Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Mr. Hutton Gibson has been most gracious to me over the years. He helped me with my grammar and edited out a hundred typos from my book, “Papal Anomalies and their Implications.”

Happy 100th Birthday, Mr. Gibson!

Godspeed to you!

Advertisements

Picture of The Three Stooges taken from Pinterest

 

Senior apologist Jimmy Akin over at “Catholic Answers” has attempted to explain away “Pope” Francis’ new catechism change on the death penalty. [1] Akin argues that capital punishment is not intrinsically evil. The reason, he gives, is that today’s penal sanctions can protect society without the need for the death penalty, whereas in the past, the Church understood the death penalty as a necessary requirement to protect society.

Akin takes it further and states, “the death penalty could still be justified as a means of protecting society” and “one could understand the death penalty as something that involves ‘an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person’ but an attack that could be tolerated or even required in situations where there is no other way to effectively protect society.”

The whole problem here is that the catechism implies the precise opposite to Akin’s argument.

The revision denotes that in the past the dignity of the person was considered lost due to serious crimes which justified the use of capital punishment. However, now “an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes” and “Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “‘the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person’, [1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.”

The footnote points to Francis’ address in 2017 where he stated that the death penalty is “contrary to the Gospel” and “is an inhuman measure.” That means the death penalty is intrinsically evil.

In case you missed it, the catechism is saying the death penalty is inadmissible because it attacks the inviolability and dignity of the person, but Akin argues that the same quote admits that such an attack is admissible. It can be justified, tolerated, or even required.

Apologist Patrick Madrid (formally of “Catholic Answers”) admits that Francis’ new teaching is contrary to past Church teaching and the death penalty is not an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person. Madrid asserts the change is Francis’ “personal pastoral approach” and “pastoral opinion” but no change in doctrine. [2]

If we pay close attention, we can see that the Francis’ catechism revision is implying four things:

  1. The Church in the past was wrong for thinking the dignity of the person is lost for serious crimes.
  2. The Church was wrong for thinking it was an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes.
  3. The Church was ignorant of the fact that the dignity is still present after serious crimes.
  4. The Church immorally attacked the inviolability and dignity of the person when such an attack is inadmissible because of the inviolability and dignity of the person.

All four implications are blasphemies against the Church and outright heresies against the Holiness of the Church.

Madrid understands the error of Francis’ teaching but asserts that a pope has the right to make and apply a heretical and blasphemous opinion as a pastoral approach.

Over at the Remnant Newspaper, we have Christopher Ferrara rightly pointing out Francis’ nonsense but then calling his pope’s magisterium “fake.” Well, that’s interesting. We sede’s call Francis’ magisterium fake, too, because Francis isn’t pope. However, Ferrara calls it fake because it’s heretical. [3]

Conclusion

Jimmy Akin twists the very words of “Pope” Francis and his catechism revision to say precisely opposite of their clear meaning.

Patrick Madrid implies that a pope has the right to promulgate a heretical pastoral approach.

Christopher Ferrara thinks his pope’s magisterium is fake with no authority because in Ferrara’s crazy religion, popes can have fake magisteriums and promulgate heresy without losing their office or membership in the Church.

All I can say is, “Stupid, stupid, stupid!”

 

Footnotes

[1] http://jimmyakin.com/2018/08/understanding-the-catechisms-death-penalty-revision.html

[2] http://jimmyakin.com/2018/08/understanding-the-catechisms-death-penalty-revision.html

[3] https://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/4000-killing-capital-punishment-francis-vs-the-catholic-church#comment-4020553214

In a 1973 movie called The Conflict, a modernist priest played by Martin Sheen asks a traditional priest (played by Trevor Howard) how do we begin to define heresy today. The traditionalist gives the answer for the modernist by stating, “yesterday’s orthodoxy is today’s heresy.”

Never has this statement been truer than in today’s religion headed by “Pope” Francis.

