpretation of all the Fathers of Trent and all the theologians since. The very Fathers that taught the dogma on the absolute necessity of baptism that Feeneyites turn to, prove their case, would be heretics for not believing in the very thing they were defining. It just doesn’t get anymore ridiculous.

Of course, they won’t apply their own logic – by calling the popes, saints, and fathers heretics as they do with the average Catholic who follows their teaching on Baptism of desire. The Feeneyite goes from one absurdity to another. His reaction to articles such as this one is not to be humbled, but rather to get enraged, have a debate challenge, and condemning as cowardly if failure to engage.

They have proven to be like devils with their irrational thinking and debating them would be like arguing with devils deserving no recognition and only to be shunned. They have made themselves the final arbiters of truth as all antichrists do. They have a sickness of soul that can’t be fixed with facts, logic, and common sense, but only with prayer, fasting, and perhaps an exorcism or two.




[1] St. Charles Borreomeo superintended the redaction of the original Italian text of the Roman Catechism, which, thanks to his exertions, was finished in 1564. It was then published in Latin and Italian as “Catechismus ex decreto Concilii Tridentini ad parochos Pii V jussu editus, Romae, 1566” (in-folio). Translations into the vernacular of every nation were ordered by the Council (Sess. XXIV, “De Ref.“, c. vii).

The Roman Catechism taught that adults “are not baptized at once…The delay is not attended the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any foreseen accident make it impossible for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their intention and determination to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins, will avail them to grace and righteousness.” (p 179)  http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/Holy7Sacraments-Baptism.shtml

In 1582, 27 years after Canisius’ catechism was written, the English College of Rheims published the Rheims New Testament. It was the official English translation approved by Rome. In the commentary of John 3:5, the Rheims Bible reads, “…this sacrament [Baptism] consisteth of an external element of water, and internal virtue of the Holy Spirit…Though in this case, God which hath not bound his grace, in respect of his own freedom, to any Sacrament, may and doth accept them as baptized, which either are martyred before they could be baptized, or else depart this life with vow and desire to have the Sacrament, but by some remediless necessity could not obtain it.” 

1582 Douai Rheims Douay Rheims First Edition 3 Of 3 1582 New Testament : Douay (Douai) Rheims College – scanned by www.fatimamovement.com : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Francisco Suarez, S.J. (1548-1617) cites St. Robert Bellarmine S.J. on Baptism of Desire in his 1602 work Opus de triplici virtute theologic, a Tractus de fide, Disp.XII, sect.4, n.22 : [As to] what is further added, that outside the Church there is no salvation, some say, as Cano, that this proposition is to be understood of the Church in general, as it always was, and not only of the Church, as it was specially instituted by Christ. But this response is unsatisfactory, both because the Church is always one, and also because the Councils really speak of this Church of Christ, and one must hold as true in some sense concerning it, that outside of it nobody is saved. Thus it is better to reply according to the distinction given between necessity in fact, or in desire [in re, vel in voto]; for thus nobody can be saved, unless he should enter this Church of Christ either in fact, or at least in will and desire. Bellarmine responds thus to a similar question. And it is manifest, that nobody is actually inside this Church, unless he is baptized, and yet one can be saved because the will to be baptized is sufficient, and likewise the will to enter the Church; thus we say the same of any faithful person who is truly penitent and is not baptized, whether he shall have come to explicit faith in Christ, or only to implicit faith : for by that faith he can have at least an implicit desire, which is sufficient with regard to baptism, as St. Thomas teaches in the aforesaid places.  Suarez, Francisco, S.J. Opus De Triplici Virtu, Te Theologica, Fide, Spe, Et Charitate. Cum superiorum permissu & Privilegio Caesareo. Sumptibus Hermanni Mylij Birckmanni, Excudebat Balthasar Lippius, 1922.

St. Robert Bellarmine  who taught in his De Controversiis: De Sacramento Baptismi. Lib. I, cap. 6., 1596 A.D.

First proposition: Martyrdom is rightly called, and is a kind of Baptism. 

