tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-56026009470159921672024-03-13T14:04:51.419-07:00The Catholic Faith is Bullshit.Yes, it's a lie, and it is false. Judge for yourself -- 30 Essays on the Roman Catholic Faith from an ex-Catholic, now an apostate atheist.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5602600947015992167.post-89363235742741300122016-09-14T19:19:00.001-07:002017-01-05T05:16:31.605-08:00Pope Francis convinced me that atheism is true.<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">When it comes to the moral legitimacy of repressing the spread of false
doctrine within the Christian commonwealth, however, we are faced with a
solid block of near-unanimous and unwavering insistence, for over a
thousand years, on the part of the pastors of the universal Church in
communion with Peter's successor. We are talking about a doctrine which
Pope Leo XIII declared personally in the encyclical <i>Immortale Dei</i> to be "the necessary growth of the teachings of the Gospel."<sup><small><b><a href="http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt57.html#FN_6"> 6</a></b></small></sup>
In regard to the contrary doctrine (i.e., that government repression of
anti-Catholic doctrine for the sake of the common good is intrinsically
evil and unjust), Pius IX declared that this "evil opinion" must be
"absolutely held as reprobated, denounced and condemned by all the
children of the Catholic Church."<sup><small><b><a href="http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt57.html#FN_7"> 7</a></b></small></sup>
We are looking at a doctrine to which the Bishops of the Catholic world
gave their absolute and zealous support, endorsing its enforcement by
the civil arm, with varying degrees of severity, for century after
century; a doctrine with the gravest practical implications for the
lives of millions of people, both Catholic and non-Catholic; a doctrine
which formed one of the pillars of that whole world-view and
civilization known historically as Catholic Christendom; a doctrine
which the learned and holy Pontiff Pius XII endorsed as recently as
1953, when his Concordat with the Spanish government prohibited all
exterior manifestations of non-Catholic religions in that nation. If
the Church had really taught at Vatican II (as is claimed by my critic
Anthony Lo Bello<sup><small><b><a href="http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt57.html#FN_8"> 8</a></b></small></sup>) that all this was "intrinsically wrong" - an absolute, <i>per se</i>
violation of a natural human right - then I say that the Church would
have utterly destroyed her claim to be the divinely-appointed
interpreter of the moral law, guarded from error in her definitive
teaching by the Holy Spirit in every age of history. <i>Roma locuta est, cause finita est</i>
would in that event have become nothing more than a hollow boast, <span style="color: red;">a
cynical joke, an untenable superstition</span>. <span style="color: blue;">How could any intelligent
person ever trust a supposed oracle of truth which contradicted itself
so calamitously and ignominiously as this</span>? (Father Rev. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D)</span></blockquote>
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt57.html <br />
<br />
I was going to title this post, "An Invitation to Apostasy".<br />
<br />
I am a former traditional Catholic, now an atheist (technically, an “agnostic atheist”). Pope Francis led me into atheism, and, in fact, I think that Francis is one of the greatest living witnesses in favor of atheism. Let’s face it, the arguments offered by individuals such as Dr. William Lane Craig are a wash; for every argument that Craig gives, atheistic naturalism provides a firm rebuttal. (For instance, Craig will appeal to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, but yet, within the scientific literature, there are beginning-less, eternal models of the Universe.)<br />
<br />
For me, the Papacy was a living witness to the presence of God (the Triune God) in our World, that is, one could look to the Office of the Pope as being the source of the One True Faith. One criticism of religion that atheistic naturalism puts forward is that all religions are man-made, because not only do they contradict each other, they also contradict themselves. With Francis, his teachings are now prima facie evidence that Catholicism is man-made and not divine. If God truly exists, then He must be a perfect Being, and therefore, without contradiction, which means that the Holy Spirit cannot possibly be “guiding” the Catholic Church. With the embracing of societal customs that the Catholic Church used to infallibly teach were mortal sins is proof positive that Catholicism is not divine, but man-made. No justifiable reason can be maintained for continuing to belief in it, much less profess it; as such, I have made the only logical transition possible.<br />
<br />
When James Joyce left the Catholic Church, he was, ostensibly, asked if he would now embrace some sort of Protestantism. His reply was, “I have lost my faith and not my mind.” I share his sentiments.<br />
<br />
Join me! Stop wasting your time and hard-earned money on this monstrosity called "Catholicism". It is a false, man-made religion, which means that it was never true to begin with. If individuals want to waste their time and money on their Saturday afternoons and/or Sunday mornings, then let them; it's just bread, folks, and nothing more!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5602600947015992167.post-75400561539945207882015-10-25T00:00:00.000-07:002016-06-26T06:55:37.271-07:00Yes, it's nonsense.Vatican II, Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI all wrote with grey pens, embracing the Leftist agenda while keeping the Ball "on the court," so to speak. But, with Francis, now there are "certain cases" (read: <i>everyone</i>, eventually), who can receive the so-called Holy Eucharist, and then later that day (or, especially, the night before), go home and have sex with someone, whom they and everyone else agrees, is <u><b>NOT</b></u> their sacramental spouse. The one and only conclusion is that the so-called Holy Eucharist is, in fact, just plain old bread and nothing more. It's always been that way and always will.<br />
<br />
The most recent 2015 Synod has been a 3-week argument over nothing. God does not speak to humanity simply because God does not exist, nor has he existed, ever. Jesus of Nazareth was executed by the Romans 2,000 years ago and his body likely was tossed into a pit and consumed by dogs; he is never coming back because he is dead.<br />
<br />
If the so-called Eucharist was truly the Soul, Body, Spirit, etc., of Jesus Christ, and if he was truly God, then we should have expected, with the monstrosity of the divorced and civilly remarried (i.e., public adulterers) receiving the so-called Body of Jesus Christ, some response from Heaven. But, "heaven" remains silent, as it always has and always will. Angles, the so-called Messengers of God, do not exist. I, for one, have never heard from mine. The so-called Eucharist is just bread, nothing more; it appears to be that, because that is exactly what it is.<br />
<br />
Take these essays for what they were, one man who got duped, and who tried to make sense of a World religion who, with yet one more contradiction, has had enough. Sorry, but I have much better things to do with my remaining time and life. Life is precious, because, it is finite, and because it must someday end. Lately, I have derived much joy from the study of mathematics, especially, in the area of cosmology, scientific truth, which, unlike the so-called religious "truths", will never change.<br />
<br />
Folks, seriously, give it up! And, especially, stop giving your hard-earned money to it!! Stop "feeding" this ridiculous absurdity, the Catholic Church, and it will die, eventually. Simply go on with your lives, and when death does come along, just accept it, for what it is, even if it turns out to be nothingness, which is what most scientists claim it to be, an endless, dreamless sleep. Catholicism is not true, and no religion likely is; they are all man-made, which is why they contradict themselves and each other.<br />
<br />
As for Catholicism, it claims nothing; there is no "dogma" that cannot, at some future time, be reinterpreted, and after that, (re)reinterpreted by some "Pope". It's all politics, positioning and maneuvering, which is why this Synod and its previous one took so long. As one person wrote to me, "Today's dissent is tomorrow's dogma." For what the present Church hierarchy has done with public adulterers, it (not she) can do with anything! Just give it time; eventually, Catholicism will be devoid of claiming any existential truths whatsoever. Folks, you might as well become "agnostic atheists," which is what I am going to call myself from now on. Most scientists are that already:<br />
<br />
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html<br />
<br />
Eventually, most churchmen will be firmly in that camp, also! If you're a Catholic who embraces atheism, consider yourself to be "ahead of the curve"! For, that's the direction that the Catholic Church is headed, one of pure <i>naturalism</i>. All that modern churchmen want is money and power, and for some, a nearly endless supply of little boys.<br />
<br />
Some no doubt will say that I have been a nutcase, and perhaps, that it is true. But, finally, I have come to my senses. As for me, I am going to watch all the episodes of South Park that have ever been made (some 262 episodes at the time of this post); at least I will be entertained in the <i>real</i> world and not in the world of make-believe and fantasy! So, with this, that's a wrap!<br />
<br />
"If death smiles at you, simply smile back!!"<br />
<br />
<i>Amoris Laetitia</i><br />
<br />
The "other shoe" dropped; did anyone honestly think that it would <i>not</i>? After all, the Vatican spent millions of bucks ("<i>your</i> money") ferrying fakes in red all over the globe to produce thousands of pages of nonsensical crap, to only have Francis the Fake write a few hundred pages of fluff to sneak in that one paragraph admitting <b>public adulterers</b> to "Holy Communion". Fortunately, it's just bread, and not the body of some now-dead, epileptic radical who had delusions of grandeur; just wait, some future "pope" will be sneaking that <i>teaching</i> in here very soon!<br />
<br />
The Catholic religion is a joke! It is man-made, no different than the now-dead religions of the Aztecs and Incas. See, it didn't take me 200 pages to say something simple and direct!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5602600947015992167.post-58478659975981669442011-05-23T09:20:00.013-07:002016-09-14T19:28:00.170-07:00Welcome!<i>Note: The following essay should be considered deprecated. When you read them (if you do), note how much of a crackpot I was. Professor Daniel Dennett was right; religious belief is a meme, which, for some, such as me, can take over their brains, and hence, their lives.</i> <br />
<br />
To the right are 40 (or so) essays that I have written on the Roman Catholic Faith, which are the product of thousands of posts on various message boards over the past ten years. When you read my various essays, please keep an open mind and judge my arguments on their own merits. Comments are not allowed but you are welcome to send me email. Please note that I will update my essays from time to time. Everything was composed using the PC & Wii Opera browser.<br />
<br />
Please note that I am not a priest, theologian, etc. and do not speak for the Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church; I am a professing, baptized, and confirmed Roman Catholic layperson. I pray with Saint Jehanne la Pucelle that, "If I am not (in God's grace), may it please God to put me in it; if I am, may it please God to keep me there."<br />
<br />
The Catechism of the Catholic Church can be found here:<br />
<br />
http://www.kofc.org/catechism/index.action<br />
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM <br />
<br />
(The current universal Catechism, which I have read in its entirety, is full of modernistic sophistry. If you doubt this, just compare the section on the Lord's Prayer with the Roman Catechism, linked to below.)<br />
<br />
The Roman Catechism can be found here:<br />
<br />
http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tindex.htm<br />
<br />
The 1983 Code of Canon Law can be found here:<br />
<br />
http://www.jgray.org/codes/cic83eng.html<br />
<br />
Note Canon 827:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Can. 827 §1. To be published, catechisms and <b>other writings pertaining to catechetical instruction or their translations require the approval of the local ordinary</b>, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 775, §2.<br />
§2. Books which regard questions pertaining to sacred scripture, theology, canon law, ecclesiastical history, and religious or moral disciplines cannot be used as texts on which instruction is based in elementary, middle, or higher schools unless they have been published with the approval of competent ecclesiastical authority or have been approved by it subsequently.<br />
§3. It is recommended that books dealing with the matters mentioned in §2, although not used as texts in instruction, as well as writings which especially concern religion or good morals are submitted to the judgment of the local ordinary.<br />
§4. Books or other writings dealing with questions of religion or morals cannot be exhibited, sold, or distributed in churches or oratories unless they have been published with the permission of competent ecclesiastical authority or approved by it subsequently.</blockquote>
Don't use any of my essays for "catechetical instruction." (Not that I have reason to believe that anyone was going to do this!)<br />
<br />
(I no longer see the 1983 Code of Canon Law as having any moral or binding obligation upon my conscience, and therefore, adhere only to the 1917 Code of Canon Law.)<br />
<br />
Saint Thomas' <i>Summa</i> can be downloaded from here:<br />
<br />
http://www.op.org/summa/<br />
<br />
Some "conservative" essays for your consideration:<br />
<br />
http://www.rtforum.org/<br />
<br />
(Note, I no longer recommend the above site. Father Brian Harrison and his colleagues did a wonderful job being Vatican II "spin masters," but unfortunately, the impostors who claim to have occupied the Chair of Peter have, instead, embraced an heretical reading of the Second Vatican Council, which means that the council is not a true Catholic Council, but a false and apostate one. In any case, judge for yourself.)<br />
<br />
If you are a Catholic seminarian who feels that your seminary's administration is illegally spying on your Internet activity, in an attempt to "weed you out" as some "orthodox oddball," please visit the following subpage on this site:<br />
<br />
http://unamsanctamecclesiamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2011/06/computer-security-censorship.html<br />
<br />
The true Gospel of Jesus Christ will continue to live on, if only in cyberspace, at least until Christ comes again.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5602600947015992167.post-2219061834719367672011-05-10T00:00:00.000-07:002015-10-25T06:14:50.573-07:00The Canons of Sacramental Marriage.<i>Note: This essay demonstrates the absurdity of the Catholic Faith. The faith of Peter and his so-called successors was predicted to endure, that is, no matter how bad things got in the real World, we could always at least look to the The Bark (Barque) of Peter for the One True Faith and that the One and Triune God would at least preserve the Chair of Peter from error. Our hopes have been dashed in that regard. With admittance of public adulterers to Holy Communion, this fundamental prediction of the Catholic Faith has been <b>falsified</b>.</i> <br />
<br />
This one should be easy; it's amazing that the heretics in Rome at the Sin-od (October 15, 2014) cannot read, but, for those of you who can, here is the infallible teaching of the One True Church, the Catholic Church:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: medium;">
CANON I.-If any one saith, that matrimony is not truly and properly one of
the seven sacraments of the evangelic law, (a sacrament) instituted by
Christ the Lord; but that it has been invented by men in the Church; and
that it does not confer grace; let him be anathema.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">
CANON II.-<span style="color: red;">If any one saith, that it is lawful for Christians to have
several wives at the same time, and that this is not prohibited by any
divine law; let him be anathema</span>.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">
CANON III.-If any one saith, that those degrees only of consanguinity and
affinity, which are set down in Leviticus, can hinder matrimony from being
contracted, and dissolve it when contracted; and that the Church cannot
dispense in some of those degrees, or establish that others may hinder and
dissolve it ; let him be anathema.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the Church could not establish impediments
dissolving marriage; or that she has erred in establishing them; let him be
anathema.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">
CANON V.-<span style="color: red;">If any one saith, that on account of heresy, or irksome
cohabitation, or the affected absence of one of the parties, the bond of
matrimony may be dissolved; let him be anathema</span>.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">CANON VI.-If any one saith, that matrimony contracted, but not consummated,
is not dissolved by the solemn profession of religion by one of the married
parties; let him be anathema.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">
CANON VlI.-<span style="color: red;">If any one saith, that the Church has erred, in that she hath
taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the evangelical and apostolical
doctrine, that the bond of matrimony cannot be dissolved on account of the
adultery of one of the married parties; and that both, or even the innocent
one who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot contract another
marriage, during the life-time of the other; and, that he is guilty of
adultery, who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as
also she, who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband;
let him be anathema</span>.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">
CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that the Church errs, in that she declares
that, for many causes, a separation may take place between husband and
wife, in regard of bed, or in regard of cohabitation, for a determinate or
for an indeterminate period; let him be anathema.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that clerics constituted in sacred orders, or
Regulars, who have solemnly professed chastity, are able to contract
marriage, and that being contracted it is valid, notwithstanding the
ecclesiastical law, or vow; and that the contrary is no thing else than to
condemn marriage; and, that all who do not feel that they have the gift of
chastity, even though they have made a vow thereof, may contract marriage;
let him be anathema: seeing that God refuses not that gift to those who ask
for it rightly, neither does He suffer us to be tempted above that which we
are able.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">
CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above
the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more
blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in
matrimony; let him be anathema.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">
CANON XI.-If any one saith, that the prohibition of the solemnization of
marriages at certain times of the year, is a tyrannical superstition,
derived from the superstition of the heathen; or, condemn the benedictions
and other ceremonies which the Church makes use of therein; let him be
anathema.
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: medium;">
CANON XII.-If any one saith, that matrimonial causes do not belong to
ecclesiastical judges; let him be anathema.
</span></blockquote>
More here:<br />
<br />
https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html<br />
<br />
BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF TRENT<br />
<br />
36 [16. If anyone says or believes, that the marriages of men, which are considered licit according to divine law, are accursed, let him be anathema.]<br />
<br />
52a Can. 9. Likewise let the faithful woman, who has left an adulterous husband and attracts another faithful one, be forbidden to marry; <b>if she should marry, let her not receive communion</b> unless he whom she has left has previously departed this world; unless by chance the exigency of illness should compel the giving.<br />
<br />
88a (4, 5) But you have inquired concerning the marriage veil, whether one can receive in matrimony a girl betrothed to another. Let this not be done. <b>We prohibit it in every way</b>, because, if that blessing which the priest gives to the bride is violated by any transgression, it is like a kind of sacrilege among the faithful.<br />
<br />
397 If between the man and the woman legitimate consent . . . occurs in the present, so indeed that one expressly receives another by mutual consent with the accustomed words. . . . whether an oath is introduced or not, it is not permissible for the woman to marry another. And if she should marry, even if carnal intercourse has taken place, she should be separated from him, and <b>forced by ecclesiastical order to return to the first</b>, although some think otherwise and also judgment has been rendered in another way by certain of our predecessors.<br />
<br />
404 You have asked us whether the dumb and the deaf can be united to each other in marriage. To this question we respond to your brotherhood thus: Since the edict of prohibition concerning the contracting of marriage is that whoever is not prohibited, is consequently permitted, and only the consent of those concerning whose marriages we are speaking is sufficient for marriage, it seems that, if such a one wishes to contract (a marriage), it cannot and it ought not to be denied him, since what he cannot declare by words he can declare by signs.<br />
<br />
[From the letter to the Bishop of Mutina, in the year 1200] *<br />
<br />
Besides in the contracting of marriages we wish you to observe this: when, as in the present case legitimate agreement exists between legitimate persons, which is sufficient in such cases according to canonical sanctions, and if this alone is lacking, other things are made void, even if sexual intercourse itself has taken place, <u>if persons legitimately married afterwards actually contract (marriage) with others, what before had been done according to law cannot be annulled</u>.<br />
<br />
406 But if one of the believing spouses either slip into heresy or lapse into the error of paganism, we do not believe that in this case he who is left, as long as the other is living, can enter into a second marriage; although in this case a greater insult to the Creator is evident. Although indeed true matrimony exists between unbelievers, yet it is not ratified; between believers, however, a true and ratified marriage exists, because the sacrament of faith, <b>which once was admitted, is never lost</b>, but makes the sacrament of marriage ratified so that it itself lasts between married persons as long as the sacrament of faith endures.<br />
<br />
408 But since pagans divide their conjugal affection among many women at the same time, it is rightly doubted whether after conversion all or which one of all they can retain. But this (practice) seems to be in disagreement with and inimical to the Christian Faith, since in the beginning one rib was changed into one woman, and Divine Scripture testifies that "on account of this, man shall leave father and mother and shall cling to his wife and they shall be two in one flesh" [ Eph. 5:31; Gen. 2:24; cf.Matt. 19:5]; it does not say "three or more" but two; nor did it say "he will cling to wives" but to a wife. <b>Never is it permitted to anyone to have several wives at one time except to whom it was granted by divine revelation</b>. This custom existed at one time, sometimes was even regarded as lawful, by which, as Jacob from a lie, the Israelites from theft, and Samson from homicide, so also the Patriarchs and other just men, who we read had many wives at the same time, were ex-used from adultery. Certainly this opinion is proved true also by the witness of Truth, which testifies in the Gospel: "Whosoever puts away his wife (except) on account of fornication, and marries another commits adultery," [ Matt. 19:9; cf.Mark 10:11]. If, therefore, when the wife has been dismissed, another cannot be married according to law, all the more she herself cannot be retained; through this it clearly appears that regarding marriage plurality in either sex-since they are not judged unequally must be condemned. Moreover, he who according to his rite puts away a lawful wife, since Truth in the Gospel has condemned such a repudiation, never while she lives, even after being converted to the faith of Christ, can he have another wife, unless after his conversion she refuses to live with him, or even if she should consent, yet not without insult to the Creator, or so as to lead him into mortal sin. In this case to the one seeking restitution, although it be established regarding unjust spoliation, restitution would be denied, because according to the Apostle: "A brother or sister is not subject to servitude in (cases) of this kind" [ 1 Cor 7,12]. But if her conversion should follow his conversion to faith, before, on account of the above mentioned causes, he would marry a legitimate wife, he would be compelled to take her back again. Although, too, according to the Evangelical truth, "he who marries one put aside is guilty of adultery" [Matt. 19:9], yet the one doing the dismissing will not be able to upbraid the one dismissed with fornication because he married her after the repudiation, unless she shall otherwise have committed fornication.<br />
<br />
453 18. <span style="color: red;">Moreover concerning fornication which an unmarried man commits with an unmarried woman, there must not be any doubt at all that it is a mortal sin</span>, since the Apostle declares that "fornicators as adulterers are cast out from the kingdom of God" [ 1 Cor. 6:9].<br />
<br />
455 20. Because according to the Apostle "a woman if her husband is dead is freed from the law of her husband" so "that she has the free power of marrying whom she will in the Lord" [cf. Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7:39], let the Greeks in no measure reprehend second or third or even later marriages; nor should they condemn but rather approve them between persons who otherwise can licitly be united to one another in marriage. <b>Priests, however, should not by any means bless those who marry a second time</b>.<br />
<br />
702 The seventh is the sacrament of matrimony, which is the sign of the joining of Christ and the Church according to the Apostle who says: "This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church" [Eph. 5:32]. The efficient cause of matrimony is regularly mutual consent expressed by words in person. Moreover, there is allotted a threefold good on the part of matrimony. First, the progeny is to be accepted and brought up for the worship of God. Second, there is faith which one of the spouses ought to keep for the other. Third, <b>there is the indivisibility of marriage</b>, because it signifies the indivisible union of Christ and the Church. <span style="color: red;">Although, moreover, there may be a separation of the marriage couch by reason of fornication, nevertheless, it is not permitted to contract another marriage, since the bond of a marriage legitimately contracted is perpetual</span>.<br />
<br />
AFTER THE COUNCIL OF TRENT:<br />
<br />
1124 <b>Condemned Error: </b>24. Voluptuousness, <b><span style="color: red;">sodomy</span></b>, and bestiality are sins of the
same ultimate species, and so it is enough to say in confession that
one has procured a pollution.<br />
<br />
1125 <b>Condemned Error</b>: 25. He who has had intercourse with an unmarried woman
satisfies the precept of confession by saying: "I committed a grievous
sin against chastity with an unmarried woman," without mentioning the
intercourse.<br />
<br />
1159 <b>Condemned Error</b>: 9. The act of marriage exercised for pleasure only is entirely free of all 1. fault and venial defect.<br />
<br />
1200 <b>Condemned Error</b>: 50. Intercourse with a married woman, with the consent of
her husband, is not adultery, and so it is enough to say in confession
that one had committed fornication. <br />
<br />
1470 Likewise, I profess that there are seven sacraments of the New Law instituted by Christ, our Lord, for the salvation of the human race, although not all of them are necessary for each individual: namely, baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony; and (I profess) that these confer grace, and that of these, baptism, confirmation, and orders cannot be repeated without sacrilege. Likewise (I profess) that baptism is necessary for salvation, and hence, if there is imminent danger of death, it should be conferred at once and without delay, and that it is valid if conferred with the right matter and form and intention by anyone, and at any time. <b>Likewise (I profess) that the bond of the sacrament of matrimony is indissoluble</b>, <span style="color: red;">and that, although a separation of bed and board may be possible between the Spouses because of adultery, heresy, and some other causes, nevertheless it is not lawful for them to contract another marriage</span>.<br />
<br />
1601 Those pastors who would approve these nuptials by their presence and confirm them with their blessing would commit a very grave fault and would betray their sacred ministry. <b>For they should not be called nuptials, but rather adulterous unions</b>. . . .<br />
<br />
1640 We say nothing about that other decree in which, after completely despising the mystery, dignity, and sanctity of the sacrament of matrimony; after utterly ignoring and distorting its institution and nature; and after completely spurning the power of the Church over the same sacrament, it was proposed, according to the already condemned errors of heretics, and against the teaching of the Catholic Church, that marriage should be considered as a civil contract only, and that divorce, strictly speaking, should be sanctioned in various cases (see n.1767); and that all matrimonial cases should be deferred to lay tribunals and be judged by them (see n.1774); <b>because no Catholic is ignorant or cannot know that matrimony is truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of the evangelical law, instituted by Christ the Lord, and that for that reason, there can be no marriage between the faithful without there being at one and the same time a sacrament, and that, therefore, any other union of man and woman among Christians, except the sacramental union, even if contracted under the power of any civil law, is nothing else than a disgraceful and death-bringing concubinage very frequently condemned by the Church, and, hence, that the sacrament can never be separated from the conjugal agreement</b> (see n. 1773), and that it pertains absolutely to the power of the Church to discern those things which can pertain in any way to the same matrimony.<br />
<br />
1767 <b>Condemned Error</b>: 67. By natural law the bond of matrimony is not indissoluble, and in various cases divorce, properly so-called, can be sanctioned by civil authority (9, 12. [see n. 1640]).<br />
<br />
1773 <b>Condemned Error</b>: 73. A true marriage can exist between Christians by virtue of a purely civil contract; and it is false to assert that the contract of marriage between Christians is always a sacrament; or, that there is no contract if the sacrament is excluded (9, II, 12. [see n. 1640] 23).<br />
<br />
[From the Decree of the Holy Office, May 27, 1886]<br />
<br />
1865 The following questions were raised by some Bishops of France to the inquisition S.R. et U.: "In the letter S.R. et U. 1. of June 25th 1885, to all the ordinaries in the territory of France on the law of civil divorce it is decreed thus: "Considering very serious matters, in addition to times and places, it can be tolerated that those who hold magistracies, and lawyers who conduct matrimonial cases in France, without being bound to cede to the office," and it added conditions, of which the second is this: "Provided they are so prepared in mind not only regarding the dignity and nullity of marriage, but also regarding the separation of bodies, about which cases they are obliged to judge, as never to offer an opinion or to defend one to be offered, or to provoke or to incite to that opinion which is at odds with divine and ecclesiastical law."<br />
<br />
It is asked:<br />
<br />
I. Whether the interpretation is right which is widespread throughout France and even put in print, according to which the judge satisfies the above mentioned condition, who, although a certain marriage is valid in the sight of the Church, ignores that true and unbroken marriage, and applying civil law pronounces that there is ground for divorce, provided he intends in his mind to break only the civil effects and only the civil contract, and provided the terms of the opinion offered consider these alone? In other words, whether an opinion so offered can be said not to be at odds with the divine and ecclesiastical law?<br />
<br />
II. After the judge has pronounced that there is ground for divorce, whether the syndic (in French: le maire), intent also upon only the civil effects and the civil contract, as is explained above, can pronounce a divorce, although the marriage is valid in the eyes of the Church.<br />
<br />
III. After the divorce has been pronounced, whether the same syndic can again join a spouse who strives to enter into other nuptials in a civil ceremony, although the previous marriage is valid in the eyes of the Church and the other party is living?<br />
<br />
The answer is:<br />
<br />
<b>In the negative to the first, the second, * and the third</b>.<br />
<br />
2225 First, then, let this remain as an unchangeable and inviolable basis; marriage was not instituted or restored by man but by God; not by man but by the very author of nature, God; and by the restorer of the same nature was it fortified, confirmed, and elevated through laws; and these laws, therefore, cannot be subject to any decision of man and not even to any contrary agreement on the part of the spouses themselves. <span style="color: red;">This is a doctrine of Holy Scripture [ Gen. 1:27 f.;2:22 f.;Matt. 19:3 ff.;Eph. 5:23 ff.]; this is the continued and unanimous tradition of the Church; <b>this is the solemn definition of the sacred Council of Trent</b>, which declares and confirms [sees. 24; see n.969 ff.] that the perpetual and indissoluble bond of marriage, and the unity and the stability of the same emanate from God as their author</span>.<br />
<br />
2227 Now as We come to explain what are these blessings, granted by God, of true matrimony, and how great they are, Venerable Brethren, there come to Us the words of that very famous Doctor of the Church, whom not so long ago We commemorated in Our Encyclical Letter, Ad Salutem,published on the fulfillment of the fifteenth century after his death. St. Augustine says: "All these are blessings, because of which marriage is a blessing: offspring, conjugal faith, and the sacrament." * How these three headings are rightly said to contain a very splendid summary of the whole doctrine on Christian marriage, the Holy Doctor clearly shows when he says: "<span style="color: red;">By conjugal faith care is taken that there be no intercourse outside the marriage bond with another man or another woman</span>; by offspring, that children be begotten in love, nourished with kindness, and brought up religiously; but by the sacrament, that the marriage be not broken, and that the separated man or woman have intercourse with another not even for the sake of offspring. This is, as it were, the law of marriage, whereby the fruitfulness of nature is adorned and the depravity of incontinence is controlled."<br />
<br />
2231 [2] Another blessing of matrimony which we have spoken of as mentioned by Augustine, is the blessing of faith, which is the mutual fidelity of spouses in fulfilling the marriage contract, so that what by this contract, sanctioned by divine law, is due only to one spouse, <b>cannot be denied him nor permitted to anyone else</b>; nor is that to be conceded to the spouse, which can never be conceded, <span style="color: red;">since it is contrary to divine rights and laws and is especially opposed to conjugal faith</span>.<br />
<br />
Thus this faith demands in the first place the absolute unity of marriage, which the Creator Himself established in the matrimony of our first parents when He willed that it exist only between one man and one woman And although afterwards God, the supreme legislator, somewhat relaxed this primeval law for a time, nevertheless there is no doubt that the Evangelical Law entirely restored that original and perfect unity and did away with all dispensations, as the words of Christ and the uniform way either of teaching or acting on the part of the Church plainly show [see note 969]. . . .<br />
<br />
Nor did Christ the Lord wish to condemn only polygamy and polyandry, whether successive * or simultaneous, as they are called, or any other dishonorable act; but, in order <b>that the sacred bonds of marriage may be absolutely inviolate</b>, He forbade also even the willful thoughts and desires about all these things: "But I say to you that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery with her in his heart" [ Matt. 5:28]. These words of Christ the Lord cannot become void even by the consent of one spouse; for they express the law of God and of nature, which no will of man can ever break or bend. <br />
<br />
Even mutual familiar intercourse between spouses, that the blessing of conjugal faith may shine with due splendor, should be so distinguished by the mark of chastity that husband and wife conduct themselves in all things according to the law of God and of nature, and strive always to follow the will of the most wise and most holy Creator, with great reverence for the work of God.<br />
<br />
2234 [3] Yet the sum total of such great benefits is completed and, as it were, brought to a head by that blessing of Christian marriage which we have called, in Augustine's words, a sacrament, by <b>which is denoted the indissolubility of the bond and the raising and hallowing by Christ of the contract into an efficacious sign of grace</b>.<br />
<br />
In the first place, to be sure, Christ Himself lays stress on the indissoluble firmness of the nuptial bond when he says: "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder" [Matt. 19:6]; and, "Everyone that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another committeth adultery, and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery" [Luke 16:18].<br />
<br />
Moreover, St. Augustine places in this indissolubility what he calls "the blessing of the sacrament," in these clear words: "But in the sacrament it is intended that the marriage be not broken, and that the man or the woman dismissed be not joined with another, even for the sake of offspring.<br />
<br />
2235 <b>And this inviolable stability, although not of the same perfect measure in every case, pertains to all true marriages</b>; for that saying of the Lord, "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder," although, said of the marriage of our first parents, the prototype of every future marriage, must apply to all true marriages. Therefore, although before Christ the sublimity and severity of the primeval law were so tempered that Moses allowed the citizens of the people of God because of the hardness of their hearts to grant a bill of divorce for certain causes; yet Christ in accord with His power as Supreme Legislator revoked this permission of greater license, and restored the primeval law in its entirety through those words which are never to be forgotten: "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." So, most wisely did Pius Vl, Our predecessor of happy memory, writing to the Bishop of Agria, * say: "From this it is manifestly clear that matrimony, even in the state of nature, and surely long before it was raised to the dignity of a sacrament properly so called, was so established by God that it carries <b>with it a perpetual and indissoluble bond</b>, <u>which, accordingly, cannot be dissolved by any civil law</u>. And so, although the sacramental element can be separated from matrimony, as is true in a marriage between infidels, still in such a marriage, inasmuch as it is a true marriage, there must remain and surely does remain that perpetual bond which by divine right is so inherent in marriage from its very beginning that it is not subject to any civil power. And so whatever marriage is said to be contracted, either it is so contracted that it is in fact a true marriage, and then will have that perpetual bond inherent by divine law in every true marriage, or it is supposed to be contracted without that perpetual bond, and then is not a marriage, but an illicit union repugnant by its purpose to the divine law, and therefore cannot be entered upon or maintained.<br />
<br />
2236 If this stability seems subject to exception, however rare, as in the case of certain natural marriages entered into between unbelievers, or if between the faithful of Christ, those which are valid but not consummated, that exception does not depend on the will of man or of any merely human power, but on divine law, whose only guardian and interpreter is the Church of Christ. Yet, not even such a power can for any cause ever affect a Christian marriage which is valid and consummated. For, since the marriage contract is fully accomplished in such case, so also absolute stability and indissolubility by God's will are apparent, which cannot be relaxed by any human authority.<br />
<br />
If we wish to investigate with due reverence the intimate reason for this divine will, we shall easily discover it in the mystical signification of Christian marriage, which is fully and perfectly had in a marriage consummated between the faithful. For with the Apostle, in his Epistle to the Ephesians as witness [Eph. 5:32] (to which we referred in the beginning), the marriage of Christians recalls that most perfect union which exists between Christ and the Church: "This is a great sacrament, but I speak in Christ and in the church," which union, indeed, as long as Christ shall live and the Church through Him, surely can never be dissolved by any separation. . . .<br />
<br />
2241 Holy Church knows very well that not rarely one of the spouses is sinned against rather than commits a sin, when for a very grave reason he permits a perversion of the right order, which he himself does not wish; and on this account he is without fault, provided he then remembers the law of charity and does not neglect to prevent and deter the other from sinning. Those spouses are not to be said to act against the order of nature who use their right in a correct and natural way, although for natural reasons of time, or of certain defects new life cannot spring from this. For in matrimony itself, as in the practice of the conjugal right, secondary ends are also considered, such as mutual aid, the cultivation of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence, which spouses are by no means forbidden to attempt, provided the intrinsic nature of that act is preserved, and so its due ordering is towards its primary end. . . .<br />
<br />
Every care must be taken lest the calamitous conditions of external affairs give occasion for a much more disastrous error. For no difficulties can arise which can nullify the obligation of the mandates of God which forbid acts that are evil from their interior nature; but in all collateral circumstances spouses, strengthened by the grace of God, can always perform their duty faithfully, and preserve their chastity in marriage untainted by this shameful stain; <span style="color: red;">for the truth of the Christian faith stands expressed in the teaching of the Synod of Trent: "Let no one rashly assert that which the Fathers of the Council have placed under anathema, namely, that there are precepts of God impossible for the just to observe. God does not ask the impossible, but by His commands instructs you to do what you are able, to pray for what you are not able, and assists you that you may be able" [see n. 804]</span>. This same doctrine was again solemnly repeated and confirmed in the condemnation of the Jansenist heresy, which dared to utter this blasphemy against the goodness of God: "Some precepts of God are impossible of fulfillment, even for just men who wish and strive to keep the laws according to the powers which they have; grace also is lacking to them which would render this possible" [see n. 1092].<br />
<br />
2249 The advocates of neopaganism, having learned nothing from the present sad state of affairs, continue daily to attack more bitterly <b>the sacred indissolubility of marriage</b> and the laws that support it, and contend that there must be a decision to recognize divorces, that other and more humane laws be substituted for the obsolete laws.<br />
<br />
They bring forward many different causes for divorce, some deriving from the wickedness or sin of persons, others based on circumstances (the former they call subjective, the latter objective); finally, whatever makes the individual married life more harsh and unpleasant. . . .<br />
<br />
So there is prattle to the effect that laws must be made to conform to these requirements and changed conditions of the times, the opinions of men, and the civil institutions and customs, all of which individually, and especially when brought together, most clearly testify that opportunity for divorce must forthwith be granted for certain causes.<br />
<br />
Others, proceeding further with remarkable impudence, believe that inasmuch as matrimony is a purely private contract, it should be left directly to the consent and private opinion of the two who contracted it, as is the case in other private contracts, and so can be dissolved for any reason.<br />
<br />
2250 But opposed to all these ravings stands the one most certain law of God, confirmed most fully by Christ, which can be weakened by no decrees of men or decisions of the people, by no will of legislators: "What God hathjoined together, let no man put asunder" [Matt. 19:6]; <span style="color: red;">And if a man, contrary to this law puts asunder, it is immediately illegal; so rightly, as we have seen more than once, Christ Himself has declared "Everyone that putteth away his wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery, and he that marrieth her that is put away, committeth adultery"</span> [Luke 16:18]. And these words of Christ refer to any marriage whatsoever, even that which is purely natural and legitimate; <b>for indissolubility is proper to every true marriage</b>, and whatever pertains to the loosening of the bond is entirely removed from the good pleasure of the parties concerned and from every secular power.<br />
<br />
2295 Certain publications concerning the purposes of matrimony, and their interrelationship and order, have come forth within these last years which either assert that the primary purpose of matrimony is not the generation of offspring, or that the secondary purposes are not subordinate to the primary purpose, but are independent of it.<br />
<br />
In these works different primary purposes of marriage are designated by other writers, as for example: the complement and personal perfection of the spouses through a complete mutual participation in life and action; mutual love and union of spouses to be nurtured and perfected by the psychic and bodily surrender of one's own person; and many other such things.<br />
<br />
In the same writings a sense is sometimes attributed to words in the current documents of the Church (as for example, primary, secondary purpose), which does not agree with these words according to the common usage by theologians.<br />
<br />
This revolutionary way of thinking and speaking aims to foster errors and uncertainties, to avoid which the Most Eminent and Very Reverend Fathers of this supreme Sacred Congregation, charged with the guarding of matters of faith and morals, in a plenary session, on Wednesday, the 28th of March, 1944, when the question was proposed to them "Whether the opinion of certain recent persons can be admitted, who either deny that the primary purpose of matrimony is the generation and raising of offspring, or teach that the secondary purposes are not essentially subordinate to the primary purpose, but are equally first and independent," have decreed that the answer must be: <b>In the negative</b>.<br />
<br />
Source:<br />
<br />
http://denzinger.patristica.net/#n1 Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5602600947015992167.post-22464922522621782702011-05-01T00:00:00.000-07:002012-08-20T09:32:35.989-07:00Brother Thomas Mary Sennott's "Further Observations on the question..."<iframe frameborder="0" src="http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://anonusa.net/echolot/Further%20Observations%20on%20the%20question%20of%20Salvation%20Outside%20the%20Church%20--%20Brother%20Thomas%20Mary%20Sennott,%20MICM.pdf&embedded=true" style="height: 700px; width: 718px;"></iframe><br />
<br />
You can also download it here:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://anonusa.net/echolot/Further%20Observations%20on%20the%20question%20of%20Salvation%20Outside%20the%20Church%20--%20Brother%20Thomas%20Mary%20Sennott,%20MICM.pdf" target="_blank">Further Observations on the question of Salvation outside the Church</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5602600947015992167.post-15582575015391110812011-04-25T13:34:00.000-07:002011-06-30T07:16:28.542-07:00In defense of the Holy Inquisitions.<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: left; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: left; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: left; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">A <i>Catholic (sic) Answers</i> tract on the Inquisition(s) states, "To non-Catholics it is a scandal; to Catholics, an embarrassment; to both, a confusion." Why do they think that the Inquisition is an "embarrassment" to Catholics? I am not embarrassed by it. Why should traditional Catholics be, or any <i>true</i> Catholic for that matter?<br />
<br />
To understand the various Inquisitions, one must first understand <i>Unam Sanctam</i>. When a person was born in medieval Catholic Europe, Holy Mother Church was there at the very beginning of life to baptize that person and bring him or her into a state of grace before God and into union with the Church, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. The Church was the guardian of one's soul, and the secular powers were guardians of civil order and peace. When it came for that person to die, the Church was there again, to do Her very best to see that the person died in a state of grace before the One and Triune God, so that individual could have (or eventually attain) everlasting life.<br />
<br />
In medieval Europe, people had a genuine and real fear of Hell and Purgatory. For the most part, they took their Catholic faith very seriously and earnestly sought eternal life. For most people, the thought of losing their eternal salvation was a terrifying thought, and most people did their best to avoid eternal damnation. To die without Baptism or the final Sacraments of the Church was absolutely unthinkable.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Most Inquisitors felt the same way. They believed in a literal Hell, as a place of everlasting anguish and suffering. To them, Hell was a place like it is described in Sacred Scripture and the writings of the Fathers, a place of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" without any love or comfort of any kind. The historical evidence clearly shows that most Inquisitors were not interested in torturing and burning people, but did their very best to get heretics to confess and recant. For them, they were acting out of love for the salvation of a person's soul.<br />
<br />
As an example, read the transcripts from the Condemnation Trial of Saint Jehanne la Pucelle (aka, Saint Joan of Arc). Even though the Inquisition that tried her was clearly illicit and acted out of malice towards her (which was clearly shown at the Trial of Rehabilitation that exonerated her in 1456), the record contains the phrase </span> <span style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">“</span><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">everlasting fire</span><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">”</span><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"> in numerous instances. Even Saint Joan, a very devout and pious Catholic, asked the priests present at her execution to “please say a Mass for my soul.” Here are some excerpts from her trial (May 2, 1431):<br />
<br />
</span><span style="color: #444444;"><span style="font-family: "Arial", "Helvetica", sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">When it was explained to her what the Church Militant meant, and [she was] admonished to believe and hold the article <i>Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam</i>, etc., and to submit to the Church Militant, She answered: I believe in the Church on earth; but for my deeds and words, as I have previously said, I refer the whole matter to God, Who caused me to do what I have done.<br />
<br />
She said also that she submits to God her Creator, Who caused her to do what she did; and refers it to Him in His own Person. <br />
<br />
Asked if she means that she has no judge on earth, and our Holy Father the Pope is not her judge,<br />
<br />
She replied: I will tell you nothing else. I have a good Master, Our Lord, in Whom I trust for everything, and not in any other.<br />
<br />
She was told that if she did not wish to believe in the Church and in the article <i>Ecclesiam Sanctam Catholicam</i>, <b>she would be a heretic</b> to uphold [her views], and that <u>she would be punished by other judges who would sentence her to be burned</u>.<br />
<br />
She answered: I will tell you nothing else. And [even] if I saw the fire, I should tell you what I have told you, and nothing else.<br />
<br />
Questioned as to whether, if the General Council, that is to say our Holy Father, the Cardinals [and the rest] were here, she would be willing to submit,<br />
<br />
She answered: You will drag nothing else from me.<br />
<br />
Asked if she is willing to submit to our Holy Father the Pope,<br />
<br />
She said: <i>Bring me to him</i>, and I shall answer him.</span></span></span><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">A lesson from Catholic history that there can be bad bishops, and as Saint Thomas said, "we ought to obey God rather than man." (<i>Summa Theologica</i> Ia IIae, q.96, a.4) Denying the Supremacy of the Pope is, however, <u>not</u> an option, as Saint Thomas also taught. To do so, as I have posted previously, would mean to be guilty of both heresy and schism, which are mortal sins worse than murder, adultery, or the sodomy of young children, and to be in heresy and/or schism is to be in a state of excommunication, which is to sever oneself from the Church, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, and to die outside of Christ is to lose <i>all</i> hope of Heaven, which means Hell for all Eternity.<br />
<br />
I believe in a literal Hell, as a place of eternal, endless anguish and despair. I believe that Christ died on the Cross for the eternal salvation of those who would believe and accept (without falling away) His priceless sacrifice. I have read that at Fatima when our Blessed Mother appeared that she showed the children "souls by the thousands falling into Hell with great anguish..."<br />
<br />
What a horrible thought! Yet, in spite of the public revelation in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Magisterial Teaching, and private revelations such as at Fatima, many Catholics do not believe in either Hell or Purgatory! Many believe that the Catholic Church is a giant "social works" organization. During my first RCIA program (a fully modernist, but all too typical one), I was told by a woman who also worked in Catholic (sic) ministry at a local parish, "The most important thing is Community," "You don't have to believe everything that the Church teaches, like contraception," and "We're all struggling as to what to believe."<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Stop apologizing for the Inquisition! In my opinion, at the Final Judgment, I believe that the Catholic Inquisitions will be judged as being among the most righteous and holy institutions in the history of the Catholic Church. Most Inquisitors focused on the Salvation of people's souls, and I have no doubt that there are people in Heaven (or on their way there) who would have gone to Hell forever, except by the Grace of the Inquisition. For me, at this very moment I would rather be taken chained and shackled to the scaffold to be burned alive than lose my eternal salvation. As I posted earlier, being burned at the stake was largely a painless form of death lasting at most a minute or two (when things were done right), unlike the Native American Indians who "slow roasted" Catholic missionaries for hours.<br />
<br />
In our time, we have religious freedom, a "gift" from the deists of the Enlightenment. In the end, though, our deep religious tolerance may not be a good thing. In giving people the absolute freedom to decide what they do or do not believe, we may have given them the freedom to "think and feel" their way straight into Hell, forever. In our age of complete relativism where there are "no" absolute truths, many, if not most, churchmen have denied the Perfection of the One and Triune God.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: left; text-autospace: none;"><span style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><br />
Fortunately, for those alive at the time, the world of medieval Catholic Europe operated under a set of much different circumstances. They did what they felt was right in the eyes of God. They were not "sinners" and did not necessarily use "poor judgment". Ultimately, Christ will judge all people, including those of the Inquisition. Catholics should not feel "embarrassed" by that outcome. I am not.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">We will all die someday, and I fully and firmly believe that God will judge everyone to ultimately spend eternity in either Heaven or Hell. From the perspective of an obstinate heretic who was taken to the scaffold to be executed but who recanted before dying, the Inquisition may have ultimately been a good thing, assuming, of course, that the person went to Heaven who would have otherwise gone to Hell, except for the grace of the Inquisition. Of course, only the One and Triune God knows for sure.<br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">If you think that the Inquisition was evil or misguided, just consider the state of those countries today where the Inquisitions were the most active – Spain, Portugal, and Italy. Nearly everyone in those countries is Catholic, and consequently, all three of those nations have, at least until recently, the most restrictive abortion laws in the world. And unless you believe that abortion is a form of "angel making," you must acknowledge it as being the most despicable and vile act in all of human history, for not only does abortion kill the unborn body but excludes the soul of that unborn child from Heaven, for all Eternity. The One and Triune God is a Perfect Being, and in the end, He will <u>not</u> be mocked.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Over the course of six hundred years, the Catholic Inquisitions sent between forty to sixty thousand individuals to the scaffold to be burned by the secular authorities. This is less than half the number of abortions done in the United States every month.</span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5602600947015992167.post-12685242473363287502011-04-25T06:56:00.001-07:002016-01-23T17:38:16.626-08:00Veils, Annulments, NFP, etc.<i>Note: The following essay should be considered completely deprecated. They could only make any sense if Catholicism were, in fact, intrinsically true, but that is, clearly, not the case, which means that it has never been the case.</i> <br />
<br />
I will be adding one more post after this one, for a total of 30 posts. After that, I will stop posting for awhile, except for any reader comments that I receive. As should be evident, I do not allow comments to be posted for any of my posts; however, my email address is available on the Welcome page, so please feel free to send me your thoughts on anything that I have written. As long as it is not "hate mail," I will do my best to respond to you personally, and may reply to you, anonymously, as part of any future posts that I make to this blog. In this post, I will consider, briefly, a number of issues related to traditional Roman Catholicism.<br />
<br />
<i>The wearing of veils by women at Mass.</i><br />
<br />
The 1917 Code of Canon Law, following <b>centuries</b> of canon law, states the following:<br />
<br />
Canon 1262 <br />
<br />
§1. It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.<br />
<br />
§2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; <b>women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed</b>, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.<br />
<br />
Of course, the above text does not appear in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which, technically, abrogated the 1917 Code. Some will use this fact as "evidence" that women are no longer required to wear veils. As with "covered heads," the 1983 Code nowhere mentions that women should be "modestly dressed," either, so this "argument from silence," if true, can be used to support the assertion that women at Mass can be immodestly dressed. By this absurd logic, no objection should be made to women coming to Mass in bikinis.<br />
<br />
The Church, for centuries, interpreted Saint Paul's teaching in 1st Corinthians (11:4-5) as being literal (along with 11:15, which plainly teaches that women should have long hair, at least relative to the men around them), and it is just yet another capitulation to modernism and women's liberation and feminism to say that the wearing of veils/head-coverings was just "disciplinary." No one, of course, prior to Vatican II (except for the modernists) saw it that way.<br />
<br />
<i>The annulment fiasco.</i><br />
<br />
This one is about giving divorced people "second chances." I believe in "second chances," but <b>never</b> at the expense of true sacramental marriage.<br />
<br />
It is ironic that getting a <i>civil</i> annulment is both a complex and time-consuming affair which necessitates expert legal help. The United Way of Connecticut web site states, "With the divorce law reforms that took place in Connecticut in 1973, the number of annulments dealt with by courts has declined, and it is now considered a rare procedure. Annulment in Connecticut is a complex legal matter, in part because the grounds for annulment are found in a number of different statutes (laws), as well as in what is known as common law. Considering that this is a very complex area of the law, anyone who considers seeking an annulment of marriage is cautioned to seek competent legal counsel before taking any action." Grounds for a civil annulment include such things as bigamy, incest, fraud, insanity, mentally disabled, impotence, under legal age of consent, marriage not consummated, incompetence, duress, misunderstanding, concealment, incapacity due to drugs or alcohol, etc. Still, a civil annulment is the <i>exception</i> and not the rule.<br />
<br />
Within the Roman Catholic Church, however, <i>not</i> getting an annulment is the rare exception. Canon 1095 and its "lack of due discretion" is sufficient for every modernist American diocesan tribunal to annul <i>any</i> sacramental marriage. Usually, the "ex" (aka, Respondent) does not care, and the Petitioner gets his/her "second chance." If you are a divorced Catholic who cares about the Truth, strive to make the <i>Tribunal of Second Instance</i> the <i>Roman Rota</i> at the Vatican. That tribunal does not appear to "rubber stamp" the decision of the first tribunal or have your case heard by a SSPX tribunal.<br />
<br />
<i>Natural Family Planning.</i><br />
<br />
This form of "Catholic birth control" used to be only allowed for <i>grave</i> reasons; now it is allowed for "serious" reasons. Certainly, that which is "grave" is <u>always</u> serious, but is that which "serious" always grave?? Pope Pius XI, speaking with the infallible Ordinary Magisterium gave the timeless teaching of the Church:<br />
<br />
"But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, <b>those who in exercising it</b> <i>deliberately frustrate its natural power</i> and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious." (<i>Casti Connubii</i>, 54)<br />
<br />
Clearly, Pope Pius XI was talking about the "w-method" of birth control ("the pill" had not, of course, been invented), which means that when a married couple has sex, they must at least be open to the <i>possibility</i> of children, otherwise, they sin mortally. Pope Pius XI states:<br />
<br />
"Since, however, We have spoken fully elsewhere on the Christian education of youth, let Us sum it all up by quoting once more the words of St. Augustine: 'As regards the offspring it is provided that they should be begotten lovingly and educated religiously,' -- and this is also expressed succinctly in the Code of Canon Law -- '<b>The primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children</b>.'" (<i>Casti Connubii</i>, 17) (Indeed, canon law does contain <i>infallible</i> truths!)<br />
<br />
"Holy Church knows well that not infrequently one of the parties is sinned against rather than sinning, when for a grave cause he or she reluctantly allows the perversion of the right order. In such a case, there is no sin, provided that, mindful of the law of charity, he or she does not neglect to seek to dissuade and to deter the partner from sin. <b>Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects</b>, <u>new life cannot be brought forth</u>. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider <b>so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved</b>." (<i>Casti Connubii</i>, 59)<br />
<br />
So, clearly, the Church does not condemn periodic abstinence (<i>provided</i> that there is <b>mutual</b> consent) but would condemn oral and/or anal sex, especially, if vaginal sex did not follow. How about NFP? That method of "birth control" is scientific, systematic, empirical, and "data driven." In my opinion, "grave reasons" (such as the mother being told that she would die from another pregnancy) should be the only reason to use NFP. Otherwise, use Standard Days, and breast-feed your baby, especially, during the night, and welcome any children that God will send you!<br />
<br />
<i>Ecumenism.</i><br />
<br />
As with NFP, Pope Pius XI (perhaps the last true traditional Pope), gives the infallible teaching on <i>true</i> ecumenism from the Ordinary Magisterium:<br />
<br />
"So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: <b>for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it</b>, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it... For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, <b>it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad</b>: <u>whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head</u>.<br />
<br />
"Furthermore, <b>in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors</b>...Let them therefore return to their common Father, who, forgetting the insults previously heaped on the Apostolic See, will receive them in the most loving fashion...This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: <b>if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation</b>. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind." (<i>Mortalium Animos</i>, 10-11)<br />
<br />
So, what to make of Vatican II's statements on ecumenism? Of course, Vatican II never claimed, anywhere, to overturn, abrogate, etc., <i>Mortalium Animos</i>, and the Council spoke of avoiding "error" and "indifferentism" in ecumenical dialogue, so what to make of it? I suppose that we, as traditional Catholics, can look at Vatican II, as compared to the infallible Ordinary & Supreme Magisterium and say, "Perhaps it is time to use a <i>carrot</i> rather than a stick." A short example will demonstrate this.<br />
<br />
A few years ago I read on a traditional Catholic message board how a young woman, a neophyte, came to a SSPX catechism class because she wanted to convert to Catholicism. She was dressed in pants; the religious sister teaching the class told her that when she returned next time that she needed to be dressed in a skirt. She never returned. To take another example, my family attends an Indult mass. My wife and oldest daughter always wear dresses and/or skirts with veils. My wife told me about a woman who attended that Mass who, when she first came, was dressed in blue jeans and tennis shoes. Now, weeks later, she is coming to Mass in a dress with a veil. Perhaps, if the SSPX religious sister had displayed a little more charity and tolerance, the young woman in question would have almost certainly "skirted-up" over time or have left the class all on her own. Instead, she left because some SSPX sister was rude to her.<br />
<br />
The moral of the story is that it is possible to maintain one's principles, even traditional ones, without being a jerk; in fact, we can still uphold <i>all</i> of our traditional beliefs and values while at the same time being loving and caring individuals. Perhaps that is Vatican II was trying to teach us. It is sad to think that the young woman in question ended-up in some modernist RCIA class or left the Faith entirely.<br />
<br />
Point of ecumenism is that it is easier for the Magisterium to "regulate" love than it is for them to regulate hate.<br />
<br />
<i>Collegiality.</i><br />
<br />
The Church has become to big for the Pope to manage all on his own. In the Middle Ages, this was not a problem -- the clergy did not have telephones, faxes, or email. They had <i>no</i> choice but to manage their dioceses on their own. Today, Rome is swamped, and like the old emperors of Rome, it has become a management nightmare, so instead of splitting the Church into two halves (which, of course, would be impossible, heretical, and absurd), Vatican II tried to "downsize" things a bit. Still, the Pope trying to "move" an episcopal conference (such as the USCCB) is like a man trying to push his station wagon that has run out of gas. For traditional Catholics, the USCCB means little, so while some have made a "big deal" about collegiality, I do not see it as an important issue. It is possible to be a traditional Catholic, attend Mass, and be completely independent (or nearly so) of the local heretic bishop. <br />
<br />
<i>Religious Liberty</i><br />
<br />
This one is a no-brainer. Error does not have <i>any</i> "right" to exist. That which is contrary to the Perfect Nature of the One and Triune God has <u>no</u> right to exist. Indeed, all societies have the right, duty, and indeed, obligation to punish error, that which is contrary to the Perfect God and His Revelation through His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ. Pope Pius IX stated the <i>infallible</i> teaching of the Church:<br />
<br />
Condemned Error 15: Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.<br />
<br />
This teaching is infallible, if not by the Supreme Magisterium of the Church then by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. Note the references. We do not need Vatican II to "interpret" this passage for us; its very <i>own</i> words provide the correct interpretation. Likewise, we do not need to "reconcile" this passage with anything that was said in Vatican II, namely, <i>Dignitatis humanae</i>.<br />
<br />
What to make of that document, then? Of course, as I mentioned in the previous post to this one, one could play "word gymnastics," and make <i>Dignitatis Humanae</i> and <i>Quanta Cura</i> say things that <b>neither</b> document says! In any case, it does not matter; <i>Quanta Cura</i> represents the Ordinary, hence infallible, Magisterium of the Church whereas <i>Dignitatis Humanae</i> does not.<br />
<br />
Still, is religious freedom <i>always</i> a bad thing? When such <b>serves</b> the interests of the <i>One True Church</i> and <i>One True Faith</i>, no, it is not. Even the SSPX has gone to court (against the SSPV) to recover property that was theirs; likewise, when the Archdiocese of Atlanta tried to "delist" a traditional Catholic group from using the word "Catholic" in the telephone book, the letter from their attorney fell on "deaf ears" and the local telephone company rebuffed the Archdiocese's attempts.<br />
<br />
So, clearly, secular religious freedoms can serve the interests of the Truth, now a minority, from the errors of those who "represent" the majority. Looking at things from this perspective, <i>Dignitatis Humanae</i> was not a statement of faith or belief but a statement of "operating principles," that the notion of religious freedom, while formally heretical, can serve the interests of the Truth, so we, as traditional Catholics, should not have any qualms about suing when our legal, secular rights have been violated.<br />
<br />
So, in conclusion, read Vatican II as it was meant to be, a <i>pastoral</i> Council, not a dogmatic or even doctrinal one. Sometimes, to advance and defend the Truth, one needs to be <i>pragmatic</i> in his/her approach, which was what Vatican II was trying to teach us.<br />
<br />
<i>SSPX/SSPV/CMRI/etc.</i><br />
<br />
These groups are why we have Indult Masses in the first place, so "give credit where credit is due." Still, they are intolerant of "Feeneyites," whereas Rome is tolerant of us/them. Go figure. As Rick Ross states on his cult website, the SSPX has some cleaning-up to do. They have been sued, and rightly so for infringing on people's right to privacy, and they, as I have cited above, display an intolerant, sometimes belligerent, attitude towards anyone who does not agree with them. One can and should forever hold to the immutable Truths of the Catholic Faith without always being rude or mean; doing so will only serve to undermine and marginalize the True Faith, outside of which no one at all will be saved, which is the traditional Roman Catholic cause. As for <i>supplied</i> jurisdiction, these groups <i>likely</i> have it (although, is there still a "state of emergency" within the Church?), for the same reasons that the Orthodox have it, per Canon 844. Avoid the SSPV, CMRI, etc., at all costs, however, as they are sedes and alter the Canon of the Mass.<br />
<br />
(UPDATE: I've changed my mind about the SSPV, CMRI, etc., and have even attended some of their Masses, confessed to their priests, etc. As for "altering the Canon of the Mass," I was wrong about that; the SSPV, CMRI, etc., use the prayers which were traditionally used during an interregnum. In that respect, they are not altering the Canon of the Mass.) <br />
<br />
<i>'For many' versus 'for all'.</i><br />
<br />
<b>No one</b><i> </i>doubts the validity of the former, so why "chance it"?<br />
<br />
<i>Traditional Good Friday Prayer</i>.<br />
<br />
As the SSPX notes on their website, the traditional Good Friday prayer is ancient, going back to the 3rd-century, which means that the prayer is of Apostolic origin, and hence, comes from Jesus Christ, the <i>King</i> of the Jews. No one disputes this. For this reason, it should be retained, and traditional priests of all stripes should feel completely free to recite it, that is, the pre-1955 or 1955 version. It does not matter if it is PC or not. Hell is not PC, but that does <i>nothing</i> to diminish its existence.<br />
<br />
This is a prime example of <i>lawful</i> disobedience of a Pope's <i>unlawful</i> command.<br />
<br />
<i>The death penalty</i>.<br />
<br />
Sovereign rulers have the duty, right, and indeed, obligation to punish transgressors of the divine and natural law, not only to protect the innocent from being victimized but also for the salvation of the immortal souls of those who would jeopardize their own salvation by committing evil deeds. While virtually everyone in today's world cannot understand the "cruelty" of those rulers who governed Christian kingdoms during the Middle Ages (the people living at that time, of course, did not view themselves as living in some "middle" time period), one must remember that the modern-day prison system of today's World simply did not exist centuries ago. Executing (with or without torture, mutilation, and/or dismemberment) individuals, then as now, would provide the <i>maximum</i> deterrent for future would-be offenders, but unlike today's penal system of even life-imprisonment-without-parole, executions would also provide a <i>zero</i> recidivism rate. For the Medieval rulers, torture, mutilation, dismemberment, and executions were a "necessary evil" to safeguard the sanctity of a Christian society, and ultimately, the salvation of its members.<br />
<br />
The Catechism of the Catholic Church's flip-flop between the first (not so authoritative) and second (more authoritative) editions are a good exercise in understanding the present Magisterium's struggle with trying to understand its own theology. In any case, traditional Catholics can look to the infallible Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, which teaches that sovereign rulers can both punish and pardon, which means applying the death penalty when needed as well as providing mercy when the sovereign ruler feels such to be appropriate.<br />
<br />
<i>Corporeal Punishment</i>.<br />
<br />
When I attended a modernist RCIA program 10 years ago (eventually, quitting, to go to a more "traditional" program), during one class a woman neophyte went on a 60-second rant about how "evil, terrible, and disgusting" parents were who spanked their children. I sat in my chair in utter amazement and shock; no one, including the feminist instructor, challenged the young woman. Neither did I.<br />
<br />
Just compare the United States and Singapore. President Obama, in a speech last year (2010), made yet another <i>false</i> analogy (which politicians so very much love to use), comparing the test scores of US students to those in Singapore. While listening to his speech, I remember thinking, "Well, yeah, they <i>spank</i> their kids."<br />
<br />
Any objective assessment of Singapore will show that society to be a happy and prosperous one. They are a first-world country with a high standard of living, but unlike America, they have a very low crime rate and a low imprisonment rate. Unlike America, who spends a very large fraction of its GDP on prisons and war, Singapore does not tolerate deviate behavior. If you get a hold of a gun and fire it at someone; even if you miss, your sentence is death on the gallows. As a consequence, there are few murders or attempted murders in Singapore.<br />
<br />
If you agree with my assessment above that the death penalty is, principally, about <i>protecting the lives of the innocent</i>, then you <b>must</b> agree that spanking/paddling/caning is both <i>moral</i> and <i>necessary</i>. For if you were living in Singapore, would not you, as a parent, want to do <i>everything</i> in your power to insure that your "little one" does not end his/her life on the gallows? And, as we have seen, the gallows are there to protect the innocent, if only by the fact that they provide a <i>zero</i> recidivism rate.<br />
<br />
As I have said elsewhere, I have five children, and as parents, we do <b>not</b> spank <i>any</i> of our children. Raising children in America is different than raising them in Singapore, and there are terrible legal consequences for you, as a parent, if you spank/paddle your children. So, unless you live in a state that "tolerates" such behavior, I would definitively recommend that you do <u>not</u> use corporeal punishment with your kids. You might as well put a "Welcome DHS/CPS" sign on your front door, because you stand a good chance of having your children placed in foster care and even you ending-up in jail.<br />
<br />
Some "authorities" will say that spanking kids is a bad thing. They will say that if you "spank your little girl when she lies," that she may stop lying, but that she, in the process, may also stop "sharing her fantasies with you." Such may be true, so I agree that it is wrong and immoral to spank young children, especially, those who are not of school age. As children get older, however, they will stop sharing their fantasies with you anyway, whether you spank them or not.<br />
<br />
Other researchers tout the benefits of spanking/caning. At a <i>Beyond Belief</i> conference several years ago (a gathering of atheistic, materialistic scientists committed to advancing an atheistic agenda), one researcher touted the benefits of caning, saying how the punishment "went straight to the brain, changed neural connections, etc." Without question, wayward teenagers in Singapore simply do not engage in the "petty crimes" that a small minority of American teenagers commit, as news events over the past few decades well attest to. People who travel to Singapore are warned <i>not</i> to break the law.<br />
<br />
The moral of this story is please do not condemn individuals and/or societies, past or present, who choose to punish their offenders, young or old. Without question, there are benefits, both to the individual and society, by punishing offenders.<br />
<br />
<i>Usury.</i><br />
<br />
This is the root of modern-day evil, the basis for modern-day capitalism. Of course, some will say that the Church has "changed her tune" on this one, but unless you are Amish (hopefully, a Catholic Amish), it is virtually impossible to exist in the Western World without having <i>some</i> involvement with the banking system. (Even many Amish own tractors, which they often remove the rubber tires from, still a product of modern capitalism.) So, the Church, as a matter of discipline, had no choice but to "capitulate." Those of us with large families need a home, and to have a home, one needs a mortgage.<br />
<br />
This inescapable reality does not change the fact that capitalism is evil, and as a consequence, scandalizes men to commit evil deeds. The greatest evil deed is the destruction of our World and its environment. That the World is warming from man-made greenhouse gas emissions is an undeniable fact, which is the sole product of the "free enterprise" system. To carry on their endless greed, corporations will continue to "maximum profits," and as such, we will continue to burn fossil fuels. The World will continue to warm, eventually, becoming completely uninhabitable. At that moment (or before) Christ will come again.<br />
<br />
To those "green Catholics" who think that they can "tame" capitalism into some Eco-friendly system of enterprise, they are fools. Here's the central truism of capitalism:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In a society driven by usurious, free-market capitalism, it is impossible to limit consumerism, that is, consumption by individuals and/or groups.</blockquote>
As for Francis, he needs to concentrate on converting souls. His efforts to limit greenhouse gasses are DOA; he's both right (in my opinion) and wrong at
the same time. As the Vicar of God, however, his principle duty, right
and obligation is the salvation of peoples' souls, that anyone and
everyone come to embrace the One True Faith through sacramental Baptism,
explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation of our Lord Jesus
Christ, submission at least to the Petrine Office (which Francis
sometimes claims to hold), and full participation in the Sacraments and
sacramentals of the One and Only True Church, which is the Catholic
Church, the Immaculate Bride of Jesus Christ, which is His Mystical
Body, outside of which there is neither the forgiveness nor the
remission of sins.
<br />
<br />
Trying to convert Francis to the One True Religion is almost as hard as
trying to convert the Devil himself. In any case, we're here to save as
many souls from eternal Hell as we can; if Francis is numbered among
the Elect, then praise be to the One and Triune God. I suspect,
however, that his eternal lot is among the reprobate. As for the
usurious capitalists, if they destroy the World through their usurious
greed, then so be it! They will have simply "reaped" what they have
"sown."<br />
<br />
<i>Homosexuality/Bestiality/Adultery/Fornication/Masturbation.</i><br />
<br />
These are all grave sins. Whether the last one can <i>ever</i> be a <i>venial</i> sin is anyone's guess, but the first four are <u>always</u> <i>mortal</i> sins, the first two being <i>abominations</i> that cry-out to Heaven for vengeance and worthy of the death penalty, as the infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church teaches us.<br />
<br />
<i>Slavery.</i><br />
<br />
In the ancient World, it was the <i>merciful</i> alternative to execution; as such, slavery is not always intrinsically evil nor unjust.<br />
<br />
<i>Women's Ordination.</i><br />
<br />
One might as well say that hamsters and guinea pigs can be ordained to the presbyterate. I would have more confidence confessing to either of those than to a woman.<br />
<br />
<i>Doctrinal Preamble.</i><br />
<br />
It's completely orthodox and reasonable. The SSPX bishop's should all sign it. Celebrating a <i>Novus Ordo</i> liturgy "here and there," in spite of its deficiencies, is not a big deal. As long as the 1962 Missal is preserved, along with the Catholic Church's traditional theology and sacraments, that's what matters.<br />
<br />
<i>Pope Francis.</i><br />
<br />
Don't reconcile with him. Instead, wait for a true Pope, Vicar of God, to ascend the Throne or at least wait for Francis to be deposed. If you reconcile with him, he'll simply "move the goalposts" later on, and you'll end-up regretting your decision, perhaps for all Eternity.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">It is almost certainly the case that Catholicism is a false, man-made religion, which means that it will continue "morphing" into a completely naturalistic philosophy without any supernatural elements at all to it. Folks, you simply have better things to do with your time and money!! Everything that I wrote above is pure bullshit, all of it!</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5602600947015992167.post-54014790772251063302011-04-23T20:55:00.009-07:002012-08-12T07:11:17.759-07:00Reflections on the Salvation of the Invincibly Ignorant.<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;">The issue of <i>EENS</i> is one that has both interested and perplexed me. In speaking about “invincible ignorance” (almost, in passing) in <i>Quanto Conficiamur Moerore</i> and <i>Singulari Quidem</i>, it is clear that Pope Pius IX opened a theological “Pandora's Box” on the question of the <i>invincibly ignorant</i> attaining eternal life, something that the Sovereign Pontiff clearly intended <u>not</u> to do. In any case, many now accord those few phrases the same status as the solemn definition of the Immaculate Conception given in <i>Ineffabilis Deus</i>.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;">After converting to Catholicism 10 years ago, I fought a long battle over the (at least apparent) contradictory and irreconcilable Magisterial texts written prior to, during and after Vatican II, eventually, losing my faith, not so much out of denial as out of disillusionment. Eventually, I came to the conclusion and acceptance that the Magisterium has, indeed, <i>contradicted</i> itself, maybe not in the <i>literal</i> sense (depending on the “word gymnastics” that one is willing to do), but certainly in the Council's failure to <i>explicitly affirm</i> that which came before it. (It must be admitted that the <i>Catechism of the Catholic Church</i>, as well as some Magisterial declarations which preceded it, and especially others which came after, such<i> Dominus Iesus, </i>"Responses to some questions regarding certain aspects of the doctrine on the church," etc., have gone a long way towards "clarifying" the ambiguities of the Second Vatican Council.) I suppose that I would liken my journey to that of an alcoholic who, for many months, refused to admit that he had a drinking problem; however, after attending his many “AA” meetings, one day he finally stands up before “his peers” and admits his alcoholism. For me, that journey has had many similar overtones – first denial, then rationalizations, then more rationalizations; then finally, acceptance.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;">If anyone doubts the irreconcilable contradictions (“word gymnastics” notwithstanding, but see below) in Magisterial teaching, compare <i>Dignitatis Humanae</i> with <i>Quanta Cura</i>. If you are still not convinced, then get a copy of <i>Exsurge Domine</i> (be sure to note <i>condemned error 33</i>). Now, if these three Magisterial documents are all truly “without error,” then the Magisterium is either talking with a “forked tongue,” or God really is a woman, because it is clear that He (or rather, She) cannot make-up His (or rather, Her) mind! I do, however, favor <u>neither</u> of these alternatives. (Indeed, I have since come to a conclusion on this -- once again, see below.)</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;">There are different approaches which Catholics take to resolving these contradictions. “Conservative Catholics,” of course, emphasis <i>obedience</i>, even to the point of being <i>servile</i>. These Catholics brand any “private interpretation” of Magisterial texts as being <i>schismatic</i> and/or <i>heretical</i>, instead demanding complete and absolute submission to <u>whatever</u> the current Magisterium is telling them, even if such “teachings” are in stark contrast to the centuries of <i>dogmatic</i> and <i>definitive</i> teaching that came prior to the present. “Let Vatican II be your focus,” they (and Pope John Paul II and now Pope Benedict XVI) say.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;">Like Traditionalists, “liberals” acknowledge the contradictions, but reduce the elements of truth from the Deposit of Faith to varying degrees, often differing over what <i>can</i> and <i>cannot</i> “change” with respect to Church teaching. Some liberals believe that pretty much everything is “on the table,” including the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ, but most are feminists, homosexual activists, proponents of contraception, abortion, etc. As far as I am concerned, these people are all <i>heretics</i>, and I do my very best to avoid them (and their parishes) as much as possible.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;">The One and Triune God being immutable, Traditionalists, such as me, believe that the <i>Holy Spirit</i> who guided the Magisterium of the 4th-century is the same <i>Holy Spirit </i>who guided the Magisterium of the 14th-century, and He is still guiding the present Successor of Peter (but who, of course, may or may not be “listening” to His advice.) Of course, conservatives and liberals (at least those who do not deny <i>Papal Primacy</i> outright) make the same claim, but they often reach very different conclusions.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;">I certainly cannot accept the liberal position, because that would mean that the Magisterium has taught virtually nothing definitive over its 2,000 years of existence, except, perhaps, that there is a God. The conservative position reduces me to some mindless “automaton” that is to be “spoon fed” like some ignorant peasant, forcing me<i>, in the name of obedience</i>, to accept propositions that I find absurd and to accept contradictions in Magisterial teaching that I find ridiculous. The traditionalist position, while acknowledging that the Magisterium can contradict itself, allows infallibility for both the <i>Ordinary</i> and <i>Supreme</i> Magisterium, assigning the erroneous material to the <i>authentic</i> Magisterium (which means that it comes “authentically” from the Magisterium, but simply contains error.)</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;">As general revelation (the <i>Deposit of Faith</i>) ceased with the death of the last Apostle, it is clear that the 260 or so Magisteriums have been working with pretty much the same information. Granted, later Magisteriums have had an “advantage” over earlier ones, in that it is nearly always easier to find deficiencies in others' work than in one's own. However, in deciding “who’s right” and “who’s wrong,” the principle laid down by St. Vincent of Lérins makes the most sense to me:</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that <u>we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all</u>. For that is truly and in the strictest sense ‘Catholic,’ which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow <i>universality</i>, <i>antiquity</i>, <i>consent</i>. We shall follow <i>universality</i> if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; <i>antiquity</i>, if we <b>in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers</b>; <i>consent</i>, in like manner, if in antiquity itself <u>we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all</u>, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Indeed, Vatican II affirms this principle (at least indirectly), stating, “the entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One <b>cannot err</b> in matters of belief” (<i>Lumen Gentium</i>, 12). Hence, it is clear that <i>Quanta Cura</i> expresses the <i>ordinary</i>, <i>universa</i>l (and hence, <i>infallible</i>) Magisterium, whereas <i>Dignitatis Humanae</i>, while expressing some Catholic truths, contains error and so is <u>not</u> part of the Church’s <i>Ordinary Magisterium</i>. While <i>Dignitatis Humanae</i> deserves “religious assent,” <i>Quanta Cura</i> <b>demands</b> the higher “obedience of faith” and therefore <b>supersedes</b> <i>Dignitatis Humanae</i>. The language of <i>Quanta Cura</i>, since it is representative of the Ordinary (hence, infallible) Magisterium of the Church stands all on its own; we do not need Vatican II to “interpret” <i>Quanta Cura</i> for us. <i>Quanta Cura </i>can interpret itself, as can<i> Mortalium Animos</i>,<i> Exsurge Domine</i>,<i> </i>etc. The same is, of course, true of the Papal Bull <i>Unam Sanctam</i>. <br />
<br />
Likewise, if you want to say that the Church of Christ “subsists in the Catholic Church” while in the same breath say that the Church of Christ <b>is</b> the Catholic Church, I am okay with that, as long as we are talking about <i>one</i> subsistence. Of course, that is not the direction that “the theologians” took things, saying, almost after the ink was drying on the Vatican II documents, that the Church of Christ can subsist “outside” the Catholic Church. To its credit, this is something that the Magisterium has condemned. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br />
In any case, it is <i>de fide catholica</i> that the Church of Christ <b>is</b> the Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church. This is forever true, a revelation that comes directly from the immutable One and Triune God. No Pope, either alone or in an ecumenical Church Council, could ever change or alter this fundamental fact. It would be “easier” for them to change the Axioms of Arithmetic than to say that the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church are not “one thing.” The following syllogism proves this dogma:<br />
<br />
Major Premise: There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.<br />
<br />
Minor Premise: It is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, who has primacy over the whole church.<br />
<br />
Conclusion: None of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her.<br />
<br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;">What, then, to make of Vatican II’s teaching on the salvation of those “invincibly ignorant” non-Catholics, using the principle set forth by St. Vincent?</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;">Before examining the question as to whether the <i>invincibly ignorant</i> can obtain salvation, I think that the point has to be made that “things that are impossible with men, are possible with God” (Luke 18:27); that is, “with men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26). Hence, His “grace is sufficient for thee; for power is made perfect in infirmity” (2 Corinthians 12:9) to be “the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world” (John 1:9). With respect to <b>anyone’s</b> salvation (including, our own), we must acknowledge the One and Triune God’s supreme sovereignty over all Creation, as <i>Creator</i>, <i>Lord</i>, <i>Redeemer</i>, <i>Savior</i> and <i>Judge</i>.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;">Given God’s absolute sovereignty over all that is “seen and unseen,” it stands to reason that He, who gives us the grace to stop sinning (Romans 5), could also, if He willed, give us the grace to overcome our ignorance, even if such ignorance was <i>invincible</i>. To say otherwise is to deny God's supreme sovereignty, and it is also to say that those who sincerely seek Him (even if they are beyond “the reach of man”) may not be able to find Him! Such is certainly not God's will, “Who will have all men to be saved, and <b>to come to the knowledge of the truth</b>” (1 Timothy 2:4).</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;">Saint Thomas clearly teaches this, stating,</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;">“Everyone is <b>bound to believe something explicitly</b> . . . even if someone is brought up in the forest or among wild beasts. <i>For it pertains to Divine Providence to furnish everyone with what is necessary for salvation</i>, <u>provided that on his part there is no hindrance</u>. Thus, if someone so brought up followed the direction of natural reason in seeking good and avoiding evil, we must most certainly hold that God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him as He sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:20).” (<i>Disputed Questions on the Truth</i>, q.14, a.11)</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;">Saint Thomas is saying that the One and Triune God “will supply the means,” which seems to cast doubt on the “invincibly ignorant” attaining salvation. Granted, such a category of people must exist. (We are, after all, finite and human!) However, is it possible, as the Catechism says, for a person to be in an “invincibly ignorant” state and yet “seek God with a sincere heart” (847, CCC)? </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;">By definition, one <u>cannot choose</u> to be <i>invincibly ignorant</i> just as one <u>cannot choose</u> to be <i>baptized by desire</i>. Yet, <i>if through no fault of one's own</i>, a person were in such a state and yet seeking God sincerely, it stands to reason that the Holy Spirit could deliver that person from his/her “invincibly ignorant” state just as the Holy Spirit can impart sanctifying grace outside of sacramental Baptism, as God is not “bound by His Sacraments.” Since He created the entire Cosmos and all the physical laws that govern the Universe, it also stands to reason that God is not “bound by the physical laws of the Universe which He, after all, created,” which means that He is capable of bringing Sacramental Baptism in Water to <i>whomever</i> sincerely desires it, if only in that person's infancy. Since He is a Perfect Being, God is, however, <b>bound by His Word</b>; he will not lie, therefore, we <i>know</i> that such is His will that <i>all</i> individuals come to know His Son, Jesus Christ, as Saint Thomas teaches, because that is what He has <b>revealed</b> to us. To say otherwise is to embrace Pelagianism.<br />
<br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;">Are there any <i>non-culpable</i> “invincibly ignorant” people sincerely seeking God? Maybe not. Maybe so. If such a category of people does exist, then we must conclude that God will reveal Himself to them, because He has set the requirements for salvation ( “be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sin,” Acts 2:38) and not us. But, since we ourselves are <b>incapable of knowing</b> if there truly are invincibly ignorant people (indeed, we must admit our <i>invincible ignorance</i> in this area), is not the “safer” course on the part of the Church just to assume that there are <b>no</b> invincibly ignorant people and evangelize accordingly?</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;">I can certainly admit the <b>possibility</b>, but <u>not certainty</u>, of <i>invincible ignorance</i>. It may be that such ignorance is very rare, perhaps nonexistent (at least among adults), or it may be much more common. Clearly, the teaching set forth in <i>Unam Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam</i>, which states “that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff ” must be <i>infallible</i> (and hence, <i>irreformable</i>), as this teaching was explicitly reaffirmed <u>by name</u> at the <i>Fifth Lateran Council</i>. It is difficult to imagine that a person can hear the word “Pope” and <i>refuse to submit</i> anymore than a person can hear the Gospel and <i>refuse to believe</i>.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;">However, one absolute example of <i>invincible ignorance</i> can be easily demonstrated in the case of infant baptism. As the Church has always taught, the validity of baptisms by non-Catholics is beyond dispute, provided that <b>valid</b><i> matter</i>, <i>form</i> and <i>intent</i> are all present. Hence, for an infant, a <i>valid baptism</i> is <u>always</u> a <i>fruitful baptism</i>. However, <b>all</b> the Church Fathers (especially Saint Fulgentius, whom the Old Catholic Encyclopedia calls “the principal theologian of the sixth century”), taught that people baptized outside of the Catholic Church have a serious obligation to enter into full communion with the Church and submit to the Roman Pontiff. Saint Fulgentius states, </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;">“Anyone who has received the Sacrament of Baptism but remained away from the Catholic Church is never prepared to obtain eternal life. Such a person, even if he is very generous with almsgiving and even pours out his blood for the name of Christ, because of the fact that in this life he has not held tightly to the unity of the Catholic Church, he will not have eternal salvation. Hold most firmly and never doubt that any heretic or schismatic whatsoever, baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, if he will not have been gathered into the Catholic Church, no matter how many alms he may have given, even if he shed his blood for the name of Christ, can never be saved.” (<i>To Peter on the Faith</i>).</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;">Of course, the Council of Florence would cite from this passage of Saint Fulgentius over 900 years after his death in <i>Cantate Domino</i>, so one can hardly accuse the Council Fathers of “inventing” some theological novelty. And, to claim that the Florentine Fathers were simply ignorant, believing themselves to live in a world much smaller than the one that we now know is simply not defensible. The calculations by <span style="color: #333333;">Eratosthenes</span> were widely known during this time (and were used by Christopher Columbus on his voyage to America), and it is clear from the writings of Augustine that he knew that there were “remote nations” who had not heard the Gospel.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;">Yet, a child who has a valid, but “non-Catholic,” Christian baptism is not capable of sin before the Age of Reason; therefore, he or she is every bit a member of the Catholic Church as is a child who is baptized by a Catholic priest. And yet, it is heartbreaking to think that this “non-Catholic,” but Christian, child would find himself/herself in a state of <i>mortal sin</i> upon reaching the exact age of seven years, due to <i>heresy</i> or <i>schism</i>. The same observation could, perhaps, be made about a child who is ten or eleven years of age; although, as such children age into adulthood (and, especially, with their access to the Internet), the notion of invincible ignorance becomes more and more difficult to defend. It is a <i>denial of human free</i> <i>will</i> to say that such children, having reached the Age of Reason, are still totally incapable of apostasy, heresy, or schism. If they are capable of the sin of unbelief, which is always the case for <i>every</i> human being beyond the Age of Reason, then they are capable of becoming apostates, heretics, or schismatics.<br />
<br />
The 1949 Archbishop Richard J. Cushing letter presents us with many paradoxes. In stating, “this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance <i>God accepts also an implicit desire</i>, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God,”<i> </i>do such individuals, if they exist, still posses<i> human free will</i>? If they do, how could the Saint Benedict Center (or anyone else, for that matter) ever be "harming" these individuals by telling them the <i>Truth</i>, that is, that that they need to become full-fledged Catholics in order to be saved? And, how could we ever <i>know</i>, to a <i>moral</i> certitude, that a person has genuine implicit faith as opposed to a <b>culpable</b> rejection of the Truth, especially, when both "groups" of individuals would tell us, <i>explicitly</i>, that they do <u>not</u> believe in the Catholic Faith? How could we ever possibly distinguish one group from the other?<br />
<br />
Saint Thomas, as always, was quite clear on this point, and the Angelic Doctor's teachings are representative of the Ordinary and Universal (hence, infallible) Magisterium of the Church:<br />
<br />
"All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: <b>and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally</b>." (<i>Summa Theologica</i>, Ia IIae, q.103, a.4)<br />
<br />
"For children baptized before coming to the use of reason, afterwards when they come to perfect age, <i>might easily be persuaded by their parents to renounce what they had unknowingly embraced</i>; and <b>this would be detrimental to the faith</b>." (<i>Summa Theologica</i>, IIa IIae, q.10, a.12)<br />
<br />
Therefore, as Father Muller noted (in his <i>The Catholic Dogma</i>), a child baptized outside of the Church, whether by Islamic, Jewish, Protestant, Orthodox, etc., parents would likely sin mortally upon reaching the Age of Reason around that child's 7th birthday.<br />
<br />
As I have explained in my other posts on implicit faith, how does one go about <i>getting rid</i> of his or her “implicit desire”? The Magisterium of Pope Pius XII (perhaps due to his embarrassment over the Holocaust) appears to be teaching that some individuals have <i>no</i> choice but to be saved, a form of Calvinism. It is difficult to conceive how a person with only “implicit desire” could ever be guilty of heresy, which, in Latin, means <i>choice</i>. In addition, such a teaching makes the One and Triune God into an impotent cosmic boob, who is incapable of bringing the Gospel to whomever sincerely “wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.” Not only does the Archbishop Cushing letter fail to affirm the One and Triune God's sovereignty over His Creation, it marginalizes God's <i>honesty</i>, hence, His Perfection, also. Archbishop Cushing is, apparently, teaching that God can bring His grace but <u>not</u> His <i>light</i> to those who are sincerely seeking Him. This form of theology is “divine hiddenness” <i>in reverse</i> and is just a capitulation to modern atheism. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;">So, how to reconcile Florence's clearly <i>unambiguous</i> and <i>infallible</i> teaching that there is <b>no</b> salvation outside of the Catholic Church with the recent Magisterial teaching that the “invincibly ignorant” may attain eternal life under some circumstances? (One way to reconcile LG #16 and CCC #848 with <i>Cantate Domino</i> is to assert as <i>de fide</i>, per the latter, that the former, when referring to the group of “invincibly ignorant” persons attaining everlasting life is that LG #16/CCC #848 are describing a set of human beings of <i>unknown</i> and <i>unknowable</i> size; therefore, everyone, without exception, who attains Heaven, the Beatific Vision, will ultimately, if only at "death's door," do so as a Catholic, that is, as a full member -- via sacramental Baptism in Water or its desire, with explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in full submission, mind and will, to the Roman Pontiff -- of the Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church.) I believe the answer is to be found in the One and Triune God’s sovereignty over all of His Creation.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;">As finite creatures, we perceive time as the sequential succession of events, something that physicists liken to “an arrow.” Even though Einstein showed that <i>time is relative</i>, he also demonstrated that time <u>always</u> “flows” in one direction. No matter one’s “frame of reference,” events that occur tomorrow (or a hour or minute) from now will always be viewed as having occurred “later” than what is occurring at this particular instant. People will always die before they are conceived, and will always grow older, not younger.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;">For the One and Triune God, who is <i>infinite</i>, <i>omniscient</i>, <i>omnipresent</i>, <i>omnipotent</i>, <i>eternal</i>, <i>immutable</i>, <i>all knowing</i> and <i>all powerful</i>, there is no such thing as “time.” God “sees” and “knows” all that <i>ever was</i>, <i>ever is</i>, or <i>ever will be</i>. Everything that occurred in the past, is occurring in the present, or that will occur (or <i>could</i> occur) in the future is known to God.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;">It is only in God’s <i>supreme sovereignty</i> that the question of <i>invincible ignorance</i> can be understood. Certainly, there are people “<i>struggling with invincible ignorance</i><i><span style="font-style: normal;">” (</span></i><i>Quanto Conficiamur Moerore</i>, 7), but given the One and Triune God’s supreme sovereignty over all of Creation, it is equally clear that <b>anyone</b> who sincerely seeks God will find Him, <b>eventually</b>. It is simply <u>not possible</u> for a person to remain in an “invincibly ignorant” state <b>forever</b> and yet fail to respond to “<i>divine</i><i> light and grace</i><i><span style="font-style: normal;">,” if such a person is truly and sincerely seeking to love God “with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind</span></i>” (Matthew 22:37). Given enough time, such people will <u>always</u> find their way into the Catholic Church, for the Church and Christ “are one.”</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;">Observing God’s supreme sovereignty and man’s finiteness, Florence’s dogmatic teaching of “no salvation outside of the Catholic Church” and the modern teaching on “invincible ignorance” are thus at least somewhat harmonized, in spite of the fact that the latter is failing to affirm the former. As with the case of the baptized, but “non-Catholic,<i><span style="font-style: normal;">”</span></i> child just turned seven, yet who dies at age eight, only God, through His One and only Son, Jesus Christ can look into that child’s soul to see if that person had the willingness to love God with all of his “heart, soul and mind.” For such a child, we can certainly hope that Purgatory and not Hell would be that person's destination where he/she could correct, abjure, and renounce his/her false beliefs, a hope (not always, of course, a "good hope") that we can have for most, if not all, human beings.<br />
<br />
As “anyone whatsoever” (Lateran IV, Canon 1) can validly baptized, we cannot say, with any certainty, that anyone is destined for Hell. As I have discussed before, to say that someone was never baptized is to try to “prove a negative,” which is impossible to do, even for a stillborn baby. For even in such a situation where the two parents were absolutely determined that their stillborn baby <u>not</u> be baptized and took extreme measures to “gaurd” their infant's lifeless corpse, we can imagine the One and Triune God holding that baby's soul in his or her body, an Angel of the Lord coming to cause unconsciousness and temporary amnesia to all those present with the dead infant, having someone, perhaps an angel, baptize the baby, and then releasing the baby's soul into the afterlife without anyone knowing the difference. It would be a “minor miracle” to be sure, but any scenario that one could propose, some miraculous intervention, even a major one, can be imagined that would take care of the job.<br />
<br />
For those who have been validly baptized in their infancy, their first step to everlasting life has already been taken. It does not matter if they have been born to Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or Protestant parents, or even if they were born in pre-Columbian America to Inca, Aztec, or other Native American parents. As <i>anyone whatsoever</i> can validly baptize, it would be a minor miracle indeed for the Creator of the Universe to secure anyone's baptism, and once secured, we can easily imagine the Holy Spirit providing “salutary repentance” at the moment of that person's death, something, like Baptism in Infancy, would be <i>impossible to disprove</i>.<br />
<br />
Most, if not virtually all, Catholic (sic) theologians in today's Church say that God can “in ways known only to Him, use extraordinary means to secure someone's salvation.” However, as I have demonstrated, <b>He does not have to do that</b>; rather, He can use “extraordinary measures” (i.e., miracles, if necessary) to bring about the <i>ordinary means</i> of salvation which He has already established. Never, ever, ever will there be a circumstance that “requires” the One and Triune God to “use extraordinary means only known to Him.” In fact, God, being a Perfect Being, cannot lie, which means that we have <i>no</i> choice but to accept what He has <i>already</i> revealed to us as being the <i>literal</i> Truth.<br />
<br />
In summary, the One and Triune God could bring about the Baptism of anyone in that person's infancy, and then offer that individual “salutary repentance” in the final moments of that individual's life. Liberals do not like this, because it would involve “too many miracles,” and they want their theistic God confined and penned-up in the deistic playpen. But what God can do for <i>one</i>, He could also do for <i>many</i>. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;">Is this what Vatican II was trying to say? Perhaps, perhaps not. The Council wrote more words than the previous 20 ecumenical Councils combined. It seemed like there was “something for everyone” at Vatican II; liberals could read the documents the way they wanted to, conservatives could do the same. So many words, so little said. As I said in a previous post, the <i>burden of proof</i> is on those individuals who would assert that Vatican II taught error and/or heresy, and I have <u>not</u> met such a burden nor have I tried to do so. <br />
<br />
In any case, I believe that the error of Vatican II and modern theology is the suggestion that “invincible ignorance” is some <i>irrevocable</i> state, from which the graces of the Holy Spirit <u>cannot</u> provide deliverance. The theology of the “anonymous Christian” that says that anyone can remain in an “invincibly ignorant<i><span style="font-style: normal;">”</span></i> state <i>forever</i> (as Karl Rahner implied) is contrary to the teachings of Pope Pius IX and the <i>Ordinary Magisterium</i> of the Church, and is therefore, heretical. Granted, Jews, Muslims, etc. have a lot of “cultural conditioning<i><span style="font-style: normal;">”</span></i> to overcome, but if someone in any false faith and/or religion is sincerely seeking God (and there are such people), eventually they will find Him, which means eventually becoming Catholic! Now, whether that occurs within that person's lifetime or at “death's door” is another question, but the One and Triune God will reveal Himself to <b>anyone</b> who is sincerely seeking Him, but for many, such a revelation <i>may</i> occur only at the instant of death, but it <u>will</u> occur.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Unfortunately, Vatican II gave the <i>invincibly ignorant</i> <b>possibility</b> a “life of its own” in the name of false ecumenism and modernism. When is the last time that you heard the Pope call on Catholics to pray the Rosary for the conversion of sinners to the <i>One True Church</i> and the <i>One True Religion</i>? Certainly, one cannot charge the Council with heresy (it <u>did not deny</u> any teachings that came before it), but the Council did not clearly teach the <b>sole</b> necessity of Jesus Christ, His Sacraments or His Church as being the <b>only</b> means of salvation.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Given our own ignorance on the salvation of non-Catholics and even our own salvation, we should follow the most conservative route. We should pray for <i>everyone</i><i><span style="font-style: normal;"> and </span>evangelize all</i>, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, and go from there. Eventually, the Truth will be known when Christ comes again, but then, it will be <b>too late</b> to do anything about it! Until then we are splitting “theological hairs,” which is where Vatican II went wrong. Instead of affirming the <b>eternal truths</b> of the Catholic Faith, the Council instead chose to <i>marginalize</i> the Deposit of Faith that the Magisterium was sworn to protect.<br />
<br />
<i>Dignitatis Humanae versus Exsurge Domine -- a solution?</i><br />
<br />
In <i>Unam Sanctam</i>, Pope Boniface states,<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><b>We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords</b>; namely, <i>the spiritual </i>and <i>the temporal</i>. For when the Apostles say: 'Behold, here are two swords' [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient<b>. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord </b>commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. <b>Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church</b>, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but <i>the former is to be administered _for_ the Church but the latter by the Church</i>; the former in the hands of the priest; <i>the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers</i>, <u>but at the will and sufferance of the priest</u>.</blockquote>Just as it is forbidden to baptize non-Catholic children against the will and wishes of their parents (unless there is danger of death), as they will not even raise that child as a Catholic, so, too, non-Catholic societies cannot be expected to promote and defend the One True Faith & Church, at least without first converting to Roman Catholicism. Since there are no more Catholic monarchies or even Catholic nations left in the World today, and as it is immoral for a non-Catholic society to suppress the True religion and/or to promote a false one (especially, by suppressing the True one), this leaves religious freedom as being the "default" position for the pagan and/or non-Catholic societies which now make-up the entire World.<br />
<br />
Finally, if the "temporal sword" is, indeed, born by the Church, then the Church has every right to tell the "temporal authorities" not to bear it, and since such, as Pope Boniface taught us, is a matter of divine law and revelation, no ecumenical council could ever vacate that which the Triune God has revealed as being true. So, clearly, the <b>Declaration</b> given by Vatican II in <i>Dignitatis Humanae</i> is, itself, reformable.<br />
<br />
Finally, consider the "contentious" paragraph from <i>Dignitatis Humanae</i>:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq">This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of <b>any human power</b>, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, <i>within due limits</i>. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that <b>just</b> <i>public order</i> be observed. (<i>Dignitatis humanae</i>, 2)</blockquote><div class="MsoNormal">It may appear to some (as it did to me for a long time!) that the above contradicts previous Church teachings, and on the surface, it does. However, note that part which I have highlighted in <b>bold</b>. Such would not apply to Catholic princes who governed Christian kingdoms during the middle ages, as they were were <i>consecrated</i> by the Church and so governed by divine right and not as a "human power." Not also the "within due limits" clause; as the "salvation of souls" is the "highest common good," a "<b>just</b> <i>public order</i>" would both demand and require the suppression of public heresy against the One True Faith and Church by the prince who was governing a Catholic Kingdom.<br />
<br />
A Catholic prince putting an obstinate heretic to death was not "compelling" that individual by "external coercion" to "be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs"; rather, the death penalty for heretics in Catholic societies was the <i>punishment</i> (hence, a <i>consequence</i>) for having spread false beliefs among the Catholic faithful, which was a crime in Catholic kingdoms. Heretics were sometimes tortured to confess their acts and not as a "means of coercion" to embrace the One True Faith, "outside of which no one at all will be saved."<br />
<br />
Note that Vatican II, in the very same document, also declared:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq">Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. <b>Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and <i>societies</i> toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ</b>. (<i>Dignitatis humanae</i>, 1)</blockquote><i>Reflections on Paragraph 847 in the CCC</i><br />
<br />
Here it is:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:<br />
<br />
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.</blockquote>Certainty for the eternal salvation of any particular non-Catholic would seem to rest upon multiple assumptions:<br />
<br />
1) That such an individual could be "certain" that what he/she "does <u>not</u> know" was due to "through <i>no</i> fault of their own."<br />
<br />
2) That such an individual was "seeking God with a sincere heart."<br />
<br />
3) That such an individual was being "moved by grace" in such a way that the Holy Spirit was choosing not to reveal the mysteries of the Catholic Faith in such a way as to make that person <i>culpable</i> for his/her "lack of knowledge."<br />
<br />
4) That such an individual was truly following "the dictates of their conscience."Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5602600947015992167.post-25796564761036139672011-04-22T07:56:00.000-07:002013-07-16T19:20:54.831-07:00Canon 844, a betrayal of the Catholic Faith?Some (namely, the SSPX) say that Canon 844 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law is "a sacrilegious betrayal of the unity of the one, true Church, outside of which there is no salvation." Now, if you have been reading my blog, you should have gotten the idea that I am a follower of Father Feeney's theology, so when someone writes "outside (the Church) no salvation," I take notice. Does Canon 844 betray <i>Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus</i>? Here's the canon:<br />
<br />
Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone, who likewise receive them licitly from Catholic ministers alone, without prejudice to the prescripts of §§2, 3, and 4 of this canon, and can. 861, §2.<br />
§2. <b>Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided</b>, the Christian faithful for whom it is <i>physically or morally impossible</i> to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from <u>non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid</u>.<br />
§3. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick licitly to members of Eastern Churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church if they seek such on their own accord and are <b>properly disposed</b>. This is also valid for members of other Churches <b>which in the judgment of the Apostolic See</b> are in the same condition in regard to the sacraments as these Eastern Churches.<br />
§4. If the danger of death is present or if, in the judgment of the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops, some other grave necessity urges it, Catholic ministers administer these same sacraments licitly also to other Christians not having full communion with the Catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who seek such on their own accord, <b>provided that they manifest Catholic faith in respect to these sacraments and are properly disposed</b>.<br />
§5. For the cases mentioned in §§2, 3, and 4, the diocesan bishop or conference of bishops is not to issue general norms except after consultation at least with the local competent authority of the interested non-Catholic Church or community.<br />
<br />
The SSPX, on their website, cite the 1917 Code of Canon Law:<br />
<br />
1917 Code of Canon Law which governs the priests’ administration of sacraments to non-Catholics is canon 731 §2, which states:<br />
<br />
It is forbidden to administer the sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics, even though they err in good faith and ask for them, <b>unless they have first renounced their errors and been reconciled with the Church</b>.<br />
<br />
Of course, the 1983 Code, as with the 1917, also states:<br />
<br />
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt <b>after the reception of baptism</b> of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; <b>schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff</b> or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.<br />
<br />
But, it also states,<br /><br />Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, <b>a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a <i>latae sententiae</i> excommunication</b>; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.<br /> §2. If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.<br /><br />which results in,<br /><br />Can. 1331 §1. <u>An excommunicated person is forbidden</u>:<br /> 1º to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever;<br /> 2º <b>to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to <i>receive</i> the sacraments</b>;<br /> 3º to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance.<br /> §2. If the excommunication has been imposed or declared, the offender:<br /> 1º who wishes to act against the prescript of §1, n. 1 must be prevented from doing so, or the liturgical action must be stopped unless a grave cause precludes this;<br /> 2º invalidly places acts of governance which are illicit according to the norm of §1, n. 3;<br /> 3º is forbidden to benefit from privileges previously granted;<br /> 4º cannot acquire validly a dignity, office, or other function in the Church;<br /> 5º does not appropriate the benefits of a dignity, office, any function, or pension, which the offender has in the Church. <br />
<br />
Of course, if we are going to take the 1983 Code of Canon Law seriously, then we need to take <i>all</i> of it seriously. So, clearly, it would be an <b>error</b>, according to the 1983 Code, to give or receive the Sacraments to/from "non-Catholics" who "refuse submission to the Supreme Pontiff." <br />
<br />
To establish that Canon 844 is wholly orthodox, we need only a <i>single</i> example of where it would apply. Let's say that you, as a faithful Catholic, were traveling in Russia, and your tour bus got into a terrible accident. Local bystanders see the accident, rush to the scene, and drag you out of the bus. You are mortally wounded. An Orthodox priest, who also witnessed the accident, rushes up to you and offers you the Last Sacraments of the Church. He asks if you are Orthodox, and you, of course, reply, "No, I am Roman Catholic." He says that he believes <i>firmly</i> and <i>faithfully</i> in <b>all</b> of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and also in <i>Unam sanctam ecclesiam catholicam</i>, that is, that the Pope, the Vicar of God and the Successor to Saint Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is the Head of the universal Church. He says that while he does not have <i>canonical</i> standing within the Catholic Church (being Orthodox) and is, therefore, technically a "non-Catholic," he does have valid orders and is, therefore, willing to give you the Last Rites.<br />
<br />
Should you accept his offer? According to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, this would surely be a <i>licit</i> circumstance to do so. Would it be licit according to the 1917 Code of Canon Law? I cannot say for sure, because I am not an expert in Latin, and the 1917 Code was promulgated entirely in Latin. No English translation of the Code exists anywhere online, but a book is available from Amazon. In my hypothetical example, however, since the Orthodox priest professes all of the Catholic Faith and accepts the Church's governance, but simply lacks canonical standing, it would, given the grave circumstances, be licit and valid to accept the final Sacraments from this priest.<br />
<br />
So, is Canon 844 a "sacrilegious betrayal" of the One True Church? I do not believe so, if one reads the Canon <i>literally</i>. I do find it ironic that the SSPX, who attacks "Feeneyism" on a regular basis even to the point of denying "Feeneyites" the Sacraments of the Church, would still assert that a priest with valid orders who professes all that the Church professes and accepts Her governance could not, under extreme circumstances, administer a licit and valid Sacrament to the Catholic faithful.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5602600947015992167.post-21232386398213985642011-04-21T15:19:00.000-07:002011-04-21T15:19:55.922-07:00Sacred Scripture, infallible and without error.A lot of modern Biblical scholars are of the opinion that the Bible, Sacred Scripture, contains errors. They will say things like, "The Gospels contradict each other, therefore, they are not reliable," or "Copyists made all of these copy errors; after all, we don't have the original manuscripts, therefore, the Gospels are unreliable." In the former, the assumption is that the manuscripts that we do have are reliable enough that errors <em>between</em> them can be firmly established; with the second, the manuscripts are not reliable enough to establish the contents of the original text. With the latter option, it is difficult to see how modern Biblical scholarship can claim to establish the existence of contradictions and/or errors in the text while at the same time claiming that the text is inherently unreliable. It seems to me that if you were going to claim that the text contains errors and/or contradictions then you must also claim that the text, as it exists today, is reliable.<br />
<br />
The scholastic theologian and scholar Peter Abelard suggested a <em>third</em> alternative, one that is rarely mentioned by modern scholars, that the contradictions in Sacred Scripture were the <em>result</em> of copyist errors. In any case, as the One and Triune God, a Perfect Being, is the author of Sacred Scripture, it stands to reason that the Bible, at least in the original manuscripts, is <em>without error of any kind</em>.<br />
<br />
As for the authenticity of modern Biblical texts, Saint Jerome, who created the Latin Vulgate, was far closer in space and time to the original events. It is undisputed that Jerome had access to manuscripts that have since been lost (how many will never be known for sure) and he was a master of the original languages -- Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, and of course, Latin. Modern scholars, of course, consider their modern translations to be superior to that of Saint Jerome. If evidence were ever to surface that Jerome's translation was, in fact, superior, it might put a dent into the academic funding of "modern" New Testament research. In any case, I believe that there are excellent reasons to think that Jerome's translation was superior, and one fact is not in dispute -- Jerome was 1600 years closer to the actual events in question.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5602600947015992167.post-84674488179823465532011-04-21T14:29:00.000-07:002015-11-02T03:53:07.810-08:00To Sede or Not to Sede.<i>Note: The following essay should be considered deprecated. Sedevacantism and its variants was a semi-valiant attempt to patch an already sinking ship. But, as with the modernistic Church, a purely natural creation of man (which, by the way, many so-called liberal Catholics will agree with!), sedevacantism is a movement which was in fragmentation from the very beginning. It is not of God, assuming, of course, that God even exists. One might as well worship some Mayan or Egyptian or say that God revealed Himself entirely to some pre-Columbian American. Get a piece of wood, paint it, put flowers on it and place it in your backyard and call it "god" if you will; that's what sedevacantism amounts to. Note that there are a substantial number of charlatans and/or perverts within the sedevacantist movement, folks who want to steal your money and/or molest your children.</i><br />
<br />
All around the Internet one can find lively debates about whether the Chair of Peter is vacant or not, the claim being that recent "occupants" are formal heretics, therefore, no longer Catholic, therefore, no longer Pope, the visible head of the Church. The arguments usually go along the lines, "Well, if I was walking in the forest and came across a dead body, I would not need a MD to judge that the individual in question was dead. The same is true of heresy." Of course, in the former circumstance, only the One and Triune God <i>knows</i> for sure if that person's soul has left his or her body.<br />
<br />
The same is true of heresy. As I cited in a previous post, not even the Church claims to know with absolute certainty if someone is truly a heretic or not; such judgments are <i>canonical</i> in nature, and as occurred in the Condemnation Trial of Saint Jehanne la Pucelle, completely <i>reformable</i>, even posthumously. Therefore, no one except <i>possibly</i> an ecumenical Council could ever judge and/or depose a sitting Pope. Even during an <i>interregnum</i>, a man is still Pope, even if that fact is known to the Holy Spirit alone. Likewise, even if a Pope falls into heresy during his Pontificate, it stands to reason that he could recover from his errors through the Sacrament of Penance and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, as "all sins can be forgiven."<br />
<br />
Just as the Church (the Council of Trent, in particular) teaches that only if the Sacrament of Baptism is <b>impossible</b> for a person to receive can his/her <i>vow</i> ( "intention and determination") suffice, the Church also teaches that a Pope loses his office if he becomes a heretic. Of course, if the Holy Spirit can prevent the latter (i.e., a Pope falling into heresy), then He can certainly prevent the former (i.e., a person being unable to receive Sacramental Baptism in Water.)<br />
<br />
Since we are not obligated to believe that sedevacantism is ever a possibility, neither are we obligated to believe that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood, in the complete absence of Sacrament Baptism in Water, is a possibility, either. Can a person be saved without Baptism of Water? Yes, absolutely. Are there people in Heaven who have died without Baptism of Water. No, absolutely not. Just as the Church teaches that people can go to Heaven without Sacramental Baptism of Water, the Church also teaches that a sitting Pope can excommunicate himself, thereby, losing his office. However, as the Church, clearly, teaches both possibilities, neither, I believe, will <b>ever</b> happen <i>in reality</i>. While this is not an official teaching of the Church, it is, nonetheless, an <i>inference</i> from Her Ordinary Magisterium.<br />
<br />
Or consider the case of the Thuc bishops. Archbishop Thuc allegedly ordained certain individuals to the episcopate; then, he claimed that he, in fact, had withheld intent during those men's ordinations, making the ordinations, of course, invalid. If true, the men in question were never validly ordained as Catholic bishops.<br />
<br />
Let's say that there was an evil bishop who lived during the 3rd-century who did the exact same thing -- he withheld <i>all inten</i>t for <b>all</b> of his episcopal ordinations. This would mean that all of the "bishops" that he "ordained" lacked valid orders, which means that all of the "bishops" that they "ordained" lack valid orders (even if they had used valid matter, form, and <i>intent</i>), also, and so forth. If true, how can we, as Catholics, living 1700 years later be sure that we have a valid episcopate?<br />
<br />
We can be sure because the Holy Spirit would <b>never</b> allow such a thing to happen; we know this to be true based upon <i>inference</i> from our Lord's words. The same is true of Sacramental Baptism in Water "not occurring" for someone who truly desires it.<br />
<br />
<i>The Pope is judged by no one, except the One and Triune God alone.</i><br />
<br />
Even assuming that the recent Popes have fallen into formal heresy, such a fact, even if it is true, can never be established let alone proved by any faithful son or daughter of the Catholic Church. Just as Pope Bonfiace infallibly declared the absolute necessity of final perseverance in the Holy Roman & Apostolic Catholic Church who's Head is the Roman Pontiff, so also he explicitly taught that the Pope has no earthly judge:<br />
<blockquote>
Therefore if the earthly power err, it shall be judged by the spiritual power; but if the lesser spiritual power err, by the greater. <b>But if the greatest, it can be judged by God alone, not by man</b>, the Apostle hearing witness. A spiritual man judges all things, but he himself is judged by no one. This authority, moreover, even though it is given to man and exercised through man, is not human but rather divine, <b>being given by divine lips to Peter and founded on a rock for him and <i>his successors</i></b> through Christ Himself whom He has confessed; the Lord Himself saying to Peter: “<b><i>Whatsoever</i> thou shalt bind</b>,” etc. Whoever, therefore, resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordination of God, unless he makes believe, like the Manichean, that there are two beginnings. This we consider false and heretical, since by the testimony of Moses, not “in the beginnings,” but “in the beginning” God created the heavens and the earth.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is <b>altogether necessary to salvation for <i>every</i> human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff</b>.</blockquote>
One cannot quote <i>Unam Sanctam</i> while at the same time professing parts of it to be false. Likewise, Pope Paul IV, in <i>Cum ex Apostolatus Officio</i>, states the same dogma:<br />
<blockquote>
In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the <b>Roman Pontiff</b>,<u>who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ</u>, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, <b>who may judge all and be judged by <i>none</i> in this world</b>, <i>may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith</i>. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfill our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling.</blockquote>
The sedevacantist position, even if it is "correct," is D.O.A.<br />
<br />
<i>Sedevacantism reconsidered</i>.<br />
<br />
I suppose that everyone has "their limits." I think that I have reached mine. In any case, I do not believe that I have judged the sedevacantist position fairly. So, "judge for yourself":<br />
<br />
http://www.cmri.org/sedevacantist-position.shtml<br />
<br />
In any case, I am going to leave my original essay as it is. Perhaps my original thoughts are correct. "Pope" Francis, if he is not a heretic, then, well, "he must play one on TV". Consider what position you would hold to when the modernists in the Catholic Church (who are, in fact, <i>outside</i> of the Church) start saying the following:<br />
<ol>
<li><i>The Assumption of Mary was allegorical</i>. It was not an historical event and Pope Pius XII never intended it as such, but Mary's ascent into Heaven was "in the minds" of those who knew and loved her. Ditto for the Resurrection of our Lord.</li>
<li><i>Jesus is my pastor and teacher</i>. He was just a man who was, perhaps, "close to God." In this sense,he was God, but so are we. The Incarnation is present in all of us.</li>
<li><i>Hell does not exist</i>. It was just a literary figure used by the Church to teach us about evil but a God of infinite mercy would never send any creature to such a place.</li>
<li><i>Moral truths develop just as scientific truths do</i>. There is no morality beyond the good of the human individual. It is to the human individual alone who must decide what his/her own moral truths are, as long as that person does not trespass on the rights of others to do the same.</li>
</ol>
What will you say, then? "Pope" Francis is already showing himself to be an Arian heretic. Here are some things which I have learned since writing the above essay over two years ago:<br />
<ol>
<li><div>
<i>The Catholic faith is immutable</i>. The Catholic faith is simply the One and Triune God's revelation to His Creation, we descendants of Adam & Eve, through His One and Only Son Jesus Christ, which He confided to His Church, the Roman Catholic Church. This revelation from the omnipotent God, a Perfect Being, is, like Him, absolutely perfect and immutable. It is only our understanding of it which can deepen over time but only without contradiction. </div>
</li>
<li><div>
<i>Truth cannot contradict Truth</i>. What the Catholic Church believes, professes, and teaches in one generation cannot contradict that which is taught in a later or earlier generation. Only in the realm of theological opinion is there, perhaps, room for growth and understanding. That which the Church has proclaimed as being infallible cannot, at later date, become "uninfallible". That would be like saying that 2+2 can, at a later date, equal some value other than 4! </div>
</li>
<li><div>
<i>A Catholics severs himself from the Church through the sin of heresy</i>. It is absurd to say that a Pope could govern the Church from whom he has severed himself due to heresy. If he can lose his soul to eternal Hell, it stands to reason that he could lose his office as well. </div>
</li>
<li><div>
<i>Popes have fallen into heresy before</i>. We have the case of Pope Honorius I, who was posthumously declared to have been a heretic by the Third Council of Constantinople. The neo-cons can't have their "Papal cake and eat it, too!" Either Pope Honorius taught heresy or the Third Council of Constantinople embraced heresy in declaring him to be a heretic. </div>
</li>
<li><div>
<i>Sedevacantism is not the same as conclavism</i>. That the Chair is vacant is the omnipotent Triune God's problem, not ours. We need to save our own souls by continuing in the One True Faith. </div>
</li>
<li><div>
<i>Heresy is like cancer</i>. It often starts out small and sometimes goes unrecognized, but gradually, it spreads before, ultimately, overtaking the entire individual. "By their fruits you will know them."</div>
</li>
</ol>
Will you follow the current "Pope" to eternal Hell, <u>or</u> will you remain faithful to the Chair of Peter (<i>perhaps</i> now vacant) and its eternal Lord and try to save your eternal, immortal soul? As for me, I choose the latter option. I gave the post-conciliar Popes and their neo-con "spin masters" the benefit of the doubt, and now, "Pope" Francis, a manifest and public heretic, has shown his true colors. He is not a Catholic, and therefore, he <i>may</i> not be a true Pope.<br />
<br />
The error is, perhaps, mine. In any case, judge for yourself and make your own decisions. Perhaps sedeprivationism is the correct conclusion here:<br />
<br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedeprivationism<br />
<br />
<i>Some quotes on sedevacantism.</i><br />
<br />
Sedevacantism or its variants cannot be considered to be heretical, because distinguished churchmen held to this possibility:<br />
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" style="margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 5%; width: 90%;"><tbody>
<tr><td><b>St. Robert Bellarmine (1610):</b></td></tr>
<tr><td class="quote">“A
Pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a Pope and
head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of
the Church.”</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" style="margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 5%; width: 90%;"><tbody>
<tr><td><b> St. Antoninus (1459):</b></td></tr>
<tr><td class="quote">“In
the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find
himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence,
separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long
as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut
off.”</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" style="margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 5%; width: 90%;"><tbody>
<tr><td><b>St. Francis de Sales (1622):</b></td></tr>
<tr><td class="quote">“Now when the Pope is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church ...”<br />
<br />
<b>Saint Alphonsus Maria Liguori, Doctor (1696-1787):</b><br />
“If,
however, God were to permit a pope to become a notorious and
contumacious heretic, he would by such a fact cease to be pope, and the
apostolic chair would be vacant.” (<i>Verita della Fede</i>, III, VIII. 9-10.)<br />
<br />
<b>St. Francis de Sales (1598):</b><br />
<br />
Now when he [a pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: 'Let another take his bishopric.' (St. Francis de Sales, <i>The Catholic Controversy</i>, pg. 306)<br />
<br />
In any case, I would continue to choose a SSPX or a Resistance chapel over a SSPV or CMRI one.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5602600947015992167.post-50585634869988440742011-04-21T12:20:00.000-07:002011-07-24T05:05:32.114-07:00Schema this, schema that.A number of Catholic (sic) progressives like to point out how the <i>Second Vatican Council</i> "rejected" almost all of the traditional <i>schemas</i> (drafts of Council documents) in favor of the more "progressive" ones. This, they say, is "proof positive" that the Catholic Church "changed" her doctrinal teachings at Vatican II, as if such were even possible. Of course, as was solemnly and forever declared at the First Vatican Council:<br />
<br />
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, #14, <i>ex cathedra</i>: "Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has <b>once been declared by Holy Mother Church</b>, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."<br />
<br />
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Canon 4, <i>ex cathedra</i>: "If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, <u>a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands</u>: <b>let him be anathema</b>."<br />
<br />
So, Vatican II could not "change" Catholic teaching and nowhere did the Council ever claim to be doing that. So, what to make of those "rejected" schemas? Here are the possibilities:<br />
<br />
1) Vatican II was trying to be <i>pastoral</i>. This was the <b>official</b> position of the Council. "It isn't <i>what</i> you say but <i>how</i> you say it," was probably the mindset of many (we hope, most) of the Church fathers. So, while they may have found the traditional and original schemas to be completely orthodox and valid expressions of the Catholic faith, they may have wanted to "tone down" the language of those schemas while at the same time affirming <i>everything</i> that those schemas were professing.<br />
<br />
2) Vatican II taught <i>poorly</i>. In trying to be nice, the Council opened-up a Pandora's box of disillusionment and confussion.<br />
<br />
3) Vatican II taught <i>error</i>. While not explicitly denying the Catholic faith, the Council promulgated teachings that are contrary to it.<br />
<br />
4) Vatican II taught <i>heresy</i>. One or more of the Council's teachings constitute a <i>denial</i> of the Catholic faith.<br />
<br />
The <i>burden of proof</i> is, clearly, on those individuals who would advance Option #3 and/or #4. Since Option 1 is the <b>official</b> position of the Council, that is the one that we ought to affirm, while retaining absolute fidelity to the Ordinary and Supreme Magisterium of the Church. We deny <i>nothing</i> which came "before" Vatican II.<br />
<br />
In any case, the following point <u>must</u> be observed:<br />
<br />
<b>The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church is <i>infallible</i>, which means that the original schemas at Vatican II, to the extent that they describe the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church, <u>are also infallible</u>. It does not matter if Vatican II "approved" them or not. Their approval comes from Heaven, the ultimate source being the immutable One and Triune God.</b><br />
<br />
Saint Vincent of Lérins (died 445) affirmed the infallible Ordinary Magisterium of the Church:<br />
<blockquote>Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, <b>all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all</b>. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow <i>universality</i>, <i>antiquity</i>, <i>consent</i>. We shall follow <i>universality</i> if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; <i>antiquity</i>, <b>if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers</b>; <i>consent</i>, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors. (Vincent of Lerins, <i>Commonitory</i>, 6)</blockquote><blockquote>But, possibly, this warning was intended for the Galatians only. Be it so; then those other exhortations which follow in the same Epistle were intended for the Galatians only, such as, "If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit; let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another," etc.; Galatians 5:25 which alternative if it be absurd, and the injunctions were meant equally for all, then it follows, that as these injunctions which relate to morals, so those warnings which relate to faith are meant equally for all; and just as it is unlawful for all to provoke one another, or to envy one another, so, likewise, <b>it is unlawful for all to receive any other Gospel than that which the Catholic Church preaches everywhere</b>. (Vincent of Lerins, <i>Commonitory</i>, 24)</blockquote><blockquote>There are innumerable instances of this kind, which for brevity's sake, pass over; by all of which, however, it is manifestly and clearly shown, that it is an established law, in the case of almost all heresies, that they evermore delight in profane novelties, scorn the decisions of antiquity, and, through oppositions of science falsely so called, make shipwreck of the faith. On the other hand, it is the sure characteristic of Catholics to keep that which has been committed to their trust by the holy Fathers, <b>to condemn profane novelties</b>, and, in the apostle's words, once and again repeated, <b>to anathematize every one who preaches any other doctrine than that which has been received</b>. (Vincent of Lerins, <i>Commonitory</i>, 63)</blockquote>Saint Thomas also affirmed the above teaching:<br />
<blockquote><b>Our Faith is identical with that of the ancients</b>. <i>Deny this, and you <b>dissolve</b> the unity of the Church</i>. We must hold this for certain: that the faith of the people at the present day is one with the faith of the people of past centuries. Were this not true, then we would be in a different church than they and, literally, the Church would not be One. (<i>On the Truth of the Catholic Faith</i>, q.14, a.12)</blockquote> Mr. Brian Kelly, in his article <i>Baptism of Desire: Its Origin and Abandonment in the Thought of Saint Augustine</i>, quotes some modern Church scholars:<br />
<blockquote>Father Jurgens: “If there were not a constant tradition in the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born again . . . etc.’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility. <b>But the tradition in fact is there, and it is likely enough to be so constant as to constitute revelation</b>.” (Jurgens, <em>The Faith of the Early Fathers</em>, Vol. 3, pp. 14-15, footnote 31)</blockquote><blockquote>Next, Rev. Bernard Otten, S.J., one-time professor of both Dogmatic Theology and the History of Dogma at the University of St. Louis, Missouri, in his <em>Manual of the History of Dogma</em> wrote: “Baptism of water, although ordinarily necessary for salvation, may be supplied by martyrdom, and under certain conditions also by the baptism of desire. <b>The former was universally admitted, but the latter was apparently denied by Chrysostom and Cyril of Jerusalem</b>.” (Vol. I, pg 351) Abbot Jerome Theisen, O.S.B., in his book, <em>The Ultimate Church and the Promise of Salvation</em>, affirms the same of Saint Gregory Nazianzen and adds Saint Basil as being opposed to the speculation.</blockquote><blockquote>And, lastly, Rahner:</blockquote><blockquote>“. . . <b>we have to admit . . . that the testimony of the Fathers, with regard to the possibility of salvation for someone outside the Church, is very weak</b>. Certainly even the ancient Church knew that the grace of God can be found also outside the Church and even before Faith. But the view that such divine grace can lead man to his final salvation without leading him first into the visible Church, is something, at any rate, which met with very little approval in the ancient Church. For, with reference to the optimistic views on the salvation of catechumens as found in many of the Fathers, it must be noted that such a candidate for baptism was regarded in some sense or other as already ‘Christianus,’ and also that certain Fathers, such as Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa deny altogether the justifying power of love or of the desire for baptism. Hence it will be impossible to speak of a consensus dogmaticus in the early Church regarding the possibility of salvation for the non-baptized, and especially for someone who is not even a catechumen. <b>In fact, even St. Augustine, in his last (anti-pelagian) period, no longer maintained the possibility of a baptism by desire</b>.” (Rahner, Karl, <em>Theological Investigations, Volume II, Man in the Church</em>, translated by Karl H. Kruger, pp.40, 41, 57)</blockquote>Of course, Saint Augustine stated,<br />
<blockquote>“Not one of the elect and predestined perishes, regardless of his age at death. <b>Never be it said that a man predestined to life would be permitted to end his life without the sacrament of the Mediator</b>. Because, of these men, Our Lord says: ‘This is the will of the Father, that I should lose nothing of what he has given me.’” (St. Augustine, <i>Against Julian</i> 5, 4)</blockquote>It may be that many of the Church fathers viewed martyrdom as being a <i>second</i> Baptism.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5602600947015992167.post-68029965559746425562011-04-21T11:26:00.000-07:002015-10-25T07:14:25.562-07:00Adam & Eve were absolutely real as was Noah & The Deluge.<i>Note: The following essay should be considered deprecated. If you buy the arguments that I once made in this essay, you might as well become geocentrists, which is what some traditional Catholics are, because, clearly, that is what the Bible teaches, and what the Catholic Church, once upon a time, reaffirmed, at least through its authentic Magisterium. I was heavily influenced by the arguments of William Lane Craig, but after seeing Craig debate Professors Lawrence Krauss and Sean Carrol, I am convinced that Craig is just a charlatan who likes to travel the World with his wife at other people's expense.</i> <br />
<br />
Almost all modern scholars and/or scientists like to consider "fundamentalist" Catholics such as myself as being "idiots," "morons," "imbeciles," etc., because we take the first 11 Chapters of Genesis <i>literally</i>. Let's consider what the world's leading "village atheist," Richard Dawkins, says in his book <i>The God Delusion</i> (page 73):<br />
<br />
"Science-fiction writers, such as Daniel F. Galouye in <i>Counterfeit World</i>, have even suggested (and I cannot think how to disprove it) that we live in a computer simulation, set up by some vastly superior civilization..."<br />
<br />
Now, to be fair to Professor Dawkins, he has never said that he believes in such a notion; however, while he refers to people of faith as "faith-heads," anti-intellectuals, etc., he never uses any of those words to describe Mr. Galouye. Let's assume for a moment that Mr. Galouye is correct, and that this entire World & Universe are nothing more than a computer simulation:<br />
<br />
You do not exist, at least your body. Neither does the computer in front of you. Likewise, you do not have any free will; everything that you do and say and everything else that everyone else does and says is the result of the <i>code</i> that runs in the computer simulation. Likewise, all natural and/or man-made disasters are segments of code (functions/procedures/routines) which execute on the grand computer that gives us all existence. (Evidently, if someone ever unplugged this computer, we would all <i>cease to exist</i>.) Natural and physical law is simply computer code that is executed frequently; a miracle would be code that executes on rare occasions, or perhaps only once and is never executed again, say, a special subroutine that is called once and then never called again.<br />
<br />
Now, if Mr. Galouye's view is correct, then the 6-day Creation, Adam & Eve, and Noah & The Deluge are completely plausible, and would simply be well-specified subroutines that were written by some alien software designer, which were then run on his cosmic computer. The "output" from these miracles (again, special code that is run only once) would be completely dependent upon our alien software designer. He or she could design certain special subroutines to have absolutely <i>no</i> output; other subroutines could be designed to have tangible output, which could be fed, as input, into various other subprocesses, perhaps, the subroutines which "spawned" (no pun intended) us.<br />
<br />
Of course, what is possible for some grand alien software developer is certainly possible for the immutable, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient One and Triune God, and since we <i>know</i> that God is a Perfect Being, we <i>know</i> that He is not a liar, and therefore, not some grand alien computer programmer.<br />
<br />
<i>Doesn't modern science and scientific findings contradict Genesis and the Bible?</i><br />
<br />
Yes, but so what? A fundamental flaw is in the minds of those (such as Dawkins) who embrace <i>scientism</i>:<br />
<br />
<b>The One and Triune God is <i>not</i> subject to the physical laws of nature, which He, after all, created.</b><br />
<br />
The existence and creation of Adam & Eve were miracles -- two fully-grown individuals do not daily appear <i>ex nihilo</i> possessing thought and speech. Only a <i>miracle</i> could explain such an event. It should come as no surprise that modern genetic evidence and evolutionary theory could not "account" for the existence of Adam & Eve any more than such theories could explain how Christ could have been conceived and born of a Virgin, turn well-water into wine, walk on water that was deeper than the length of his body, or be clinically dead for no less than 36 hours and return to life in a resurrected body that was able to pass through solid matter, appear and disappear, and rise to Heaven on its own volition out of the gravity well of the Earth. As with Adam & Eve, such things are scientifically and medically impossible, which is why such events are referred to as <i>miracles</i>.<br />
<br />
It should come as no surprise to anyone as to why modern genetic evidence contradicts the fact that all human beings descend from <i>two</i> original individuals, Adam & Eve -- the children of Eve were also miracles, in that they had DNA completely distinct from both that of their parents. No doubt if a modern geneticist tested the DNA of Eve's children, he/she would find that they were "not" the offspring of Eve, and not only were they "not" her biological children (even though she gave birth to them), but that they were "not" even related to each other! This would explain the modern genetic diversity that is seen today while retaining the absolute fidelity to the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture.<br />
<br />
What modern atheistic biologists fail to understand is that Adam & Eve, having been both specially created, had within their germ lines all the variation which we see among human beings today. This would allow all the offspring of Eve to have distinct DNA, even though they were born from the same parents. This “genetic bootstrapping” on the part of the One and Triune God would have allowed Eve’s children to marry and have sex with each other, allowing them to have normal human offspring.<br />
<br />
As with the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ, Science cannot enter the realm of the supernatural, that is, actions performed by God which violate the Law of Conservation of Energy, which He established to give order to His Creation. These events by God are what Catholic theology terms as being “miracles”: raising those who are in a state of clinical death back to normal life, restoration of an adult amputee's amputated limb (such as occurred in the Miracle of Calanda), simultaneous apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary to tens of thousands of individuals over hundreds of square miles (such as occurred with the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima), etc. <br />
<br />
Since Adam & Eve were both specially created, their bodies were not like ours. They were not conceived, but instead, were formed out of the “dust of the earth”, coming into existence possessing thought and speech. In many respects, their creation was like that of the angels, immaterial beings whom God simply willed into existence <i>ex nihilo</i>. As such, modern genetic theory and assumptions simply do not apply to Adam & Eve. We accept their existence as a matter of divine revelation which came to us through the One and Only Son of God, Jesus Christ, which He entrusted to His Church, the Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved.<br />
<br />
As for the Deluge, it was one of the grandest miracles of all time. As with the <i>Miracle of the Sun</i>, the One and Triune God wiped-out life on the <i>surface</i> of the Earth (not the oceans, of course) and then brought it back. Think of this miracle as simply "suspending" the Cosmic program, running some other programs, and then resuming the former program.<br />
<br />
<i>Atheism is stupid.</i><br />
<br />
To be an atheist (either strong/positive or weak/negative) one must assert (at least implicitly) the following:<br />
<br />
1) <b>The Universe came from <i>nothing</i> by <i>nothing</i></b>. As the Protestant apologist Dr. William Lane Craig has so eloquently argued (his denial of Catholic dogma notwithstanding), "nothing" cannot create something. No matter how one slice's it (quantum singularities, fields, and/or foam, cosmic strings, etc.) at least <i>something</i> has to start things out. For Catholics, of course, (and everyone else) that "Something" was the One and Triune God.<br />
<br />
2) <b>The Universe is infinitely old and infinite in extent</b>. Again, as Dr. Craig has shown (borrowing heavily from Saint Thomas and other scholastics), something that <i>begins to exist</i> must have a cause. Since the Universe <i>began to exist </i>(it's finite in age), it must have had a cause. Likewise, since<i> actual infinites</i> cannot exist in Nature, the Universe can neither be infinite in age or extent. (See Dr. Craig's "Hilbert Hotel" for an example of this.)<br />
<br />
3) <b>No human free will</b>. "You" are nothing more than "molecules in motion," the simple firing of neurons in a mammalian brain, the product of billions of years of mindless evolution, your conscience "self" the physical product of electrons transitioning from one quantum state to another. You have no free will nor do you have volition of any kind. Your mind is an illusion and does not really exist. And, when you die, you will cease to exist. It will be as if you were never born (unless, of course, there are infinite number of you!) Here are some examples of "molecules in motion":<br />
<ul>
<li>A mother weeping at the death of her newborn, <i>molecules in motion</i>.</li>
<li>A newly married couple joyfully having sex lost in each other's arms, <i>molecules in motion</i>. </li>
<li>A man on trial for murder, <i>molecules in motion.</i></li>
<li>Tears running down a priest's face at the Elevation, <i>molecules in motion</i>.</li>
<li>You, me, and everyone else typing at our computer keyboards, cell phones, iPods, Wiis, etc., <i>molecules in motion.</i></li>
</ul>
Evolution is materialistic and says that you and I are all "molecules in motion," nothing more. This is why evolution is stupid. Minds do not exist, free will is an illusion, just the random firing of electrons in an advanced mammalian brain. Death is annihilation. Of course, we all <i>know</i> better, don't we? If you doubt this, just consider the testimony of the late Pam Reynolds. Since consciousness can survive the death of a physical brain, such is testimonial evidence (the best kind of evidence) that the immaterial soul does exist, which Darwinian evolution could <i>not</i> have produced.<br />
<br />
4) <b>Objective moral values do not exist</b>. Rape is evolutionary advantageous -- lions "do it," so do tigers (what are left of them), and so do lots of other animals. It's "wrong," according to atheism, because the <i>culture</i> says so. Most academics and intellectuals in the days of Nazi Germany supported Hitler (as did scores of young women), but today academics disavow him, because he <i>lost</i>. Pope Pius XII, of course, commanded that Catholics <i>pray</i> for Hitler, and we know now that there was a <i>reason</i> for that. (By the way, what <i>else</i> could the Pope do??)<br />
<br />
I read Dawkins' book <i>The God Delusion</i> several times. His whole argument is in a section called "The Poverty of Agnosticism" (pages 43 to 51) where he gives his 7-point scale of belief, 1 being you are 100% convinced that God exists (strong theism) and 7 being that you are 100% that God does not exist (strong atheism). Keep in mind that earlier in the book Dawkins says that "Deism is scarcely more probable than theism." In <i>The God Delusion</i>, Dawkins says that he is "in Category 6 (<i>de facto</i> atheism) but leaning towards Category 7." In a few interviews, he has said that he is a 6.8; in another interview he said that he is a 6.9.<br />
<br />
So, let's analyze Dawkins position, shall we? Converting his equal-interval "1 to 7" scale to a ratio scale, we subtract 1; hence, Dawkins is a 5.85 (taking the average of his statements) on a 0 to 6 scale. Given this, Dawkins thinks that there is a 5.85 out of 6 chance that God does <i>not</i> exist, which means he thinks that there is a 0.15 out of 6 chance that God does exist. Computing an "odds-ratio," this means that Dawkins believes that there is a 39:1 chance, given our present evidence, that God does not exist.<br />
<br />
Now, here's a nice little article on calculating horse racing odds:<br />
<br />
http://horseracing.about.com/cs/handicapping/a/aaoddschart.htm <br />
<br />
So, a 39:1 odds means that if you bet $2, you get $80 back (the $39-bet, plus the $2 you spent on the bet.) So, what does Dawkins offer us, assuming that his "odds" are correct:<br />
<br />
Bet on Dawkins: get nothing, once you're dead, your dead. <br />
Bet on "some" God (see my other posts on Baptism): the hope to get everything.<br />
<br />
Okay, of course, this is Pascal's Wager, which Dawkins & Friends love to bash. Their flaw is, of course, in not understanding Pascal's theology (who was, of course, Catholic.) If God exists, then He (pardon the pronoun, for those secular readers among us) is either indifferent to belief (deism) or is not, and if it is the latter, it is more reasonable than not that those who seek Him will find him, even if they are born into the "wrong" religion. Even in Father Feeney's theology, the idea of "salutary repentance" is accepted, whereby God will grant mercy to those who sincerely seek Him, as evidenced by the fact that He raised people from the dead so that they could be Baptized. This means that theism, whatever its stripe, will always be a better "bet" than atheism.<br />
<br />
Now, if Dawkins is correct (God forbid!), then atoms, even in groups, do not think or posses free will. This is what Dawkins believes. If he is correct, how can he be critical of believers? We are just soda cans fizzing. Perhaps Dawkins is Pepsi, and I am Coke. Maybe you are Mr. Pibb, others readings this blog are perhaps <span style="color: black;">Mello Yello</span>. In any case, we are all the equivalent to soft drinks, <i>molecules in motion</i>. Now, how one soft drink can be critical of another is beyond me?!<br />
<br />
The "trick" to Dawkins and the New Atheists philosophy is this: <br />
<br />
<b>Atheism only makes sense if you presume the existence of God</b>. <br />
<br />
That's right! Every time Dawkins is critical of believers and our supposed "lack of intelligence," he is borrowing from <i>our</i> philosophy! He is assuming that minds exist!! But, if minds truly exist (something for you married couples to think about the next time you are with your beloved one), then how can minds be nothing more than the arrangement of molecules? For molecules, like billiard balls, are deterministic (even if the outcomes are <i>statistical</i> per quantum mechanics), just simply interacting with other according to the Laws of Conservation of Energy, Momentum, and Angular Momentum, nothing more. (Play a game of pool to see this in action!) No, minds if they exist, must be spirits, they must be souls, immaterial and non-corporeal.<br />
<br />
The fact that the brain can interact with the soul, even severely impair it, does not eliminate the <i>you</i> -- "you" are still there, when when you have been drinking heavily (God forbid), suffer a concussion, or have Alzheimer's. Perhaps your conscious self is sometimes lost within your defective, even dying, brain, but it is still there, even if we cannot "see" it or interact with it, that is, <i>you</i>. As Pam Reynold's and many, many others' testimonies of <i>veridical</i> life-after-death experiences teach us, your spirit will survive the death of your brain, either to everlasting bliss or everlasting suffering.<br />
<br />
In short, your existence, your mind, proves the existence of God, the ultimate mind. QED.<br />
<br />
<i>The "argument" from evil</i>.<br />
<br />
Because there is evil in the World, God does not exist, or so goes the "argument." Of course, with the <i>Fall of Adam & Eve</i>, death and suffering entered into the World for human beings. As for <i>natural evil</i> and suffering, such resulted from the <i>Fall of Angels</i>, which occurred long before the Creation of the Cosmos.<br />
<br />
<i>You shouldn't even exist, but you do!</i><br />
<br />
We have already seen that the Cosmos <u>must</u> be <i>finite</i>. Now, consider this:<br />
<br />
http://i.imgur.com/Dub8k.png<br />
<br />
The probability that you should exist is <i>infinitesimal</i>, which means that in a <i>finite</i> universe, you <b>must</b> have been created. QED.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5602600947015992167.post-63021020804911390332011-04-21T09:37:00.000-07:002011-10-30T11:40:53.635-07:00The Medieval Inquisitions were a blessing.I believe that Hell, a spiritual place and state of eternal torment and tortures, is absolutely real, just as every bit as real as the keyboard that I am typing on at this very moment and the very computer monitor that is displaying this text. I accept the existence of Hell, as I accept the curvature of the Earth, that our planet is a round, ball-like object in space. That the Earth is not a square, a cube, or a pancake is absolutely certain, and it is just as equally certain to say that when a human being dies physically that individual is forever judged to everlasting life or to everlasting death. Many people, of course, do not believe this, but such does absolutely nothing in changing the fact that it is absolutely true.<br />
<br />
The Medieval Catholics believed in the existence of Hell, and they believed that heresy, the <i>choice</i> to deny that which the One and Triune God had revealed to His Creation was a mortal sin. The Apostle Paul was quite clear about this, stating,<br />
<br />
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema." (Galatians 1:8-9)<br />
<br />
Some translations of Sacred Scripture use the phrase "eternally condemned" in place of "anathema." Elsewhere, Saint Paul states,<br />
<br />
"<u>To deliver such a one to Satan</u> for the <i>destruction of the flesh</i>, <b>that the spirit may be saved</b> in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 5:5)<br />
<br />
"Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander, <i>whom I have delivered up to Satan</i>, that they may learn not to blaspheme." (1 Timothy 1:20)<br />
<br />
The Medievals took such verses <i>literally</i> and how could they not do so? Our Lord said,<br />
<br />
"And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell. And if thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell." (Matthew 5:29-30)<br />
<br />
Our Lords words are clear and straightforward: Hell is real, therefore, avoid it at <b>all costs</b>. <i>However</i>, <u>before</u> engaging in self-mutilation, I would suggest that you instead <i>confess daily</i>, that is, receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation on a daily basis if you are struggling with sin, or at least weekly. You and your confessor can decide what to do if frequent confession is not assisting you in overcoming your sins.<br />
<br />
Heresy is an excommunicable offense, even in the 1983 Code of Canon Law:<br />
<br />
Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a <b>heretic</b>, or a schismatic <b>incurs a latae sententiae excommunication</b>; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.<br />
§2. If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.<br />
<br />
Note that murder, rape, and molestation of young children are <u>not</u> excommunicable offenses. <i>Choosing</i> to deny that which God, a Perfect Being, has revealed separates one from the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. Saint Thomas was quite clear about society's right, duty, and obligation with respect to those individuals who obstinately and without repentance deny the Truth:<br />
<br />
“With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, <u>but also to be severed from the world by death</u>. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.<br />
<br />
On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but 'after the first and second admonition,' as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, <i>the Church no longer hoping for his conversion</i>, <b>looks to the salvation of others</b>, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, 'A little leaven,' says: 'Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame.'” (<i>Summa Theologica</i>, IIa IIae, q.11, a.3)<br />
<br />
Strong words, to be sure, especially for a society where (at least in the Western World) belief in religious freedom is virtually ubiquitous. However, does religious freedom make sense?<br />
<br />
No, it does not. As was proven long ago, God is a Perfect Being, therefore, what He desires and "believes in" is also perfect. To say that God does not have perfect ideas and values is to say that He is not perfect, and to say that He does not have ideas and values would be to say that He is not God. To obstinately deny that which God has revealed through Christ and His Church is, therefore, to commit sin, which is anything that is contrary to the Perfect goodness of God. Since unbelief and/or a false profession of belief, as Saint Thomas has already taught us, is something that could send us to Hell forever, heresy is to the soul what murder is to the body. Not only is the heretic jeopardizing his or her own salvation, but is threatening the salvation of others, by leading them into heresy and, perhaps, everlasting damnation.<br />
<br />
Saint Thomas continues,<br />
<br />
“According to Decret. (xxiv, qu. iii, can. Notandum), 'to be excommunicated is not to be uprooted.' A man is excommunicated, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 5:5) that his 'spirit may be saved in the day of Our Lord.' Yet <b>if heretics be altogether uprooted by death</b>, <u>this is not contrary to Our Lord’s command</u>, which is to be understood as referring to the case when the cockle cannot be plucked up without plucking up the wheat, as we explained above (q. 10, a. 8, ad 1), when treating of unbelievers in general.” (<i>Summa Theologica</i>, IIa IIae, q.11, a.3, <i>ad</i> 3)<br />
<br />
“<b>In God’s tribunal, those who return are always received</b>, <i>because God is a searcher of hearts</i>, and knows those who return in sincerity. <u>But the Church cannot imitate God in this</u>, for she presumes that those who relapse after being once received, <i>are not sincere in their return</i>; <u>hence she does not debar them from the way of salvation</u>, <b>but neither does she protect them from the sentence of death</b>.” (<i>Summa Theologica</i>, IIa IIae, q.11, a.4, <i>ad</i> 1)<br />
<br />
The Medievals, in embracing (which means <i>defending</i>) the Truth, created Church courts (out of their sense of justice and fairness) to try those individuals who had embraced heretical beliefs, that is, beliefs contrary to the One True Faith. These courts were known as Courts of the Inquisitions.<br />
<br />
As many historians have recognized, the various Inquisitions were, in actuality, a very weak collective institution. Even in Spain, one Inquisitor would be assigned an area that was a few dozen to nearly one hundred square miles in area. There was no way that such an individual could ever "patrol" such an area. As long as a potential heretic did not stick out, theologically, like a "sore thumb," you would not be noticed.<br />
<br />
Even in Spain, it was not at all uncommon for criminals to "feign heresy," so that they could have their cases transferred to the ecclesiastical courts of the Spanish Inquisition. Most heretics recanted their false beliefs without being tortured, and out of the many accusations, few heretics went to the stake.<br />
<br />
While burning at the stake may seem cruel as compared to lethal injection, that form of execution was, in my opinion, a much better way to die. As modern science has taught us, one was chained <i>vertically</i>, in the middle of a bonfire, and death would come from <i>carbon monoxide</i> poisoning long before one's body would begin to experience the physical fire. This is why Inquisitor-General of France, Jean Brehal, at the Trial of Nullification of Saint Jehanne la Pucelle ("Saint Joan of Arc") stated, "Tomorrow, at the Old Market-Place, in the same place where the said Jeanne was <i>suffocated</i> by a cruel and horrible fire..." The fire was cruel, but probably not the suffocating. Jehanne probably died within the first minute or two.<br />
<br />
In any case, being burned alive for a few minutes is <b>nothing</b> compared to an Eternity of torture and torment in the "fiery furnace" of eternal Hell. Now it must be admitted that very, very few people really, truly believe in Hell, but from the vantage point of the One and Triune God, a <i>Perfect</i> Being, public opinion polls do <u>not</u> matter. In the end what Christ Himself said will be the absolute truth, "Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able." (Luke 13:24) This verse of Sacred Scripture is almost universally ignored by Catholic (sic) theologians, even though it is repeated in the Gospel of Matthew. "To each his/her own," I suppose.<br />
<br />
If you believe in the Enlightenment ideas of religious liberty, free-thought, religious and moral relativism, etc., then you believe in ideas that are foundationally contrary to <i>all</i> of the Catholic Faith and every true Pope has condemned such ideas as being absolutely heretical and contrary to the Revelation of the One and Triune God to humankind.<br />
<br />
The various Inquisitions were a blessing not a curse. Heresy is to the soul what murder is to the body; why would anyone expect Medieval Catholic societies to tolerate the presence of manifest falsehood and error in their midst??? It is infinitely better to be burned alive than to die in one's heresies and sins and then go to Hell, the fiery furnace, which will last forever. Even an relapsed and/or unrepentant heretic at the stake could, in his or her final moments, make a Perfect Act of Contrition and, perhaps, pass into Purgatory instead of Hell. Condemning such obstinate individuals to the stake was the ultimate act of mercy.<br />
<br />
Saying that the Inquisitions, excommunications, torture, etc. were wrong and/or immoral is to say that Truth does not exist, or is at least, "in the eye of the beholder." Of course, nothing could be further from the real Truth, which is the Catholic Faith, outside of which no one at all will be saved.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5602600947015992167.post-14163468543768942682011-04-20T08:28:00.004-07:002013-03-01T05:11:46.411-08:00Council of Florence & Baptism of Desire.Those who advocate baptism of desire as being part of the Ordinary and/or Supreme Magisterium of the Church like to play the same “word games” with the <i>Council of Florence</i> as they do with the <i>Council of Trent</i>:<br />
<br />
“With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and <b>the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism</b> by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God, it admonishes that sacred baptism is not to be deferred for forty or eighty days or any other period of time in accordance with the usage of some people, but it should be conferred as soon as it conveniently can; and if there is imminent danger of death, the child should be baptized straightaway without any delay, even by a lay man or a woman in the form of the church, if there is no priest, as is contained more fully in the decree on the Armenians.” <br />
<br />
Consider the following two statements:<br />
<br />
1) Only one gas station is in the town of Indiahoma, Oklahoma, which is the only remedy available to those motorists passing through who have run out of gas.<br />
<br />
2) Only one gas station is in the town of Winstar, Oklahoma, which is the only remedy available to those motorists passing through who have run out of gas.<br />
<br />
Does the claim made in Statement #1, whether it is true or false, have anything to do with the truth or falsity of the claim made in Statement #2? Since both statements are <i>independent</i> of each other, stating the first claim as fact has <i>no impact whatsoever</i> on whether Statement #2 is true or false. One could assert Statement #1 as being absolutely true while at the same time <i>care nothing</i> about whether Statement #2 is true or false. In fact, one could be <i>completely ignorant</i> as to whether Statement #2 was true or false.<br />
<br />
In declaring “the sacrament of baptism” as being the only remedy available to children, the Council was saying <i>nothing</i> about whether the Sacrament of Baptism <i>was</i> or <i>was not</i> the only remedy available to adults. The Council was simply silent on the matter, and to claim otherwise is to read text into the Council documents that is simply not present.<br />
<br />
But, once again, the SSPX and others engage in a selective reading of Florence as they do with Trent, for Florence also states,<br />
<br />
“Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally. The catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance...It is also necessary for salvation to believe faithfully the incarnation of our lord Jesus Christ...This is the catholic faith. Unless a person believes it faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.” <br />
<br />
With respect to Baptism of Desire and/or Blood, the Fathers at the Council of Florence, being masters of Aristotelian logic, recognized that the theological question of Baptism of Desire and/or Blood is moot; to say that either of those have ever occurred or could ever occur would be equivalent to “proving a negative,” that is, that something (in this case, Sacramental Baptism in Water) did <b>not</b> occur. Of course, with any individual who had attained the Age of Reason, proving that person was <u>not</u> sacramentally baptized is an impossibility. (Some try to do this with the Thief on the Cross, which is just an <i>argument from silence</i>.) Even with a stillborn infant, conditional Baptism can still be performed and it does not take too much imagination to envision a “minor miracle” by the One and Triune God (who is, after all, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent) who wills that child’s Baptism and who is certainly capable of bringing about that which He wills. While those who insist on Baptism of Desire being Catholic dogma rightly assert that “God is not bound by His Sacraments,” they rarely acknowledge the fact that neither is He “bound by His physical laws,” which He, after all, created. He is, however, bound by His Perfection, which means that He is bound by His Word, and since He has commanded every human being since the coming of His Son Jesus Christ to be sacramentally Baptized in water and since His commandments are not “impossible for us to fulfill,” we have <b>no</b> choice but to conclude that those who sincerely desire Baptism will receive that Sacrament, perhaps unknown to them in their infancy. Acknowledging this fact eviscerates any extreme hypothetical scenario that one can imagine as to why sacramental Baptism in water did not occur in the situation of a Christian martyr or catechumen. To say otherwise is to confine the theistic God to the deistic playpen. Whether God could use “extraordinary means” other than His Church and His Sacraments to save someone is irrelevant; no situation can ever be imagined that would “require” Him to do so. He can utilize “extraordinary measures” (i.e., miracles) to bring the Sacraments & the Faith to any “person (who) wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God.” To say that someone could be saved via “sincerity through invincible ignorance” is not only to deny human free will but to deny the Sovereignty of the One and Triune God, which is, of course, blasphemy. It is to claim that while God is capable of bringing His Grace to any individual that He is somehow “incapable” of bringing His Light to that person, which is both heretical and absurd.<br />
<br />
<i>Did the </i><i>Council of Florence teach Baptism of Desire and/or Blood implicitly?</i><br />
<br />
It would seem so:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
By these measures the synod intends to detract in nothing from the sayings and writings of the holy doctors who discourse on these matters. On the contrary, it accepts and embraces them according to their true understanding as commonly expounded and declared by these doctors and other catholic teachers in the theological schools.</blockquote>
Of course, Baptism of Desire and/or Blood were taught in the "theological schools." It was definitively not taught, however, that there are individuals in Paradise who have ended this life <i>without</i> sacramental Baptism.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5602600947015992167.post-30705903149501945132011-04-19T18:31:00.000-07:002013-02-28T17:54:50.970-08:00Council of Trent & Baptism of Desire.Nearly everyone other than the Saint Benedict Centers (Novus Ordo, SSPX/SSPV/CMRI) claims that the <i>Council of Trent</i> taught Saint Thomas' view on baptism of desire, and offer the following canon from Trent as "proof" of this:<br />
<br />
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session. 6, Chapter. 4, <i>ex cathedra</i>: "In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, <u>once the gospel has been promulgated</u>, cannot take place <i>without</i> the <i>laver of regeneration</i> <b>or</b> a <i>desire for it</i>, <u>as it is written</u>: Unless a man is born again of water <b>and</b> the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)."<br />
<br />
Now much has been made of the word 'aut' in this canon, which means 'or' in English. (About one-quarter of all English words come from Latin.) As far as I can tell, the following two statements are identical:<br />
<br />
1) A wedding cannot happen without a bride or groom.<br />
<br />
2) A wedding cannot happen without a bridge and groom.<br />
<br />
If anyone can see a difference between the above two statements, please email me! In any case, <b>if</b> Trent defined and/or taught baptism of desire, then we, as Catholics, are obligated to accept that, but in accepting that, we must also accept <i>all</i> of what Trent says, not just some things:<br />
<br />
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session. 6, Chapter 3, <i>ex cathedra</i>: "But although Christ died for all, <b>yet not all receive the benefit of His death</b>, but those <b>only to whom the merit of His Passion is <i>communicated</i></b>."<br />
<br />
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 8, <i>ex cathedra</i>: "But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, <b>those words are to be understood in that sense in which the <i>uninterrupted</i> unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them</b>, namely, that we are therefore said to be <b>justified by faith</b>, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without <b>which it is impossible to please God</b> and to come to the fellowship of His sons;..."<br />
<br />
Pope Pius IV, Council of Trent, Iniunctum nobis, Nov. 13, 1565, <i>ex cathedra</i>: "<b>This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved</b>… I now profess and truly hold…"<br />
<br />
The <i>Council of Trent</i> is, clearly, teaching some infallible theological truths:<br />
<br />
1) To have faith, one must have the Gospel <i>communicated</i> to him.<br />
2) After hearing the Gospel, one must <i>receive</i> it.<br />
3) After receiving the Gospel, one must <i>live</i> it, which means being Baptized.<br />
<br />
Assuming that Trent even defined baptism of desire, it is clear that the Council was speaking only of <i>catechumens</i>, that is, of people who had heard the Gospel and who had received and come to faith in it. This is why the Council stated (Session 5), "our Catholic Faith, without which it is impossible to please God..." The Roman Catechism states this:<br />
<br />
<i>Ordinarily They Are Not Baptised At Once</i><br />
<br />
"On adults, however, the Church has not been accustomed to confer the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has ordained that it be deferred for a certain time. The delay is not attended with the same danger as in the case of infants, which we have already mentioned; should any <b>unforeseen</b> accident make it <b>impossible</b> for adults to be washed in the salutary waters, their <b>intention and determination</b> <i>to receive Baptism and their repentance for past sins</i>, <u>will avail them to grace and righteousness</u>.<br />
<br />
Nay, this delay seems to be attended with some advantages. And first, since the Church must take particular care that none approach this Sacrament through hypocrisy and dissimulation..."<br />
<br />
<i>In Case Of Necessity Adults May Be: Baptised At Once</i><br />
<br />
Sometimes, however, when there exists a just and necessary cause, <u>as in the case of imminent danger of death</u>, <b>Baptism is not to be deferred</b>, particularly if the person to be baptised is well instructed in the mysteries of faith. This we find to have been done by Philip, and by the Prince of the Apostles, when without any delay, the one baptised the eunuch of Queen Candace; the other, Cornelius, as soon as they expressed a wish to embrace the faith.<br />
<br />
Some will say that the Council was simply parroting what Saint Thomas taught, that the Fathers of the Council, in laying Thomas' <i>Summa</i> on the high altar, was giving it the same authority as Sacred Scripture and the texts of the previous Church Councils. Of course, Trent nowhere mentions the name of Saint Thomas nor the <i>Summa</i> anywhere in its texts. While Saint Thomas' writings, thoughts, and opinions were certainly well-respected, it is clear that the Fathers regarded him as <i>one</i>, perhaps the <i>principle</i>, source of Catholic understanding, but certainly <u>not</u> the <i>only</i> source.<br />
<br />
Of course, if Trent had meant to define Baptism of Desire, the Council could have said something like this:<br />
<br />
If anyone says that a catechumen who has embraced all of the Catholic Faith, who lives in submission to the Roman Pontiff, and who has the vow to receive Sacramental Baptism in Water yet who, through no fault of his own, dies before receiving that Sacrament due to some unforeseen accident making it impossible for him to be Baptized, that such a person cannot attain Heaven, let him be anathema.<br />
<br />
Of course, the Council said no such thing, for reasons that I stated in my very first post:<br />
<br />
<i>On the Necessity of Sacramental Baptism in Water by the Command of the One and Triune God, according to the Council of Trent</i><br />
<br />
1) Major Premise -- The One and Triune God commands every human being, without exception, to be Baptized in Water:<br />
<br />
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 4, <i>ex cathedra</i>: "In these words there is suggested a description of the justification of the impious, how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without the laver of regeneration or a desire for it, as it is written: <b>Unless a man is born again of water</b> and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God (John 3:5)."<br />
<br />
2) Minor Premise -- The Commandments of God are not impossible for us to fulfill:<br />
<br />
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 11 on Justification, <i>ex cathedra</i>: "...no one should make use of that rash statement forbidden under anathema by the Fathers, that the commandments of God are impossible to observe for a man who is justified. '<b>For God does not command impossibilities</b>,' but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do."<br />
<br />
3) Conclusion:<br />
<br />
"There is <b>no one</b> about to die in the state of justification whom God cannot secure Baptism for, and indeed, Baptism of Water. The schemes concerning salvation, I leave to the sceptics. The clear truths of salvation, I am preaching to you." (Father Feeney, <i>Bread of Life</i>, pg. 56)<br />
<br />
Of course, if Trent had defined baptism of desire, then the Council would have contradicted itself; the Council Fathers, being trained in Aristotelian logic, recognized this fact, and therefore left baptism of desire to the realm where it had always been and belonged to, that of <i>theological opinion</i>. They, of course, knew that with God, "nothing is impossible," so they left things at that.<br />
<br />
If the SSPX and others are going to say that Trent defined baptism of desire, then they must also concede that Trent defined the absolute need for explicit faith in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation. The Council texts are quite <i>explicit</i> about this, and the Fathers were fully aware of the fact that there were large areas of the World which had not been at all touched by Catholic missionaries. The Age of Discovery had begun well over a generation earlier than Trent, and even in the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries, European intellectuals were fully aware of large groups of peoples who had not heard the message of Christ. It was not until the Enlightenment, with Sir Isaac Newton's clockwork universe, that churchmen started pushing God back into Heaven where He "supposedly belonged." Gone were the times where the Holy Spirit could minister directly to a virtuous pagan individual far from the reach of Catholic missionaries. Some other "mechanism" was needed to replace the miraculous, that mechanism, of course, being implicit faith, the mother of all heresies.<br />
<br />
If the SSPX & others want us to accept Trent's ambiguous reference to baptism of desire, then they must, <i>regardless</i>, be willing to accept Trent's crystal clear teaching on the absolute need of <b>explicit faith</b> in the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation on the part of <i>whoever</i> has the capability to have the Gospel <i>communicated</i> to him or her. Besides, even if Trent did give a "half-nod" to Baptism of Desire and/or Blood, claiming that something <i>can</i> happen is completely different than saying that it <i>does</i> happen. Followers of Father Feeney's ideas have excellent reasons to believe that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood <b>never</b> happens apart from and in the complete absence of sacramental Baptism in water.<br />
<br />
Even Saint Thomas recognized this:<br />
<br />
"As God, in accordance with the <b>perfection of the divine power</b>, <u>can do <i>all</i> things</u>, and yet some things are not subject to His power, because they fall short of being possible; so, also, if we regard the immutability of the divine power, whatever God could do, He can do now. Some things, however, at one time were in the nature of possibility, whilst they were yet to be done, which now fall short of the nature of possibility, when they have been done. So is God said not to be able to do them, because they themselves cannot be done." (<i>Summa Theologica</i>, Ia, q.25, a.4, <i>ad</i> 2)<br />
<br />
Of course, as we have already seen, Sacramental Baptism in Water is also the "<i>perfect</i> remedy of salvation." (<i>Council of Vienne</i>, Denzinger, #482) And, for Saint Thomas, the <i>actual</i> reception of the Sacrament of Baptism was more than just symbolic:<br />
<br />
"As stated above (1, <i>ad</i> 2; 68, 2) man receives the forgiveness of sins before Baptism in so far as he has Baptism of desire, explicitly or implicitly; and yet <b>when he actually receives Baptism, he receives a fuller remission</b>, as to the remission of the entire punishment. So also before Baptism Cornelius and others like him receive grace and virtues through their faith in Christ and their desire for Baptism, implicit or explicit: but afterwards when baptized, they receive a yet greater fulness of grace and virtues. Hence in Psalm 22:2, 'He hath brought me up on the water of refreshment,' a gloss says: 'He has brought us up by an increase of virtue and good deeds in Baptism.'" (<i>Summa Theologica</i>, III, q.69, a.4)<br />
<br />
If we assert that Baptism of Desire and/or Blood are doctrines, perhaps even dogmas, of the Catholic Faith but that they constitute <i>null sets</i>, that is, that they never happen, then everyone who attains Heaven, the Beatific Vision, will have died with the <i>perfect</i> remedy of salvation, which is Sacramental Baptism in Water. In other words, everyone whom the One and Triune God predestines to everlasting life is also predestined to receive Sacramental Baptism in Water. Of course, as I have already pointed out, such an assertion is impossible to <i>disprove</i>.<br />
<br />
Of course, for the Saint Benedict Center, the question of Baptism of Desire and/Blood was, in the beginning, something that was moot. Yes, the Church has taught both doctrines since Her earliest days, but as Brian Kelly pointed out in his article on Saint Augustine, the question of Baptism of Desire was hardly one that was "settled," for if it was, it is simply question-begging as to why Saint Augustine changed his opinion on the matter several times throughout his life. Even catechumens who (allegedly) died without Baptism were still conditionally Baptized after they have died, if such was possible. If the Church truly believed in Baptism of Desire and/or Blood, what would be the point of baptizing these individuals after their deaths?? So, Baptism of Desire or not, Sacramental Baptism in Water has always been considered extremely important, even for those who are in a state of physical death, and who, of course, at that point cannot express any "desire" one way or the other.<br />
<br />
Thus, the teachings of Father Feeney and Saint Thomas are fully harmonized. To claim otherwise is to claim that the Church <i>requires</i> us to believe that there are individuals who die without Baptism and who <i>suffer in Purgatory</i> due to their <i>own</i> venial sins, temporal punishment that would have been fully forgiven if the individual in question had been Baptized.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5602600947015992167.post-34893173914145036492011-04-19T06:25:00.005-07:002013-06-24T06:48:17.381-07:00Implicit submission, another absurdity.As the <i>ex cathedra</i> pronouncement by Pope Boniface VIII states, "it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." As with implicit faith, the modernistic response to this infallible declaration is to say that non-Catholics can have <i>implicit submission</i> to the Pope. As my posts on implicit faith demonstrate, such an idea is manifestly absurd. It is like saying that I can be <i>explicitly</i> "married" to my beloved wife yet at the same time I am not really married to her but am married, albeit "implicitly," to an <i>unknown</i> woman whom I have never met but will meet in Eternity and with whom I have "unconscious desires & bonds of charity" linking me to her. In other words, my marriage to my wife is an illusion even though I love her deeply, have sex with her on a regular basis, and she has given birth to five of our children, all of whom are doing fine.<br />
<br />
Consider another example, a brave Union soldier from the American Civil War. Many of these fine men fought and died to keep the United States of America as one nation. The death toll from that War was enormous, and while I am personally convinced that North & South would have united, eventually, even without the loss of 620,000 lives, the men who fought on <i>both</i> sides were brave and courageous men. To suggest, however, that a brave soldier could be fighting for either the North or the South, bravely risking his life while taking the lives of his enemy, obeying his commanding officers, going into battle on a day-by-day basis, <i>consciously</i> and obediently saying his pledges and prayers on a <i>daily</i> basis, yet on an <i>unconscious</i> level, in a way that is completely <i>unknown</i> to him, he is actually living in <i>implicit submission</i> to the <b>other</b> side (i.e. our Union soldier is really a Confederate one, but he just <i>does not know</i> that fact) even though he is killing their soldiers. This idea is an abject absurdity of the highest kind. No one, and I repeat, <i>no one</i>, can be an <i>unconscious</i> traitor. Not even Sigmund Freud would go that far!<br />
<br />
It's like saying that a soldier could be loyal to the US President, who is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, yet at the same time be disobedient to his commanding officer even when the President has told him that he must obey that individual. Do you think that such a soldier should and ought to be court-martialed for his insurrection? When could such a soldier ever <i>lawfully</i> be <i>disobedient</i> to his commanding officer? The answer is, of course, when the latter is being disobedient to the US Constitution, which is the highest law of the Land. Believe it or not, the Salvation Army understands these concepts very well!<br />
<br />
To say that one could be implicitly submitting to the Pope, who is the Vicar of Christ, while at the same time <i>opposing</i> and <i>denying</i> Catholic dogmas is an insult, not only to Catholics but to non-Catholics, also. To say that one could submit to Christ, who is the Supreme Head of His Mystical Body, the Church, while disobeying His divine command of "He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me," (Luke 10:16) is to claim that treason and/or insurrection against political and/or military authority is an impossibility. Now, of course, Protestants and most Orthodox do not believe in the Primacy of the Pope, but such does <i>nothing</i> to change the fact that they are <i>wrong</i>. In the end, maybe Christ, the Supreme Judge, perhaps will excuse them, maybe not, perhaps giving them the opportunity at "death's door" to recant, abjure, and renounce their errors and/or heresies. As for me, I think that Christ's Words are crystal clear on this question.<br />
<br />
If you acknowledge the Pope as the earthly head of the universal Church and Jesus Christ as its Supreme Head, then it is absurd to say that one could obey the latter while being <i>unlawfully</i> disobedient to the former. One might as well say that our lives are nothing but an illusion and that reality is, in actuality, a computer simulation on some "mad scientist" alien's desk. More about that "possibility" in a future post.<br />
<br />
<i>What about the Orthodox?</i><br />
<br />
If someone of the Orthodox Church <i>denies</i> the Primacy of the Pope, Vicar of God, or any other Catholic dogma, then that individual has fallen from grace and is in a state of mortal sin.<br />
<br />
To try and use the <i>Argument from Geography</i> that an individual who was baptized and raised as Orthodox cannot be guilty of schism is to say that someone who is raised in Russia cannot be guilty of espionage. This logic is absurd, and constitutes a <i>denial of human free</i><i> will</i> and/or alleges the "insufficiency" of the One and Triune God's Revelation to His Creation. It is tantamount to saying that our hypothetical person born in Russia (an all-too <i>real</i> situation, by the way), who is loyal to his/her county to the point of growing-up and joining the GRU (Russian foreign military intelligence directorate), ought not to be charged with espionage if that person spies on the US, for such a person must be "invincibly ignorant" and/or "morally inculpable" of US federal laws against espionage, since they were, after all, raised in Russia!<br />
<br />
As Saint Thomas taught,<br />
<blockquote>
If the defect in the apprehensive power were <b>nowise subject to the will</b>, <u>there would be no sin</u>, either in the will, or in the apprehensive power, as in the case of those whose <i>ignorance is invincible</i>. It remains therefore that when there is in the <b>apprehensive power a defect that is subject to the will</b>, <u>this defect also is deemed a sin</u>. (<i>Summa Theologica</i>, Ia IIae, q.74, a.1)</blockquote>
If I told you to go and find a <i>novel</i> and <i>exact</i> solution to Einstein's Field Equations of General Relativity (a set of 10 non-elliptic partial differential equations), you almost certainly would not be able to do that (I couldn't either), and such would not be your (or my) fault! If I told you that it was "absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff," then you would <i>know</i> that and would be <i>without</i> excuse. If a person is <i>capable of unbelief</i>, then he/she must also be <i>capable of belief</i>, and to claim otherwise is to deny human free will.<br />
<br />
The fact that post-Vatican II Popes do not emphasize submission to the Roman Pontiff as being a necessary but not necessarily sufficient condition of eternal life does <i>nothing</i> to change this <i>immutable</i> truth. The fact that these recent Popes sometimes assert "tongue-in-check" that 2+2 = 5 does nothing to change the obvious.<br />
<br />
You can't have your (theological) cake and eat it, too! Either the Orthodox (and, for that matter, everyone else) do not have free will and/or the One and Triune God's Revelation to His Creation is too lacking and/or defective to "convince" the Orthodox (and others) of their heresies and errors.<br />
<br />
I agree that a native Russian who spies against the US deserves <i>less</i> punishment than does a native American for the <i>same</i> crime, but the former group still gets arrested, spends time wearing handcuffs, and if convicted (which is almost always the case) is still sent to jail and prison. After all, there are <i>levels</i> in Hell, aren't there? So, God believes in <i>proportionate</i> punishment also.<br />
<br />
If you believe and profess what Pope Boniface declared in <i>Unam Sanctam</i>, then the Orthodox are <i>without excuse</i>, and we who work with the Saint Benedict Centers will continue to make that <b>fact</b> <i>known</i> to them, if only on an "implicit" basis, and especially out of charity for the salvation of their (and our) immortal souls.<br />
<br />
<i>What about Pius IX?</i><br />
<br />
Some were surprised by the election of Pope Pius IX to the Pontificate, who allegedly had some liberal tendencies, Catholic liberalism, of course, having spawned into Catholic (sic) intellectual circles out of the Enlightenment. Here is what Pope Pius IX said:<br />
<blockquote>
And here, beloved Sons and Venerable Brethren, it is necessary once more to mention and censure the serious error into which some Catholics have unfortunately fallen. For they are of the opinion that men who live in errors, estranged from the true faith and from Catholic unity, can attain eternal life. This is in direct opposition to Catholic teaching. We all know that those who are <span style="color: orange;">afflicted with</span> invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, <b>can attain eternal life by the power of <i>divine light</i> and grace</b>. For God, Who reads comprehensively in every detail the minds and souls, the thoughts and habits of all men, will not permit, in accordance with his infinite goodness and mercy, anyone who is not guilty of a voluntary fault to suffer eternal torments (<i>suppliciis</i>). However, also well-known is the Catholic dogma that <b>no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church</b>, and that those who obstinately oppose the authority and definitions of the Church, and who stubbornly remain separated from the unity of the Church and from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff (to whom the Saviour has entrusted the care of His vineyard), <u>cannot attain salvation</u>. (<i>Quanto conficiamur</i>, 7-8)</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The Church clearly declares <b>that the only hope of salvation for mankind is placed in the Christian faith</b>, which teaches the truth, scatters the darkness of ignorance by the splendor of its light, and works through love. <b>This hope of salvation is placed in the Catholic Church</b> which, in preserving the true worship, is the solid home of this faith and the temple of God. <u>Outside of the Church</u>, <b>nobody can <i>hope</i> for life or salvation</b> <u>unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control</u>. The Church teaches and proclaims that if sometimes we can use human wisdom to study the divine word, our wisdom should not for that reason proudly usurp to itself the right of master. (<i>Singulari quadam</i>, 7)</blockquote>
If we take the Holy Pontiff at his word (depending on which translation you are reading!), then <b>no one</b> can be saved <i>outside</i> the Catholic Church (and those individuals who are outside the Church <i>cannot hope</i> for salvation unless they are "excused through ignorance beyond their control" which they are <i>afflicted</i> with, or "struggling with" or "labor in", as some translations render the passage), which would, of course, include the "invincibly ignorant," which means that the "beyond their control"-group mentioned in <i>Singulari quadam</i> must still become Catholic to be saved. So, we can conclude that the One and Triune God will give the "beyond their control"-group <b><i>divine light</i> and grace</b> so that these individuals can <i>become Catholic</i>! Pope Pius IX was <u>not</u> talking about those who are "invincibly ignorant" but about those who are "<em>struggling</em> with invincible ignorance," as the Holy Spirit, by <i>His divine light and grace</i>, is trying to lead those individuals into the One True Church, which is the Catholic Church, hence, "the struggle."<br />
<br />
We <i>know</i> this to be so because the One and Triune God is a Perfect Being; as such, He cannot lie, ever, which means that He will never, by His divine light and grace, lead someone who is genuinely seeking Him into a <i>false</i> religion. Such can <u>never</u> happen; to claim otherwise is to deny the Perfection of God; it is to claim that God is a liar, that He would lead someone who is seeking Him to embrace false beliefs. The First Vatican Council would, later on, teach this fact explicitly:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
To this witness is added the effective help of power from on high. For, <b>the kind Lord stirs up those who go astray and helps them by his grace so that they may come to the <i>knowledge</i> of the truth</b>; and also confirms by his grace those whom he has translated into his admirable light, so that they may persevere in this light, not abandoning them unless he is first abandoned.</blockquote>
Still, the Pope's words were at least somewhat ambiguous. Pius IX's <i>Syllabus of Errors</i> would, of course, come <u>after</u> the above two paragraphs. Coming over a century later, the <i>Catechism of the Catholic Church</i> nowhere even footnotes the <i>Syllabus</i>. I will leave it to the reader to check what the CCC does reference from Pope Pius IX.<br />
<br />
In my opinion, Pope Pius IX "dropped the (theological) ball" without teaching anything heretical, but Catholic modernism is, of course, all about choosing which Popes to ignore.<br />
<br />
<i>Pope Pius IX's predecessor -- Pope Gregory XVI</i> <br />
<br />
"You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the <i>necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation</i>… Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that <b>THIS IS INDEED THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH</b>. He says: 'The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved.' Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: 'There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved.' Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use, but also that which… other Eastern Catholics use. We did not mention these selected testimonies because We thought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of Our instruction. Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and insulting suspicion about you. But We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies." (<i>Summo Iugiter Studio</i>, May 27, 1832)<br />
<br />
<i>The First Vatican Council -- a forgotten clarification.</i><br />
<br />
Dear Reader, take note of the fact that <i> Singulari quadam </i>was promulgated by Pope Pius IX on December 9, 1854<i> </i>and<i> Quanto conficiamur </i>was promulgated on August 10, 1863<i>. </i>The First Vatican Council opened on 8 December 1869 and adjourned on October 20, 1870 and declared the following:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>First Vatican Council -- Chapter 3 On faith</i><br />
<br />
7. And so faith in itself, even though it may not work through charity, is a gift of God, and its operation is a work belonging to the order of salvation, in that a person yields true obedience to God himself when he accepts and collaborates with his grace which he could have rejected.<br />
<br />
9. Since, then, <b>without faith it is impossible to please God</b> and reach the fellowship of his sons and daughters, it follows that no one can ever achieve justification without it, neither can anyone attain eternal life unless he or she perseveres in it to the end.<br />
<br />
13. So it comes about that, like a standard lifted up for the nations, she both invites to herself those who have not yet believed, and likewise assures her sons and daughters that the faith they profess rests on the firmest of foundations.<br />
<br />
14. <b>To this witness is added the effective help of power from on high. For, the kind Lord stirs up those who go astray and helps them by his grace so that they may come to the knowledge of the truth</b>; and also confirms by his grace those whom he has translated into his admirable light, so that they may persevere in this light, not abandoning them unless he is first abandoned.<br />
<br />
15. Consequently, the situation of those, who by the heavenly gift of faith have embraced the Catholic truth, is by no means the same as that of those who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion; for those who have accepted the faith under the guidance of the Church can never have any just cause for changing this faith or for calling it into question.<br />
<br />
This being so, giving thanks to God the Father who has made us worthy to share with the saints in light let us not neglect so great a salvation, but looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith, let us hold the unshakable confession of our hope.</blockquote>
Father Michael Mueller, in his book, <i>The Catholic Dogma: Extra Ecclesiam Nullus Omnino Salvatur</i>, sums-up the correct interpretation of Pope Pius IX's teachings and those of the First Vatican Council:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Hence it is evident that the first step towards God and salvation is supernatural knowledge of God and divine faith in the four great truths of salvation as a necessary preparatory means to obtain the grace of justification; that neither invincible ignorance of the necessary truths of salvation, nor the mere knowledge of these truths can be means to convey sanctifying grace to the soul: To the knowledge of those truths must be joined supernatural divine faith in them, confident hope in the Redeemer, and perfect charity, which includes perfect sorrow for sin and the implicit desire to comply with God's will in all that he requires of the soul, to be saved." (pg. 11-12)<br />
<br />
"All good theologians attribute justification neither to inculpable ignorance of, nor even to the knowledge of, the necessary truths of salvation; they attribute it to the infinite mercy of God, who unites himself with the soul only when it is prepared by the supernatural acts of divine faith, hope, and charity." (pg. 12)<br />
<br />
"We know what theologians say of invincible ignorance and we do not contradict them: Invincible ignorance excuses from sin in that whereof one is invincibly ignorant; but it gives no faith, no virtue; and without faith, without positive virtue, no man can be saved. The man who holds implicitly the Catholic faith, but errs through invincible ignorance with regard to some of its consectaria, and even dogmas, may be saved; but how can a man be said to hold implicitly the Catholic faith, who holds nothing, or rejects every principle that implies it? It is not safe to apply to Protestants, who really deny everything Catholic, a rule that is very just when applied to sincere but ignorant Catholics, or Catholics that err through inculpable ignorance. Protestantism does not stand on the footing of ordinary heterodoxy, it is no more Christian than was Greek and Roman paganism." (pg. 27-28)</blockquote>
You can download Father Mueller's book here:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://anonusa.net/echolot/23386974-THE-CATHOLIC-DOGMA-Extra-Ecclesiam-Nullus-omnino-Salvatur-by-Fr-Michael-Mueller-C-SS-R.pdf" target="_blank">Fr Michael Mueller -- The Catholic Dogma of EENS</a><br />
<br />
<i>To sum up.</i><br />
<br />
1)<i> Implicit submission is a denial of human free will.</i> It's like saying that a person could be an "unconscious traitor." How could someone with only "implicit submission" ever <i>choose</i> to be guilty of schism? It's like saying that an American citizen who only has "implicit patriotism" could still be guilty of treason while at the same time still be "implicitly patriotic," and therefore, not guilty of treason, in spite of that person's human <i>actions</i>. It's like saying that Osama bin Laden was "an implicit American patriot" even as he was masterminding the September 11th attacks. No court would, of course, ever accept this type of "logic."<br />
<br />
2)<i> Implicit submission is a denial of the Perfection of the Triune God.</i> The and One Triune God is a Perfect Being, therefore, He cannot lie, ever. As such, He would never, by His "divine light and grace," lead someone to believe in a <i>false</i> religion.<br />
<i><br />
</i>3)<i> Ignorantia juris non excusat. </i>This principle is <i>universally</i> recognized; ignorance of divine law & revelation may diminish one's culpability for sin; it does <u>not</u> excuse it. The "we were just following orders" is not a valid defense, so the Orthodox, even though they were raised as Orthodox, are <i>without</i> excuse.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5602600947015992167.post-17816225066326819292011-04-18T20:06:00.003-07:002014-09-29T10:50:33.791-07:00"Non-Catholic Christian," the Ultimate oxymoron.To say that one can be a <i>non-Catholic</i> Christian is to say that one can be a "married bachelor," have a "square circle," or "be six-feet tall yet be no more than five feet in height." It is saying that one can own and not own a Ford pickup truck both at the same time, or be physically located in London and in Paris at the same instance. It is to say that one can be clinically dead and in perfect, living conscious health both at the same time. The phrase "non-Catholic Christian" is the ultimate in post-Vatican II ambiguities, one which Pope Benedict XVI, as did his predecessor, fully tolerates.<br />
<br />
Of course, nearly everyone (even virtually all <i>Novus Ordo</i> Catholics) will object saying, "You mean that <i>only</i> Catholics are saved?" "Yes, exactly, such is a <i>revealed</i> Truth." Our would-be complainant at this point will continue, as did Phil Donahue in an interview on his 1980s show with a fundamentalist Protestant guest, "Do you mean that <i>all</i> Jews, <i>all</i> Muslims, <i>all</i> Hindus, <i>all</i> Buddhists, are going to Hell?" At this point in the "conversation," two facts must be acknowledged:<br />
<br />
1) It is impossible to prove that any particular individual was <u>not</u> sacramentally Baptized in water at some time during that person's infancy.<br />
<br />
2) It is impossible to prove that a person who was sacramentally Baptized in water during his/her infancy will <u>not</u> (or has not) receive (received) salutary repentance at the moment of his/her own death.<br />
<br />
The above two propositions can never, ever be disproved, even for someone who, during their entire post-infant life, claims to be a Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Protestant, Orthodox, atheist, agnostic, Aztec Indian, etc.<br />
<br />
Consider the Duggars. As a family, they live <i>some</i> of the Catholic virtues to an extraordinary degree. While Michelle Duggar did not nurse her infants for as long as traditional Catholic mothers typically nurse their babies, the Duggars have the largest family in America today, something that one would think would be true of some Catholic family. Likewise, the Duggars adhere to the Catholic moral and natural law. They do not believe in premarital sex, abortion, gay marriage, artificial contraception (apparently), strictly adhere to traditional men and women's clothing, have a patriarchal family structure, etc. What more could traditional Catholics ask for or expect in today's World?<br />
<br />
Yet, as far as I can tell, the Duggars, as a group, deny revealed Truths of the Christian faith, as well as the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, which, according to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, would make the Duggars heretics and schismatics. Now, some modernists in the Church will claim that the Duggars are "Christian," citing the Second Vatican Council of the Church. Of course, the Council did use the word "Christian" for those "ecclesial communities" not yet in "full communion" with Rome, as if there were some sort of half-communion or quarter-communion available to our "separated brethren," kind of like light beer versus the regular stuff.<br />
<br />
Of course, as I have pointed out elsewhere, traditional Catholics are not obliged to hold to the inerrancy of Vatican II, for not only did the Council fail to clearly affirm Catholic Tradition, it also gave the appearance of having contradicted itself; so even if the Council taught <i>without</i> error, it taught poorly. Even on the question of baptized individuals who deny Catholic dogma and/or Papal Primacy being "Christians," the Council was either being (excessively) charitable and/or was speaking with a "forked tongue." For if baptized individuals who deny Catholic Truth can be Christians, why, then, does the Church deny the Sacraments to these individuals except if there is a "other grave and pressing need" (Canon 844, 1983 Code of Canon Law), the Sacraments, especially, "Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for salvation by actual reception or at least by desire..."? (Canon 849) (More on "Baptism of Desire" elsewhere!) If Protestants, Orthodox, etc., are fully Christian, then they are entitled, by divine and canon law, to the Sacraments of the Church, as the Code teaches elsewhere.<br />
<br />
I am not, however, defending Vatican II nor the 1983 Code of Canon Law. What about the Duggars and other good people like them? Are they destined for eternal Hell, the "fiery furnace"? Well, I certainly hope that such is <b>not</b> the case, however, if they, as separate individuals, die outside of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, which is one and the same with the Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic Church, then, yes, absolutely, they are lost for ever and ever, some or all of them without exception. Their good works and piety will matter for nothing.<br />
<br />
Hopefully, even if they are not visibly reconciled to the One True Church before their physical deaths, we can hope that Christ will have mercy on them for their sins and errors, and through the glorious intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the many prayers and supplications of the Catholic faithful, and in virtue of their Catholic Baptisms, will allow them <i>salutary repentance</i> for their sins and heresies, enabling them, at their individual deaths, to pass into Purgatory escaping everlasting Hell. No guarantees, just a hope, and not necessarily even a "good hope."<br />
<br />
Of course, what we can hope for the Duggars we can also hope for every human being who has ever lived. What the One and Triune God can do for one, He can also do for many.<br />
<br />
<i>A message to the Duggars.</i><br />
<br />
You cannot truthfully say that you love Jesus Christ without saying, in the exact same breath, that you also love His Immaculate Bride, His Catholic Church, which is His Mystical Body, nor can you claim to have obedience towards Him, the Incarnate God, without obeying His Vicar, the Bishop of Rome. And, as Christ is "one and the same thing" with His Catholic Church and with His Pope, Vicar of God, to refuse submission to the Pope is to refuse submission to Jesus Christ, which means refusing to submit to Almighty God. And, to refuse to partake of the Sacraments of the Catholic Church is to refuse the Gifts which God has given to Us, His Creation, as well as to reject the priesthood which Christ establish through His Apostles (Saint Peter, in particular.) In other words, to truly love Jesus Christ is to love His Church, which is the Catholic Church, and to accept all that the One and Triune God has revealed through her.<br />
<br />
<i>Hell, a not-so-horrible place?!</i><br />
<br />
An "excuse" which the modernists give for not taking EENS in its literal sense ("to be a member of the Mystical Body of Christ is to be a member of the Roman Catholic Church") is that they, the modernists, cannot accept the idea that three-quarters of the World is going to eternal Hell. However, consider what Dante, without any controversy whatsoever, conceived about Hell (from Wikipedia): <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
First Circle (Limbo) </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In Limbo reside the unbaptized and the virtuous pagans, who, though not sinful, did not accept Christ. Limbo shares many characteristics with the Asphodel Meadows; thus the <span style="color: orange;">guiltless damned are punished by living in a deficient form of Heaven</span>. Without baptism ("the portal of the faith that you embrace")[6] they lacked the hope for something greater than rational minds can conceive. Limbo includes green fields and a castle with seven gates to represent the seven virtues. The castle is the dwelling place of the wisest men of antiquity, including Virgil himself, as well as the Persian polymath Avicenna. In the castle Dante meets the poets Homer, Horace, Ovid, and Lucan; the Amazon queen Penthesilea; the mathematician Euclid; the scientist Pedanius Dioscorides; the statesman Cicero; the first doctor Hippocrates; the philosophers Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Averroes; the historical figures Lucretia, Lucius Junius Brutus, and Julius Caesar in his role as Roman general ("in his armor, falcon-eyed");[7] mythological characters Hector, Electra, Camilla, Latinus, and Orpheus; and many others. Interestingly, he also sees Saladin in Limbo (Canto IV). Dante implies that all virtuous non-Christians find themselves here, although he later encounters two (Cato of Utica and Statius) in Purgatory and two (Trajan and Ripheus) in Heaven. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Beyond the first circle, <span style="color: red;">all of those condemned for active, deliberately willed sin are judged to one of the lower eight circles by the serpentine Minos</span>. Minos initially hinders the poets' passage, until rebuked by Virgil. Minos sentences each soul by wrapping his tail around himself a corresponding number of times. The lower circles are structured according to the classical (Aristotelian) conception of virtue and vice, so that they are grouped into the sins of wantonness, violence, and fraud (which for many commentators are represented by the leopard, lion, and she-wolf).[8] The sins of wantonness – weakness in controlling one's desires and natural urges – are the mildest among them, and, correspondingly, appear first, while the sins of violence and fraud appear lower down.</blockquote>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dante_Inferno#First_Circle_.28Limbo.29<br />
<br />
Perhaps most pagans, Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Orthodox, etc., and indeed, most so-called "Catholics" will find themselves in the First Circle of eternal Hell. In the End, the Triune God will give them in the next life what they desired in <i>this</i> life, a natural, "fun-filled" paradise, and the only suffering which they will experience throughout Eternity is the <i>knowledge</i> that they deprived themselves of eternal Heaven, the Beatific Vision.<br />
<br />
<i>The true meaning of anathema.</i><br />
<br />
"Pope Zachary (741-52)" said:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N-- himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment."</blockquote>
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htmUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5602600947015992167.post-28091040815982061682011-04-18T15:11:00.001-07:002012-03-27T16:49:57.055-07:00Submitting to the Pope sometimes means not obeying him.If the Pope told you in secret to <i>murder</i> someone, perhaps a personal enemy of his, would you do it? Of course, not! Murder is a grave violation of divine and natural law, and you, as a faithful son or daughter of the Church, would have not only the right but the <i>duty</i> to resist such an <i>unlawful</i> command. Heresy is <i>worse</i> than murder; it is to the soul what murder is to the body. Saint Thomas states this:<br />
<br />
"For children baptized before coming to the use of reason, afterwards when they come to perfect age, <b>might easily be persuaded by their parents to renounce what they had unknowingly embraced</b>; and this would be detrimental to the faith." (<i>Summa Theologica</i>, IIa IIae, q.10, a.12)<br />
<br />
So, clearly, even if the Pope were (or is) espousing heretical and/or approximate to heretical ideas, we have both a right and a duty to resist him. In this respect, we are submitting to him, if only for the salvation of his immortal soul (and ours.) Saint Thomas continues,<br />
<br />
“<u>There being an imminent danger for the Faith</u>, <b>prelates must be questioned</b>, <i>even publicly</i>, <b>by their subjects</b>. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glossa of St. Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2.14), 'St. Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if sometimes they stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects.” (<i>Summa Theologica</i>, IIa IIae, q.33, a.4)<br />
<br />
“It is written: ‘<b>We ought to obey God rather than men</b>.’ Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore, superiors are not to be obeyed in all things.” (<i>Summa Theologica</i>, IIa IIae, q.104, a.5)<br />
<br />
<i>Cum ex Apostolatus Officio</i><br />
<br />
Pope Paul IV, speaking with the <i>infallible</i> authority of <i>divine law</i> stated the following:<br />
<blockquote>In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff,who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, <i>who may judge all and be judged by none in this world</i>, <b>may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith</b>. Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has been to fulfill our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God, We are able, so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked husbandman and be compared with the hireling. <i>(Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, 1)</i></blockquote>In short, we do not owe <u>any</u> obedience to a heretical Pope (or to a Pope who refuses to condemn heretical beliefs) any more than an American citizen owes obedience to a traitorous President.<br />
<br />
<i>Vatican 1 -- The Purpose</i><br />
<br />
<b>For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter <u>not</u> so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine</b>, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.<br />
<br />
<i>Vatican 1 -- The Promise</i><br />
<br />
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, <b>for they knew very well that this <i>See of Peter</i> always remains unblemished by any error</b>, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren<br />
<br />
<b>This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted <i>office</i> for the salvation of all</b>, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5602600947015992167.post-82063488369238473392011-04-18T06:49:00.007-07:002014-11-30T18:18:00.482-08:00Can non-Catholics be saved?Yes, absolutely, but <b>never</b> as <i>non-Catholics</i>. This is the problem with the Second Vatican Council:<br />
<br />
"Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. <b>Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience</b>. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church <b>as a preparation for the Gospel</b>. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. <b>But often men</b>, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator. Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, <b>are exposed to final despair</b>. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature", the Church fosters the missions with care and attention." (<i>Lumen Gentium</i>, #16)<br />
<br />
The above text from Vatican II changes <b>absolutely nothing</b> of the Catholic faith, nor could it <i>ever</i> do so. (It would equivalent to saying that 2 + 2 = 5.) If the above text, poorly worded as it is, teaches that non-Catholics can be saved <i>as non-Catholics</i>, then the text is teaching manifest, public heresy, which would mean that Pope Paul VI, when he signed that document would have excommunicated himself, and the sedevacantist position would be the correct one. If anyone reads the text as teaching that non-Catholics can be saved <i>as non-Catholics</i>, he/she is guilty of manifest, public heresy and is no longer a Catholic, but an excommunicated heretic.<br />
<br />
The only way to reconcile the above text with the immutable and absolute Truths of the Catholic Faith is to say that those who "sincerely seek God" will find Him via "the Gospel," and "moved by grace," they will renounce their former false religions and convert to the One True Faith and the One True Church, outside of which no one at all will be saved. <b>No other readings of the above text can be permitted</b>. This is the present error of the current Roman Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI, in that he allows heretical readings of Vatican II, based upon the defects that the Council Fathers allowed to occur in the Vatican II texts.<br />
<br />
A new Syllabus of Errors is needed. More on that later.<br />
<br />
<i>Vatican II affirmed the Council of Florence.</i><br />
<i><br />
</i> From the "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church - Lumen Gentium":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
This Sacred Council accepts with great devotion this venerable faith of our ancestors regarding this vital fellowship with our brethren who are in heavenly glory or who having died are still being purified; and <b>it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea, the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent</b>.<b> </b>And at the same time, in conformity with our own pastoral interests, we urge all concerned, if any abuses, excesses or defects have crept in here or there, to do what is in their power to remove or correct them, and to restore all things to a fuller praise of Christ and of God. Let them therefore teach the faithful that the authentic cult of the saints consists not so much in the multiplying of external acts, but rather in the greater intensity of our love, whereby, for our own greater good and that of the whole Church, we seek from the saints "example in their way of life, fellowship in their communion, and aid by their intercession." On the other hand, let them teach the faithful that our communion with those in heaven, provided that it is understood in the fuller light of faith according to its genuine nature, in no way weakens, but conversely, more thoroughly enriches the latreutic worship we give to God the Father, through Christ, in the Spirit. (<i>Lumen Gentium</i>, 51)</blockquote>
In addition, <i>Lumen Gentium</i> referenced, without any comment, the 1949 Holy Office letter to Father Feeney, which was the only such reference made in all the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council:<br />
<br />
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdffeeny.htm<br />
<br />
That letter stated:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Accordingly, the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Cardinals of this Supreme Congregation, in a plenary session held on Wednesday, July 27, 1949, decreed, and the august Pontiff in an audience on the following Thursday, July 28, 1949, deigned to give his approval, that the following explanations pertinent to the doctrine, and also that invitations and exhortations relevant to discipline be given:</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
We are bound by divine and Catholic faith to believe all those things which are contained in the word of God, whether it be Scripture or Tradition, and are proposed by the Church to be believed as divinely revealed, not only through solemn judgment but also through the ordinary and universal teaching office (<Denzinger>, n. 1792).</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that <b><i>infallible statement</i> by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church</b>.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
However, this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Savior gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church.</blockquote>
Of course, the First Vatican Council declared:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, #14, <i>ex cathedra</i>: "Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained <b>which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church</b>, and <i>there must never be any abandonment of this sense</i> under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."<br />
<br />
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Canon 4, <i>ex cathedra</i>: "If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, <u>a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands</u>: <b>let him be anathema</b>."</blockquote>
Therefore, anyone who asserts that Vatican II contradicted the Council of Florence must also conclude that Vatican II contradicted itself, as well as the First Vatican Council; in that respect, it is pointless for dissenters to "appeal" to "Vatican II" as having overturned any Catholic dogma, which, of course, the Council never claimed to ever be doing.<br />
<br />
<i>Vatican II -- Is the glass "half-full" or "half-empty"?</i><br />
<br />
Consider this text from the "Decree on Ecumrnism - Unitatis Redintegratio":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, <u>have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation</u>. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. (<i>Unitatis Redintegratio</i>, 3)</blockquote>
Now, consider this passage from Sacred Scripture:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Or what woman, having ten silver coins, if she loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and seek diligently until she finds it? </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
And when she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, `Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin which I had lost.' </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents." (Luke 15:7-15)</blockquote>
While some (such as the SSPX) will read <i>Unitatis Redintegratio</i> as stating that Protestant sects and the Orthodox Churches are now an "ordinary means" to salvation and eternal life, the fact is that we can read the text as saying that those sects and Churches, even though they deny the Primacy of the Vicar of God, nonetheless, have a valid, sacramental Baptism within their communities. Therefore, an infant who is validly baptized, and especially one who dies before the Age of Reason, will, without any doubt whatsoever, go to Heaven, and who could ever argue which the fact that such was both "significant and important"?!<br />
<br />
The problem is, of course, concerning the state of a baptized infant who survives to the Age of Reason and beyond. The Catholic Church, of course, still teaches (and always will teach until the Second Coming of Christ) that:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Can. 868 §1. <b>For an infant to be baptized <i>licitly</i></b>:</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
1º the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
2º <u>there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion</u>; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
§2. An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.</blockquote>
<i>Vatican II -- universal salvation?</i><br />
<br />
Unless one is prepared to say that the Council was teaching the existence of a "null set" when it referred to those who "are exposed to final despair," then, no, Vatican II did not teach that everyone would be saved.<br />
<br />
<i>We ought to presume the eternal loss of all non-Catholics</i>.<br />
<br />
Pope Pius IX infallibly teaches us as much:<br />
<br />
15. <b>Condemned Error</b>: Every man is free to embrace and profess
that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider
true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices
inter," June 10, 1851.
<br />
<br />
16. <b>Condemned Error</b>: Man may, in the observance of any religion
whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal
salvation. -- Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846.
<br />
<br />
17. <b>Condemned Error</b>: Good hope at least is to be entertained of
the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true
Church of Christ. -- Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863,
etc.
<br />
<br />
18. <b>Condemned Error</b>: Protestantism is nothing more than another
form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to
please God equally as in the Catholic Church. -- Encyclical "Noscitis,"
Dec. 8, 1849. <br />
<br />
And, of course, the Syllabus of Errors was infallible:<br />
<br />
http://www.sspxasia.com/Newsletters/1998/December/When-the-Popes-spoke-infallibly.htm<br />
<br />
Question is for you, dear Reader, "Do you want to embrace the 'modernist majority' or do you want to adhere to the One True Religion with all your 'mind, body, and soul'?" The One and Triune God, a Perfect Being, is above all, Truth, which makes the answer self-evident.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5602600947015992167.post-79672571741203889652011-04-18T06:25:00.000-07:002011-06-22T05:06:54.815-07:00If the Pope said that 2 + 2 = 5, would you believe him?"No, of course not!" you would say, "The axioms of arithmetic are absolutely immutable. No one, the Pope included, could ever change that." If you agree with this (and, you must), then the axioms of Catholic revelation are just as immutable, for the axioms of arithmetic and those of Catholic revelation <i>both</i> come from the one and same <i>source</i>, the <i>immutable</i> One and Triune God. The First Vatican Council recognized this fact stating,<br />
<br />
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4, #14, <i>ex cathedra</i>: "Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained <b>which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church</b>, and <i>there must never be any abandonment of this sense</i> under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."<br />
<br />
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session 3, Canon 4, <i>ex cathedra</i>: "If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, <u>a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands</u>: <b>let him be anathema</b>."<br />
<br />
Of course, some neo-conservatives claim that only the present Magisterium can interpret what the infallible Magisterium has solemnly proclaimed. This view is, of course, manifestly absurd, for if we need the present Magisterium to interpret the "past" Magisterium who, then, is going to interpret the present Magisterium, and who is going to interpret those who interpret the present Magisterium? And, who will <i>interpret</i> them, and so forth? The answer to this dilemma is, of course, that the very <i>words</i> of the solemn definitions given by the Supreme Magisterium are their <i>own</i> interpreter.<br />
<br />
Which is of higher authority, the US President or the US Constitution? Of course, the answer is the latter. The US Constitution is, however, just a bunch of organized letters on pieces of paper/parchment. One cannot call the "US Constitution" up on the telephone, send it a letter or email, or stop by and visit it to see what it "thinks" about a particular issue. Yet, the Constitution is its <i>own</i> interpreter, for its very own words make it clear what is and is not constitutional. This is why US Supreme Court Justices issue <i>opinions</i> about the Law, because they recognize that US Constitutional Law has its own "immutable" aspects to it.<br />
<br />
While the US Constitution is based upon the deistic principles of the Enlightenment, Catholic revelation comes from the Creator of the Universe, the author and giver of both divine and natural law. Unlike the US Constitution, it is absolutely immutable, but like the US Constitution, the <i>very words</i> of the solemn Magisterial declarations are <i>self-evident</i>, and we need no one to "interpret" those words for us. The words are, themselves, their <i>own</i> interpreter and are guaranteed to be absolutely true by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, God Himself.<br />
<br />
<i>Galileo Galilei</i><br />
<br />
It was once the theological teaching of the Church that the Earth was at the physical center of the Universe:<br />
<br />
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html<br />
<br />
"Therefore . . . , invoking the most holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Most Glorious Mother Mary, We pronounce this Our final sentence: <b>We pronounce, judge, and declare</b>, that you, the said Galileo . . . have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this <i>Holy Office</i> of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (<b>which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures</b>) <u>that the sun is the center of the world</u>, <i>and that it does not move from east to west</i><i>, </i><i>and that the earth does move</i>, and is <u>not the center of the world</u>; also, that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been <b>declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture</b>, and, consequently, that you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated in the sacred canons and other general and particular constituents against delinquents of this description. From which it is Our pleasure that you be absolved, provided that with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in Our presence, <b>you</b><b> abjure, curse, and detest, the said error and heresies</b>, and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome."<br />
<br />
Yep, the Church can err; not the Holy Spirit, of course, but human beings. In the case of Galileo, it was not the first time, nor will it be the last. The Magisterium is infallible just as the One and Triune God is immutable, but unlike the latter, it is just not infallible all the time. If such were the case, then the Pope would be perfect, which would mean that he was not a human being, but the Incarnate God, Jesus Christ. The Pope's imperfection is just proof that he is a fallible human being. His charisma of infallibility stems not from him, but from the immutable God, the Holy Spirit. Because he is human, he is incapable of exercising that charisma all the time in everything that he does, but only under special circumstances and only when he so indicates.<br />
<br />
The verdict against Galileo did <u>not</u> meet the criteria for Papal infallibility. Some, Catholic and non-Catholic, are scandalized by the fact that the geometry of the solar system and Universe (the latter, of course, came well <u>after</u> the life of Galileo) were not part of the <i>Deposit of Faith</i>. Of course, neither was the recipe for a Big Mac, the formula for Nexxus hair conditioner, or the thrust-to-weight ratio for a working space shuttle given as part of divine revelation either. Were such truths necessary "for us men, and for our salvation"? I do not believe so, which is probably why the One and Triune God did not include such facts as part of His general revelation to the World.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5602600947015992167.post-87033372117222060892011-04-17T19:20:00.002-07:002015-10-28T04:52:55.500-07:00The Miracle of the Sun proves that the Catholic Faith is true.<i>Note: The following essay should be considered deprecated. It is likely that the events at Fatima were due to "hypnotic hysteria"; not everyone saw the so-called miracle, and some individuals were emphatic that <b>no</b> miracle had, in fact, occurred that day.</i> <br />
<br />
The Miracle of the Sun that occurred on October 13, 1917 was the One and Triune God's gift to a doubting and skeptical World. Why the miracle occurred at a certain place and a certain time, predicted to the exact moment at the exact location, at least several times months in advance may somewhat be a mystery, though, the three visionary children at Fatima asked the Blessed Virgin Mary for a "sign" and she granted their request. While extension documentation exists about the miracle in books by Father John De Marchi and John Haffert with Dr. Almeida Garrett's first-hand testimony being available online, an excellent argument for the miracle's authenticity comes from skeptics. Professor Richard Dawkins, in his book <i>The God Delusion</i> (pages 91-92), states the following about the Miracle of the Sun:<br />
<br />
“On the face of it mass visions, such as the report that seventy thousand pilgrims at Fatima in Portugal in 1917 saw the sun ‘tear itself from the heavens and come crashing down upon the multitude’, are harder to write off. It is not easy to explain how seventy thousand people could share the same hallucination. But it is even harder to accept that it really happened without the rest of the word, outside Fatima, seeing it too — and not just seeing it, but feeling it as the catastrophic destruction of the solar system, including acceleration forces sufficient to hurl everybody into space. David Hume’s pith test for a miracle comes irresistibly to mine: ‘No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish.’<br />
<br />
It may seem improbable that seventy thousand people could simultaneously be deluded, or could simultaneously collude in a mass lie. Or that history is mistaken in recording that seventy thousand people claimed to see the sun dance. Or that they all simultaneously saw a mirage (they had been persuaded to stare at the sun, which can’t have done much for the eyesight.) But any of those apparent improbabilities is far more probable than the alternative: that the Earth was suddenly yanked sideways in its orbit, and the solar system destroyed, with nobody outside Fatima noticing. I mean, Portugal is not that isolated.”<br />
<br />
In his analysis, Professor Dawkins, the world’s leading “village atheist,” makes a number of errors:<br />
<br />
1) The witnesses were <b>not</b> staring at the sun. It had been raining heavily that morning, so much that some people had taken shelter in their cars or under horse carriages. Most, however, had no choice but to stand in the mud and standing water. One witness was seated in his car and only came out after the miracle had begun. In addition, Portugal, being in the Northern Hemisphere and it being mid-October, the sun was <i>behind</i> the crowd, who were facing the <i>opposite</i> direction.<br />
<br />
2) The miracle was witnessed over 20 miles away by numerous groups of people scattered across six hundred square miles of terrain. Most of these individuals were simply going about their daily activities when the miracle occurred. Here are a sample of the available testimonies:<br />
<br />
<i>Albano Barros — 8 miles from Fatima</i>:<br />
<br />
“I was watching sheep, as was my daily task, and suddenly there, in the direction of Fatima, I saw the sun fall from the sky. I thought that it was the end of the world.”<br />
<br />
<i>Joaquim Lourenco — 9 miles away from Fatima</i>:<br />
<br />
“I feel incapable of describing what I saw. I looked fixedly at the sun which seemed pale and did not hurt my eyes. Looking like a ball of snow, revolving on itself, it suddenly seemed to come down in a zigzag, menacing the earth. Terrified, I ran and hid myself among the people…”<br />
<br />
<i>Mrs. Guilhermina Lopes da Silva — 16 miles away from Fatima</i>:<br />
<br />
“I was looking toward the mountain at noon when suddenly I saw a great red flash in the sky. I called two men who were working for us. They, of course, saw it, too.”<br />
<br />
3) Not everyone in the crowd was a believer and not everyone was expecting the miracle to occur. Some individuals were atheist and converted to Catholicism after witnessing the miracle.<br />
<br />
4) In addition to seeing the Sun turn into a dancing, fiery pinwheel over the course of 10 minutes, many testified to the fact that the soaked ground and their drenched clothes became instantaneously dry.<br />
<br />
5) The miracle was predicted to the exact moment at noon on 13 October 1917 in the exact location, which is why 100,000 people (Dr. Joseph Garrett’s estimate) were present.<br />
<br />
6) Scientists were also present that day and have provided firsthand accounts of the event. None of them has ever offered a natural explanation of the event.<br />
<br />
7) No witnesses 40 or more miles away from the epicenter of the event reported seeing anything unusual, a distance that, due to the curvature of the earth, would have placed the miracle below their horizon. No social/psychological theory postulating mass hallucinations or mass escasty can account for this.<br />
<br />
8) It was never claimed by anyone, either before or after the miracle, that the physical sun would undergo any type of physical transformation; rather, it was prophesied on at least three separate occasions that a miracle on 13 October 1917 would occur “so that all may believe.” No believer in the Miracle of the Sun has ever claimed that the physical sun at the center of our solar system underwent <i>any</i> type of physical transformation and/or disturbance of any kind. The miracle that occurred that day was prophesied to be a local one, which was the motivation behind people <i>traveling</i> to the Cova da Iria fields in the first place. They wanted to <b>see</b> the miracle for themselves.<br />
<br />
The movie <i>The 13th Day</i> (available on DVD and from Netflix) is a wonderful depiction of the actual events of Fatima. You can also buy the movie from Amazon:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002LDCZCU?ie=UTF8&tag=exteccnulsal-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=B002LDCZCU">The 13th Day</a><br />
<br />
The late John Haffert's book <i>Meet the Witnesses</i> is also a must read:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?ie=UTF8&keywords=Meet%20the%20Witnesses&tag=exteccnulsal-20&index=books&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325">Meet the Witnesses</a><br />
<br />
As is Father John de Marchi's book:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?ie=UTF8&keywords=Immaculate%20Heart%3A%20The%20true%20story%20of%20Our%20Lady%20of%20Fatima&tag=exteccnulsal-20&index=books&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325">The Immaculate Heart: The true story of Our Lady of Fatima</a><br />
<br />
Dr. Almeida Garrett's testimony is available here:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/miracle.asp">The Miracle of the Sun</a><br />
<br />
<i>Other evidences for the Catholic Faith.</i><br />
<br />
Just so no one can accuse me of being biased, I'll reference Wikipedia!<br />
<br />
<i>The Miracle of Calanda</i>. This is one for the "Why won't God heal amputees" folks. Man has leg amputated, and a few years later, his leg is miraculously restored to him:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Calanda<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">This one had me going for awhile, a few years, in fact, but, then, I asked myself the obvious question, "Where's the body?" It seems like this one was a "forgery gone bad," but once the Church had embraced it (via, the local vicar), it was just too embarrassing for them to let go. Just as some religious superior had likely burned Galileo's letters (whose body is still around!), so, too, the body of Pellicer was quietly disposed of in an unknown and unmarked grave.</span><br />
<br />
<i>The Miracle of Lanciano.</i> Priest doubts the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist and prays for belief:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">The Church refuses any subsequent scientific examination! What are they hiding?</span><br />
<br />
<i>Our Lady of Zeitoun.</i> Some claimed to have seen it, others did not. In any case, even the skeptics claimed to see something. Judge for yourself:<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Zeitoun<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">I think that there was some forgeries with this one, but it is probably just a natural phenomenon coupled with some religious hysteria.</span><br />
<br />
<i>The 500 hundred witnesses</i>. Few, if any, modern Biblical scholars doubt that the Apostle Paul wrote 1st Corinthians or that he wrote it in the early to mid 50s.<br />
<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_15<br />
<br />
Most scholars, except for radicals such as Robert Price, accept the authenticity and antiquity of the Pauline Creed which is contained in 1st Corinthians 15. Read it for yourself.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">I think that Price is right ("pardon the pun!"). Saint Paul was a narcissistic epileptic with delusions of grandeur who cherry-picked events from his own life. And, as with alien abductions in our own day, large groups of people can claim to see things that are not there! Even President Jimmy Carter claimed to have seen a UFO!</span><br />
<br />
<i>The Blood of St. Januarius</i>. If it's truly real blood, then skeptics have a problem! "The science" seems to suggest that, at least so far:<br />
<br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Januarius#The_Blood_Miracle<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Once again, the Catholic Church refuses any direct examination of the supposed "blood"; more likely, we are dealing with a medieval forgery here.</span><br />
<br />
<i>Evidences for Theism, in general.</i><br />
<br />
One again, all references come from Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
<i>Pam Reynolds Near-death experience</i>. Be sure to also check-out her BBC interview on YouTube. She's dead now, but I don't think that she was lying. For starters, she never set out to sell her story:<br />
<br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pam_Reynolds_case<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">She may have been lying. Difficult to say. Fact is that these so-called "near death" experiences are far and few between. I am not sure why folks have a problem with the hypothesis that Ms. Reynolds' was a liar; people can and do lie all the time! In any case, "time will tell" on this one!</span><br />
<br />
<i>The Kalam Cosmological Argument</i>. Can anything "infinite" really exist in nature? And, yet, that is what physicists have to "appeal" to in order to make their theories "fit" an atheistic, materialistic universe:<br />
<br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Craig is just an idiot who is milking his "flock" for as much money as he can get. See his debates with Professors Lawrence Krauss and Sean Carroll for two prime examples of Craig's dishonest scholarship.</span><br />
<br />
<i>Fine-tuned Universe</i>. Quantum Mechanics was supposed to be on "its way out" decades ago, only to be replaced by more exotic, yet "simpler", theories (sometimes called "TOEs") which "explain" how the Universe created itself by nothing from nothing. And, yet, the "fudge factors" which give us our reality still remain:<br />
<br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Ditto. </span><br />
<br />
<i>ET, phone home!</i> Republican conservatives, wisely, cut funding for this decades ago, as it has been the biggest "non-result" in the history of Science. If materialistic evolutionary theory were true (as Dawkins believes), where are the "millions" of alien civilizations in the Cosmos:<br />
<br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_for_extraterrestrial_intelligence<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">When this happens, Francis and/or his "successors" will adapt, because they want the money to keep flowing! But, if there is one other intelligent civilization elsewhere in the Cosmos, then there could be trillions upon trillions upon trillions, perhaps an infinite number of such civilizations. Jesus of Nazareth starts to look rather insignificant in that regard, doesn't he? But, in the event of First Contact, the Catholic Church will continue to want your money! Guaranteed!!</span><br />
<br />
<i>What about the 'Wow' signal?</i><br />
<br />
Read about it yourself:<br />
<br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">And, I have read about it, and it seems just as plausible as any so-called Catholic miracle. Why not just "have faith" that it was a genuine, albeit, one-time, extraterrestrial transmission? No doubt that ET has his/her own "Messiahs".</span><br />
<br />
Some say that traditional Catholicism is not falsifiable, but as Pope Pius XII observed in <i>Humani generis</i>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely
polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty.
For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either
after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their
origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of
all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. <b>Now it
is no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which
the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching
Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which
proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which
through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own</b>.</blockquote>
which you can also read about here:<br />
<br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humani_generis#Polygenism<br />
<br />
While the modernists are happy to accommodate and acclimate ET into their theology, true Catholics (and, even atheists) know that if there was no "first Adam", then Christ could not have been the "second Adam." It's "game over," if ET exists, which means that this entire blog of mine and all of its essays and contents have been a colossal waste of time.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">There was no "first Adam"; again, if you're going to believe in that, why not just become a geocentrist and reject all scientific findings.</span><br />
<br />
<i>For Protestants</i>. <br />
<br />
Where did the Canon of Scripture come from? And, if you think that the Holy Spirit guided the Councils of Carthage in deciding which books of the Bible were sacred and which were not, why do you believe that the One and Triune God would abandon His Church after that point or not have guided her before the Canon of Scripture was defined? It just does not make sense:<br />
<br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">As the great author James Joyce once said, "I have lost my faith, not my mind." Protestantism, whatever its "flavor", is just dumb.</span><br />
<br />
<i>For the Orthodox</i>.<br />
<br />
Your idea of Christ's Church is that of a Body without a Head. Sure, you're not in communion with Rome, as you deny dogmas of the Christian faith which the One and Triune God revealed through His One and Only Son, Jesus Christ, Truths which Saint Peter, the first Bishop of Rome, was entrusted to care and guard until the end of time; but you're also not in communion with "each other." Why should anyone believe that one Orthodox faith is superior to another? Indifferentism? Makes no sense, as the Law of Non-contradiction proves -- you "both" can't be right, but you both can be wrong. Either that or Truth does not matter, which means that God is not Perfect, which means that He is not God. While arguments for and against the Papacy can be made, which is more consist with the Nature of a Perfect and Infinite Being? A visible Church with a visible head? Or, one with no head:<br />
<br />
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_the_Roman_Pontiff<br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Ditto.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5602600947015992167.post-35495563567780285962011-04-17T13:29:00.000-07:002015-10-25T06:10:59.364-07:00Women & girls should only wear skirts and/or dresses.<i>Note: The following essay should be considered deprecated. (But, of all of my essays, this one has received the most views!) But, clearly, with the death of Catholicism, you should simply view the Bible solely in light of modern historical scholarship, which plainly teaches that the Sun goes around the Earth. In any case, women should wear skirts/dresses, at least on occasion, because you look great when you do!</i> <br />
<br />
That women (and hence, girls) should only wear women's clothing is plainly taught in Sacred Scripture:<br />
<br />
"A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel: for he that doeth these things is <i>abominable</i> before God." (Deuteronomy 22:5)<br />
<br />
Of course, naysayers of this opinion will say that the Bible does not teach that women can only wear skirts/dresses. They will say, "Look at Mary and Joseph! Joseph did not wear pants. Or, look at Chinese women, they wear pants or pant-like clothes." In using these arguments, they are ignoring a fundamental principle:<br />
<br />
<b>Women's clothing does not always consist of dresses and/or skirts, but dresses and/or skirts are <u>always</u> women's clothing.</b><br />
<br />
It is simple question-begging to say that women should only wear skirts/dresses, for if pants/trousers were acceptable for women to wear, why did women, for <i>centuries</i>, <u>not</u> wear those types of clothing? To say that it was "only cultural" is to ignore the arguments of the culture, which, for <i>centuries</i>, cited Deuteronomy 22:5 as the reason why women/girls could <i>only</i> wear skirts. A small minority of little girls and young ladies, for centuries, would on occasion don pants, and when discovered, their Moms & Grandmothers would sit them down, open up their Bibles, and read Deuteronomy 22:5, which they would cite as the reason why they needed to, immediately, change their clothes. As a matter of fact, historically, it was rather unthinkable until the early 1900s for a woman to be in pants or trousers, and even then, such was the rare exception. Prior to 1900, such overt cross-dressing was very rare (the early advocates of women's suffrage were heckled in public for wearing pants, forcing almost all of them to return to skirts), and almost unheard of prior to 1800. Of course, there were some exceptions, as I will discuss further on.<br />
<br />
Roman Catholic canon law and Magisterial teaching took Deuteronomy 22:5 literally. The <i>Synod of Gangra</i>, called by Constantine, condemned the wearing of men's clothing by women:<br />
<br />
Canon XIII: If any woman, under pretence of asceticism, shall change her apparel and, instead of a woman’s accustomed clothing, shall put on that of a man, <b>let her be anathema</b>.<br />
<br />
Likewise, Saint Thomas teaches,<br />
<br />
"As stated in the foregoing Article, outward apparel should be consistent with the estate of the person, according to the general custom. Hence <b>it is in itself sinful for a woman to wear man's clothes</b>, or vice versa; especially since this may be a cause of sensuous pleasure; and it is expressly forbidden in the Law (<i>Deuteronomy 22</i>) because the Gentiles used to practice this change of attire for the purpose of idolatrous superstition. <i>Nevertheless this may be done sometimes without sin on account of some <b>necessity</b></i>, either in order to hide oneself from enemies, or through lack of other clothes, or for some similar motive." (<i>Summa Theologica</i>, IIa IIae, q.169, a.2, <i>ad</i> 3)<br />
<br />
Of course, some will say that pants are "women's clothing," which at best would be an argument that says that objective moral values should <i>capitulate</i> to modern secularized "values." However, this "argument" ignores the evidence. Even in 2011, skirts/dresses are still "women's clothing." California Code - Section 12947.5 states the following:<br />
<br />
"(a)It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to refuse to permit an employee to wear pants on account of the sex of the employee."<br />
<br />
Of course, this is question begging. If skirts/dresses were not "women's clothing," why would some employers be forcing women to wear them, and what motivation would there be for the California legislature to grant women legal protection to wear pants?<br />
<br />
Likewise, AB 196 provides legal protection to transgender men who wish to wear skirts/dresses, requiring that "that each employee be permitted to dress in accordance with the employee’s gender identity."<br />
<br />
So, in conclusion, the California Code of Law provides legal protection to women who do <i>not</i> wish to wear dresses and/or skirts as well as legal protection to men who <i>do</i> wish to wear dresses and/or skirts.<br />
<br />
Finally, some will appeal to Pope Nicholas I, who wrote to King Boris I of Bulgaria: "Whether you or your women wear or do not wear trousers neither impedes your salvation nor leads to any increase of your virtue" (sive vos, sive feminae vestrae, sive deponatis, sive induatis femoralia, nec saluti officit, nec ad virtutum vestrarum proficit incrementum - <i>Patrologia Latina</i>, CXIX, 1002).<br />
<br />
Pope Nicholas was, however, addressing <i>Bulgar</i> women and not other Catholic women. If you are Chinese, then, yes, certainly, you are absolutely free to dress <i>according to your own culture</i>, which is what Saint Thomas taught. However, as Cardinal Siri noted in his letter <i>Men's Dress Worn By Women</i>, in Western culture women have, historically, worn skirts/dresses and men have worn pants/trousers, which has been the custom for <i>centuries</i>. To say that modernistic secularism can change this immutable truth is to say that modernistic secularism can change <i>other</i> immutable truths of natural and divine law, which is both heretical and absurd.<br />
<br />
To say that women should wear pants/shorts is also to ignore what the Blessed Virgin Mary revealed at Fatima when She stated, "Certain styles and fashions are being introduced which <i>gravely offend</i> My Divine Son."<br />
<br />
<i>Response to Catholic Answers Forum.</i><br />
<br />
Most of you do not accept my arguments, except, for "Angela," (hope that I guessed your real name correctly -- sorry if I did not) and to her, I would say, "If you are troubled about wearing pants/trousers, then, yes, just wear skirts and/or dresses whenever possible, that is, most, if not nearly all, of the time." Of course, if you have to fight a fire and/or are in outer space, then, yes, I think that Saint Thomas would say that you have "a similar motive" to the other motives which he gave for "wearing men's clothing." And, you do not have to dress like some "prairie girl." Old Navy, T.J. Max, Nordstrom (a bit expensive, but with good sales), etc., have lots of feminine and modest skirts which extend below the knee. Ditto for blouses. To my pleasant surprise, I just saw a woman last week walking her infant in a beautiful and modest dress with an underskirt, so, clearly, even those are still "in vogue." You don't have to look like "a dork" to wear a skirt and "blend in." And, of course, an immodest dress and/or skirt can sometimes be made modest with the right sweater, jacket, or underskirt.<br />
<br />
Let me address the points which I read from skimming your message thread: 1) "Is wearing pants a mortal sin?" Don't think that I have ever claimed that one?! Probably not, but is not pleasing the Triune God the most important thing in your life?! 2) Most of you acknowledge the fact that "Biblical arguments" were used in the past to keep women in skirts. But, since the culture, over time, ultimately did not embrace those arguments, then such "proves" that the arguments were <i>ipso facto</i> wrong to begin with? Hardly. Just because "the culture" goes one way does not mean that we should follow it?! But, yes, "the victors are the ones who write history." 3) Yes, Padre Pio did not like women in pants, or, for that matter, in skirts which went just below the knee. But, clearly, the good Padre did not accept the cultural norms of <i>his</i> day, which allowed women to wear pants, shorts, and even knee-length skirts. Clearly, Padre Pio had his <i>own</i> values! 4) "My arguments are illogical?" For instance, the California legislature is right in protecting working women who want to wear pants but is wrong in protecting men who want to wear skirts?! Says <i>who</i>? You?! If so, why??! 5) "Insane rant?" So, anyone who disagrees with you and your neo-con Catholicism is "insane"?<br />
<br />
May the One and Triune God Bless you, Angela! And, you don't need a Novus Ordo priest and/or an atheistic therapist. Find a SSPX chapel near you, and if one is too far away, then move:<br />
<br />
http://sspx.org/<br />
<br />
By the way, SSPX women typically are skirt-wearing women and girls:<br />
<br />
http://sspx.org/en/notification-about-women-wearing-male-clothing<br />
<br />
And, stop posting at CAF and start posting here:<br />
<br />
http://www.cathinfo.com/<br />
<br />
Matthew and his wife, our moderators, won't close your threads!<br />
<br />
<i>Moral Theology, by John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan, May 24, 1958</i><br />
<br />
2569. (c) The Sin of Defect.—This is committed when one's mode of life is not up to the reasonable standard of one's community, especially if this is due to negligence or itch for notoriety or disregard for decency. Examples are those who through carelessness go about unwashed or unshaven, who keep their quarters in a filthy and disorderly state, or who wear their clothing untidily; also <b>females who dress in male attire</b>, nudists who appear undressed in public places, and cynics who scorn the conventions of refined society. It is not sinful, however, but a virtuous act of temperance, to wear simpler and poorer garments from the spirit of mortification and humility (Heb., xi. 37). The clergy and religious, since they should be models of the penitential spirit, are to be praised, therefore, when they give an example of plainness and simplicity in personal style and dress.<br />
<br />
http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/35354/pg35354.htmlUnknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5602600947015992167.post-89633471745860183582011-04-17T12:10:00.000-07:002015-10-25T07:06:34.764-07:00The existence of objective moral values.<i>Note: The following essay should be considered deprecated. This fact troubled Darwin, but if God does not exist, then there are no objective moral values. The only moral values are those which society determines for itself, with the associated consequences for those members who disobey and/or disregard those values. The Catholic Church has abrogated its claim to be the fundamental arbiter of that which is intrinsically "right" or "wrong", which means that the Church was never right to begin with.</i> <br />
<br />
The deistic and/or pantheist views of God are manifestly false. We know from the <i>ontological proof</i> that God is perfect, therefore, it is absurd to say, as do deists and/or pantheists, that we as human beings possess attributes that God does <i>not</i> posses, namely, our conscious free wills. Any goodness that can be found in us (such as our free will, which we can use for good or for evil, the latter being something that is <i>not</i> perfect) can also be found in God, but with Him, unlike us, such an attribute is absolutely perfect. Since, therefore, God must also be a <i>person</i> (albeit, a perfect one), the values which He has are also absolutely perfect, and being perfect, such values must also be absolutely immutable. Therefore, objective moral values exist.<br />
<br />
Now, those acts of men which are intrinsically good or intrinsically evil will always be intrinsically evil or intrinsically good, since God, being a Perfect Being, is absolutely immutable. Hence, what He considers to be an ultimate good or abomination will <i>always</i> be ultimately good or bad, not only for our generation, but for past and future generations as well. Human acts such as abortion, artificial contraception, homosexual relations, fornication, adultery, blasphemy, heresy, schism, thievery, envy, etc. will always be intrinsically evil actions while giving, self-sacrifice, marital fidelity, honesty, reverence, charity to the poor and less fortunate, justice, orthodoxy, lawful obedience, kindness, forgiveness, love, etc. will always be intrinsically good.<br />
<br />
Since traditional Catholics ought to derive their morals from divine and natural law, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and orthodox theologians, it is necessary to consider a somewhat "divisive" issue that has slipped (almost) "through the cracks" -- the wearing of men's clothing by women.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5602600947015992167.post-33376851626013887512011-04-17T07:36:00.000-07:002015-11-08T05:11:37.917-08:00Right-wing liberals and Unam Sanctam.<i>Note: The following essay should be considered deprecated. The Bark (Barque) of Peter was always predicted to endure no matter how bad things got to be in the "World", which is why submission to it was "necessary for salvation" for <b>all</b> human beings; you can look in Denzinger online to see many examples of this clear teaching. But, with Francis, the Catholic Church has embraced a contradiction (i.e., public adulterers being admitted to Holy Communion) which is <u>impossible</u> to reconcile with Tradition, which means that Tradition is just a farce.</i><br />
<br />
Pope Boniface VIII's papal bull <i>Unam Sanctam</i> deserves some special consideration. The right-wing liberals would have us believe that Boniface's bull was nothing more than a papal response to a local political conflict with Philip IV, King of France. What they will <u>not</u> tell you is the following:<br />
<br />
1) Nowhere in his papal bull does Pope Boniface ever mention the name of King Philip or the nation of France.<br />
<br />
2) Pope Boniface begins his bull with these words, "<i>Urged by faith</i>, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins..."<br />
<br />
3) He concludes his bull with a <i>quote</i> from Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Church's principle theologian, "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."<br />
<br />
4) He signs his bull with the following words, "The Lateran, November 14, in our eighth year. As a <i>perpetual memorial</i> of this matter."<br />
<br />
5) Pope Bonfiace's successor, Pope Clement V, reaffirmed Pope Bonfiace's <i>ex cathedra</i> pronouncement, stating, “That is why we do not wish or intend that any prejudice be engendered for that king and kingdom by the definition and declaration of our predecessor Pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, which began by the words <i>Unam Sanctam</i>.”<br />
<br />
6) Likewise, Pope Clement VI (1342-1352) would state, “We ask if you believe and the Armenians obedient to you, that <b>no man of those travelling outside the faith of the same Church and obedience to the Pontiff of the Romans can finally be saved</b>; [...and] if you have believed and believe that all those who have set themselves up against the Faith of the Roman Church and <b>have died in final impenitence have been damned and have descended to the perpetual torments of hell</b>.” (<i>Super Qibusdam</i>)<br />
<br />
7) The Council of Constance infallibly declared the need for <i>explicit faith</i> in the Supremacy of the Roman Church (hence, <i>explicit submission</i> to the Roman Pontiff):<br />
<br />
<b>Condemned Error 41</b>: It is not necessary for salvation to believe that the Roman church is supreme among the other churches. (<i>Council of Constance</i>)<br />
<br />
8) At the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517) Pope Leo X reaffirmed the teaching of Boniface VIII: “Where the necessity of salvation is concerned <i>all the faithful of Christ must be subject to the Roman Pontiff</i>, <b>as we are taught by Holy Scripture</b>, <b>the testimony of the holy fathers</b>, and by that constitution of our predecessor of happy memory, Boniface VIII, which begins Unam Sanctam.”<br />
<br />
A few paragraphs later the Council would declare, "For, regulars and seculars, prelates and subjects, exempt and non-exempt, <b>belong to the one universal church, outside of which no one at all is saved</b>, and they all have one Lord and one faith."<br />
<br />
9) The First Vatican Council infallibly declared the following:<br />
<br />
“If anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and not one of <u>true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself</u>: <b>let him be anathema</b>.” (<i>First Vatican Council, Chapter 1, Canon 1</i>)<br />
<br />
“If anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by <b>divine law</b>) that blessed <u>Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church</u>; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: <b>let him be anathema</b>.” (<i>First Vatican Council, Chapter 2, Canon 5</i>)<br />
<br />
“If anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not <u>the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church</u>, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern <u>the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world</u>; or that he has only the principal part, but not <u>the absolute fullness</u>, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and <u>over all and each of the pastors and faithful</u>: <b>let him be anathema</b>.” (<i>First Vatican Council, Chapter 3, Canon 9</i>)<br />
<br />
10) According to the <i>1917 Code of Canon Law</i>:<br />
<br />
"After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one] is a heretic." (Canon 1325)<br />
<br />
11) Pope Pius XII taught:<br />
<br />
"But we must not think that He rules only in a hidden or extraordinary manner. On the contrary, our Divine Redeemer also governs His Mystical Body in a visible and normal way through His Vicar on earth. You know, Venerable Brethren, that after He had ruled the "little flock" Himself during His mortal pilgrimage, Christ our Lord, when about to leave this world and return to the Father, entrusted to the Chief of the Apostles the visible government of the entire community He had founded. Since He was all wise He could not leave the body of the Church He had founded as a human society without a visible head. Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in virtue of his primacy is only Christ's Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisible, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth. After His glorious Ascension into heaven this Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter too, its visible foundation stone. <b>That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter <i>Unam Sanctam</i>; and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same</b>." (<i>Mystici Corporis</i>, 40)<br />
<br />
12) According to the <i>1983 Code of Canon Law</i>:<br />
<br />
Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; <b>schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church <i>subject</i> to him</b>.<br />
<br />
Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a <b>schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication</b>; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.<br />
§2. If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.<br />
<br />
In conclusion, <i>none</i> of what is contained in Pope Bonfiace's papal bull is "new" theology, and what was stated was reaffirmed, explicitly, over the next several centuries.<br />
<br />
13) The <i>Catechism of the Catholic Church</i> states:<br />
<br />
816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our <b>Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care</b>, commissioning him and the other apostles to <b>extend and rule it</b>.
. . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the
present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is
governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with
him." <br />
<br />
The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is
through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help
toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be
obtained. <b>It was to the apostolic college alone</b>, <u>of which Peter is the head</u>,
that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New
Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into
which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to
the People of God."<br />
<br />
87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "<b>He who hears you, hears me</b>", the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms. <br />
<br />
Pope Boniface, in <i>Unam Sanctam</i>, gave a shorter summary of the above:<br />
<br />
"If, then, the Greeks or others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter and his successors, they necessarily confess that they are not of the sheep of Christ; for the Lord says, in John, that there is one fold, one shepherd, and one only."Unknownnoreply@blogger.com