In “Why Sedevacantism” I showed that if Vatican 2 is correct that “religious communities are entitled to teach and give witness to their faith publicly in speech and writing without hindrance” [DH 4] then Martin Luther would have been right when he declared “that heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit” and Pope Leo X and his papal bull condemning Luther’s teaching would be heretical.

On Aug. 2, 2018, the Feast of St. Alphonsus Liguori, “Pope” Francis has now, once again, officially recognized Martin Luther’s teaching as orthodoxy by ordering the Catechism of the Catholic Church be changed on capital punishment. [1] (Catechism change and the Letter from the CDF.)

The key changes of the 1992 Catechism footnote an Oct. 11, 2017 address from “Pope” Francis to an audience of cardinals, bishops, priests, nuns, catechists, and ambassadors from many countries on the 25th anniversary of the promulgation of the catechism. The Catechism now implies that the Catholic Church in the past was ignorant to the dignity of the person after very serious crimes and attacked that dignity out of its ignorance.

In the Oct. address, Francis declared the death penalty is “contrary to the Gospel,” “is an inhuman measure,” “is inadmissible because it attacks the inviolability and the dignity of the person” stressing that “here we are not in the presence of any contradiction with past teaching,” that this, “law of progress” he said, “appertains to the peculiar condition of the truth revealed in its being transmitted by the church, and does not at all signify a change of doctrine. One cannot conserve the doctrine without making it progress, nor can one bind it to a rigid and immutable reading without humiliating the Holy Spirit.” [2]

If only Luther could have lived to see this moment when Rome would say he was right all along. Why Luther would be considered a good Catholic today as even “Pope Saint” John Paul II paid homage to him and the Vatican said he was a “witness to the gospel.” In fact, if Luther lived today, he wouldn’t be so well-known. He’d fit right in with the Novus Ordo establishment.

It really is astounding how Protestant Rome is becoming. One of the doctrines held by the earliest Protestants (Anabaptists) was the unlawfulness of capital punishment. In De Laicis, Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine called this a “chief heretical belief” of the Protestant sects. [3]

Doctor of the Church, St. Alphonsus Liguori taught, “It is lawful to put a man to death by public authority: it is even a duty of princes and of judges to condemn to death criminals who deserve it; and it is the duty of the officers of justice to execute the sentence; God himself wishes malefactors to be punished.” [4]

The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent declared, “Execution Of Criminals: Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment¬ is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.” [5]

If this is not enough, I provide more information on how the Church ordered The Death Penalty for Sodomites.

Even when we see a clear reversal of Church teaching on morality, two well-known radio hosts on Relevant Radio, “Catholic” apologist Patrick Madrid and “Monsignor” Stuart Swetland insist that Francis is only making a pastoral change with no actual change in Church doctrine or is just applying a development of doctrine. You can hear the podcasts by clicking on the links provided at the footnote. [6] I haven’t listened to any other talk shows from Relevant Radio to see how they are dealing with this, but I can figure it’s probably all the same.

On July 3, 1907, Pope St. Pius X condemned as an error of the Modernist in Lamentabili, “53. The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable; but Christian society, just as human society, is subject to perpetual evolution.” Is this not what “Pope” Francis is advocating with his statements? Is this not what Madrid and Swetland are defending when they say that we have to understand this in “Francis’ way” or imply that doctrines can develop in the reverse?

It all comes down to the fact that all of them are modernists in the truest sense of the word, for they all hold that “Yesterday’s orthodoxy is today’s heresy.”

 

 

Footnotes:

[1] The Death Penalty

“2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state.

Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, [1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
_______________________________________
[1] FRANCIS, Address to Participants in the Meeting organized by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, 11 October 2017: L’Osservatore Romano, 13 October 2017, 5.”

“CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
Letter to the Bishops regarding the new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty

1. The Holy Father Pope Francis, in his Discourse on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the publication of the Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum, by which John Paul II promulgated the Catechism of the Catholic Church, asked that the teaching on the death penalty be reformulated so as to better reflect the development of the doctrine on this point that has taken place in recent times.[1] This development centers principally on the clearer awareness of the Church for the respect due to every human life. Along this line, John Paul II affirmed: “Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this.”[2]
2. It is in the same light that one should understand the attitude towards the death penalty that is expressed ever more widely in the teaching of pastors and in the sensibility of the people of God. If, in fact, the political and social situation of the past made the death penalty an acceptable means for the protection of the common good, today the increasing understanding that the dignity of a person is not lost even after committing the most serious crimes, the deepened understanding of the significance of penal sanctions applied by the State, and the development of more efficacious detention systems that guarantee the due protection of citizens have given rise to a new awareness that recognizes the inadmissibility of the death penalty and, therefore, calling for its abolition.
3. In this development, the teaching of the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitæ of John Paul II is of great importance. The Holy Father enumerated among the signs of hope for a new culture of life “a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of ‘legitimate defense’ on the part of society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.”[3] The teaching of Evangelium vitæ was then included in the editio typica of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. In it, the death penalty is not presented as a proportionate penalty for the gravity of the crime, but it can be justified if it is “the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor,” even if in reality “cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender today are very rare, if not practically non-existent” (n. 2267).
4. John Paul II also intervened on other occasions against the death penalty, appealing both to respect for the dignity of the person as well as to the means that today’s society possesses to defend itself from criminals. Thus, in the Christmas Message of 1998, he wished “the world the consensus concerning the need for urgent and adequate measures … to end the death penalty.”[4] The following month in the United States, he repeated, “A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.”[5]
5. The motivation to be committed to the abolition of the death penalty was continued with the subsequent Pontiffs. Benedict XVI recalled “the attention of society’s leaders to the need to make every effort to eliminate the death penalty.”[6] He later wished a group of the faithful that “your deliberations will encourage the political and legislative initiatives being promoted in a growing number of countries to eliminate the death penalty and to continue the substantive progress made in conforming penal law both to the human dignity of prisoners and the effective maintenance of public order.”[7]
6. In this same prospective, Pope Francis has reaffirmed that “today capital punishment is unacceptable, however serious the condemned’s crime may have been.”[8] The death penalty, regardless of the means of execution, “entails cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment.”[9] Furthermore, it is to be rejected “due to the defective selectivity of the criminal justice system and in the face of the possibility of judicial error.”[10] It is in this light that Pope Francis has asked for a revision of the formulation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty in a manner that affirms that “no matter how serious the crime that has been committed, the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and the dignity of the person.”[11]
7. The new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, approved by Pope Francis, situates itself in continuity with the preceding Magisterium while bringing forth a coherent development of Catholic doctrine.[12] The new text, following the footsteps of the teaching of John Paul II in Evangelium vitæ, affirms that ending the life of a criminal as punishment for a crime is inadmissible because it attacks the dignity of the person, a dignity that is not lost even after having committed the most serious crimes. This conclusion is reached taking into account the new understanding of penal sanctions applied by the modern State, which should be oriented above all to the rehabilitation and social reintegration of the criminal. Finally, given that modern society possesses more efficient detention systems, the death penalty becomes unnecessary as protection for the life of innocent people. Certainly, it remains the duty of public authorities to defend the life of citizens, as has always been taught by the Magisterium and is confirmed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church in numbers 2265 and 2266.
8. All of this shows that the new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium. These teachings, in fact, can be explained in the light of the primary responsibility of the public authority to protect the common good in a social context in which the penal sanctions were understood differently, and had developed in an environment in which it was more difficult to guarantee that the criminal could not repeat his crime.
9. The new revision affirms that the understanding of the inadmissibility of the death penalty grew “in the light of the Gospel.”[13] The Gospel, in fact, helps to understand better the order of creation that the Son of God assumed, purified, and brought to fulfillment. It also invites us to the mercy and patience of the Lord that gives to each person the time to convert oneself.
10. The new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church desires to give energy to a movement towards a decisive commitment to favor a mentality that recognizes the dignity of every human life and, in respectful dialogue with civil authorities, to encourage the creation of conditions that allow for the elimination of the death penalty where it is still in effect.
The Sovereign Pontiff Francis, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 28 June 2018, has approved the present Letter, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation on 13 June 2018, and ordered its publication.
Rome, from the Office of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1 August 2018, Memorial of Saint Alphonsus Liguori.
Luis F. Card. Ladaria, S.I.
Prefect
X Giacomo Morandi
Titular Archbishop of Cerveteri
Secretary