Second proposition: Perfect Conversion, and Penance is rightly called Baptism of wind, and it supplies for Baptism of water at least in cases of necessity. Note that not just any conversion is called Baptism of wind, but perfect conversion, which includes true contrition, and charity, and also desire, or will to receive Baptism.

Secondly, note that this proposition was not as certain with the ancients, as was the above. For as regards Martyrdom none of the ancients, as far as I know, denied that it could supply for Baptism of water: but as regards conversion and penance there were some who denied it. Indeed the book written on the dogmas of the Church, which is falsely attributed to Augustine, chap. 74. openly teaches that a Catechumen is not saved, although he should have lived in good works, unless he be purified by the baptism of water or of blood. Also it is clear from epistle 77 of St. Bernard, that some in his time believed the same.

But without doubt it is to be believed, that true conversion supplies for Baptism of water, when not through contempt but through necessity someone dies without Baptism of water. For this is expressly held by Ezech. 18: If the impious shall do penance for his sins, I will no more remember his iniquity. Ambrose openly teaches the same in his oration on the death of Valentinian the younger: “He whom I was to regenerate, I lost; but that grace, for which he hoped, he did not lose.” Likewise Augustine book 4 on Baptism, chap. 22. and Bernard epist. 77. and after them Innocent III. chap. Apostolicam, of an unbaptized priest. Thus also the Council of Trent, sess. 6. chap. 4. says that Baptism is necessary in reality or in desire. Finally, true conversion is associated with Martyrdom, and with Baptism of water, in the name of Baptism and in two effects; therefore it is credible that it also be associated in another effect, which is to forgive guilt, and to justify man, and in this way to supply for Baptism of water.

Fr. Cornelius à Lapide, S.J. (1567- 1637) a Flemish Jesuit and renowned exegete wrote in his great biblical commentary on John 3:5 around 1615: “Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Lastly, born of water ought here to be understood either in actual fact, or by desire. For he who repents of his sins, and desires to be baptized, but either from want of water, or lack of a minister, is not able to receive it, is born again through (ex) the desire and wish for baptism. So the Council of Trent fully explains this passage (Sess. 7, Can. 4).

Some are of opinion that the sacrament of baptism was at this time instituted by Christ. But it is not probable that Christ secretly, in the presence of only Nicodemus, instituted the universal sacrament of baptism. Rather, He publicly instituted it at His own baptism in the river Jordan. Baptism, however, although it had been publicly instituted by Christ, was not binding upon the Jews and other men until after Christ’s death, at Pentecost. For then the promulgation of the Evangelical Law took place, whose beginning is baptism. Of this time Christ here speaks. As though He said, “The time for the obligation of the Law of the Gospel is close at hand. When that shall have come, the ancient Law, and circumcision, will cease, and in its place the new Law will succeed, and baptism, in which none save those who are born again of water and of the Holy Ghost will be able to enter into the kingdom of God.” Wherefore this precept of Christ has rather reference to the time after Pentecost, than the present.

Moreover, the expression, unless any one shall have been born again, intimates that baptism had been already a short time previously instituted by Christ. For Christ spake these words to Nicodemus shortly after His own baptism. And He would not have told him that baptism was necessary for salvation, unless He had already instituted it.

St. Alphonsus Liquori, (1696-1775 Doctor of the Church) who taught in his Moral Theology, Bk. 6, n. 95-7. Concerning Baptism:

Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water [“fluminis”], of desire [“flaminis” = wind] and of blood.

We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But Baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it”.

Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this Baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality [“non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from Baptism of blood – translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John.

Again, St. Alphonsus Liquori

Truly Baptism of Blood is the pouring forth of blood, or undergone for the sake of the faith, or for some other Christian virtue; as teaches St. Thomas, Viva; Croix along with Aversa and Gobet, etc. This is equivalent to real baptism because [it acts] as if it were ex operato and like Baptism remits both sin and punishment. It is said to be quasi – as if, because martyrdom is not strictly speaking like a sacrament, but because those privileged in this way imitate the Passion of Christ as says Bellarmin, Suarez, Sotus, Cajetane, etc., along with Croix; and in a firm manner, Petrocorensis.

