Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Paul VI presiding over the introductory ingress of the Council, flanked by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani (left), Cardinal Camerlengo Benedetto Aloisi Masella and Monsignor Enrico Dante (future Cardinal), Papal Master of Ceremonies (right), and two Papal gentlemen.

 

The Second Vatican Council declared in Lumen Gentium ch2, “15. For several reasons the Church recognizes that it is joined to those who, though baptized and so honored with the Christian name, do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve communion under the successor of St. Peter.”

The council continued in Unitatis Redintegratio: 3. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts, (19) which the Apostle strongly condemned. (20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church – for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church – whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church – do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, (21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church. (22)”

This last sentence is false on several levels and sounds much like the fundamental heresy of the Protestant Revolt of the 16th century, once saved, always saved.

Being justified in baptism does not mean one automatically remains justified, nor does it mean one will always remain a member of Christ’s body. Even Scripture tells us so.

“If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth  (John 15: 6).”

To be cast off as a branch, one must first be a member of the tree. This verse implies that a member of Christ can be cut off from Christ. 

“See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God, if thou abide in goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again (Rom 11: 22).”

The context is in believing. Has every baptized individual remained believing in our day?  None has fallen away and been cut off? That’s the implication of Vatican 2.

The next problem with Vatican 2’s declaration that “all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body, and have a right to be called Christian” is the fact that if it were true, then no one, not even the Church, would have a right to call such persons heretics, schismatics, or apostates. They could only be called Christians in error or separated brethren.

The Vatican 2 religion is quite aware of this, because you might find the word heresy, schism, or apostasy in their language, but you’ll be hard-pressed to find them officially calling someone a heretic, schismatic, or apostate. If you did, it would only show their hypocrisy and/or ignorance of their own teaching.

Even the Vatican 2 saint Faustina claimed that Jesus identified Protestants as heretics and Eastern Orthodox as Schismatics. In St. Faustina’s Diary, she records Our Lord’s words in 1937, long before Vatican II, for the fifth day of the Divine Mercy Novena: “Today, bring to Me the souls of heretics and schismatics and immerse them in the ocean of My mercy.”

However, the Vatican 2 religion’s Official Novena for Congregational use declared:

It was decided to adopt the designation “separated brethren” in place of heretics and schismatics because of Vatican II’s unambiguous designation concerning the relationship of Christians not in communion with the Apostolic See of Rome in the Body of Christ. The continuous and consistent use of that designation by every Pope since the Council reaffirms that decision.

However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation, those who at present are born into these communities, and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers.For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.,span>

Apparently, the Vatican 2 religion didn’t think Our Lord knew how improper it was to call baptized non-Catholics heretics and schismatics, since they have a right to be called Christian.

True popes have been abundantly clear that only Catholics are Christians.

Pope Pius XII declared: “To be Christian one must be Roman. One must recognize the oneness of Christ’s Church that is governed by one successor of the Prince of the Apostles who is the Bishop of Rome, Christ’s Vicar on earth” (Allocution to the Irish pilgrims of October 8, 1957).

Pope Leo XIII declared in Satis Cognitum, “5 So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a hereticthe life of the spirit follows not the amputated member.”

The implication of the Vatican 2 teaching is that the Church was guilty of prohibiting a God-given right of certain individuals to be called Christian, which necessarily means the Church was evil. It also means the Church has been wrong for years.

Vatican 2 is good at accusing the Catholic Church of being evil for prohibiting God-given rights to individuals. It also taught in Dignitatis Humanae that men have a God-given civil right to give witness to their faith publicly in speech and writing without hindrance. [1]

Again, the implication is that the Church was guilty of prohibiting this right to Muslims at the Council of Vienne in 1312. [2] It also means that Martin Luther was right “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit” which was condemned by in Bull Exsurge Domine, June 15, 1520 by Pope Leo X. Not only would it be against the will of the Spirit to burn them, but to call them heretics to begin with. All have a right to be called Christian.

To follow Vatican 2 is to reject the Catholic Faith as it was believed before the council. In other words, Vatican 2 is taking its queues from the Protestant Revolt with its own revolution. The Church was wrong and we’re going to set it right.

So the next time a pseudo-Catholic calls you a heretic, tell them their magisterium tells you we have a right to be called Christian. Get with your program or get out of your religion.

Footnotes

[1] Dignitatis Humanae # 4: “In addition, religious communities are entitled to teach and give witness to their faith publicly in speech and writing without hindrance.”

[2] Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “It is an insult to the holy nameand a disgrace to the Christian faith that in certain parts of the world subject to Christian princes where Saracens (i.e., The followers of Islam, also called Muslims) live, sometimes apart, sometimes intermingled with Christians, the Saracen priests, commonly called Zabazala, in their temples or mosques, in which the Saracens meet to adore the infidel Mahomet, loudly invoke and extol his name each day at certain hours from a high place… This brings disrepute on our faith and gives great scandal to the faithful.      These practices cannot be tolerated without displeasing the divine maje sty.  We therefore, with the sacred council’s approval, strictly forbid such practices henceforth in Christian lands.  We enjoin on Catholic princes, one and all. They are to forbid expressly the public invocation of the sacrilegious name of Mahomet… Those who presume to act otherwise are to be so chastised by the princes for their irreverence, that others may be deterred from such boldness.”