[2] https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/10/11/pope-francis-death-penalty-contrary-gospel

[3] St. Robert Bellarmine, De Laicis, “Among the chief heretical beliefs of the Anabaptists and Antitrinitarians of our time there is one that says that it is not lawful for Christians to hold magistracy and that among Christians there must not be power of capital punishment, etc., in any government, tribunal, or court.” (p. 5)

[4] St. Alphonsus Liguori (Instructions for the People on the Ten Commandments and on the Sacraments) https://archive.org/stream/alphonsusworks15liguuoft#page/n467/mode/1up

[5] http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcomm05.htm

[6] Listen to Patrick Madrid on the death penalty change here:
https://relevantradio.com/2018/08/the-patrick-madrid-show-august-3-2018-hour-1/
https://relevantradio.com/2018/08/the-patrick-madrid-show-august-3-2018-hour-2/
and
https://relevantradio.com/2018/08/the-patrick-madrid-show-august-7-2018-hour-2/
https://relevantradio.com/2018/08/the-patrick-madrid-show-august-7-2018-hour-3/

and Swetland can be heard here: https://relevantradio.com/2018/08/go-ask-your-father-for-august-7-2018/
https://relevantradio.com/2018/08/go-ask-your-father-for-august-2-2018/

Picture taken from The Catholic Sun/CNS photo/Joao Paul Trindade via EPA

 

I was given the news a few hours ago. Novus Ordo Watch has the story here.

Although many of us already believed this Lucia was an imposter by the pictures, I found it most curious that Our Lady asked that the 3rd Secret be revealed by 1960 or after Sister Lucia’s death, which ever happened first, because the world would better understand its contents in that time period. [1]

This seems to imply that Our Lady knew that Lucia would die around 1960 but the world wouldn’t know, which is why Our Lady gives a year. Why bring up her death at all if 1960 was the time the world would understand the Secret?

Now we know that an imposter most certainly played the role as the pictures post-1960 indicate.

Why the need for an imposter? To keep the 3rd Secret of an apostasy of Rome a secret as the imposter would confirm and help validate the Vatican 2 popes and the counterfeit religion of Rome.

 

[1] Our Lady of Fatima, MacMillion, First Edition 1947, p. 211, by William Thomas Walsh, and Sermon, Third Secret of Fatima, Most Reverend Robert F. McKenna O.P.

The Antichrist at work…

 

I find the following video very interesting. The website: https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/ has much more information. I’m putting this out there because it goes part and parcel with the final antichrist which is man placing himself in the place of God raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God’s majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. “He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God” (II. Thess. Ii., 2).

Father Cekada has produced a new video on the reason for rejecting the 1955 Reform Missal for Holy Week of Pope Pius XII. See:


In the video, we get to see Fr. Cekada have a make-believe conversation with Pope Pius XII where Fr. Cekada gets to speak for the pope to justify his application of epieikeia to the 1955 Holy Week Missal. Cekada’s imaginary depiction of Pius XII is very convenient in support of his argument. I could depict the pope giving a very different response to Cekada but the whole thing is just too silly.

Cekada insists the 1955 missal “paved the way to the 1969 new order of mass of Paul VI and were the work from the same modernist cabal that concocted the post Vatican 2 reforms.” Because Bugnini said the Pius XII reforms were a “bridge between the old and the new” that “led to the new city” Cekada asks why walk halfway across the bridge if we’re never going to the new city.

Pope Pius XII promulgated Maxima Redemptionis claiming that the 1955 reform was a restoration. It’s not a bridge to the new mass but one more stage of reform of enhancing the liturgy that began with Pope St. Pius X. The 1955 missal didn’t pave the way to the new mass anymore than the Catholic Church paved the way to Protestantism.

Another problem is that Fr. Cekada says in his make-believe conversation with Pope Pius XII that there’s nothing evil with the 1955 missal, but he indicates in earlier writings that he may not really believe that.

In 2012, Fr. Cekada wrote, “the many parallels in principles and practices between the Missal of Paul VI and the 1955 reforms now render continued use of the latter harmful, because such a use promotes (at least implicitly) the dangerous error that Paul VI’s ‘reform’ was merely one more step in the organic development of the Catholic liturgy.” [1]

This is merely Cekada’s opinion. How many Catholics has fallen victim to the new mass because of the 1955 missal? It would seem that if you’re going to claim the liturgy has become harmful and you’re going to apply epieikeia, you’d provide examples of it actually doing the harming rather than making a claim of it doing so. I would like to see the numbers of those Catholics leaving CMRI (who use the 1955 missal) for the new mass on account of the Pius XII liturgical revisions. After all, theologians HcHugh and Callan taught thatA person should not use epieikeia except in necessity. [2] The burden of proof for its application should be provided not by claims but by its fruits.

Also, which parallels in principles and practices are Fr. Cekada referring?

The new mass also has parallels in principles and practices with the Roman Mass from the 4th century onward. If the supposedly evil principles and practices are found only in the new mass and the 1955 missal, how can they only be evil in the new mass and not in the 1955 reform.

In one of Fr. Cekada’s Quidlibet articles, he boasts,As always, a Bugnini-free zone!”  [3] His explanation really sounds like he’s looking for an excuse to get rid of the 1955 reform because Bugnini has his paws all over it. The application of epieikeia is not necessary, it’s just that Cekada really does think the 1955 Holy Week Missal is principally flawed from the beginning while saying it just became harmful only after the new mass.

I submit that the 1955 reform is not harmful at all. Pope Pius XII indicated in his document that the reform better clarifies the meaning of the liturgy by removing confusion between the Gospel accounts and the liturgical representations referring to them. It placed the Easter Vigil back to the evening hours so to clarify the sense of its words and symbols which also puts back the proper sorrowful character as the commemoration of the Lord’s burial.

The 1955 reform also provides an opportunity for an apology for legitimate reform against an illegitimate reform (new mass). Oh, and it provides an apology against those who think they should abandon it. So I’m glad we have it.

 

 

Footnotes:

 

[1] Short Critique of Article “Regarding the Restored Order of Holy Week”

http://www.fathercekada.com/2012/03/31/short-critique-of-article-regarding-the-restored-order-of-holy-week/

[2] McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology wrote: 415. The dangers of epieikeia also place limitations on its use.

(a) There is the danger that one may be wrong in judging that the lawgiver did not wish to include a case under his law. If this is not certain, one should investigate to the best of one’s ability, and have recourse, if possible, to the legislator or his representative for a declaration or dispensation. It is never lawful to use epieikeia without reasonable certainty that the legislator would not wish the law to apply here and now.

(b) There is the danger that one may be in bad faith in deciding that the common good or justice requires the use of epieikeia; the motive in reality may be self-interest or escape from obligation. Hence, a person should not use epieikeia except in necessity, when he is thrown on his own resources and must decide for himself; and, even then, he must be sure that he acts from sincerity and disinterestedness.

[3] http://www.fathercekada.com/2009/04/10/bugninis-51-easter-vigil-first-step-to-the-novus-ordo/

The Incorruptible Body of Venerable Mary of Jesus of Agreda

 

Venerable Mary of Jesus of Agreda (1602-1665) is one of the greatest miracle workers the Church has ever seen. She bilocated to America over 500 times and converted many Native American Indians to Christianity. She was known to the Indians as “the lady in blue” because of the blue mantle worn as part of the Franciscan order of which she belonged. Great Catholic missionaries and explorers, such as Fr. Junipero Serra and Fr. Kino write about Ven. Mary of Agreda and her work in America.

 

In 1909, it was discovered that Mary of Agreda’s body was perfectly preserved and her beautiful countenance sealed in a glass reliquary/casket can be witnessed today in Agreda, Spain.

 

She’s most recognized for her four-volume work, The Mystical City of God, the life of Our Lady and Our Lord given to Ven. Mary by Our Lady herself. On two separate occasions under two different directors, she was ordered to burn the hand-written books and she obeyed. Twice, she under went the Spanish Inquisition for her books and bilocations and was found praiseworthy. Under the good direction of Fr. De Fuenmayor, Ven. Mary was ordered to write it all down for a third time.

The great French Catholic Benedictine scholar Prosper Louis Pascal Guéranger, OSB (1805-1875) carefully studied many years and wrote some 28 articles the French periodical, L’Univers on Ven. Mary of Agreda and her great spiritual work. In Article 12 (Dec. 19, 1858), he gives the decisions of Popes Innocent XI, Alexander VIII, Clement XI, and Benedict XIII allowing and promoting the book to be read by all the faithful. He cites as his reference the 510 folio pages on the Cause for the Beatification of Ven. Mary which he personally studied.

 

In 1900, Pope Leo XIII granted an Apostolic Blessing to a Canadian lay woman who informed the pope of printing a book of all the instructions found at the end of each chapter in The Mystical City of God. Pope Leo XIII then ordered the book to be printed on the presses of the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda in Rome. The book titled Sublime doctrine de la Mère de Dieu sur les vertus chrétiennes (extrait de la ‘Cité mystique de Dieu’ par le Vén. Marie d’Agreda- Rome, Impr.de la Sacrée Congrégation de la Propagande, 1900. vii + 403pp.+ frontispiece.), can be purchased at:

https://www.antiqbook.com/search.php?action=search&l=en&owner_id=-csmx&author=Agreda&page_num=1&sort_order=entered&sort_type=asc

 

It’s my opinion that The Mystical City of God is the greatest spiritual writing next to Scripture. It’s the most powerful, the most beautiful, and the most captivating writing of all time. The four-volume work appears to me to surpass all the writings of all the doctors of the Church in theology and spirituality. The only reasonable explanation for this masterpiece is that it truly came from Our Lady in Heaven.

 

Tim Duff has made a fine translation of The Mystical City God and has it for sale at a reasonable price at http://www.neemcog.com/PurchaseTheNEE.htm He also has some other fine material on the four-volume work on the same website. I thank him for the information on the papal approvals in this article.

For further reading on Ven. Mary of Agreda, Margaret C. Galitzin has four fantastic articles at the Tradition in Action website at: http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/B_013_Agreda_1.html

 

Picture taken from nippon.com which includes article titled, “Saint Francis Xavier and the Roots of Christianity in Japan”.

The great Jesuit Saint Francis Xavier S.J. (d. 1552) is regarded as one of the Church’s most illustrious missionaries. He was born of noble parents and was by nature refined, aristocratic and ambitious. He was for a time professor of philosophy at the University of Paris, where he met St. Ignatius Loyola and became one of that Saint’s original seven followers. His missionary career began in 1540, when he journeyed to the East Indies. Within ten years he had made successful visits to Ceylon, India, Malaya and Japan. He performed many miracles and exercised many mystical gifts, including that of bilocation. He is reported to have been at several places at the same time preaching to the natives. So carefully witnessed were these bilocations and so numerous were they that one biographer admits that the “bilocations which are related in the story of St. Francis Xavier would seem to be of quite ordinary occurrence.” (Story taken from Mysteries Marvels Miracles by TAN written by Joan Carroll Cruz)

Read about him in the Catholic Encyclopedia here.

Look up videos and images of his body in a glass reliquary in Goa, India.

 

 

First, we’ll briefly look at Calvinism.

Calvinism is a theology named after the Protestant Reformer John Calvin, which is held by many Protestants today such as the Presbyterians, Baptists, and others. One of its principle components is the doctrine of election. In a nutshell, it means that God for all eternity has determined which part of mankind He will save by looking out on the whole horizon of individual persons and giving grace only to a certain number of them to be saved (the elect). In the end, all of these graced given persons will be saved because this grace according to Calvinism is irresistible. The rest of the world God leaves to be damned because He does not give them grace to be saved.

The foundation for this theology is to avoid saying man has anything whatsoever to do with his own salvation. God does it all and He will make it happen.

So when we come to the Scripture passage 1Tim.2:3-4, “God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” John Calvin taught in his commentaries that “all men” referred “to classes of men, and not to individual persons.” He understood that if God desired all individual men to be saved, then He couldn’t just leave men to be damned without giving those help through grace. In Calvinism, grace is irresistible and man can’t reject it, therefore, those given grace will be saved and those not given grace will not be saved.

The implication of Calvin’s doctrine is that God positively predestines part of mankind unto damnation. In other words, God created part of mankind for hell, not heaven.

Calvin’s doctrine comes apart at the seams when he attempts to explain in his commentary Matt.11:28, “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”

Concerning this passage, Calvin wrote, “He now kindly invites to himself those whom he acknowledges to be fit for becoming his disciples. Though he is ready to reveal the Father to all, yet the greater part are careless about coming to him, because they are not affected by a conviction of their necessities. Hypocrites give themselves no concern about Christ, because they are intoxicated with their own righteousness, and neither hunger nor thirst (Matthew 5:6) for his grace. Those who are devoted to the world set no value on heavenly life. It would be in vain, therefore, for Christ to invite either of these classes, and therefore he turns to the wretched and afflicted.”

The problem here is the Calvin believed in the total depravity of man’s will after the fall of Adam and Eve. This means that without grace, the will to do good or even desire it is dead in man. A dead man can do nothing for himself. He has not the will to do as he ought. Therefore, God has to awaken the dead will of man or else man can only will to do evil because that is his only desire. Calvin’s theology must assume that absolutely all men are careless about coming to Christ without grace and he can’t hunger or thirst for God’s grace without grace. It would be impossible to set a value on heavenly life with a totally depraved will to do good or desire it. Either all men despise the grace of God or they don’t know about it to despise it.

So while Calvin says, “the greater part [of mankind]” he knows that it has to be all. He is trying to make a distinction that doesn’t exist in his theology to fit the Scripture passage. None of the distinctions he makes above exists in a totally depraved world in his own theology.

But Calvin really drops the ball when he wrote, “we must bear in mind what I have said, that Christ stretches out his hand to all the afflicted, and thus lays down a distinction between his disciples and those who despise the Gospel. But we must attend to the universality of the expression; for Christ included all, without exception, who labor and are burdened, that no man may shut the gate against himself by wicked doubts.”

So it is with Calvin, Christ tells “all, without exception” “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” According to Calvin, Christ knows full well that no one can come to Him without Christ giving them grace to do so and yet He doesn’t give all mankind the grace to do what He asks of them. Christ cries crocodile tears for the lost. He could give them the grace, but won’t do so. He lets them all go to suffer eternal fire because He doesn’t desire all individual persons to be saved. Obviously, we agree that those who go to hell are in rebellion to God and deserve it, but all are in rebellion to God unless God provides the means to be saved. Unless God provides the means, then it must come down to the fact that He created souls for the purpose of suffering the eternal fire of hell.

Calvin’s theology is completely demonic because it really makes Christ Evil on two fronts.

In Catholic theology, God creates all men for heaven. Although, He foresees who will not be saved, He nevertheless gives all men the possibility to be saved through His Grace. There’s a mystery behind how and why man accepts or rejects the grace of God. The fate of unbaptized infants who never had the chance to make a decision appears to conflict with the above statement. However, there’s another point of view here. Since the Church has declared that those who die in original sin only, do not share in the eternal punishment with those who die in actual sin, God has mercy on them by letting them die early because He knows that they will reject Him if given the opportunity. God desires their salvation for He created them to know, love, and serve Him but God’s foreknowledge is also aware that they will not do so. For reasons known only to God, He had a particular mercy on them.

Now we come to Feeneyism. There are different levels of Feeneyism but the one specifically referred in this study is the one that says that any person not baptized by water will be damned.

As the Church grew over the centuries, so did its extension over the earth. In fact, the Roman Catechism states, “the Holy Scriptures inform us that the general judgment will be preceded by these three principal signs: the preaching of the Gospel throughout the world, a falling away from the faith, and the coming of Antichrist.”

This means that throughout the Church’s 2000 year history, the Gospel has not always been preached throughout the whole world. The implication is that not everybody since the time of Christ has even known about Him. Keeping in mind that Catholic theology understands I Tim. 2:4 that God desires all men to be saved to mean each and every individual, how do we reconcile this with the fact that not all men have been able to know Christ to be saved? Those ignorant of Christ because of their own doing are different from those invincibly ignorant. The question concerns the invincibly ignorant not the others.

The Feeneyite says all of the invincibly ignorant are damned. If this is so, how is this different from Calvinism concerning Matt. 11:28 that God only provides the possibility to be saved to a certain number of people, which necessarily implies that God created part of mankind for hell?

The case of unbaptized infants wouldn’t apply to all of mankind because of Matt. 11:28, the fact that adults suffer unfathomable suffering in hell, and there’s no reason to think all mankind would have rejected Christ since over time people converted as the gospel spread.

It would seem that God wouldn’t allow a competent adult to die invincibly ignorant. God would have to make Himself known providing an extraordinary way at least to those “sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all heart and ready to obey God” (Pope Pius IX).

However, Feeneyism takes it to the next level because it’s one thing to be ignorant and it’s another to know Him. With Feeneyism, knowing, accepting, and loving Christ is not enough. Some Feeneyites argue that perfect love of God is impossible without the sacrament of Baptism.

In Catholic theology, fallen man needs the grace of God to know, love, and serve Him, which is our very purpose of existence. For the Feeneyites, either one can or can’t know, love, and serve God without Baptism, but Heaven is still out of reach without the sacrament. The implication is that God created souls for the purpose of hell.

In Calvinism, if a man has the grace to desire and do good, he will do good and be saved. With Feeneyism, God may grant the grace to a catechumen who responds by knowing and accepting Christ waiting on the Church to baptize him but God still sends him to hell if he happens to die before then.

The typical Feeneyite will argue that God will send a missionary or a miracle of one to the goodwill persons to be baptized. The problem with this argument is that we have catechumens die before baptism and we aren’t to judge their hearts to be ill-willed. Also, the Church has already taught by implication that the Gospel has not always been preached throughout the whole world. This implies that it is needed in order to reach those of goodwill. Lastly, we have unbaptized saints who shed their blood for Christ.

At this point, one might ask why then should the Gospel be preached throughout the world? The answer is seven-fold:

First, God desires that His Church be established in a normal way.

Second, sanctification is higher with the sacraments.

Third, knowing Christ during life is better than discovering Him only at death.

Fourth, the more we know Christ as we live, the more we can love Him now and forever.

Fifth, the world with Christ is better than a world without Him.

Sixth, the Glory to God is greater with Christ being known, loved, and served on earth.

Seventh, the will of God is not that we discover Him only at death, but as soon as possible.

In conclusion, Calvinism and Feeneyism share the same diabolical character that God desires only a select few to be saved and positively wills the others to damnation. For them, the implication must be that Jesus claims to love and have died for all men but in reality, he taunts and mocks the helpless knowing full well that He created them for nothing but eternal suffering in the lake of fire.