Therefore martyrdom is efficacious, even in infants, as is shown by the Holy Innocents which are indeed considered true martyrs. This is clearly taught by Suarez along with Croix and to oppose such an opinion is indeed temerarious. In adults it is necessary that martyrdom be at least habitually accepted from supernatural motives as Coninck, Cajetan, Suarez, Bonacina and Croix etc. teach. ….

Not in passing that such was also the teaching of Coninck, Cajetan, Suarez Bonacina and Croix.

[2] Concilium Tridentinum: Actorum pars altera: Acta post sessionem tertiam usq… – Google Books

[3] The Breviary states:

“Emerantiana, a Roman virgin, step-sister of the blessed Agnes, while still a catechumen, burning with faith and charity, when she vehemently rebuked idol-worshippers who were stealing from Christians, was stoned and struck down by the crowd which she had angered. Praying in her agony at the tomb of holy Agnes, baptized by her own blood which she poured forth unflinchingly for Christ, she gave up her soul to God.”

This virgin and martyr died in Rome about the year 350. A church was built over her grave. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908), some days after the death of St. Agnes, Emerentiana who was still a catechumen, went to the grave to pray, and while praying she was suddenly attacked by the pagans and killed with stones. Her feast is kept on January 23 and she is again commemorated on Sept 16 under the phrase in caemeterio maiore (where she is buried). She is represented in the iconography of the church with stones in her lap and a palm of lily in her hands.

The liturgy has some more instances: 

In the Breviary in the office of Nov. 10, is that of St. Respicius.

“During the reign of the emperor Decius, as Tryphon was preaching the faith of Jesus Christ and striving to persuade all men to worship the Lord, he was arrested by the henchmen of Decius. First, he was tortured on the rack, his flesh torn with iron hooks, then hung head downward, his feet pierced with red hot nails. He was beaten by clubs, scorched by burning torches held against his body. As a result of seeing him endure all these tortures so courageously, the tribune Respicius was converted to the faith of Christ the Lord. Upon the spot he publicly declared himself to be a Christian. Respicius was then tortured in various ways, and together with Tryphon, dragged to a statue of Jupiter. As Tryphon prayed, the statue fell down. After this occurred both were mercilessly beaten with leaden tipped whips and thus attained to glorious martyrdom.”

St. Victor of Braga of Portugal is a saint who is commemorated in the Breviary on April 11. During the reign of Diocletian, he refused to adore an idol and with great courage confessed his belief in Jesus Christ. He was severely tortured and then decapitated being baptized in his own blood.

Read Full Post »

The fastest growing criminal industry in the world is the buying and selling of people. Millions of people are being trafficked around the world. [1] In happens in all 50 states of America. 

Several organizations are fighting hard against child trafficking. One such organization is Operation Underground Railroad. They exist to rescue children and have a youtube channel with many documentaries on the subject. You might recognize this familiar face who’s involved in the fight.

The Child Liberation website has posted and explained the makings of the new upcoming movie, Sound of Freedom, starring Jim Caviezel and Mira Sorvino. 

We must do whatever we can to stop this satanic operation of human trafficking. The two links above give all the necessary information on how you can help.

God Speed to all in this fight!



[1] https://togetherfreedom.org/trafficking-facts-statistics/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwlK-WBhDjARIsAO2sErTfu34EgHXzGh7Jvaw9Bw5xXr8qdkudzyqaHOlC0aAJYf80I00-EcoaAqaMEALw_wcB


Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

“At the same time, purified by fasting in the body and in the soul, we prepare to commemorate in a manner more worthy of the sacred Mysteries of our Redemption through remembrance of the Passion and the Resurrection, which are celebrated with the greatest solemnity, especially in the Lenten season.

The observance of Lent is the bond of union in our army; by it we are distinguished from the enemies of the Cross of Christ; by it we turn aside the chastisements of God’s wrath; by its means, being guarded by heavenly support during the day, we fortify ourselves against the prince of darkness. If this observance comes to be relaxed, it is to the detriment of God’s glory, to the dishonor of the Catholic religion and to the peril of souls, nor can it be doubted that such negligence will become a source of misfortune to nations, of disaster in public affairs and of adversity to individuals.” – Pope Benedict XIV, Non ambigimus May 30, 1741

Read Full Post »

Host of the show: One of these three contestants is a true Catholic. He is a true follower of the Catholic Church.  The four panelists must ask the three contestants questions and with the audience correctly vote which one is telling the truth.