 

According to Pope Pius XII, only those are to be included as members of the Church… .

1. who have been baptized

2. who profess the true faith

3. who have not separated themselves from the unity of the Body

4. who have not been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed [1]

Baptism is presumed to be valid if water is used over the head with the correct form and intention.

Professing the true faith means publicly acknowledging and declaring the belief that all the doctrines, disciplines, laws, and liturgies of the Catholic Church are holy and true without exception. It’s an external act.

Pope Leo XIII declared in his Encyclical, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896:

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium….

St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). …

 In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others… But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith.

Those united to Bergoglio reject the teachings of popes  Leo XIII and Pius XII and have reduced professing the true faith to merely calling oneself Catholic and Bergoglio the pope. Outside of these two declarations, pseudo-Catholics can profess whatever heresy they want and act anyway they want. They will recognize each other as Catholics and members of the Church as long as they say and do those two things and have not been excommunicated.

I was recently told by a pseudo-traditionalist that Biden and Pelosi are Catholics and members of the Church even though they profess heresy publicly. This pseudo-Catholic thinks warnings and declarations of excommunications are needed first. Professing all the Catholic dogmas, etc. isn’t really necessary to be members of the Church for him.

Pseudo-Catholics will tell us (true Catholics) that we’re in heresy for rejecting their interpretation of visibility of the Church, apostolicity, jurisdiction, papacy, dogmatic facts, or unity of the Church. Yet, they fail to acknowledge that professing the true faith as Pope Leo XIII taught is necessary for visibility, apostolicity, jurisdiction, papacy, dogmatic facts, and unity of the Church.

They have no problem saying Biden, Pelosi, and Bergoglio are Catholics when they profess heresy but when we sedes profess (what they call) heresy, we’re done for. We see that it’s not the heresy they’re really concerned with, it’s the fact we won’t call Bergoglio pope. 

The third point from Pope Pius XII on separating oneself from the unity of the Church happens either by heresy, schism, or apostasy. Pope Pius XII tells us these three things are what sever a man from the BODY of the Church by its very nature. [2] He only reiterated what Pope Leo XIII taught in Satis Cognitum:

“For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others…

Jesus Christ did not, in point of fact, institute a Church to embrace several communities similar in nature, but in themselves distinct, and lacking those bonds which render the Church unique and indivisible after that manner in which in the symbol of our faith we profess: ‘I believe in one Church.’ ‘The Church in respect of its unity belongs to the category of things indivisible by nature, though heretics try to divide it into many parts… And so dispersed members, separated one from the other, cannot be united with one and the same head. ‘There is one God, and one Christ; and His Church is one and the faith is one; and one the people, joined together in the solid unity of the body in the bond of concord. This unity cannot be broken, nor the one body divided by the separation of its constituent parts’…. 5 So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a hereticthe life of the spirit follows not the amputated member… 9 There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos)….

And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: “One Lord, one faith,” and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: “that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only – “but until we all meet in the unity of faith…unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ” (13). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that – “He gave some Apostles – and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” (11-12)…

Again, unity of faith for pseudo-Catholics is merely professing to be Catholic and calling Bergoglio pope. As long as you do that, you’re part of the Body of the Church, you’re professing the true faith, you’re one in faith. That’s the absurdity of the fake Catholics around the world. 

Lastly, the Catholic Church can excommunicate persons for grave crimes such as abortion to selling relics. Merely professing the Catholic Faith doesn’t make a person a Catholic and member of the Church, but that doesn’t matter anyway for pseudo-Catholics. Just make sure you call Bergoglio pope. That’s the bottom line for these fake Catholics.

 

 

Footnotes

[1]  In his Encyclical, Mystici Corporis Christi, June 29, 1943, Pope Pius XII declared:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered — so the Lord commands — as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

17. I Cor., XII, 13.     18. Cf. Eph., IV, 5.     19. Cf. Matth., XVIII, 17.

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

I recently found a gem in a military documentary. On Christmas, my son gave me a dvd on the Navajo Code Talkers of World War II. It was a perfect gift for one interested in war movies and the different cultures of the world particularly the Native American Indians. For those unaware, the Navajos played a major part in our battle with Japan. Several of these brave men tell their stories in the documentary. However, one of stories stood out to us. Marine Samuel Nakai Tso tells us some of the horror and the grace he experienced in one particular battle:

This is for real. Keep your eyes open all the time and keep your bullets in there, just lock it. While we were doing that, all of a sudden, he said, “Here they come. Here they come.” He starts blasting away, so we just grabbed our rifles. All you could do was just to start shooting, and all the rest of the guys start shooting. As soon as I went over that sandbar, this crater hole there, there’s a guy still leaning down. I though he was still alive with his helmet, and then a blast from that shell took his head off. From then on, the sergeant starts screaming, “Loosen your chinstrap,” so we’ll loosen them up. Those forces out there, it has a lot of force it can push your neck in. So that’s why we loosen our chin straps. If it blows it up, he blows it away, but some guys get saved like that. It did not take long for them to go across. We cut them across so they won’t exchange any water, footd, or ammunition. Marines went that way and we went north on the other side. By that time, from here, the ships were all out there blasting away. On the other side, they had some ships over there on the other side. That’s real deafening. When it explodes over there, you can hear it. You look over to the ship, and that sound goes back to the ship…

I didn’t know we were going to hit Iwo Jima at all, but somewhere on February the 16th or 17th, we were coming in early in the morning. We saw the mountain right there looming up. It was this little island, we just overrun that thing with all these ships coming in. We just run over that little island and go on home. But we land there and we fought, and it anybody says, many people ask me if I was scared. I say, “Yeah, I was scared.” I don’t want to tell no lies or anything. I was scared, I say. But one thing for sure, one night I dreamed a young Indian maiden came to me and gave me something. She says you wear this, you’ll come to us. I dreamed about it. One of my buddies in the foxhole kicked me and woke me up. They asked me if I had a nightmare. I woke up and that dream was so clear in my mind. I just sat there. Everybody went to breakfast. Came back, I was still sitting there thinking about it. All of a sudden, they said mail call. I don’t get no mail from anybody. I didn’t know anybody. My parents, my sisters and brothers, they are uneducated. They couldn’t write to me. So I don’t go to mail call. All of a sudden, one guy comes running back and says, “Hey, Chief, you got a letter. You got a letter.” We tore open that letter, and there was an Indian made sort of like, a rosary from a Catholic Church made out of cedar beads with a cedar cross on it, and then I just looked at it. Who would write to me? No address on it. Then “Oh, yeah, I’m supposed to wear this.” So I reached over and put it over my neck. Just the moment I put that thing on my neck, all fear disappeared, and I keep saying, “I’m going home. I’m going home.” Up to this day, I have not found who ever sent me that rosary. Nothing. So if you believe in your dreams, I quit believing, but that helped me. When I say that it helped me, I went to the rest of the time without any fear even when we ran across death valley.

I was so intrigued over his story, that after the film, I looked up Sam Tso to find out more about him. I immediately discovered more interview clips from him here: >https://www.c-span.org/video/?459728-1/navajo-code-talker-samuel-tso-oral-history-interview

The Navajo Times had a nice write up about him 8 days after Mr. Tso’s death on May 9, 2012 with pictures of his funeral. It appeared that Samuel Nakai Tso had a funeral mass at St. Isabel Mission Catholic Church for Navajo Indians, in Chinle, Arizona and buried with full military honors at Veteran’s Navajo Cemetary.

50% of all US Marines of World War II were Catholic. Let us never forget the sacrifice of these brave American heroes and the Navajo warriors like Samuel Tso who said, “I found out my land and my people. I found out my land was the whole United States, my people were all citizens of the United States. That was my people.”

In these dark days of America and the world, let us also pray for our country and the Church and not let the sacrifice of these men be in vain. And pray most fervantly for those souls in Purgatory.

“And now I am not in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name whom thou has given me; that they may be one, as we also are….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. And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one: I in them, and thou in me; that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me (John 17:11, 21-23).”

Pope Pius XI declared, “The Church possesses-a fact known to all-as one of its visible marks, impressed on it by God, that of a world-wide unity….  At the close of His mortal life, he impressed upon the Apostles in the strongest possible terms the supreme need of this unity. (John xvii, 11, 21, 22) In His last soul-stirring prayer he asked His Father for this unity and His prayer was heard: “He was heard for his reverence.” (Hebrews v, 7)” (Ecclesiam Dei, par. 1, 1923)

Our Lord prayed that His Church would be one in faith and in the Holy Trinity as witness to the world. The Catholic Church has reaffirmed many times that the Church is one in faith to the exclusion of heresy and schism by nature and Pope Pius XI declared that this prayer of unity by Christ was heard.

When Vatican 2 speaks about the unity of the Church, it’s not the Catholic and Biblical understanding. Rather, Vatican 2 teaches the Anglican and Methodist understanding of the mark of oneness, where all who profess to be Christian, despite all the doctrinal differences, are unified as the Church of Christ through baptism but divided in doctrine. [1]

John Paul II acknowledged in his document Ut Unum Sint – ‘On commitment to Ecumenism’ that the Church of Christ is divided and footnoting the source coming from the Decree of Ecumenism, Unitatis Redentegratio of Vatican 2:

How is it possible to remain divided, if we have been “buried” through Baptism in the Lord’s death, in the very act by which God, through the death of his Son, has broken down the walls of division? Division “openly contradicts the will of Christ, provides a stumbling block to the world, and inflicts damage on the most holy cause of proclaiming the Good News to every creature”.5

7. “The Lord of the Ages wisely and patiently follows out the plan of his grace on behalf of us sinners. In recent times he has begun to bestow more generously upon divided Christians remorse over their divisions and a longing for unity. Everywhere, large numbers have felt the impulse of this grace, and among our separated brethren also there increases from day to day a movement, fostered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the restoration of unity among all Christians. Taking part in this movement, which is called ecumenical, are those who invoke the Triune God and confess Jesus as Lord and Saviour. They join in not merely as individuals but also as members of the corporate groups in which they have heard the Gospel, and which each regards as his Church and, indeed, God’s. And yet almost everyone, though in different ways, longs that there may be one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and sent forth to the whole world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God”.6

The official interpretation of Vatican 2 by John Paul II is that the Church of Christ is divided, that it’s contrary to the will of Christ, and it’s longing for unity, which implies that it’s the permissive will of Christ that the Church is divided.  

After telling us how the Church of Christ is divided among the different Protestant and Eastern Orthodox professions, John Paul continued, “To believe in Christ means to desire unity; to desire unity means to desire the Church; to desire the Church means to desire the communion of grace which corresponds to the Father’s plan from all eternity. Such is the meaning of Christ’s prayer: ‘Ut unum sint. ’”

In the same document, John Paul 2 approved the Balamand statement which declared, The division between the Churches of the East and of the West has never quelled the desire for unity wished by Christ.”

We also saw in the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans, 1999, approved by John Paul 2, “44. We give thanks to the Lord for this decisive step forward on the way to overcoming the division of the church. We ask the Holy Spirit to lead us further toward that visible unity which is Christ’s will.”

For Vatican 2 and John Paul 2, Christ’s will and prayer “that they may be one, as we also are” is merely a wish for unity that has not yet been actualized. It means Our Lord’s prayer has utterly failed for 2000 years. What good is Our Lord’s intercessory prayer if nothing is actually accomplished from it except maybe getting men to work towards a goal? It would mean that Our Lord’s prayer is nothing more than a wish and inspiration. It has no real power or authority. It reminds me of the Jesus Seminar (group of 50 American heretics) saying the muliplication of loaves was Jesus getting men to share their food rather than miraculously multiplying it. It makes Christ out to be less than God Almighty, much like the Arian Jesus.

And if Our Lord’s prayer failed at the close of His mortal life when it counts most, what’s that say about our prayers? Did Christ have less faith than a mustard seed? That’s the implication of Vatican 2 and John Paul II’s butchering of Scripture, which is absolute blasphemy and a blatant rejection of Pope Pius XI’s teaching (and Heb. 5:7) that Christ’s prayer was heard and actualized in a undivided Church of Christ.

 

 

Footnote:

[1]  Vatican 2 theologian: Fr. Edward Schillebeeckx, one of the main drafters of Vatican II documents, stated: “It is difficult to say that the Catholic Church is still one, Catholic, apostolic, when one says that the others (other Christian communities) are equally one, Catholic and apostolic, albeit to a lesser degree. —- at Vatican Council II, the Roman Catholic Church officially abandoned its monopoly over the Christian religion.” story110305.pdf (novusordowatch.org)

Lumen Gentium, Ch. 2, The people of God:

15. “For several reasons the Church recognizes that it is joined to those who, though baptized and so honored with the Christian name, do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve communion under the successor of St. Peter.”

Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism)

1.“Yet almost all, though in different ways, long for the one visible Church of God, that truly universal Church.”

3. “significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace…separated churches and communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation.”

4. “Nevertheless, the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from realizing in practice the fullness of Catholicity proper to her, in those of her sons and daughters who, though attached to her by baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her.  Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full Catholicity in all its bearings.”

Unitatis Redintegratio, Ch. 3, Churches and ecclesial communities separated from the Roman apostolic see:

13-15. “We now turn our attention to the two chief types of division as they affect the seamless robe of Christ. The first division occurred in the east, when the dogmatic formulas of the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon were challenged, and later when ecclesiastical communion between the eastern patriarchates and the Roman See was dissolved… Everyone knows with what great love the Christians of the east celebrate the sacred liturgy… Hence, through the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows, and through concelebration their communion with one another is made manifest.”

Besides Vatican 2 and Ut Unum Sint, there’s the Balamand Statement, 1993, 7. The division between the Churches of the East and of the West has never quelled the desire for unity wished by Christ. Rather this situation, which is contrary to the nature of the Church, has often been for many the occasion to become more deeply conscious of the need to achieve this unity, so as to be faithful to the Lord’s commandment.

14. It is in this perspective that the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognize each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity. According to the words of Pope John Paul II, the ecumenical endeavour of the Sister Churches of East and West, grounded in dialogue and prayer, is the search for perfect and total communion which is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love (cf. Slavorum Apostoli, n. 27).

On May 25, 1995, John Paul II, in Ut Unum Sint, n. 59, approved the Balamand declaration.

JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church, Nov. 1, 1999

44. We give thanks to the Lord for this decisive step forward on the way to overcoming the division of the church. We ask the Holy Spirit to lead us further toward that visible unity which is Christ’s will.

Here we see the document saying Lutherans are part of the Body of Christ the Church, and that the Church of Christ is not even visibly unified. John Paul II approved and blessed the Joint Declaration.

In a Jan. 22, 2013 L’Osservatore Romano article titled: The divisions among Christians disfigure the face of the Church, it was written that Benedict XVI said, One of the gravest sins ‘that disfigure the Church’s face’ is the sin ‘against her visible unity’, and, in particular, ‘the historical divisions which separated Christians and which have not yet been surmounted’”.

The two references of the “Church’s face” and “Against her visible unity” is a point blank denial of the dogma that the Church is one in faith. The unity of the Church is the visible mark of the church.

Therefore, the Vatican 2 popes teach the heresy that the Church of Christ is not one or unified in faith in the Catholic sense, but rather holds to the Protestant sense.

The First Vatican Council defined that Christ established the papacy in order that “the whole Church might be saved as one” and declared “that the episcopacy itself might be one and undivided, and that the entire multitude of the faithful through priests closely connected with one another might be preserved in the unity of faith and communion, placing Peter over the other apostles He established in him the perpetual principle and visible foundation of both unities, upon whose strength the eternal temple might be erected, and the sublimity of the Church might rise in the firmness of this faith.”

Pope Leo XIII reaffirms Vatican I in Satis Cognitum that Christ established the papacy as the foundation of unity in faith of the Church in order to achieve salvation. [1]

Vatican I theologian Cardinal Franzelin taught:

“The same is to be said, by the same reasoning, for the unity of communion against a universal schism, as for the truth of the faith against heresy. For the divine law and promise of perpetual succession in the See of Peter, as the root and center of Catholic unity, remains; and to this law and promise correspond, on the part of the Church, not only the right and duty of, but also indefectibility in, legitimately procuring and receiving the succession and in keeping the unity of communion with the Petrine See even when vacant, in view of the successor who is awaited and will indefectibly come …” (Franzelin, op. cit., p. 221-223, translated by James Larrabee)

In case you missed it, that unity is in true doctrine against heresy and schism and this unity remains even when the papal office is vacant.

The Vatican 2 episcopacy is not unified in faith. They are divided over doctrine. The semi-trads reject Vatican 2 on religious liberty and other papal teachings such as the death penalty (just one of many examples). The liberals reject the teachings on artificial contraception, abortion, etc. These faith and moral doctrines/heresies are proof that the Vatican 2 religion is not united under their pope, whose very purpose is to establish unity of faith.  

We Catholics, who without a pope, are unified in faith because we are unified to the papal office and all the teachings thereof, but the Vatican 2 religion is divided WITH A POPE, which proves that we are right and the Vatican 2 religion of the fake pope Bergoglio is not the Catholic Church.  

Footnote:

[1] Satis Cognitum (June 29, 1896) | LEO XIII (vatican.va)

The Church in Armenia is ancient. It’s claimed that both Apostles Bartholomew and Thaddeus preached and was martyred there. Modern day Armenia is a landlocked nation bordering Turkey, but much of eastern Turkey once formed ancient Armenia before the ancient kingdom divided into several different nations. It was the first Christian state with the first Christian king, Abgar V of Edessa. King Abgar was converted by Apostle Thaddeus who healed the king of leprosy with the Mandylion (believed to be the Shroud of Turin).

February has several feast days dedicated to some great Armenian saints.

Saint Blaise, physician and Bishop of Sebaste, is the patron of wool-combers, presumably, because he was martyred in A.D. 316 under the reign of Emperor Licinius by being beaten, flesh torn by iron combs, and beheaded (according to the Acta Sanctorum). He’s famous for a miraculous cure of a boy choking on a fishbone. Growing up, the blessing of St. Blaise on his Feb. 3 feast day had a profound affect on me. Two candles are held at the throat and the blessing, “Through the intercession of Saint Blaise, bishop and martyr, may God deliver you from every disease of the throat and from every other illness” is given by the priest. It’s one of my favorite feast days and he’s one my favorite saints.  I named my son after him. 

Saint Chrysolius is another fascinating saint. Under the persecution of Diocletian, he was sent to Gaul by Pope Marcellus I and became a bishop. Roman soldiers cut off the top of his skull, which broke into 3 pieces. Miraculous springs welled up from the skull fractures. He continued journeying across the Deule River without the top of head before dying. The spring waters are believed to cure ailments of the throats and eyes. A church is built in his honor. His feast day is Feb. 7.

Saint Isaac of Armenia (Catholicos or Patriarch of Armenia (388-439), also known as Isaac the Great was the son of Armenian St. Narses and descended from the family of the Armenian patron saint Gregory the Illuminator. During his lifetime, Armenians were forbidden to use of the Syriac language except for the Divine Liturgy. Therefore, Greek was substituted. In the Persian districts, Greek was prohibited, and Syriac was used. Armenians were losing their national identity and unity. St. Isaac, with St. Mesrop Mashtots invented the Armenian alphabet and translated the Bible and the Liturgy of St. Basil of Caesarea. He lived to the ripe old age of 110. Feb. 10 is one of the several feast days attributed to him.

Saint Mesrop Mashtot (d. A.D. 441) is one of the greatest figures in Armenian history. He was a priest, linguist, composer, theologian, statesman, and hymnologist.  He invented the Armenian, Caucasian Albanian, and Georgian alphabets. He practiced extreme asceticism and lived a holy life. He’s listed in the Roman Martyrology and his feast day is Feb. 17.

Saint Leontius (d. A.D. 337) was a 4th century Father of the Council of Nicea. He was the Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. St. Athanasius praised him and the Greeks described him as “an Angel of Peace.” He was childhood friends with St. Gregory the Illuminator and later consecrated Gregory to become the patriarch of the Armenians. St. Leontius lived to a ripe old age and his body was found incorrupt after 300 years. His feast day is Jan 13, but the Apostolic Armenian Church celebrates it on Feb. 18.

Saint Lazarus Zographos (A.D. 810-867) was a holy priest and monk who practiced asceticism. He became renowned as a fresco painter in Constantinople during the reign of Theophilos (A.D. 829-842), one of the Iconoclast Emperors. St. Lazarus worked tirelessly at restoring art destroyed by heretics, but was thrown into prison by Theophilos and then tortured. His hands were burned to the bone and his right hand burned off. Miraculously, his hand was restored and the Empress Theodora helped him escape to the monastery of St. John the Baptist on the shore of Bosporus. Miracles are attributed to one of his frescos of St. John the Baptist at the monastery. St. Lazarus was twice sent as an emissary to Pope Benedict III by Emperor Michael III but died on his second visit. His feast day is Feb. 23. [1]

Other great Armenian saints are found throughout the liturgical calendar and I encourage you to look them up and read about them as well. Every saint of our Holy Faith is a light of the world (Matt. 5:14) and we all are called to be saints like them.

“Again therefore, Jesus spoke to them, saying: I am the light of the world: he that followeth me, walketh not in darkness, but shall have the light of life (John 8:12).”

Other Armenian Saints:

Saint Emilianus of Trevi

Saint Minias of Florence

Saint Simeon of Mantua

Saint Nerses I

Saint Nerses of Lambron

Saint Parthenius

Saint Peter of Sebaste

 

Footnote

[1] The Book of saints : a dictionary of servants of God canonized by the Catholic Church : (archive.org)

“Archbishop” Vigano

Archbishop Vigano has recently published an Open Letter to Confused Priests, but only compounds the confusion with more heresy.

Vigano writes, “we can nevertheless recognize a Pope as a heretic, and as such refuse, on a case-by-case basis, to show him the obedience to which he would otherwise be entitled. We do not judge him, because we do not have the authority to do so, but we recognize him for who he is, waiting for Providence to arouse those who can pronounce it definitively and authoritatively.”

Vigano flatly denies Vatican I’s definition of a pope and rejects the same council’s teaching on obedience to be given a pope.

Pope Leo XIII definitively and authoritatively pronounced in Satis cognitum that in the future that if anyone holds to a single heresy, he is not Catholic and is thus cut off from the Catholic Church. He declared, “heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. ‘No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic… In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others…”

Vigano has a heretic for a pope because he has a perverted understanding of the papacy. The only way to defend the Vatican 2 popes is by denying the Catholic faith and the semi-trads are masters at the art. 

 

Karl Benzinger – 1873 book on Pope Pius IX

Vatican I declared,

“‘For the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors, made this solemn profession: ‘The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true Faith. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ Who said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ (Matt. 16:18), should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy.’ …for they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord and Savior made to the prince of his disciples, ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren’ (Luke 22:32)

“‘So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of heavenly doctrine, that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of hell.”

Questions:

1. Has Francis kept the Catholic religion unsullied and teaching holy, remained unimpaired by any error, have unfailing faith from Christ’s prayer, strengthen his brethren with the Catholic Faith, turned the poisonous food of error away from the flock of Christ, nourished the Catholic flock with heavenly doctrine, removed all occasion of schism that the Church might be saved as one, and stayed firm against the gates of hell?

2 If the answer is yes, why would he need to be deposed or declared so for heresy, and if the answer is no, how is he the pope, without violating the infallible Vatican I declaration?

Whatever past theologian used to justify Bergoglio as pope, such as John of St. Thomas, can no longer apply with the teaching of the First Vatican Council. 

Vatican I is not only referring to ex cathedra statements concerning obedience.

The First Vatican Council also declared:

Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world….

Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff….

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

In Summary

If Bergoglio fulfills Vatican I’s definition of pope, why would he need to be deposed? The only possible reason is that he doesn’t fulfill the definition, but then Vatican I would be false. Therefore, he either doesn’t need to be deposed or he’s not pope. Otherwise, it can’t be argued that he needs to be deposed. Vatican I ends the debate.

 

 

Fake pope, fake president, and fake news is the universal theme on the world’s stage. Therefore, fake Catholics putting out fake Catholic theology will be par for the course in a religious discussion against sedevacantism. Salza and Siscoe’s latest “True Meaning of Bellarmine’s Ipso Facto Loss of Office Theory for a Heretical Pope” is no exception.

We’ve seen in the past from Salza and Siscoe how Christ left a wolf to watch over the Flock, how Pope Celestine III issued a heretical canon law, how can. 188.4 is a severe vindictive penalty, how Bellarmine held to ecclesiastical warnings for heretical popes, etc.

They begin their latest by asking how a true pope is removed from office. They turn to Bellarmine, the saint who they incidentally side against using the writings of John of St. Thomas.

  • Bellarmine discussed the issue of a pope who becomes a heretic only in the context of a pope becoming a heretic as a private theologian and not in the exercise of his magisterium. In other words, his heresy could never infect the Church’s official teachings, laws, or other magisterial acts, as has happened in the Vatican 2 religion.
  • Sedevacantists don’t believe the Vatican 2 popes lost their office, but that they never had the office to lose. Thus, applying Bellarmine’s thesis against sedevacantism is a red herring.
  • The Vatican 2 pope and clerics support Marxist ideology and government leaders as we’ve seen in Biden’s fake election. They support homosexuality as seen in the promotion of homosexual friendly bishops and priests. They support feminist ideology with women serving in the sanctuary and in places of authority over men. They promote a blasphemous understanding on the nature of the Church with false ecumenism. They pray with and worship in synagogues, mosques, and Protestant churches. Why Bellarmine is still being used in attempt to justify how Bergoglio is somehow pope is mind-boggling.
  • Bellarmine held that a manifestly heretical pope is an oxymoron. Canonists Wernz and Vidal explain: Finally, there is the fifth opinion – that of Bellarmine himself – which was expressed initially and is rightly defended by Tanner and others as the best proven and the most common. For he who is no longer a member of the body of the Church, i.e. the Church as a visible society, cannot be the head of the Universal Church. But a Pope who fell into public heresy would cease by that very fact to be a member of the Church. Therefore he would also cease by that very fact to be the head of the Church. [1]

Other problems with Salza and Siscoe’s article

  • Salza and Siscoe’s definition of manifest heresy is false. Rev. Charles Augustine makes the proper distinctions in his commentary. [2]
  • Salza and Siscoe pit the 2nd opinion against the 5th opinion, but the opinions differ in nature. The 2nd opinion concerns occult heresy and the 5th opinion concerns manifest heresy. Both opinions can be held at the same time as some great theologians such as Vatican I theologian Franzlin did. [3] Bellarmine didn’t condemn the 2nd opinion, but said that it wasn’t proven to him.
  • Salza and Siscoe make a big deal out of a couple of Bellarmine’s references. For instance, in the 2nd opinion:

        For Jurisdiction is certainly given to the Pontiff by God, but with the agreement of men, as is obvious; because this man, who beforehand was not Pope, has from men that he would begin to be Pope, therefore, he is not removed by God unless it is through men.

         And in De Ecclesia Militante:

         Moreover it is certain, whatever one or another may think, that an occult heretic, if he be a bishop or even the supreme Pontiff, does not lose his jurisdiction, dignity, or the title of head in the Church, until either he publicly separates himself from the Church, or is convicted of heresy (aut convictus haereseos) and separated against his will.

         In both scenarios, Bellarmine is referring to occult heresy only. Since an occult heretic can be pope with jurisdiction (according to Bellarmine), a judgment call by the bishops (authorities) would be required for men to know the heresy and that his office has been removed.

  • Bergoglio is not an occult heretic. Thus, Bellarmine’s two references don’t apply.
  • If Bellarmine meant that bishops are necessary under all circumstances as Salza and Siscoe assert, then Bellarmine would be contradicting himself with the example of Nestorius who lost his authority after preaching heresy.[4]
  • Lastly, Salza and Siscoe attempt to show that Protestants of Bellarmine’s day make the same argument as sedevacantists today. What we see is that Lutheran theologian Gerhard quotes the teaching of Catholic theologians but misapplies the Catholic principle. Bellarmine is attacking the Protestant application, not the principle. I fully support what Bellarmine said against Gerhard. We are not Bible Only Heretics.
  • If Salza and Siscoe are so certain Francis is the Vicar of Christ, then they must adhere to him the way they would have adhered to Pope St. Pius X, or would they have sat in judgment on his magisterium also?

Salza and Siscoe have once again failed miserably. Their kraken turns out to be a krill.

 

 

Footnotes:

[1] Jus Canonicum by the Rev F X Wernz S.J. and the Rev P Vidal S.J. (1938)

[2] 1. A crime is public if committed under, or accompanied by, circumstances which point to a possible and likely divulgation thereof. Canonists enumerate different degrees of publicity: almost occult (pene occultum), which is known to at least two witnesses; famosum or manifestum, which not only can be proved, but is known to many; and, finally, notorium. From this it will be seen that a real intrinsic distinction between a public crime and a crime notorious in fact can hardly be established. (We shall point out one distinctive trait below.) To fix the number of persons required for making a crime a public one is rather hazardous, though it may furnish a certain rule which will enable the judge to decide as to the secrecy or public character of a crime. Many canonists hold that at least six persons in a community, even the smallest (for in stance, a religious house of 10 or 12 inmates), must know of a crime, to render it public. Nor should there be any doubt about the character of the persons who are witnesses to the crime. Furthermore, the interest they may have in the crime should be weighed.

2 A crime is notorious by notoriety of law (notorietate iuris) if it has become an adjudged matter, according to can. 1902-1904, or judicially confessed, according to can. 1750. Extrajudicial confessions do not render a crime notorious by notoriety of law. Here we must take issue with the assertion that the Code acknowledges such confessions. Thus it has been stated 14 that it would be a notorium juris if the bishop or vicar-general would catch a clergyman in flagranti! The Code contains nothing to that effect, but requires (can. cit.) a confession before the judge sitting in court.

A crime is notorious notorietate facti when it is publicly known and has been committed under such circumstances that it cannot be concealed by any artifice or be excused by any legal assumption or circumstantial evidence. The term nulla tergiversatione celari is equivalent to the other used in the Decretals. The second clause refers to imputability, which may be lessened by extenuating circumstances, according to can. 2201-2206. Hence not only the fact itself must be notorious, but also its criminal character. Thus, for instance, the fact of alienation may easily be proved by a legal deed, but whether it was criminal must be ascertained by other means; because it may be that the administrator or procurator had due permission and therefore acted lawfully. It is this element of inexcusability or of knowledge of the criminal character of the deed that appears to distinguish a public from a notorious crime. For the text manifestly lays stress on divulgation with regard to public crimes and emphasizes the criminal character as known and in excusable.

3 Every crime which is not public, says our text, is occult or secret. The Code distinguishes a twofold secrecy, viz.: merely material (materialiter occultum), which exists when the fact is unknown, or known only to the perpetrator and a few reticent persons; and formal (formaliter occultum), when the moral and juridical guilt is unknown. An example may illustrate the distinction. If a percussor cleric orum beats a pastor at night, his identity may remain unknown, though the effects point to a crime; if the priest was beaten in a public row, there may be a reasonable doubt as to the real perpetrator. The authors, therefore, assumed that a crime committed at night could not be notorious or public. However, this theory cannot be accepted in this general sense. Take, for instance, a sacrilegious burglary. If a sufficient number of persons witnessed such a crime and recognized the perpetrator, the crime could not be styled occult. Neither does it seem true that a duel is always a secret crime, as some maintain. For although duels are generally held in a secret place, yet there are, as a rule, witnesses and signs which admit of a perfectly safe judgment that a duel has taken place.   https://archive.org/details/1917CodeOfCanonLawCommentary/page/n3549

[3] Johann Baptist Franzelin, Theses de Ecclesia Christi, th. 23, pp. 402-423

[4] And in a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, Pope St. Celestine I says: The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever. (On the Roman Pontiff, 30)

 

 

 

Shepherds are not wolves.

St. Paul tells us in Acts 20:28-29 that wolves will enter the Church.

Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

St. Paul was echoing the words of Our Lord: Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? (Matt. 7:15-16)”

Haydock wrote in his bible commentary:

Beware of false prophets, or heretics. They are far more dangerous than the Jews, who being rejected by the apostles, are also avoided by Christians, but these having the appearance of Christianity, having churches, sacraments, &c. &c. deceive many. These are the rapacious wolves, of whom S. Paul speaks, Acts xx. Chry. hom. xix. Origen styles them, the gates of death, and the path to hell. Com. in Job. lib. i. Tom. 2. [1]

False prophets are heretics who appear to be Christians with churches, sacraments, etc. These are the wolves in sheep’s clothing, and according to St. Paul, they appear to be Catholic bishops or shepherds.  Cornelius a Lapide wrote in his bible commentary about the bad fruit as “1. Of false doctrine; 2. Of bad morals and wickedness. Luther and Calvin have given examples in this age.”[2]

Christ is the Good Shepherd. He would not leave wolves to watch His sheep. The pope is the shepherd and true teacher of Christ’s flock. The bishops and priests are also teachers and shepherds. The Church might have bad teachers and poor shepherds but they can’t be false teachers. Since wolves are not shepherds, the pope, bishops, and priests can’t be wolves in sheep’s clothing. The wolves can only appear to be popes, bishops, and priests of Christ’s Church. They enter the Church in appearance only. Christ commands us to judge their acts and judge and beware of them.

Footnotes:

[1] The Haydock Bible. Matthew 7:15.

[2] THE GREAT BIBLICAL COMMENTARY OF CORNELIUS À LAPIDE