Panelist a): Must you always obey the pope?

Contestant #1: Only when he teaches ex cathedra, meaning when he defines a doctrine on faith and morals as the pope for the whole Church to believe as dogma of the Catholic faith.

Contestant #2: We must always obey him unless he goes against the faith, then we are not bound to obey him.

Contestant #3: We must obey the pope in all of his official acts, which include ex cathedra teachings, laws, and his ordinary magisterial teachings. Popes do not err against the faith. They can and have erred in an opinion the Church has not yet settled but we are not bound by those opinions.

Panelist b): What happens if the pope should err against the faith?

Contestant #3: He would by that very fact cease to be pope. However, as Catholics we may hold that Christ would not permit such a thing since He prayed that Peter’s faith will not fail.

Contestant #2: Christ’s prayer only refers to dogmatic definitions. Therefore, when a pope errs against the faith, Catholics may resist him.

Contestant #1: Historically, popes have erred against the faith but remained popes. Only a council of bishops or future pope can judge the erroneous pope.

Panelist c): A pope can be judged?

Contestant #1: Only when he departs from the faith.

Contestant #2: He can only be judged in the sense that we don’t have to believe and follow his errors.

Contestant #3: It’s a dogma that a true pope can’t defect from the faith and remain pope. Therefore, he need not be judged.

Panelist d): What about the dogma on unity of faith?

Contestant #2: We are unified in the essentials of the Catholic faith. That’s all that’s necessary to fulfill the requirement of the dogma. Unity of faith is just recognizing Francis as pope and going to a Catholic Church in union with him.

Contestant #3: A pope who rejects a dogma is not unified in faith. Therefore, the unity is only with actual members of the Church as opposed to fake members of the Church. Catholics are unified in all teachings of the Church.

Contestant #1: The unity or oneness is only with the Catholic faith. The Faith is one. It doesn’t include other faiths.

Panelist a): If the pope openly professes heresy, how can the Church with the unity of faith actually have unity of faith when the heretical pope who is its head is not actually in unity with the Catholic faith and faithful?

Contestant #2: The unity is not in the profession of faith but recognizing Francis as pope.

Contestant #1: The pope is only in unity of the Church as its head but not necessarily in the faith that’s professed.

Contestant #3: It can’t be. That’s why the pope who is the head of the Church must profess the Faith entirely in order to actually be one in faith with the faithful.

Panelist b): What about Pope Francis’ teaching that “The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings” is now an official act of the Church by being placed in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis CXI, n. 3 (March 2019), pp. 349-356?

Contestant #3: This proves that Francis can’t be the true pope. If he were the true pope, the Church would officially be heretical and no different from Protestant and Eastern Orthodox religions in that respect.

Contestant #2: The Acta Apostolicae Sedis doesn’t represent the Catholic faith. Only ex cathedra and universal and ordinary teachings make up the Catholic faith.

Contestant #1: When a Church teaching only requires religious assent and not the assent of faith, it’s not guaranteed to be free from error. Vatican 2, for instance, doesn’t require the assent of faith. Therefore, the Church can have errors such as this one in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Panel c): If official Church teachings can be heretical, how is the Catholic Church not hypocritical for condemning other religions for being heretical?

Contestant 1: Because the Church is only guaranteed to teach truth when it’s teaching infallibly, Ex cathedra definitions and universal and ordinary teachings make-up of the faith. All other Church teachings can be resisted and rejected.

Contestant 2: I have nothing to add to #1 except that hypocrisy is found everywhere.

Contestant 3: This is precisely why the Church can never promulgate heresy in any form. Every official papal teaching must be safe and sound. Protestant religions never claim infallibility when they teach doctrine, but the Catholic Church still condemns them as heretical religions. Infallibility has nothing to do with it. It can never be heretical without being the biggest hypocritical religion in the world. 

Panelist d): Why the need for infallibility if the Church can’t teach heresy anyway?

Contestant 3: Heresy is a teaching contrary to the faith that’s been defined under the charism of infallibility. Doctrinal opinions are not at all part of the Faith. The pope and Church can err and has erred in opinions not yet defined or settled as part of the faith. Infallibility simply secures the indefectibility of the Church.

Contestant 2: The Church can teach heresy when not using infallibility.

Contestant 1: I agree with #2.

Host of the show: Okay panelists, mark your ballots. While you vote, it’s time for the studio audience to vote.

Panelist a): I’m not Catholic but I voted for #3. His position was the only one that’s consistent with the Catholic Church as I heard it from my grandfather.

Panelist b): I couldn’t tell the difference between #1 and #2, so I voted for #3.

Panelist c): Catholics can’t be so naïve as to believe the pope can never err against the Church, so it couldn’t be #3. I like how simple #2 answered. I voted for #2.

Panelist d): #3 doesn’t believe Pope Francis is the pope and the whole world knows he’s the pope. I like how #1 answered my question about unity of faith. #1 was more reasonable than #2 and he explained what ex cathedra meant at the beginning, so I voted for #1.

Host of the show: The audience vote is in and it’s 49 votes for #1, 41 votes for #2, and only 10 for #3.

Host of the show: Will the real Catholic please stand up?

Read Full Post »

Lately, I’ve been trying to hit all the different angles of the pseudo-traditionalist errors.

One particular pseudo-traditionalist here in Kentucky that I’ve been emailing, can’t see the forest for the trees. He misunderstands the differences between material and formal heresy, internal and external forum, the application of laws, dogmas and opinions, etc. Rather than getting bogged down in explaining the differences, I’ve decided to get it down to one main point.

One thing that’s undeniable is the fact that there are four marks, which are four dogmas that identify the true religion.

Many of these fake Catholics acknowledge that Vatican 2 and the Vatican 2 popes have promulgated heretical teachings. The pseudo-trad from Ky is no exception.

As soon as the pseudo-traditionalist points to this or that heresy of his religion, the question comes down to how his religion still has those four marks and how he still holds to them himself. Claiming the Church teaches heresy by law or decree leads to an avalanche of heresy against the four marks of the Church.

Oneness in Catholic faith can’t exist in the external forum if the magisterium is promulgating heresy. The Church will be divided between those who accept and reject the heresy. The Church would be no different from the Protestant and Eastern Orthodox religions in principle.

Holiness would be missing since heresy is unholy. The true Church can’t have unholy doctrines or else it would be no different from the Protestant and Eastern Orthodox religions.

Catholicity would be missing since heresy is damning.  The Roman Catechism declared the Catholic Church to be “universal, because all who desire eternal salvation must cling to and embrace her, like those who entered the ark to escape perishing in the flood. This (note of catholicity), therefore, is to be taught as a most reliable criterion, by which to distinguish the true from a false Church.” Heresy severs from Catholicism, which severs from salvation.

Apostolicity would be missing since heresy is not Apostolic. Protestant and Eastern Orthodox religions have false teachings, which prove they are not apostolic.

Pseudo-traditionalists like to attack sedevacantism for not having bishops with the fullness of apostolic succession. They fail to see that apostolicity requires the fullness of apostolic teaching. The Roman Catechism notes on the Apostolic mark, The true Church is also to be recognised from her origin, which can be traced back under the law of grace to the Apostles; for her doctrine is the truth not recently given, nor now first heard of, but delivered of old by the Apostles, and disseminated throughout the entire world. Hence no one can doubt that the impious opinions which heresy invents, opposed as they are to the doctrines taught by the Church from the days of the Apostles to the present time, are very different from the faith of the true Church.”

So when the fake Catholic acknowledges heresy from its councils, laws and other decrees, it necessarily follows that he denies the four dogmatic marks of his own religion. He becomes his own worst enemy.

Six years ago, I posted: Missing the Marks: The Church of Vatican 2.  If one knows that his religion denies the four marks, then again, it necessarily follows that he will, too.

There is no escape for the pseudo-traditionalist. He’s trapped in a false religion with an avalanche of his own heresies.   

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »