[THIS MAN POSTED A COMMENT ON OUR ARTICLE, Does God Create Homosexuals? BELOW IS OUR RESPONSE]
You are lying, that is not and never has been the teaching of Mother Church. I remember being different from other boys as far back as age 3...
I am a Catholic and I accept whole and undefiled the doctrines of the Church. I identify with the Resistance of Bishop Williamson. So you cannot claim I am a Modernist, I am simply saying you are not accepting the true Catholic teaching on same sex attraction. It is not because of my sins, but original sin and our fallen nature and race that I have the attractions I have. I remember as a child, saying so many times to God, that He needed to fix my broken sexuality, because I couldn't. No matter how much fasting, how many Rosaries, how many Confessions and Communions, no matter how much penance, nothing changed. I always was attracted to girls as well, but I always liked other boys as well. Christ gave this to me as a cross to take up daily.
The Holy Catholic Church was founded by Christ not as a prison of persecution, but a hospital for the broken men and women. Christ is our loving God and Saviour because we are not perfect, yet He loves us beyond the comprehension of man. It may condemn an action or heresy, but will never turn someone away who seeks Christ. His religion is the largest worldwide source of relief for the poor, the hungry, the sick, and repentant. It opens up the doors of unending compassion, for sinners of all kind, for single mothers, widows, orphans, married and divorced. For gay, for straight and for bi for the lonely and for sinners of all kind; her mission is the same. It is that of Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man, Eternal King of the Ages, as she is His Mystical Bride made up of the Mystical Body. Her mission is to save souls. The Church teaches that although it is not of the Natural order that one is homosexual it is not a sin in itself, for one cannot sin if he has not done anything wrong. We are called to a life of celibacy and to be holy, just as all Christians are called to be holy. That is okay, because in reality what people long for is not sex, but love - to love and to be loved, it whatever form. Sexual love is just one form of love, but agape, love love on God can give is so much greater.
I don't want to sound as if I'm not making Holy Mother Church's teachings clear that sexual actions outside of a true marriage between man and woman are sinful, but rather I am also professing that with the Holy Church has always believed. That all people are children of the living God and He loves us all for whoever He made us to be. And that we all will be happiest and holiest when serving Him in the lifestyle He has by Divine Wisdom called us to. Because the Church is not for the Saint but the sinner. Those that are gay, are no different that those who are straight, we are all called to chastity and sexual purity. We all must unite ourselves the Christ and His cross, like Mary, Our Lady of Sorrows. St. Paul said in Scripture, I hath been crucified with Christ: now I liveth not, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loveth me, and gave Himself for me.” He is doing what all are called to do by Our Blessed Divine Lord, “Then Jesus saith unto his disciples: If any man wishes to come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it.”
MHFM: Joseph, your letter is a prime example of why you remain afflicted with a perverted same-sex 'attraction'. You are lying to yourself and rejecting the truth. Our position is very clear: same-sex attraction is not natural. It is the result of sin and a rejection of God, as Romans 1 teaches (see below). You make reference to some alleged ‘Catholic teaching’ which you believe contradicts our position. You believe this ‘teaching’ declares that there is nothing perverted about men being attracted to men, and women being attracted to women, but you cite nothing of course. That's because no such teaching exists.
You also state: “I identify with the Resistance of Bishop Williamson. So you cannot claim I am a Modernist…” This is an example of how you are quite deceived. Identifying with the false resistance of Bishop Richard Williamson doesn’t prove you are not a modernist. On the contrary, it actually proves that your positions are heretical and schismatic, and that you are following a modernist. Richard Williamson is a modernist, a heretic, and a schismatic. He is not a true Catholic. You really need to watch this video: The Truth About The SSPX, The SSPX-MC, And Similar Groups (video). It proves that the 'Resistance' you are embracing is not Catholic.
You should also see this file on him: Williamson, Bishop Richard of the SSPX: a schismatic and a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Among other things, Richard Williamson holds that one may attend the invalid, non-Catholic New Mass. He declared that the notorious idolater and apostate Antipope John Paul II was a “good man”. He declared that the notorious apostate Benedict XVI is “in good faith”. He denies the dogma Outside the Church There Is No Salvation, as all priests ordained by the SSPX do. He, in fact, holds that Jews, Muslims, etc. can be saved without the Catholic faith, contrary to the dogmatic teaching of the Council of Florence. He therefore does not profess the Catholic Church's teaching on salvation. In addition to being heretical, his positions are TOTALLY SCHISMATIC and involve a rejection of papal infallibility. He does not have the true faith. His positions are a rejection of Catholic truth about the Papacy. The 'Resistance' is false and schismatic. Those who obstinately follow him or embrace his positions do not have the true faith. To obstinately embrace his positions, or those of the 'Resistance', is to be the equivalent of the schismatic ‘Old Catholics’ or the Eastern ‘Orthodox’. You need to reject his false positions and embrace the true Catholic faith, as covered in our material. Once you do that and get into the state of grace, then you can and will be delivered from your perverted inclinations.
You also profess heresy when you state that “all people are children of the living God”. No, all people are not children of God. It is only through the true faith of Jesus Christ that one becomes a child of God. “But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, to them he gave the right to become children of God…” (John 1:12) Those outside the true Church aren’t children of God. Since you don’t have the true faith at this time, and you are deceiving yourself on these matters, you can’t see the truth about your spiritual situation.
Even though you don’t say it explicitly, you imply that you were ‘gay’ from your earliest years, even from the age of three. We doubt you have such memories from that age. Homosexuals deceive themselves and frequently lie. But even if one were, for the sake of argument, to accept your claim to have been a conscious homosexual from the age of three, we would respond thus: if you claim to have been conscious of such things from the age of three, that suggests that you reached the age of reason at the age of three. Well, as soon as one arrives at the age of reason, he can reject the truth. He can resist or reject God and sin mortally. Deliverance to unnatural attractions can be the result of such a rejection of God, even from an early age. Some people are just not of the truth. Some people just refuse to have God in their knowledge (Romans 1:28), and they make that decision early on. St. Thomas explains that as soon as a person reaches the age of reason, he can direct himself to the proper end or he can refuse to do so. If he chooses to do the latter, he sins mortally. Since you claim to have possessed such an understanding of yourself and your activity from the age of three, then you could have refused to have God in your knowledge and rejected the proper end at that age. That could be why you have same-sex ‘attraction’, and had it from a very early age. But it’s more likely that you rejected God and the truth a number of years later than you describe, and that resulted in your perverted inclinations.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt. I-II, Question 89, A.6: “Now the first thing that occurs to a man to think about then [when he reaches the age of reason] is to deliberate about himself... whereas if he does not then direct himself to the due end, and as far as he is capable of discretion at that particular age, he will sin mortally, for not doing that which is in his power to do.”
You were given over to homosexuality as a result of your resistance to the truth. You can be delivered from it when you actually become a real Catholic. Our material covers the true positions, and it explains how to become a true Catholic. But don’t expect to be delivered from your perverted inclinations while you are following a schismatic false resistance that denies papal infallibility, among other things. You will only be delivered if and when you embrace the true faith and get into the state of grace. We hope you embrace the true faith. When you do, the true power of God's grace will be available to you. Until then, your prayers (and the other acts you mention) won't be efficacious. It's necessary for your salvation to embrace the true faith.
Romans 1- “Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened… who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error… they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.”
Sister Lucia of Fatima To Fr. Fuentes, 1957: “Look, Father, the Most Holy Virgin in these last times in which we live has given a new efficacy to the recitation of the Holy Rosary. She has given this efficacy to such an extent that there is no problem, no matter how difficult it is, whether temporal or above all, spiritual, in the personal life of each one of us, of our families, of the families of the world, or of the religious communities, or even of the life of peoples and nations, that cannot be solved by the Rosary. There is no problem I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we cannot resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary.”
What can I get for $10.00?
... Greetings. I am a nineteen year old student from Sheffield, North England, studying at the University of Sheffield. I am a practicing Catholic, having begun my conversion from unbelief about two and a half years ago. I began watching your videos not so long after having begun my conversion, while I was still at a Novus Ordo church. I began by watching, if I remember correctly, the video comparing Benedict XVI and Alexander VI, and found it shocking. I moved onto your videos concerning salvation, and the errors of Vatican II and scandals of the Vatican II sect. Thank you for your work: I have found it most compelling and edifying.
I do have a few vexing questions I'd like to ask, though, before I would feel comfortable in fully accepting your positions...
[For example]: the invalidity of the Novus Ordo 'priesthood' and the invalidity of the New Mass. I would reject ordinations in the New Rite utterly if there weren't any apparent 'Eucharistic miracles', as there reportedly have been in a number of New Masses. We have the examples of Salt Lake and Buenos Aires. What would be the explanation for such happenings?
That's all I have for now. I hope you can find the time to respond.
Joseph S. Clarke
MHFM: We’re glad that you came across the material. People should be convinced of the positions we hold because they are based upon and proven by the teaching of the Church and the revelation of Jesus Christ. If you sincerely pray 15 decades of the Rosary each day and the Hail Mary frequently, and continue to look at the material, we believe you will become convinced of the positions.
To your question: With regard to so-called ‘Eucharist miracles’ at the New Mass, the answer is that there aren’t any. The few that have been reported are definitely false signs and wonders of the Devil or simply false reports. As an example of some of the false reports, a Novus Ordo publication stated:
Other recent reports of bleeding hosts have turned out to be false. For instance, last May, several blogs showed a photograph of a bleeding host at St. Patrick Church in Rochelle, Ill. At least one report even claimed the host had turned to flesh and blood. The pastor, Father Johnson Lopez, confirmed to the Register that it was only bacteria. “I truly believe in miracles, and an extraordinary miracle of the Eucharist would be a blessing for our community, but there was no miracle,” he said. (National Catholic Reporter)
Those that are not false reports are certainly false signs. Sacred Scripture specifically warns us that such false signs and wonders will happen in the final days. See 2 Thess. 2:9 and Matthew 24:24.
2 Thessalonians 2:9-12: “Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying. That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.”
Matthew 24:24-25: “Then if any man shall say to you: Lo here is Christ, or there, do not believe him. For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Behold I have told it to you, beforehand. If therefore they shall say to you: Behold He is in the desert, go ye not out: Behold He is in the closets, believe it not.”
Moreover, our recent video on Magicians is very important to consider in this regard. It proves that the Devil is capable of working major false signs.
The Devil can only do what God permits him to do, but God sometimes allows him to perform lying wonders to deceive people. In fact, as the Magicians video shows, in many cases the signs worked by modern magicians are similar to those reported in the places you mention. Satan can’t turn bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, but he can make bread appear to bleed with regular blood as part of a false sign. We also learn this from the story of the Exodus.
Exodus 7:19-22- “And Moses and Aaron did as the Lord had commanded: and lifting up the rod, he struck the water of the river before Pharao and his servants: and it was turned into blood. And the fishes that were in the river died… And the magicians of the Egyptians with their enchantments did in like manner; and Pharao’s heart was hardened…”
That’s why one must always assess and judge these matters not by alleged signs and wonders, but by the teaching of Jesus Christ and His Church. The teaching of the Magisterium must always be our guide. It gives us the answer. According to the Church’s teaching, the New Mass is certainly a false and invalid service because it lacks a valid form. The New Rite of Ordination is also absolutely invalid based on Catholic teaching. The evidence against both is overwhelming and irrefutable. Moreover, the fruits of the New Mass are undeniably rotten and wicked. Even without considering the dogmatic evidence against the validity of the New Mass, when one thinks of all its rotten fruits and of all the souls being led into sin there, does it make any sense that God would work a miracle at the New Mass? No, it doesn’t.
God doesn’t work miracles to confirm people on a path to sin and Hell. Rather, in this time of apostasy God has allowed the Devil, as a punishment for sin and unbelief, to work numerous false signs that mislead those who receive not the love of the truth. Receiving not the love of the truth means resisting the true revelation of Jesus Christ and the teaching of the Magisterium. It means not judging all things by that teaching and rule. People who are not guided by the Magisterium are inclined to strange voices, to false doctrines, and to lying signs. When they resist what God has revealed and His Church has taught, sometimes God will give them over, in a powerful way, to be convinced by (or subjected to) the aforementioned deceptions as a punishment for their dishonesty and unbelief.
Another example of lying signs would be the many false apparitions that have occurred all over the Vatican II sect (the end-times Counter Church) during this apocalyptic period. Some of those false apparitions contain blatant heresies. They have been used to defend or support absurd notions, such as that people who promote false ecumenism and idolatry are good and should be followed. They are deceptions from Satan, just like any claim that there is a miracle in the New ‘Mass’. The New Mass is a false and invalid service. It is actually an abomination, and it must be avoided under pain of grave sin.
This is an extremely interesting and shocking new video. It totally exposes one of the biggest frauds we’ve ever seen in the ‘traditional Catholic movement’. It exposes a false traditionalist heretic and liar named Eric Gajewski (a.k.a. TradCatKnight). Gajewski is a false traditionalist who constantly claims to have the most followed traditional Catholic apostolate in the world, but his claim is totally false. The reality is that his alleged ‘following’ is almost totally fake. He buys fake followers, fake ‘likes’, fake comments, and more all to prop up his elaborate deception. Indeed, the level of his fraud and deception is astounding. This is a must-see video for anyone familiar with the aforementioned individual. It shows again that the Devil is active, and is working to mislead people. He uses heretics and wicked people.
This is one of the most important videos we have ever produced. Among other things, it covers a new biblical proof of the Papacy that is of great significance.
Dear Brothers, I had a discussion which didn't end well with a protestant who happens to be my roommate for a period of 3 weeks. It concerned family planning. He holds that artificial family planning is not sinful. He also said that "it is sinful to give birth when you know you cannot take care of the child". It’s obvious he failed to realize that it is God who opens and shuts the womb and that a woman shall be saved "THROUGH" child bearing, even when I tried to prove that from Scripture. He lost complete trust in God and fails to realize the sinfulness of his position. When I brought up 1 Tim. 2:15, his version (the King James version) read: "she shall be saved 'IN' child bearing" instead of "THROUGH" child bearing. He argued that the verse teaches that a woman will be saved from death when giving birth if she perseveres in faith, love sanctification & sobriety (i.e. when IN is used). I told him that it may be a mistranslation in his version. I tried to give him example of some mistranslations in the KJV, like the one of John 3:36, but he wouldn't accept that because I could not provide the Greek version to prove that it is "THROUGH" not "IN". That is why I need your help on this. Looking forward to your response. May God bless your work.
BRO. PETER DIMOND
Referring to “woman” (as mentioned in 1 Timothy 2:14), the Greek text for 1 Timothy 2:15 says “σωθήσεται” (she will be saved) “διά” (through/by means of) “τῆς τεκνογονίας” (the childbearing). In this verse “διά” clearly means “through” or “by means of.”
1 Timothy 2:15- “Yet she [the woman] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”
The Textus Receptus, the Greek text upon which the King James Bible was based, says the same.
1 Timothy 2:15, Textus Receptus: “σωθήσεται δὲ διὰ τῆς τεκνογονίας ἐὰν μείνωσιν ἐν πίστει καὶ ἀγάπῃ καὶ ἁγιασμῷ μετὰ σωφροσύνης.”
Therefore, the Greek text clearly says that the woman will be saved “through” or “by means of” childbearing. (By the way, the English translation of 1 Tim. 2:15 in the King James Bible, which has “saved in childbearing,” was not necessarily a mistranslation. That’s because, as someone else pointed out, in the English used at the time the King James Bible was written, the preposition “in” had a wider application than it does in English today. At that time, the preposition “in” was commonly used to mean “by” or “by means of.” Regardless, the original Greek of 1 Timothy 2:15 says that “she will be saved through childbearing.”)
Obviously, this verse refutes Protestant theology in a number of ways. Many Protestants even admit that it’s an extremely difficult verse for them to understand. When confronted with 1 Tim. 2:15 in a debate, one Protestant did not even attempt to explain it. He simply said that “it’s quite mysterious.” Another well-known Protestant named William D. Mounce stated concerning the verse: “V 15 is certainly one of the strangest verses in the New Testament.” (Pastoral Epistles, Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2000, 143.)
They find it troubling, mysterious, and strange simply because it completely contradicts their false theology. First, by teaching that a woman must continue in faith and holiness to be saved, it clearly teaches that someone who has the faith (i.e. a justified Christian) could lose salvation. That refutes the idea of once saved always saved. Second, by teaching that a woman’s actions will be a factor in whether she attains salvation (and therefore whether she maintains justification), the verse refutes the idea of justification by faith alone.
The Bible teaches that women are saved through childbearing because, for most women, fulfilling their state of life as wives and mothers, in accordance with the true faith, is what they must do in order to be saved. By fulfilling their state of life they will be saved – “if they continue in [true] faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” The verse also emphasizes the importance of being open to children – a powerful reminder of how God condemns all forms of birth control. That vexes Protestants as well, for almost all modern Protestants accept or practice some form of birth control. Protestants’ acceptance of birth control is another clear proof that they don’t have the true Christian faith. Here are two videos which demonstrate how both the Bible and the Catholic Church forbid all forms of birth control under pain of mortal sin.
Since the person with whom you are conversing seems to be inclined to King James Onlyism, he should definitely see this video. It covers a number of very important matters relevant to the history of the King James Bible, Bible translations, and the text of Scripture.
Here are some other relevant videos.
The following article is our personal opinion on this subject. If there is a decision by the Magisterium in the future on this issue, or one from the past we have overlooked, we subject ourselves to it. Based upon papal teachings that MHFM has researched, we are not aware of any magisterial teaching on whether any animals can go to Heaven. It is our opinion that, at the very least, certain animals do go to Heaven. In Apocalypse 19, we are given a vision of Heaven. Jesus Christ is seen on a horse and the armies of the Word of God follow Christ on horses.
Apocalypse 19:11-17- “And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called faithful and true, and with justice doth he judge and fight. And his eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many diadems, and he had a name written, which no man knoweth but himself. And he was clothed with a garment sprinkled with blood; and his name is called, THE WORD OF GOD. And the armies that are in heaven followed him on white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean…. And I saw an angel standing in the sun, and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that did fly through the midst of heaven: Come, gather yourselves together to the great supper of God.”The word translated as “Heaven” in many passages of the New Testament, including Apoc. 19:11, is from the Greek word ouranos. It can refer to the sky or the region in which God dwells. The context of this chapter, which speaks of God sitting on His throne (Apoc. 19:4), makes it clear that “Heaven” in this passage refers to the region in which God dwells. St. John describes the opening of God’s region, as Christ comes to Earth. Animals are said to be there, with Christ and His armies riding on horses. One might assert that the horses on which Christ and His armies ride are simply symbolic. But would God give us a symbolic picture of animals in Heaven, if the very concept of animals in the next world is repugnant to the ultimate reality? Moreover, the supposition that these descriptions are purely symbolic is no more definitive than the position that they provide us with an actual picture of what will occur. The early Church father St. Irenaeus (2nd century) seemed to believe that the description of Apoc. 19 constitutes an actual representation of the future reality.
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book IV, Chap. 20, #11, A.D. 180: “And again, he says, speaking of this very same Lamb: And behold a white horse; and He that sat upon him was called Faithful and True; and in righteousness does He judge and make war… And the armies of heaven followed Him upon white horses, clothed in pure white linen. And out of His mouth goes a sharp sword… And He has upon His vesture and upon His thigh a name written, King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Rev. 19:11-17). Thus does the Word of God always preserve the outlines, as it were, of things to come, and points out to men the various forms (species), as it were, of the dispensations of the Father, teaching us the things pertaining to God.”The Lord Jesus Christ stated: “Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God?” (Luke 12:6)
Apocalypse 5:13: “And every creature, which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them: I heard all saying: To him that sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb, benediction, and honor, and glory, and power, for ever and ever.”St. Francis Paola (1416-1507) was one of the greatest miracle workers in the history of the Catholic Church. He had a special interest in animals. He had a pet lamb and a pet fish. He raised his pet fish to life after it had been killed, cooked and smashed to pieces by another priest.
“Francis had a favorite trout that he called ‘Antonella.’ One day one of the priests, who provided religious services, saw the trout swimming about in his pool. To him it was just a delicious dish, so he caught it and took it home, tossing it into the frying pan. Francis missed ‘Antonella’ and realized what had happened. He asked one of his followers to go to the priest to get it back. The priest, annoyed by this great concern for a mere fish, threw the cooked trout on the ground, shattering it into several pieces. The hermit sent by Francis gathered up the broken pieces in his hands and brought them back to Francis. Francis placed the pieces back in the pool and, looking up to Heaven, praying, said: ‘Antonella, in the name of Charity, return to life.’ The trout immediately became whole and swam joyously around his pool as if nothing had happened. The friars and the workers who witnessed this miracle were deeply impressed at the saint’s amazing powers.”St. Francis also raised his pet lamb, Martinello, from the dead after it had been eaten by workmen.
“Being in need of food, the workmen caught and slaughtered Francis’ pet lamb, Martinello, roasting it in their lime kiln. They were eating when the Saint approached them, looking for his lamb. They told him they had eaten it, having no other food. He asked what they had done with the fleece and the bones. They told him they had thrown them into the furnace. Francis walked over to the furnace, looked into the fire and called ‘Martinello, come out!’ The lamb jumped out, completely untouched, bleating happily on seeing his master.”It’s noteworthy that St. Francis Paola called the animals by their names even after their lives had ended. He apparently believed they continued to exist after their deaths. Blessed Martin De Porres (1579-1639) was a saintly brother of the Dominican Order. He was beatified in the 19th century. He also had a special interest in animals. After a dog had been uncharitably killed by its master, Martin raised the dog from the dead. He also spoke to the dog and instructed it not to return to its ungrateful master.
“The procurator of the convent had a dog that served him faithfully for eighteen years. But now, as the animal was old and loathsome, he ordered him to be cast out. However, the faithful beast always came back, looking for his master. Then orders were given that the dog be taken off some distance and killed. This was done, and Blessed Martin on discovering such ingratitude, as it seemed in his eyes, was moved to compassion and asked that the dead dog be carried to his cell. He then sought out the procurator and said to him: ‘My Father, why did you order them to kill that animal? Is that the reward you give him after he has served you for so many years?’ Then shutting himself up in the cell where the dead animal had been placed, Martin knelt for some time in prayer, begging God to restore life to the unfortunate animal if He so willed, and God did not turn a deaf ear to this humble petition. On the following day Martin’s brethren saw him leave his cell, accompanied by the faithful dog, alive and perfectly well. While feeding him in the kitchen, Martin was heard to utter these words of sober advice to the dog: ‘Now, be sure not to return to your ungrateful master’s service, for you have experienced only too clearly how little your long years of faithful service have been appreciated.’ It is said that the dog survived for many years, but that he always followed Martin’s warning, fleeing from his old master whenever he saw him approach.”In another case, rats were causing problems for a man Blessed Martin had assisted. The problem increased to the point that rats began to invade the sacristy. Martin thought the problem could be solved without killing the rats, but the man decided to set traps. After a rat was caught in one of the traps, Martin urged that it not be destroyed. Instead, Martin spoke to the rat. He told the rat that he and his companions should leave the monastery and go to the garden. To the amazement of many, the rats obeyed.
“When Martin saw the little prisoner, his heart was touched and he would not permit its destruction. Instead, he gave him [the rat] his liberty, saying: ‘Go along, little brother, and tell your companions not to do any more harm. Tell your whole tribe to vacate this holy monastery and to go back into the garden, where I will bring you food each day.’ To the astonishment of all, the mice and rats came flocking out of the convent, finding a refuge in an old shed; and there Martin saw to it that they were provided with daily sustenance.”The interactions of St. Francis of Assisi with animals are well-chronicled. One of the most famous stories concerns St. Francis and the wolf. A large wolf was terrifying the people of Gubbio. The wolf devoured people and animals. Despite warnings to avoid him, St. Francis decided to approach the wolf, as many watched from a distance.
“The wolf, seeing all this multitude, ran towards Saint Francis with his jaws wide open. As he approached, the saint, making the sign of the cross, cried out: “Come hither, brother wolf; I command thee, in the name of Christ, neither to harm me nor anybody else.” Marvelous to tell, no sooner had Saint Francis made the sign of the cross, than the terrible wolf, closing his jaws, stopped running, and coming up to Saint Francis, lay down at his feet as meekly as a lamb. And the saint thus addressed him: “Brother wolf, thou hast done much evil in this land, destroying and killing the creatures of God without his permission; yea, not animals only hast thou destroyed, but thou hast even dared to devour men, made after the image of God; for which thing thou art worthy of being hanged like a robber and a murderer. All men cry out against thee, the dogs pursue thee, and all the inhabitants of this city are thy enemies; but I will make peace between them and thee, O brother wolf, if so be thou no more offend them, and they shall forgive thee all thy past offences, and neither men nor dogs shall pursue thee anymore.” Having listened to these words, the wolf bowed his head, and, by the movements of his body, his tail, and his eyes, made signs that he agreed to what Saint Francis said. On this Saint Francis added: “As thou art willing to make this peace, I promise thee that thou shalt be fed every day by the inhabitants of this land so long as thou shalt live among them; thou shalt no longer suffer hunger, as it is hunger which has made thee do so much evil; but if I obtain all this for thee, thou must promise, on thy side, never again to attack any animal or any human being; dost thou make this promise?” Then the wolf, bowing his head, made a sign that he consented. Said Saint Francis again: “Brother wolf, wilt thou pledge thy faith that I may trust to this thy promise?” and putting out his hand he received the pledge of the wolf; for the latter lifted up his paw and placed it familiarly in the hand of Saint Francis, giving him thereby the only pledge which was in his power. Then said Saint Francis, addressing him again: “Brother wolf, I command thee, in the name of Christ, to follow me immediately, without hesitation or doubting, that we may go together to ratify this peace which we have concluded in the name of God”; and the wolf, obeying him, walked by his side as meekly as a lamb, to the great astonishment of all the people. Now, the news of this most wonderful miracle spreading quickly through the town, all the inhabitants, both men and women, small and great, young and old, flocked to the market-place to see Saint Francis and the wolf… Then all the people promised with one voice to feed the wolf to the end of his days… Then Saint Francis continued: “Brother wolf, as thou gavest me a pledge of this thy promise when we were outside the town, so now I will that thou renew it in the sight of all this people, and assure me that I have done well to promise in thy name”; and the wolf lifting up his paw placed it in the hand of Saint Francis.”A mysterious dog also played a role in the life of St. John Bosco.
“God gave to Saint John Bosco a mysterious dog that became the protector of this great saint for much of his life. Where the dog came from and where it went was of no consequence to the saint; he genuinely accepted the friendship of the dog as part of divine providence. Saint John Bosco did so much good saving the young boys of his time that I am sure it was the influence of the devil that riled up people against him, sometimes to the point that jealousy and hatred led men to try to kill the saint on more than one occasion. It was in response to that danger that a huge gray dog appeared one day when Saint John Bosco was being threatened by murderers. The dog, fearsome to behold, was described as a German shepherd standing three feet tall. Grigio, as he was named by Saint John Bosco, would always appear where trouble waited for the saint. When these ne’er-do-wells finally stopped trying to hurt Saint John Bosco, the dog disappeared. He appeared only one other time, when the saint was lost, to lead him safely to a Salesian home.”St. Paul of the Cross (d. 1775) once rebuked a farmer who uttered blasphemies in frustration at his oxen. Upset by the admonition, the farmer pointed his gun at St. Paul. “More horrified at the blasphemies than he was at his present danger, the Saint held up the crucifix he always wore around his neck and announced fearlessly, ‘Since you will not respect this crucifix, these oxen will.’ As though they understood, the oxen immediately fell to their knees.” Afterwards the farmer repented. In the life of St. Anthony of Padua (d. 1231) we read that many heretics resided at Rimini. “But they, not only consenting not to his holy words, but even, like hardened and obstinate sinners, refusing to hearken unto him, the Saint one day, by divine inspiration, went forth to the banks of the river close beside the sea; and, standing thus upon the shore betwixt sea and stream, he began to speak in the guise of a sermon in the name of God unto the fishes. ‘Hear the word of God, ye fishes of the sea and of the stream, since heretics and infidels are loathe to listen to it.’ And having uttered these words, suddenly there came toward him so great a multitude of fishes – great, small, and middle-sized – as had never been seen in that sea or in that stream… all turned their heads out of the water, and all turned attentively toward the face of Anthony.” In the life of St. Anthony of Padua, we also learn that an Albigensian heretic challenged Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. As a test, the two men agreed to allow the heretic’s mule to choose between its typical food and the Eucharist. The mule was deprived of food for three days. After three days, in the presence of a great crowd, the heretic attempted to feed the mule oats and hay, while St. Anthony held the consecrated Host before the animal. The mule ignored the food, and fell to its knees before the Blessed Sacrament. As a result, the unbelievers were thrown into great confusion and some of them were converted. Consider the following story from the Old Testament Book of Numbers, Chapter 22:21-35:
“Balaam arose in the morning, and saddling his went with them. And God was angry. And an angel of the Lord stood in the way against Balaam, who sat on the , and had two servants with him. The seeing the angel standing in the way, with a drawn sword, turned herself out of the way, and went into the field. And when Balaam beat her, and had a mind to bring her again to the way, the angel stood in a narrow place between two walls, wherewith the vineyards were enclosed. And the seeing him, thrust herself close to the wall, and bruised the foot of the rider. But he beat her again: And nevertheless the angel going on to a narrow place, where there was no way to turn aside either to the right hand or to the left, stood to meet him. And when the saw the angel standing, she fell under the feet of the rider: who being angry beat her sides more vehemently with a staff. And the Lord opened the mouth of the , and she said: What have I done to thee? Why strikest thou me, lo, now this third time? Balaam answered: Because thou hast deserved it, and hast served me ill: I would I had a sword that I might kill thee. The said: Am not I thy beast, on which thou hast been always accustomed to ride until this present day? Tell me if I ever did the like thing to thee. But he said: Never. Forthwith the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel standing in the way with a drawn sword, and he worshipped him falling flat on the ground. And the angel said to him: Why beatest thou thy these three times? I am come to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse, and contrary to me: And unless the had turned out of the way, giving place to me who stood against thee, I had slain thee, and she should have lived. Balaam said: I have sinned, not knowing that thou didst stand against me: and now if it displease thee that I go, I will return. The angel said: Go with these men, and see thou speak no other thing than what I shall command thee. He went therefore with the princes.”This passage tells us that an animal could see an angel and was given the ability to speak. When the angel finally appeared to Balaam, he rebuked him for beating the animal. The angel also said that he almost killed Balaam and spared the animal. Balaam had to have his eyes opened in order to see the angel, but the animal did not. It was based on the reasoning of St. Thomas Aquinas that many Catholics came to think that animals do not possess souls that exist after their deaths. While St. Thomas’ views are always worthy of consideration, they are not infallible or definitive. In some cases, his views have been rejected by the Magisterium. St. Thomas taught that the human embryo proceeded through three stages of soul. He believed that the embryo began with the vegetative soul (anima vegetabilis , which he believed plants possess), then proceeded to the sensitive soul (anima sensitiva, which he believed animals possess), and, after 40 or 80 days, God infused the rational or intellectual soul (anima intellectiva, the human soul). As the 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia article on “Soul” explains:
“St. Thomas’s doctrine is … In the first stage of embryonic development, the vital principle has merely vegetative powers; then a sensitive soul comes into being, educed from the evolving potencies of the organism — later yet, this is replaced by the perfect rational soul, which is essentially immaterial and so postulates a special creative act. Many modern theologians have abandoned this last point of St. Thomas's teaching, and maintain that a fully rational soul is infused into the embryo at the first moment of its existence.”In other words, those who claim to adhere to St. Thomas’ view on animation and ensoulment must believe that an embryo begins with a plant soul; it is then replaced by an animal soul, which in turn is replaced by the infusion of the human (rational) soul 40 or 80 days after the initial formation of the embryo. St. Thomas also taught that the soul of Mary did incur the stain of original sin – an idea contradicted by later infallible teaching on the Immaculate Conception.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 27, A. 2, Reply to Objection 2: “If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all. Consequently after Christ, who, as the universal Saviour of all, needed not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place.”As an aside, while we’ve mentioned St. Thomas’ erroneous view on the Immaculate Conception in the past (and this quote in particular), it’s remarkable that many in the traditional movement, including prominent individuals and priests, after being presented with this evidence still wrongly and dishonestly insist that St. Thomas did not contradict the Immaculate Conception! To put it simply, St. Thomas’ views on the soul are not infallible. While we are definitely not asserting that animals possess rational or intellectual souls (or that they can experience the Beatific Vision) – these are unique to human beings, who alone are created in the image of God – we do not agree with the assertion that they cannot exist after death or that the life principle (or soul) of animals is nothing more than a sensitive and instinctive life force. We believe there is something more there, at least with some animals. Anyone who has been around certain animals knows that certain animals demonstrate individuality, an ability to learn and reason, and even personalities. Two animals of the same species will have different proclivities and interests. Their mode of operation is not completely instinctive or based purely on sensory response and reaction. For example, some cats are very curious, while others are not. Some dogs like a certain activity, while others do not. St. Gregory Nazianzen said the following about animals.
St. Gregory Nazianzen, Second Theological Oration (Oration 28), #’s 23-26, A.D. 381: “Shall I reckon up for you the differences of the other animals, both from us and from each other – differences of nature, and of production, and of region, and of temper, and as it were of social life? How is it that some are gregarious and others solitary, some herbivorous and others carnivorous, some fierce and others tame, some fond of man and domesticated, others untamable and free? And some we might call bordering on reason and power of learning, while others are altogether destitute of reason… some strong, others weak, some apt at self-defense, others timid and crafty… some attached to one spot, some amphibious; some delight in beauty and others are unadorned… Is this not the clearest proof of the majestic working of God?”In the original paradise (prior to the fall of Adam and Eve), God created the whales, the birds, and every moving creature on earth and in the sea. Having placed animals of all kinds in the original, uncursed and sinless paradise, “God saw that it was good” (Gen. 1:25). Before Adam and Eve’s capitulation to the serpent brought sin and death into the world, God brought all beasts of the Earth and the fowls of the air to Adam so that he could name them.
Genesis 2:19- “And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name.”When God destroyed the Earth at the time of Noah, all things “wherein there is the breath of life” died (Gen. 7:22). The same word for the souls or breath of life of animals is used to describe the soul of man, even though man’s soul is very different from that of animals. The flood of Noah’s day is described by St. Peter as the end of the original world: “And [God] spared not the original world” (2 Peter 2:5). Yet, when God warned Noah about what he must do to successfully transition from the original world, through the flood, to the new, God also told him to bring animals into the Ark.
Genesis 7:1-5- “And the Lord said to him: Go in thou and all thy house into the ark: for thee I have seen just before me in this generation. Of all clean beasts take seven and seven, the male and the female. But of the beasts that are unclean two and two, the male and the female. Of the fowls also of the air seven and seven, the male and the female: that seed may be saved upon the face of the whole earth. For yet a while, and after seven days, I will rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will destroy every substance that I have made, from the face of the earth. And Noe did all things which the Lord had commanded him… And of beasts clean and unclean, and of fowls, and of every thing that moveth upon the earth, two and two went in to Noe into the ark, male and female, as the Lord had commanded Noe. And after the seven days were passed, the waters of the flood overflowed the earth.”God wanted the animals from “the original world” to be present in the next world, and He commanded Noah to go to extraordinary lengths to make it happen. After the flood, God established His covenant with Noah and with all the animals/creatures on Earth.
Genesis 9:11-17- “I will establish my covenant with you, and all flesh shall be no more destroyed with the waters of a flood, neither shall there be from henceforth a flood to waste the earth. And God said: This is the sign of the covenant which I give between me and you, and to every living soul that is with you, for perpetual generations. I will set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be the sign of a covenant between me, and between the earth. And when I shall cover the sky with clouds, my bow shall appear in the clouds: And I will remember my covenant with you, and with every living soul that beareth flesh: and there shall no more be waters of a flood to destroy all flesh.And the bow shall be in the clouds, and I shall see it, and shall remember the everlasting covenant, that was made between God and every living soul of all flesh which is upon the earth. And God said to Noe: This shall be the sign of the covenant which I have established between me and all flesh upon the earth.” The Haydock commentary on Genesis 9:10 acknowledges that God made His covenant also with the animals. God created animals for the original, spiritually pristine Earth. Is it unthinkable that He would have animals in the new Heaven and the new Earth at the end of time? In fact, the Apocalypse clearly portrays the Second Coming of Jesus Christ as the restoration of the original paradise on Earth. The first Earth featured the “the tree of life… in the midst of paradise” (Genesis 2:9). The Apocalypse repeatedly tells us that Christ will restore the tree of life.
Apocalypse 22:2- “In the midst of the street thereof, and on both sides of the river, was the tree of life, bearing twelve fruits, yielding its fruits every month, and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.”Doesn’t it seem consistent that as there were animals of various kinds in the original paradise, there will be animals in the new paradise – in the new Heaven and new Earth? In this regard we should consider a prophecy of Isaiah. Isaiah 65 contains a prophecy about the new Heaven and the new Earth. While a similar prophecy made in Isaiah chapter 11:1-9 finds fulfillment in the coming of Christ and the establishment of the New Covenant Church, the passage in Isaiah 65 seems to have application to the end of time, the Second Coming of Christ and the Apocalypse. Numerous early Church fathers applied Isaiah 65 to the end of time, including St. Justin Martyr. The prophecy of Isaiah 65 is relevant to this topic because it says that in the new Heaven and new Earth, “the wolves and the lambs feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; but the serpent [shall eat] earth as bread. They shall not hurt or maltreat each other on the holy mountain…” Here are the comments of St. Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165) on the prophecy of Isaiah 65.
St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Chap. 81, 2nd century: CHAPTER LXXXI -- HE ENDEAVOURS TO PROVE THIS OPINION FROM ISAIAH AND THE APOCALYPSE. “For Isaiah spake thus concerning this space of a thousand years: 'For there shall be the new heaven and the new earth… For according to the days of the tree of life shall be the days of my people… Then shall the wolves and the lambs feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; but the serpent [shall eat] earth as bread. They shall not hurt or maltreat each other on the holy mountain, i saith the Lord.' Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, 'According to the days of the tree [of life] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound' obscurely predicts a thousand years… And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place.’”We are told that in the new Heaven and the New Earth, the lion, the ox and other animals will live in harmony. Some might argue that this is a metaphor for how Christ’s elect will be comprised of people with different temperaments. Individuals of all types will have found conversion and peace with their incorporation into Christ. However, that is not certain. This passage could speak to the actual working of the future Heaven and Earth. The statement in Isaiah 65:19, that there will be no more “weeping” or “crying” in the new Heaven and Earth, closely parallels Apocalypse 21:4:
“And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes: and death shall be no more, nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be any more, for the former things are passed away.”This strongly suggests that the prophecy of Isaiah 65, concerning the lion, ox, etc. has application to the new Heaven and the new Earth at the end of time. Other than the dogmas of divine revelation, which tell us how humans are to get to Heaven and which humans will be excluded, we know very little about what Heaven actually is or will be like.
1 Cor. 2:9- “But, as it is written: That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him.”In fact, in the original paradise, animals did not kill or eat each other. In God’s original design, the herbs and the trees which bear seed were the food or “meat” of both man and land creatures (Gen. 1:29-30). It was only after the sin of Adam, the changes in the Earth that resulted from the flood, the introduction of various seasons, and the consequent reduction of the tree and herb supply at various times of the year, that animals became carnivores. There is a fascinating lecture on this point by a professor of zoology. He explains that creatures we typically consider hunters and carnivores were not so from the beginning. He shows how their natural equipment is perfectly consistent with this conclusion and an original design as vegetarians. Therefore, if animals lived in peaceful harmony in the original paradise, it would make sense that they would do so in the new Heaven and the new Earth. The words of Isaiah, which foretell such a situation, would thus be consistent with a more literal understanding of the prophecy. But even if one grants that the description in Isaiah 65 is a symbol or a metaphor, one must ask once again why God would provide us with a symbol of animals in the new Heaven and new Earth if the concept is repugnant to reality. Of course it needs to be affirmed that the worship of animals is an abominable heresy that plagued people in the Old Testament and still exists among some today. Animals are not God, and they are different from human beings. They do not possess rational souls. However, they have the special form of existence which God gave them; and it’s simply remarkable to consider the amazing abilities and characteristics they continually display. These abilities clearly disprove the assertion that animals are simply beings that function only on instinct and sensory response. For example, there is an amazing YouTube video called, Hero Dog Tries to Help Wounded Dog – Chile. It has been viewed almost two million times. In an attempt to cross a busy highway, a dog was hit by a car and left helpless in the midst of heavy oncoming traffic. A second dog some distance away spotted him. The second dog decided to venture into heavy traffic and save the wounded one. The second dog evaded oncoming cars, grabbed the wounded dog with its teeth and paws, and pulled it inch by inch to safety on the side of the road. The wounded dog survived. The footage is simply incredible. Stories of this type could be multiplied many times. There is a fascinating three-part video series called Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution. This video series, which we sell on our online store, is an astounding documentary about the full capabilities of God’s creatures. “There are animals that save human beings; animals that manifest extraordinary courage; animals that exhibit an uncanny ability to show emotion, and even to cry, animals that can communicate, some with hierarchical methods and some with sign language; animals that know when a tornado or an earthquake is coming; animals that can smell cancer, drugs, termites…” “John and Michele Helfrich of Justin, Texas, had a bovine longhorn calf named Beanie that watched John repair a water line that had sprung a leak. To repair the pipe he first had to dig a trench on both sides of the pipe. The heifer stood beside him the entire day, observing his actions. Then, to his amazement, when he started filling the trench back in, she would stand beside him and push the dirt in. Finally, he jumped in the trench, and when he did, Beanie jumped in with him and started stomping the dirt down. When he got back out to shove more dirt in, she would get out and push the dirt with her head.” “A young girl was abducted by a stranger in a van, driven about twelve miles away, and held captive in the van on a deserted road. It was later learned that the van did not stop once while traveling from the point of abduction to the deserted road twelve miles away. Several hours after the abduction, the local authorities gave their bloodhound a piece of the child’s clothing for reference and put the dog on the trail. It took several more hours, but the dog led police on foot down the same twelve miles of highway transited by the van, off the same exit ramp, and down the same deserted road. The bloodhound led them right to the van and the victim was rescued unharmed.” “Mrs. Jensen stayed with the mare and her foal all day long. That evening, the baby horse simply stopped breathing. At that instant, the Jensen’s five other horses, which had over the past few hours gathered themselves as close to the barn as possible, reared up on their hind legs and gave several piercing screams. They could not have seen the foal because it was in the barn when it died – yet they knew. It was an experience Mrs. Jensen will never forget and, in this earthly life, she will never fully understand.” “A farmer in Australia who suffered serious head injuries after being struck by a falling tree branch was rescued by a partially blind kangaroo who was hailed as a hero. Lulu the kangaroo banged on the door of the family’s home in Morwell, Gippsland in southeast Australia after discovering the farmer lying unconscious in a field.” By playing music from a harp, animals have seen dramatic health benefits. One music therapist decided to find out how other creatures might respond to music. “She decided to conduct an experiment at a small dairy farm in Sidney, Indiana, where forty-two Holsteins [cows] who had never been exposed to music were treated to measured doses of Classical, Hard Rock, and Country & Western over a thirteen-day period. The results suggested that cows are a sophisticated audience. Milk production rose almost six percent when classical music was being aired (Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 in C Major) but fell by the same amount when the stereo played the rock band Kiss.” A Personal Story We would like to share a personal story. For many years the monastery had a small dog. Around 2003 or 2004, the dog was suffering from old age and had cataracts in her eye. She was very weak and almost blind. The dog was clearly near the end of its life. We decided that it was best to have the dog put to sleep (something that’s morally permissible with animals but not with humans). On the very day we reached the decision, that the dog would sadly have to be put to sleep, we discovered that the dog was spending her time in the monastery’s chapel, on the floor, in the Presence of the Blessed Sacrament. The chapel is accessible from one of the rooms. Prior to that day, the dog never slept at length in the chapel. We do not believe it’s an accident or merely a coincidence that, just before the dog’s life had ended, something drew her into the presence of the One who created her. In fact, when she was picked up to be taken away for the last time of her life, she was picked up from the chapel floor. Something motivated her, in her weakest hour and when she was near her end, to enter the presence of God. Equally interesting is the fact that the same thing occurred with one of our cats. We currently have two cats. In the Spring of 2008, one of our cats became extremely ill with a stomach infection and would not stop vomiting for an extended period of time. We thought it was probable that the cat would die. As the cat was suffering and in clearly the worst hours of its life, the cat spent almost all day sleeping on the floor of the chapel, just as the dog had years before. When healthy, the cat would very rarely wander into the chapel for short periods of time; but the cat would not sleep there at length, and it certainly would not spend most or all of the day in the chapel. Yet, when it was about to die, the cat spent basically the entire day in the chapel, right near the Blessed Sacrament, for a period of several days. We do not believe it was an accident that in its extreme sickness, the cat entered into the presence of God. Thank God, the cat eventually recovered and is in excellent health today. In closing, the message of the Gospel and God’s redemption is for human beings, not animals. All animals are innocent. God decided to be born around innocent animals instead of human beings. Animals were required in the Old Testament for a sacrifice covering sin because they are sinless creatures, as well as to destroy the Israelites’ evil propensity to worship animals. It is our opinion that at least some animals continue to exist after their lives on Earth, as part of God’s design.
Job 12:10- “[The Lord] In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind.” Hosea 2:18- “And in that day I will make a covenant with them, with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of the air, and with the creeping things of the earth: and I will destroy the bow, and the sword, and war out of the land: and I will make them sleep secure.” Colossians 1:17- “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” Proverbs 12:10- “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast; but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” Ecclesiastes 3:1, 14-15- “All things have their season, and in their times all things pass under heaven… I have learned that all the works which God hath made, continue forever: we cannot add anything, nor take away from those things which God hath made that he may be feared. That which hath been made, the same continueth: the things that shall be, have already been: and God restoreth that which is past.”© Copyright 2012: Most Holy Family Monastery. NOTES:
QUICK INTRODUCTION AND UPDATE ON THE CURRENT SITUATION
The Vatican II sect under Antipope Francis is becoming more notorious (and basically openly Protestant) by the day. In fact, it looks poised to openly repudiate Catholic teaching against divorce and remarriage. Moreover, the “canonization” of Antipope John Paul II is a major development. (The Vatican II sect will celebrate Antipope John Paul II’s “feast day” on Oct. 22.) As this video explains, in the aftermath of the “canonization,” essentially everyone in full communion with the Vatican II sect is now, in reality, an idolater. As a consequence, in many cases the few validly ordained priests who acknowledge the antipope, who may previously have been options for receiving Communion, are becoming off-limits for Communion. As we’ve repeatedly mentioned, for some time the number of options for Communion has been quickly diminishing. At this point there are almost no options for receiving Communion. That’s simply an unfortunate consequence of the final stage of the Great Apostasy. In case people haven’t figured it out yet, we are in the last days and the deepest part of the Great Apostasy. Those who aren’t convinced of that should see our video. As Our Lady of La Salette said concerning these times: “… only faith will survive.”
The guidelines and points below are of course relevant to priests who operate in “full communion” with Antipope Francis. Sadly, however, the independent priests don’t offer many alternatives. The independent groups and priests who acknowledge Antipope Francis (e.g., the priests of the SSPX and similar groups) are becoming ever more schismatic as a result of an obstinate and prolonged adherence to false positions. And most of the sedevacantist priests (who claim to reject Antipope Francis and the Vatican II sect) hold that souls can be saved in false religions, and condemn the Church’s dogmatic teaching on the necessity of Baptism for salvation as “mortally sinful.” They are horrible and imposing heretics who must not be approached for any sacraments at all. That leaves a Catholic in a situation with almost no options for receiving Communion. (*An imposing heretic, by the way, is a priest who either requires someone to adhere to his false positions, or holds that the true position on a topic is mortally sinful or heretical. For more on that matter, see the guidelines below.)
We are frequently and understandably asked the important question about where people may receive sacraments in this time of the Great Apostasy. As we’ve pointed out for years, it’s a fluid situation. The answer depends upon what priests say and do; what positions they take; how notorious certain priests become; events that occur in the Vatican II sect; etc. The situation in the 1980s was not necessarily the same as the situation in the 1970s, and the situation in the 2000s was not necessarily the same as the situation in the 1990s. In light of the current “ecclesiastical situation” (i.e., the general situation with priests purporting to be Catholic in our day), recent events, and how clear the true positions should be for people at this stage, below are bullet-points with our advice on where one may or may not receive sacraments at the current time.
The reader will notice that one of the most important updates is: AT THIS TIME, IN THE YEAR 2014, AT LEAST IN THIS COUNTRY, WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY CHURCH A CATHOLIC SHOULD ATTEND ON SATURDAY OR SUNDAY IN ORDER TO RECEIVE COMMUNION. PEOPLE SHOULD STAY HOME ON SUNDAY AND PRAY 15 DECADES OF THE ROSARY. THAT’S BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY ALL THE PRIESTS ARE CLEAR HERETICS AND THEY GIVE SERMONS OR TALKS ON THOSE DAYS. WE DON’T BELIEVE PEOPLE SHOULD RECEIVE THE SACRAMENT FROM THEM DURING A MASS AT WHICH THEY GIVE A SERMON. HOWEVER, THERE ARE STILL SOME OPTIONS FOR RECEIVING CERTAIN SACRAMENTS (ESPECIALLY CONFESSION), AS EXPLAINED BELOW.
• It’s of course crucial for people to be sure they have been validly baptized. If there is any doubt about how a baptism was performed (either because it was done in a Protestant sect or questionably in the Novus Ordo), a conditional baptism should be performed following the steps in this file: The Steps to convert to the traditional Catholic faith and for those leaving the New Mass – Baptism and Conditional Baptism – the Council of Trent’s Profession of Faith for Converts. We generally recommend a conditional baptism for those coming out of the Novus Ordo or converting from Protestantism. Anyone who would do it properly could perform it, as the 'steps to convert' file explains.
• Before making a confession or receiving a sacrament, one must reach the point where one believes in all Catholic dogmas, is committed never to attend the New Mass again, rejects the Vatican II antipopes and the Vatican II sect, believes in Outside the Church There is No Salvation without exception (no “baptism of desire,” no salvation for those “invincibly ignorant” of the Catholic faith), rejects NFP, won’t support any heretical priests, etc.
SIMPLIFIED GUIDELINES ON RECEIVING SACRAMENTS IN THE CURRENT SITUATION
• Don’t ever attend the New Mass for any reason, of course. It’s invalid and non-Catholic. It must always be avoided under pain of grave sin.
• One must not financially support, in any way, any priest or group that holds false positions. We are not aware of any priests, groups or religious communities in the world (besides our monastery) holding the correct positions in a public, clear and uncompromising way.
• Don’t go to any church in this country (“traditional” or otherwise) for Sunday or Saturday Masses, since basically all the priests are heretics and the heretics give sermons or talks on those days. People should stay home on Sunday and pray 15 decades of the Rosary. (This generally applies to other countries as well.)
• Consistent with the above: don’t go to any Sunday or Saturday Masses of the Society of St. Pius X. Don’t go to any “Masses” of the FSSP or similar groups. (Those groups also cannot be considered to have valid priests, as they utilize “bishops” consecrated in the doubtful New Rite of Consecration.) Don’t go to any Indult Masses or Latin Masses offered in the “diocese”. Don't go to any Sunday or Saturday liturgies of priests in the Eastern Rite. Don’t go to any Sunday or Saturday Masses of priests of the CMRI or similar priests and groups who hold heresy on the salvation dogma, as those heretics frequently give sermons on those days. Sedevacantist priests who condemn the true position on water baptism (i.e., the denial of “baptism of desire”) as either heretical or mortally sinful – and that would include most sedevacantist priests in our day – are imposing heretics. They aren’t an option for any sacrament whatsoever. They should be completely avoided.
• If a priest is a heretic, but is not imposing – and that might apply to a small number of independent or sedevacantist priests – it’s possible that he might still be an option for Communion if he’s somewhat close to our positions on the Counter Church. However, one should not receive Communion from him during his Sunday or Saturday Mass, for he might give a sermon or a talk during that Mass. If he meets the criteria for receiving Communion (and that would be rare), one should only receive Communion from him on a different day of the week. If he only gives Communion on Sunday, then one should simply go without Communion. As stated above, an imposing heretic is a priest who either requires someone to adhere to his false positions, or holds that the true position on a topic is mortally sinful or heretical. In the rare case just described, in which a priest might meet the criteria to be an option for Communion (but only on a day on which he does not give a sermon), to find out if he's an imposing heretic, you can call him up and tell him what your positions are - e.g., that you are a sedevacantist and reject “baptism of desire” - and see how he reacts. This kind of discussion would be necessary when considering a priest (in the rare situation just described) for Communion. However, when going to confession only to a validly ordained Novus Ordo priest or to an Eastern Rite priest, such a discussion about the issues (to find out if the priest is imposing) would not be necessary prior to making the confession (unless the issues were to come up), as explained below.
• Don’t receive Communion from (or be present at the Mass of) any priest who accepts Antipope John Paul II as a “saint.” That essentially means that almost all priests who accept Antipope Francis should not be approached for Communion. It’s possible that there might be very rare exceptions to this principle (e.g., non-imposing independent priests who reject much of the Counter Church and the “canonization” of John Paul II, but still absurdly accept Antipope Francis); however, even in those cases, one should not receive Communion from them at their Sunday or Saturday Masses. Likewise, with an independent or Eastern Rite priest who doesn’t accept John Paul II as a “saint,” in order to be approached for Communion he would also have to reject false ecumenism and hold that the Eastern schismatics should be converted to the Catholic faith. (He would not have to hold the correct position on water baptism and the salvation dogma, as many priests before Vatican II were in heresy on that point. But he could not impose his false position on true Catholics or consider the true position heretical or mortally sinful.)
• There are still more options for Confession, and it’s crucial that people who have mortal sins that need to be confessed find a priest from whom they can receive absolution. Options for Confession include: an old Novus Ordo priest ordained before 1968, who says: “I absolve you from your sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”; a priest ordained in the Eastern Rite; a non-imposing independent “traditional” priest; etc.
• The New Rite of Ordination is invalid. It was instituted by the Vatican II sect on June 18, 1968. Almost all diocesan (i.e., non-independent, non-Eastern Rite priests) ordained since that time were ordained in it. Since “priests” ordained in the New Rite of Ordination are invalid, any mortal sins confessed to such “priests” must be confessed again to a valid priest, once a person is prepared for confession.
• To investigate potential options for confession, people can also look in their telephone books for “Catholic church” or “Eastern Catholic church” or “Byzantine Catholic church” (not “Orthodox”) listings in cities or towns in their area. Looking up those churches, and calling them, might aid in a search for validly ordained priests (either ordained in the Eastern Rite or before 1968) to whom one might go to confession. Note: when going to confession only to an old Novus Ordo priest (ordained in the traditional rite) or to an Eastern Rite priest, one doesn't need to get into the details of one's position or discuss the various theological issues (to find out if he's imposing) prior to making the confession (unless the issues were to come up). At some point, however, one should send him or give him the information from our website or material (e.g., a DVD) covering the true positions people need to take and what has happened.
• There is of course no obligation to attend Sunday Mass when there isn’t a fully Catholic option in one’s area. Therefore, there is no obligation to attend Sunday Mass in our day because basically all the priests are heretics.
• People should pray 15 decades of the Rosary each day.
• We also encourage true Catholics who are presumably in the state of grace to make spiritual Communions.
• Although these guidelines should answer most questions on this matter, people who have further questions can call us at 585-567-4433 and someone can help you.
So, to put it simply: there are more options for confession (although they are also becoming harder to find), but very few options for receiving Communion. People should stay home on Sundays and pray 15 decades of the Rosary. If people are holding and practicing the true Catholic faith without compromise, working to spread it, fulfilling their state in life, etc., and have successfully confessed all grave sins (if there were any) committed in their life after baptism to a validly ordained priest, they can feel confident that they are in the state of grace, even though they may not have anywhere to receive Communion.
The reason there is more latitude in approaching someone for confession than for Communion is twofold: 1) making a confession and receiving absolution doesn’t entail showing up at the heretic’s Mass or liturgy; and 2) for most people (and obviously for those who may have grave sins to confess), there is a greater necessity to receive absolution. Hence, a priest who is not an option for Communion could still be an option for confession, if he’s validly ordained, uses the proper form, and does not impose his false views upon you.
By the way, what radical schismatics and “no jurisdiction” schismatics don’t understand about God and this matter is that the issue of where it’s permissible to receive sacraments in this unprecedented crisis and apostasy is not one governed by dogmatic decrees. It’s not a dogmatic issue. It is, rather, an issue that involves making prudential decisions and judgments about the current situation, and applying Catholic principles to this crisis. Moreover, when dealing with matters of ecclesiastical law and how to act in a crisis, the principle that “necessity makes licit that which is illicit” (as long as the faith is not denied) is important to understand and keep in mind. It’s why people could receive sacraments from priests they normally would not approach if they had other options. However, at this point the Vatican II sect is so notorious, the independent priests are so schismatic, and the sedevacantist priests (for the most part) are so openly heretical on the salvation issue, that we believe the above guidelines (with many fewer options for Communion) are the correct ones.
STAYING HOME ON SUNDAY SHOULD NOT DIMINISH ONE’S ZEAL OR HAMPER ONE’S PRACTICE OF THE FAITH AT ALL
The fact that (at least in this country, and generally speaking in other countries) people should be staying home on Sunday should not in any way diminish their zeal for practicing the Catholic faith. It should not lessen people’s enthusiasm for praying, living the life of grace each day, saving their soul and that of others, evangelizing, spreading the faith, growing in their relationship with God, etc. On the contrary, a recognition of where we are in history should spur people to a more aggressive pursuit of spiritual perfection, as well as the desire to practice and spread the faith so that as many souls as possible can be saved in the short time left. Moreover, while God allows the darkness of the world to be ever greater, He counteracts that by making even more powerful graces available for those who practice and live the faith without compromise, and take advantage of the extra power given to the Rosary, the Hail Mary, etc. in our day.
People who think that the Catholic faith ceases to be practiced when there’s nowhere to attend Mass or receive sacraments on Sunday either aren’t Catholic or have an inadequate understanding of the faith. The Catholic faith is lived day in and day out. In fact, the reason so many people have followed heretical groups to their perdition is that their entire “faith” and “relationship with God” is defined by where they go on Sunday. They are purely “Sunday Catholics,” which means that they are not genuine Catholics at all.
… I recently read some of the post in your website and I have started it when I found a video in YouTube entitled Is the World about to End? And after that I tried to read interesting topics on your site. By the way, I was raised as a Catholic when I was young but I am not sure what kind I belong to since I’ve read that there's a traditional and new one (I am not that familiar with all the technicalities, sorry about that). Again, I was raised as a Catholic but I’ve been missing church masses for some reasons. One of the reasons is the one I am about to tell you. Anyway, I have written this, and I've been meaning to ask this particular question to any Catholic member since it has been a looming over me for a very long time - is there any passage in the Bible that pertains to adoration (I'm not sure of the word I’ve use because I don't want to use the word worship) of religious images and sculptures. Do you have any video on it that clearly answers and explain this one?
Most of the Catholic churches I've been to in our country have this, on varying sizes and kinds.
I have this feeling inside me, that it is wrong, and most of the times it really creeps me out especially the big ones. It felt like believing in these man-made statues is like idolatry stated in Exodus. Many people go to them, kneel and pray for them, take care and dress them, and wipe their towels over them as if it would perform a miracle of some sorts. Most of the Catholics said it is mere representation of whom we pray for but (I would contest) Jesus did not bow his head to any statues just to pray to our Father or any man before him, so why do people need to do it now. It felt like this practice has been misleading us. Correct me if I am wrong to think of this matter.
My mother has few of these statues at home (Sto. Ninos, Mother Mary) and lately it bothers me… I hope you could clarify to me about your stand on religious images and statues, looking forward to it.
Thank you very much. God Bless.
Sincerely yours, Rheyan L
MHFM: We’re glad that you came across the material. No, adoration of the Blessed Sacrament is completely Christian. However, Jesus Christ is not present in the Novus Ordo, as our material explains. Your problem on the issue arises because you are not convinced of Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. A properly consecrated Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. That’s very clear from the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Bible (see John chapter 6). It was held by the entire early Church. Therefore, the Eucharist should be adored. Your position is inconsistent with that truth of Christianity. You need to see our book, The Bible Proves the Teachings of the Catholic Church. It has a section on the overwhelming biblical proof for Catholic teaching on the Eucharist.
With regard to images and statues, your position is not correct.
First, what God forbids and condemns is the adoration of statues/images themselves, and the making of statues/images of idols and false gods.
Deuteronomy 5:8-9- “You shall not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any things, that are in heaven above, or that are in the earth beneath, or that abide in the waters under the earth. You shall not adore them, and you shall not serve them.…”
Notice that God says: you shall not adore them or serve them. That’s the key. He forbids making statues or images to adore them or to adore idols, creatures, false gods, etc. But He does not forbid using religious statues or images in His true faith and religion. In fact, He commanded religious statues to be made for his temple and they are approved in numerous places in the Bible.
Exodus 25:18-19- “And you shalt make two cherubim of gold, of beaten work shalt you make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on the two ends thereof.”
God specifically commands the making of two statues of cherubim. Cherubim are angels. This obviously refutes the idea that making statues or using religious images is forbidden. Such an idea is a total misrepresentation of the teaching of Sacred Scripture, which forbids them with reference to the idolatrous adoration of creatures, idols and false gods. Other passages in the Bible where we see references to God’s command to make statues for true religious purposes are: Exodus 26:1; 1 Kings 6 (3 Kings 6 in some versions); and 1 Kings 7:25-36 (3 Kings 7:25-36 in some versions).
We also find God commanding the use of an image to cure people – an image which, at first thought, some would find surprising. God commanded Moses to make an image of a serpent for the people to look upon and be healed.
Numbers 21:8- “And the Lord said unto Moses, make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looks upon it, shall live.”
Third, when Catholics honor an image, trust is not placed in the image itself. Rather, we honor the one represented by the image by means of the image.
Council of Trent, Sess. 25, Decree on Sacred Images: “Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints are to be placed and retained especially in the churches, and that due honor and veneration is to be given them; not, however, that any divinity or virtue is believed to be in them by reason of which they are to be venerated, or that something is to be asked of them, or that trust is to be placed in images, as was done of old by the Gentiles who placed their hope in idols; but because the honor which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which they represent, so that by means of the images which we kiss and before which we uncover the head and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ and venerate the saints whose likeness they bear. That is what was defined by the decrees of the councils, especially of the Second Council of Nicaea, against the opponents of images.”
The Bible also teaches that even the relics of saintly people are venerated and can be miraculous. See Acts chapter 19:11-12 concerning the miraculous handkerchiefs of St. Paul, and 2 Kings 2:13-14 concerning the miraculous cloak of Elijah.
Acts 19:11-12- “And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.”
2 Kings 2:13-14- “He picked up the cloak that had fallen from Elijah and went back and stood on the bank of the Jordan. Then he took the cloak that had fallen from him and struck the water with it… When he struck the water, it divided to the right and to the left, and he crossed over.”
So, the Catholic position on the proper use of religious images, statues and relics is not contrary to the Bible. It is the truly biblical view.
Moreover, you mention that you were raised a ‘Catholic.’ You were actually raised in the Vatican II sect. That’s not the true Catholic Church. It doesn’t teach or represent the true Catholic faith. Its New Masses are invalid and the sect is empty. That’s a big reason why you and so many others were not inclined to be more interested in what it has to ‘offer.’ It’s crucial that you consult the material on our site, pray 15 decades of the Rosary each day, and take the steps to embrace the traditional Catholic faith.
For more, see our book The Bible Proves the Teachings of the Catholic Church, our Refuting Protestantism section and our future materials on these matters.
OBJECTION- The Catechism of the Council of Trent taught that the design and plan of receiving Baptism could avail a person to grace and righteousness, if it is impossible for that person to receive Baptism. That means that “baptism of desire” must be Catholic teaching.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, “Ordinarily They Are Not Baptized At Once,” p. 179: “But though these things may be thus, nevertheless to this class [or kind] of men [persons], the Church has not been accustomed to give the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has arranged that it should be deferred to a fixed time. Nor does this delay have connected with it the danger, as indeed threatens in the case of children, as stated above; for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the design and plan of receiving Baptism, and repentance of a badly led life, would be sufficient to grace and justification, if some unexpected event hinders so that they are unable to be washed by the saving water. On the contrary, this delay is seen to carry with it certain advantages.”
ANSWER- The objection is false, for many reasons. This section will examine the matter in detail and it will prove that the supporters of “baptism of desire” (BOD) are quite wrong. The following points, among others, will be demonstrated in this section:
1) The paragraph cited above is not part of the official teaching which the Catechism of Trent identified as the body of doctrine to be communicated by pastors to the faithful. This point is crucial and is overlooked by “baptism of desire” supporters, as we will see. They fail to recognize this fact because a) very few of them have actually read the Catechism of Trent and b) they don’t understand the Magisterium.
2) The Catechism of Trent (also called The Roman Catechism) consisted of information given to parish priests. It is not infallible in every paragraph, but only in those points of doctrine to be passed along to all the faithful. Those points are infallible because they represent what the Church has always taught on those matters.
3) The Catechism of Trent’s official teaching on Baptism, which it identifies as the truth to be passed along to the faithful, doesn’t include “baptism of desire”. Rather, it contradicts it.
4) Popes approved and recommended the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas in the same way they approved and recommended the Catechism of Trent. Yet, St. Thomas’ Summa Theologiae contains false doctrine on the Immaculate Conception. Nevertheless, popes continued to approve the Summa Theologiae after the Immaculate Conception was defined in 1854, without ever correcting the false position – a position that became heretical after 1854. Their approbation of the book was a general one. It didn’t mean that everything in the book was correct or could be followed absolutely.
5) The one paragraph BOD supporters cite on this matter is not infallible, is not part of the official teaching of the Catechism to be communicated to the faithful, and is filled with problems.
6) The one paragraph BOD supporters cite on this matter contradicts the much more authoritative teaching of numerous papal decrees of the highest authority on the exact same topic: i.e., on the delay in baptizing adult converts until Paschal time, and the teaching that those who desire baptism, but die without it, are lost.
7) The Catechism of Trent itself defers to the Council of Florence and specifically to its Decree Exultate Deo. That infallible decree contradicts “baptism of desire.” St. Alphonsus also teaches that the Council of Florence has a greater authority than the Catechism of Trent, and that Florence’s teaching can prove what the teaching of the Catechism of Trent cannot.
NOT EVERY PARAGRAPH OF THE CATECHISM OF TRENT WAS PROMULGATED INFALLIBLY
The Council of Trent closed on Dec. 4, 1563. The Catechism of Trent was still being worked on in 1564 and it wasn’t finally published until 1566. The Catechism of Trent is not the Council of Trent. It is not infallible in every paragraph, but only in those points of doctrine to be passed along to all the faithful; for those matters represent what the Church has always taught.
Even the introduction to the popular Tan Books’ translation of the Catechism of Trent has a quote from Dr. John Hagan, who admits that “its teaching is not infallible.” The Catechism of Trent is more than 500 pages long in a common English version. It was worked on by a variety of theologians.
Catechism of the Council of Trent- Fifteenth printing, TAN Books, Introduction XXXVI: “Official documents have occasionally been issued by Popes to explain certain points of Catholic teaching to individuals, or to local Christian communities; whereas the Roman Catechism comprises practically the whole body of Christian doctrine… Its teaching is not infallible; but it holds a place between approved catechisms and what is de fide.”
THE CATECHISM OF TRENT DID NOT BIND THE ENTIRE CHURCH TO EVERYTHING IN IT; IT WAS INFORMATION GIVEN TO PARISH PRIESTS
The official title of the Catechism makes it clear that it’s addressed to parish priests, not to all the faithful or to all the bishops: “Catechismus ex decreto Concilii Tridentini ad parochos” (Catechism by Decree of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests). The Church’s teaching is infallible on faith and morals when it applies to and is binding upon all Christians (Vatican I). The Catechism of Trent does not meet that criterion of infallibility for every paragraph of its teaching. It was not addressed to all the faithful. In fact, it wasn’t even addressed to all priests, but to parish priests. Not all priests are parish priests.
THE CATECHISM OF TRENT SAYS THAT THE SOUL IS NOT INFUSED INTO THE EMBRYO AT THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION
Catechism of the Council of Trent, Article III, “By the Holy Ghost,” p. 43: “But what surpasses the order of nature and human comprehension is, that as soon as the Blessed Virgin assented to the announcement of the Angel in these words, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word, the most sacred body of Christ was formed, and to it was united a rational soul enjoying the use of reason; and thus in the same instant of time He was perfect God and perfect man. That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time.”
The Catechism states that the rational soul is only united to the body after a certain lapse of time. According to the Catechism, an embryo is not a human being when it comes into existence at the time of fertilization or conception. On this point the Catechism is following the position of St. Thomas and many scholastic theologians. They taught that the rational soul is not infused into the embryo until approximately 40 or 80 days after conception.
St. Thomas taught that the human embryo proceeded through three stages of soul. He believed that the embryo began with the vegetative soul (anima vegetabilis, which he believed plants possess), then proceeded to the sensitive soul (anima sensitiva, which he believed animals possess), and, after 40 or 80 days, God infused the rational or intellectual soul (anima intellectiva, the human soul). He also taught that men receive a soul approximately 40 days after conception, but women 80 days after conception. DNA, however, informs us that there is no difference between men and women in terms of when they acquire the biological characteristics of a human being. Since DNA shows that the biological characteristics of a human being are present from fertilization/conception, the position of delayed ensoulment (as taught by St. Thomas and the Catechism of Trent) is generally rejected by the pro-life movement in our day.
The 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia admits that by the early 20th century, many theologians had come to reject the opinion of St. Thomas on when the rational soul is infused into the embryo. Since the Catechism of Trent expressed the same view, they necessarily contradicted its teaching on that point as well.
The 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia article on “Soul” explains: “St. Thomas’s doctrine is … In the first stage of embryonic development, the vital principle has merely vegetative powers; then a sensitive soul comes into being, educed from the evolving potencies of the organism — later yet, this is replaced by the perfect rational soul, which is essentially immaterial and so postulates a special creative act. Many modern theologians have abandoned this last point of St. Thomas's teaching, and maintain that a fully rational soul is infused into the embryo at the first moment of its existence.”
Anyone who cites the Catechism of Trent as if it’s infallible in every paragraph should be asked the following question: do you agree with its teaching that the embryo is not a human being from the moment of fertilization or conception? Even if one holds that the embryo is not human until weeks or months after fertilization/conception, there’s a problem with the Catechism’s paragraph on this point. It’s that when speaking of the human body, the Catechism says that the “rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time.” That means that, according to the Catechism, a human body can exist for weeks before a soul is infused. That’s not correct. It’s a defined dogma that the rational soul is the form of the human body. This was defined by the Council of Vienne.
Pope Clement V, Council of Vienne, Decree #1, 1311-1312: “In order that all may know the truth of the faith in its purity and all error may be excluded, we define that anyone who presumes henceforth to assert, defend or hold stubbornly that the rational or intellectual soul is not the form of the human body of itself and essentially, is to be considered a heretic.”
This dogma means that the rational soul is what makes the human body what it is. Since the soul is the form of the human body, there cannot be a true living human body that does not have a true rational soul infused into it. Yet, the Catechism indicates that the human body exists for a certain period of time prior to the infusion of the rational soul. That’s not correct. The human body cannot exist until there is a rational soul. Prior to the infusion of the rational soul, the embryo would not be a human body, but a plant or animal body containing a plant or animal soul. Thus, the articulation of the Catechism on this point is simply wrong. It’s another example of how its teaching is not infallible in every paragraph. A human body cannot exist for a period of time prior to the infusion of the rational soul.
Very few people who comment on the Catechism of Trent (and its teaching of Baptism) have actually read or studied the entire Catechism. When you actually read or study the entire Catechism of Trent, you recognize that it’s written and formulated in such a way that ONLY CERTAIN POINTS OF DOCTRINE are specified by the Catechism as points of doctrine that can, must or should be communicated by pastors to the faithful. Let me repeat that: ONLY CERTAIN POINTS OF DOCTRINE are specified by the Catechism as matters that can, must or should be communicated by pastors to the faithful. Not everything in the Catechism is to be communicated to the faithful.
To put it another way: the Catechism of Trent is a manual for parish priests. It’s over 500 pages long in a common English version. Those 500-plus pages contain a great deal of information, but only certain points in the Catechism are specified as what the pastors are necessarily to teach and say to the faithful. There are many things in the Catechism that don’t fall into that category.
PROOF THAT NOT EVERYTHING IN THE CATECHISM WAS TO BE PASSED ALONG TO THE FAITHFUL
Here are just a few quotes which prove that not everything in the Catechism of Trent was part of the body of doctrine that can, must or should be communicated to the faithful. I could give dozens of other examples.
Catechism of Trent, “Suffered under Pontius Pilate”: “Furthermore, the pastor should not omit the historical part of this Article, which has been so carefully set forth by the holy Evangelists…”
Here we see the Catechism informing the pastor that he should not omit this particular point. That’s because within the vast amount of information in the Catechism, there are things in the Catechism that the pastor could omit. Not every line or paragraph in the Catechism is to be communicated to the faithful.
Catechism of Trent, on Taking God’s name in vain: “The above observation should strongly convince the pastor that on this point it is not enough to speak in general terms…”
Here the Catechism is confirming that there are certain things that must be said to the faithful. Certain things cannot be passed over. But not everything in the Catechism necessarily falls into that category. The sentence above would of course make no sense if everything in the Catechism were automatically intended for the faithful or to be given to the faithful.
Catechism of Trent, on “Life Everlasting”: “The faithful, therefore, are to be informed that the words, life everlasting, signify not only continuance of existence…”
Here again it’s identifying a point that is to be communicated to the faithful, but not everything in the Catechism falls into that category.
Catechism of Trent, Opening Words of the Lord’s Prayer, on Angels “The pastor need do no more than depict the Angel lighting up the darkness of the prison, touching Peter's side and awakening him from his sleep.”
Here again we see that not everything in the Catechism needs to be passed along to the faithful.
MORE PROOF THAT ONLY CERTAIN THINGS IN THE CATECHISM WERE SPECIFED AS POINTS TO BE TAUGHT TO THE FAITHFUL; OTHER THINGS CAN BE OMITTED
Catechism of Trent, on the Eucharist: “It must be taught, then, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful, the Holy Eucharist.”
Catechism of Trent, “Deliver us from Evil,”: “It cannot be necessary to remind the faithful of the numerous evils and calamities to which we are exposed…”
Catechism of Trent, “on the forgiveness of sins”: “On this point of doctrine, then, it is the duty of the pastor to teach that, not only is forgiveness of sins to be found in the Catholic Church...”
Catechism of Trent, on Indissolubility: “The pastor should not here omit the salutary admonition of St. Augustine…”
Catechism of Trent, on the Creed, “Almighty”: “The pastor should point out the propriety and wisdom of having omitted all other names of God in the Creed, and of having proposed to us only that of Almighty as the object of our belief.”
Catechism of Trent, on the Effects of the Eucharist: “As, however, no language can convey an adequate idea of its utility and fruits, pastors must be content to treat of one or two points…”
This clearly shows that only certain things in the Catechism will be passed along to the faithful.
Catechism of Trent, Article II: “Wherefore, the pastor should not omit to remind the faithful that the guilt and punishment of original sin were not confined to Adam…”
Catechism of Trent, On the Creed, “On the Trinity”: “… let the pastor teach that the terms nature and person used to express this mystery should be most scrupulously retained; and let the faithful know that unity belongs to essence, and distinction to persons.”
Catechism of Trent, “Thy Will Be Done,” “Though the faithful are not to be left in ignorance of the import of this Petition, yet in this connection many questions concerning the will of God may be passed over which are discussed at great length and with much utility by scholastic doctors.”
The facts above establish without any doubt that within the Catechism of Trent’s 500-plus pages of information, only certain points of doctrine are identified by the Catechism as part of the body of doctrine that can, must or should be communicated to the faithful. That’s how the Catechism is written and set up. Many other examples could be given to further prove the point. The Catechism is telling the pastors that you need to tell them this; you must not forget that; you should not omit this; but it’s not necessary to say this; etc. It makes these statements throughout the entire Catechism because not everything in the Catechism is for the faithful. It’s information given to the parish priest. Only certain portions of that information are identified as what must or should be inculcated by the pastors.
When we consult the Catechism’s teaching on Baptism, guess what we find? The one paragraph that supporters of “baptism of desire” cite is NOT specified or identified as the doctrine that the pastors are to teach to the faithful. There is nothing in it which specifies that what it says there is to be taught to the faithful. Rather, it is simply information (fallible and inaccurate information) given to the parish priests. Yes, it’s possible that within the Catechism’s hundreds of paragraphs, there can be found some inaccurate information and certain fallible opinions of men. But the official teaching the Catechism specifies as what the faithful are to be taught is reflective of sound Catholic truth, as we will see.
The doctrine on Baptism, which the Catechism does specify and single out as the doctrine on Baptism to be communicated to all the faithful, is precisely the opposite of “baptism of desire.” It is that no one can enter Heaven without being born again of water and the Spirit in the Sacrament of Baptism, and that no one can be inside the Catholic Church without having received the Sacrament of Baptism. That’s what the Catechism says pastors are to teach the faithful.
WHEN YOU CONSULT THESE QUOTES, NOTICE THAT THERE IS A SPECIFIC MENTION OF HOW THIS IS THE DOCTRINE PASTORS ARE TO TEACH THE FAITHFUL
Catechism of the Council of Trent, “Matter of Baptism - Fitness,” p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation.”
According to the Catechism, what is to be communicated to the faithful by pastors is that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary to all for salvation. It even emphasizes that no one can be saved without water baptism by stating: “water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all”. That contradicts “baptism of desire.” “Baptism of desire” is not a sacrament, as its supporters admit. It is based on the idea that water is not “within the reach of all.” Yet, the Catechism says that what pastors can teach is that the Sacrament is necessary to all for salvation. That is what the Catholic Church has always taught and what the dogmatic teaching of the Church declares. The official teaching of the Catechism, to be passed along to the faithful, is not “baptism of desire” but contrary to it. Here’s another example.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, “On Baptism – Necessity of Baptism,” pp. 176-177: “If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that THE LAW OF BAPTISM, AS ESTABLISHED BY OUR LORD, EXTENDS TO ALL, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).”
Notice the references to “it is no less important to them to learn”, and “Pastors, therefore, should…” Again, we see that this is the doctrine pastors are to teach. In this paragraph the Catechism of Trent officially teaches that the law of Baptism applies to all. It also declares that unless people are regenerated through water baptism they go to destruction, as Jesus taught in John 3:5.
According to the Catechism, this is what pastors are to communicate to the faithful. This is the dogmatic teaching of the Church. It’s the only thing we ever find in any infallible pronouncement. Those who teach that it’s possible to be saved without water baptism are contradicting what the Catechism says pastors are to teach. Let’s look at another example.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, “Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection,” p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved… Hence we can have no doubt that the words of the Saviour: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, refer also to the same time which was to follow after His Passion. If, then, pastors explain these truths accurately, there can be no doubt that the faithful will recognize the high dignity of this Sacrament.”
Here the Catechism states that holy writers are unanimous in teaching that after the Resurrection, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all; and that, after that time, no one can enter Heaven without being born again of water and the Spirit, as Jesus taught in John 3:5. That completely refutes the argument supporters of “baptism of desire” base on the alleged authority of a consensus among theologians; for it declares that all theologians (even those who did not remain consistent with themselves on this issue) articulated a position which contradicts “baptism of desire”: i.e., that no one can enter Heaven without water baptism, based on John 3:5. That is the position Catholic writers have unanimously taught.
According to the Catechism, the doctrine to be communicated by pastors to the faithful is the position that after the Resurrection, no one enters Heaven without rebirth of water and the Holy Ghost.
It is absolutely true that the official teaching of the Catechism of Trent, to be communicated to the faithful, is not “baptism of desire” but contrary to it. And there’s more.
This passage is of particular interest; for in it the Catechism identifies the true teaching, WHICH PASTORS MUST COMMUNICATE AND PASS ALONG TO THE FAITHFUL, as:
All these points contradict the false theory of “baptism of desire” and the position of all its defenders. Proponents of “baptism of desire” claim that people can be inside the Church without being “members”; that people can be in the soul of the Church without being in the “Body”; and, most importantly for this point, that people can be inside the Church without having received THE SACRAMENT. The Catechism of Trent contradicts them on all three points and says that the following position is what pastors are to teach.
Catechism of Trent, on the “Our Father,” p. 510: “There is but one God, the Father and Lord of all; and consequently we have all the same nobility of spiritual birth, all the same dignity, all the same glory of race; for all have been regenerated by the same Spirit through the same Sacrament of faith, and have been made children of God and co-heirs to the same inheritance. The wealthy and great have not one Christ for their God; the poor and lowly, another; they are not initiated by different Sacraments; nor can they expect a different inheritance in the kingdom of heaven. We are all brethren and, as the Apostle says in his Epistle to the Ephesians: We are members of Christ’s body [Ephesians 5:30], of his flesh and of his bones. This is a truth which the same Apostle thus expresses in his Epistle to the Galatians: You are the children of God, by faith in Jesus Christ; for as many of you as have been baptised in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Greek nor Jew, neither bond nor free, neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Now this is a point which calls for accuracy on the part of the pastor of souls, and one on which he should purposely dwell at considerable length; for it is a subject that is calculated both to strengthen and animate the poor and lowly…”
Therefore, it is contrary to the official teaching of the Catechism – which it says is to be passed along to the faithful – to assert that people can be inside the Catholic Church without the Sacrament of Baptism. People who teach “baptism of desire,” therefore, do not pass along what the Catechism says is to be passed along to the faithful.
THUS, WHEN SUBSEQUENT PAPAL STATEMENTS ENCOURAGE OR APPROVE CATECHETICAL INSTRUCTION BASED ON THE CATECHISM OF TRENT, THAT DOESN’T FAVOR “BAPTISM OF DESIRE”, BUT CONTRADICTS IT
The points covered above concern the key distinction on this matter: what the Catechism says is to be passed along to the faithful. These points become especially relevant when considering papal statements made about the Catechism. For example, defenders of “baptism of desire” (who typically ignore the arguments which refute their position) assert that papal statements after Trent approved or encouraged catechetical instruction based on the Catechism of Trent.
In his encyclical Acerbo Nimis, Pope Pius X stated the following.
Pope Pius X, Acerbo Nimis (#24), April 15, 1905: “The catechetical instruction shall be based on the Catechism of the Council of Trent; and the matter is to be divided in such a way that in the space of four or five years, treatment will be given to the Apostles' Creed, the Sacraments, the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer and the Precepts of the Church.”
Yes, and what does the Catechism of Trent state is to be communicated to the faithful on Baptism? As proven above, the teaching of the Catechism of Trent, identified as the doctrine to be communicated to the faithful, is:
1) The Sacrament of Baptism, administered in water, which is within the reach of all, is necessary to all for salvation;
2) The law of Baptism extends to all, so that unless people are regenerated through water and the Spirit in the Sacrament, as Jesus says, they go to destruction;
3) Holy writers are unanimous in teaching that after the Resurrection the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved; so that unless they are reborn of water and the Spirit, as Jesus says, they cannot enter the Kingdom of God;
4) All people in the Church have been regenerated in the same “sacrament”.
These are the points pastors are to teach on Baptism. If pastors follow the official teaching of the Catechism, they contradict “baptism of desire.” The one paragraph cited in the objection, which expresses the idea that someone can be saved by a desire for baptism, was NOT one of the points of doctrine the Catechism says is to be communicated to the faithful. It’s also filled with problems, as we will see.
“BAPTISM OF DESIRE” ADVOCATES ARE ALSO WRONG ABOUT POPE CLEMENT XIII'S ENCYCLICAL IN DOMINICO AGRO
In an argument that’s similar to the one that concerns Acerbo Nimis, BOD advocates will sometimes cite Pope Clement XIII’s encyclical In Dominico Agro.
Pope Clement XIII, In Dominico Agro (#4), June 14, 1761: “As our predecessors understood that that holy meeting of the universal Church was so prudent in judgment and so moderate that it abstained from condemning ideas which authorities among Church scholars supported, they wanted another work prepared with the agreement of that holy council which would cover the entire teaching which the faithful should know and which would be far removed from any error. They printed and distributed this book under the title of The Roman Catechism. In it they compiled the teaching which is common to the whole Church and which is far removed from every danger of error, and they proposed to transmit it openly to the faithful in very eloquent words according to the precept of Christ the Lord who told the apostles to proclaim in the light what He had said in the dark and to proclaim from the rooftops what they heard in secret.”
Clement XIII says that the Council of Trent “wanted” a Catechism “which would cover the entire teaching which the faithful should know and which would be far removed from any error.” Supporters of BOD argue that this supports the claim that “baptism of desire” is infallible. They are quite wrong.
First, Clement refers to “the entire teaching which the faithful should know”. As established above, “baptism of desire” is not part of the teaching the Catechism says “the faithful should know.” That’s the key point. Hence, the premise of the argument advanced by supporters of BOD is false. “Baptism of desire” is simply not the official teaching of the Catechism which it says is to be passed along to the faithful. The importance of what the Catechism says is to be “communicated to the faithful” is also clear from his next paragraph.
Pope Clement XIII, In Dominico Agro (#5), June 14, 1761: “Therefore, in case the Church should be deceived and wander after the flocks of the companions who are themselves wanderers and unsettled with no certainty of truth, who are always learning but never arriving at the knowledge of truth, they proposed that only what is necessary and very useful for salvation be clearly and plainly explained in the Roman Catechism and communicated to the faithful.”
As proven above, the only teaching on Baptism which the Catechism of Trent says pastors are to communicate to the faithful is:
Catechism of the Council of Trent, “Matter of Baptism - Fitness,” p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation.”
Catechism of the Council of Trent, “On Baptism – Necessity of Baptism,” pp. 176-177: “If the knowledge of what has been hitherto explained be, as it is, of highest importance to the faithful, it is no less important to them to learn that THE LAW OF BAPTISM, AS ESTABLISHED BY OUR LORD, EXTENDS TO ALL, so that unless they are regenerated to God through the grace of Baptism, be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to eternal misery and destruction. Pastors, therefore, should often explain these words of the Gospel: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (Jn. 3:5).”
Catechism of the Council of Trent, “Baptism made obligatory after Christ’s Resurrection,” p. 171: “Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved… Hence we can have no doubt that the words of the Saviour: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, refer also to the same time which was to follow after His Passion. If, then, pastors explain these truths accurately, there can be no doubt that the faithful will recognise the high dignity of this Sacrament.”
Catechism of Trent, on the ‘Our Father,’ p. 510: “… we have all the same nobility of spiritual birth, all the same dignity, all the same glory of race; for all have been regenerated by the same Spirit through the same Sacrament of faith, and have been made children of God and co-heirs to the same inheritance… Now this is a point which calls for accuracy on the part of the pastor of souls, and one on which he should purposely dwell at considerable length; for it is a subject that is calculated both to strengthen and animate the poor and lowly…”
Second, Clement states that in the Catechism, “they compiled the teaching which is common to the whole Church and which is far removed from any error.” The Catechism contains many points of doctrine that constitute the teaching common to the whole Church. That teaching is far removed from error. That doesn’t mean that every paragraph in the 500-plus pages of information falls into that category. Indeed, as we will see, similar things were stated about St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae. Yet, supporters of “baptism of desire” must concede that the Summa contains some errors (e.g., the error on the Immaculate Conception).
So, Clement XIII’s encyclical does not provide any support for the false doctrine of “baptism of desire.” Rather, it highlights the key distinction explained above: what’s crucial in considering the Catechism’s teaching are the parts it identifies as what must be “communicated to the faithful.” That position is that no one can be saved without water baptism.
POPES RECOMMENDED ST. THOMAS’ SUMMA THEOLOGIAE IN THE SAME WAY THEY RECOMMENDED THE CATECHISM OF TRENT
In his Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas taught that Mary was not immaculately conceived. Here’s the proof.
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS’ SUMMA THEOLOGIAE CONTAINS BLATANT ERROR ON THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae Pt. III, Q. 27, A. 2, Reply to Objection 2: “If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Savior of all.”
Even though the teaching of the Summa Theologiae contradicts the truth about the Immaculate Conception, it was approved and recommended by numerous popes. It was also placed on the altar at the Council of Trent. How could popes repeatedly approve and recommend a book that contains such a blatantly false teaching on the Immaculate Conception? Does that mean that they were approving, recommending and using a “heretical” book? No. That’s because in substance (on the whole) the teaching of the Summa Theologiae is Catholic and sound, even though there are a few points or paragraphs that aren’t correct. The papal approval does not mean that St. Thomas taught infallibly or correctly in every paragraph of the Summa Theologiae, but rather that his teaching in the book in general is Catholic. Moreover, everything in it must be subjected to proclamations of greater weight.
In response to these points about the Summa, one supporter of “baptism of desire” – a man I debated once, but who backed out of a subsequent debate because he knew he couldn’t defend his position – made the following argument: well, St. Thomas made his error on the Immaculate Conception before the Immaculate Conception was defined as a dogma by Pope Pius IX in 1854. Therefore, his error on that point in the Summa Theologiae is irrelevant.
That argument is, one must say, pathetic. The doctrine St. Thomas put forward in the Summa Theologiae on the Immaculate Conception is FALSE. If the approbation given to a book by pope after pope after pope necessarily means that the Magisterium endorses the teaching of that book as true in every paragraph, that principle would have held true throughout all of Church history. Therefore, by repeatedly approving and recommending his book, the Magisterium would have been endorsing as correct St. Thomas’ false teaching on the Immaculate Conception, even before it was solemnly defined in 1854. But we know the Magisterium did not endorse that false view. That proves that popes can repeatedly approve, utilize and recommend a book as Catholic, even though the book contains certain points or paragraphs that are wrong and should not be followed. Their approval for the book is legitimate because the book’s teaching in general is Catholic, even though it might contain some errors or false ideas.
Furthermore, the aforementioned argument is obliterated by the fact that popes gave the same kind of approval and recommendation to the Summa Theologiae after the Immaculate Conception was defined in 1854! Here are a few examples.
POPES ALSO APPROVED THE SUMMA THEOLOGIAE WITHOUT QUALIFICATION AFTER 1854
In his 1899 document Depuis le jour, Pope Leo XIII praises and recommends the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas in the same way that he recommends the Catechism of Trent.
Pope Leo XIII, Depuis le jour (#’s 22-23), Sept. 8, 1899: “Is it necessary to add that the book par excellence in which students may with most profit study scholastic theology is the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas? It is our wish, therefore, that professors be sure to explain to all their pupils its method, as well as the principal articles relating to Catholic faith.
We recommend equally that all seminarians have in their hands, and frequently peruse, that golden book known as the Catechism of the Council of Trent, or Roman Catechism, dedicated to all priests invested with the pastoral office (Catechismus ad Parochos). Noted both for the abundance and accuracy of its teaching and for elegance of style, this catechism is a precious summary of the whole of theology, dogmatic and moral.”
Well, does the Summa Theologiae have heresy? After 1854 – and Pope Leo XIII published Depuis le jour in 1899 – St. Thomas’ view on the Immaculate Conception would not only be erroneous, but heretical.
So, what exactly does Pope Leo XIII’s praise for (and approval of) the Summa Theologiae mean? Does it mean that every paragraph or article in the Summa is infallible or can be followed? No. It means that in general the book is Catholic. It does not mean that of the thousands of paragraphs, there aren’t a few that are wrong or less than perfectly in accord with Catholic doctrine. In the same way, the Catechism of Trent in general is sound; but that doesn’t mean that in the over 500 pages of information, there isn’t one or a few paragraphs that are incorrect. And, as I’ve proven, the official teaching of the Catechism, which it says is to be communicated to the faithful, is absolutely correct. It is that no one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism; and that no one can be in the Church without the Sacrament of Baptism.
Here are some more examples of emphatic papal approval for the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas. Yet, this approval does not demonstrate that his teaching was correct or can be followed in every case.
Pope St. Pius V said St. Thomas was “the most certain rule of Christian doctrine by which he enlightened the Apostolic Church in answering conclusively numberless errors… which illumination has often been evident in the past and recently stood forth prominently in the decrees of the Council of Trent.”
So, Pius V says that he’s “the most certain rule”; yet, there are points of the teaching of St. Thomas that CANNOT be held by a Catholic.
Pope Leo XIII, Aeterni Patris, August 4, 1879:“But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.”
Pope Benedict XIII wrote to the Order of Preachers that they should “pursue with energy your Doctor’s works, more brilliant than the sun and written without the shadow of error. These works made the Church illustrious with wonderful erudition, since they march ahead and proceed with unimpeded step, protecting and vindicating by the surest rule of Christian doctrine, the truth of our holy religion.”
Pope Benedict XV stated that “the eminent commendations of Thomas Aquinas by the Holy See no longer permit a Catholic to doubt that he was divinely raised up that the Church might have a master whose doctrine should be followed in a special way at all times.”
The BOD heretics do not understand Catholic teaching. They approach both magisterial teaching and dogmatic teaching from a man-centered perspective, rather than from a God-centered one. Faced with the facts above, their principles would force them to reason thus: since popes repeatedly approved St. Thomas and the Summa Theologiae, both before and after 1854, his teaching on the Immaculate Conception is consistent with the definition of the Immaculate Conception.
But that would be a disastrous conclusion. His teaching on the Immaculate Conception is not consistent with Ineffabilis Deus of Pope Pius IX. The approbation popes gave to the Summa Theologiae and to his work was a general one. It doesn’t mean that everything he taught is correct. None of the statements which approved his work were infallible declarations that everything in the Summa Theologiae or the teaching of St. Thomas is correct. The same is true of the Catechism of Trent. It would be possible for a pope to issue an infallible declaration that a particular work is absolutely and completely correct in every part, but no such declaration was made about the Summa Theologiae or the Catechism of Trent.
POPE PIUS X ALSO IMPOSED THE USE OF THE SUMMA THEOLOGIAE ON HIGHER SCHOOLS IN ITALY, WITHOUT CORRECTING ITS FALSE TEACHING ON THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION
“Shortly before his death, viz., in June, 1914, Pope Pius X issued a document imposing the obligation of using the Summa of St. Thomas as the text-book in all higher schools in Italy and the adjacent islands which enjoyed the privilege of conferring academic degrees in theology.” (Daniel Joseph Kennedy, the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, II. Specimen Pages from the Summa, pp. 3-4.)
How could Pope Pius X impose the obligation of using the Summa as the text-book in 1914, when St. Thomas teaches contrary to the Immaculate Conception in the Summa? Pope Pius X never ordered the Summa’s error on the Immaculate Conception to be expunged. In fact, when approving or recommending the Summa, none of the popes bothered to correct St. Thomas’ mistake on the Immaculate Conception. So, how is it possible that they approved and recommended it? It’s possible because they gave it a general approbation. They didn’t issue an infallible declaration that everything in it is correct.
These facts completely refute the argument advanced by supporters of “baptism of desire,” according to which a papal recommendation or approval of the Catechism of Trent necessarily means that everything in it is correct. They are totally wrong.
THEY TRUST IN MAN RATHER THAN IN GOD AND THE OFFICE OF THE PAPACY
There’s an interesting dynamic at work when obstinate supporters of “baptism of desire” approach these matters. While their rhetoric might give the appearance of devotion to Catholic teaching, it’s simply a deception. Their alleged devotion to selective passages in a catechism or in the teaching of a theologian does not spring from belief in the teaching of the Catholic Church. It is, rather, purely the product of their trust in man. They simply cannot bring themselves to believe that a book or work used or produced by men they admire was not corrected in every possible way by those men. They have the utmost confidence in man and in his fallible works, even though the Church does not teach that God always protects men in such works. And while they have such confidence in the fallible teaching and actions of men, they lack a similar belief in the infallibly-protected teachings of God and His Church. They are devoid of supernatural faith in God and a real belief in papal infallibility as a charism given uniquely to St. Peter and his successors. Their approach is a clear mark of bad will.
Jeremiah 17:5- “Thus says the Lord: Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the Lord.”
If the obstinate proponents of “baptism of desire” believed in God, they would focus on what the Magisterium clearly teaches. They would adhere to what the infallibly-protected proclamations of God’s Church directly proclaim on the matter. The papacy and the dogmas unerringly define the rule of Catholic faith. The rule of faith is not decided by theologians or fallible books.
If they had fidelity to papal teaching, they would then see that the Magisterium has never taught “baptism of desire”, or that anyone can be saved without the Catholic faith, or that anyone can be saved without actual membership in the Church. They would realize that while God protects every inch and paragraph of such proclamations, the same protection is not granted to every paragraph of the teaching of catechisms, theologians, etc. Men can be mistaken and overlook things in a book, as the facts about the Summa Theologiae prove. The teachings of the Chair of St. Peter cannot be mistaken, and that protection was not granted to everyone.
To ignore that the promise of infallibility was uniquely given to St. Peter and his successors, and not to other members of the Church (see Luke 22:31-32), is to fail to understand the very foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ upon St. Peter.
THE NUMEROUS PROBLEMS WITH THE ONE PARAGRAPH IN THE CATECHISM OF TRENT THAT “BAPTISM OF DESIRE” ADVOCATES CITE
Let’s now consider the numerous problems in the one paragraph in the Catechism typically cited by supporters of “baptism of desire.” The paragraph is completely inaccurate and contains numerous errors. It is actually a theological travesty: an editor who inserted his own opinion into the text and fell into numerous errors as a result.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, “Ordinarily They Are Not Baptized At Once,” p. 179: “But though these things may be thus, nevertheless to this class [or kind] of men [persons], the Church has not been accustomed to give the Sacrament of Baptism at once, but has arranged that it should be deferred to a fixed time. Nor does this delay have connected with it the danger, as indeed threatens in the case of children, as stated above; for those who are endowed with the use of reason, the design and plan of receiving Baptism, and repentance for a badly led life, would be sufficient to grace and justification, if some unexpected event hinders so that they are unable to be washed by the saving water. On the contrary, this delay is seen to carry with it certain advantages.”
First, this paragraph is not infallible. It is contrary to the dogmatic teaching of the Church on the necessity of rebirth of water and the Spirit. It is also contrary to the official teaching of the Catechism on Baptism, as explained above.
Second, and this is key, the paragraph doesn’t state anywhere (nor does the lead up to the paragraph) that what is articulated here is to be passed along to the faithful. The above paragraph is thus not the teaching on Baptism which the Catechism identifies as the doctrine to be taught to the faithful. It is, rather, an explanation for the priests for why Baptism is delayed in the case of adults. The explanation is wrong, as I will definitely prove by citing much more authoritative papal teaching which contradicts it on precisely the same issue. But herein we find the key distinction: the Catechism can indeed err in an explanation it gives to the parish priests; but its official teaching of Baptism, which it says is the doctrine to be taught to the faithful, is correct. Its official teaching on Baptism, which it says is to be passed along to the faithful, is that no one can be saved without the Sacrament of Baptism.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, “Matter of Baptism - Fitness,” p. 165: “Upon this subject pastors can teach in the first place that water, which is always at hand and within the reach of all, was the fittest matter of a Sacrament which is necessary to all for salvation.”
Third, the aforementioned paragraph states that some “unexpected event” can make it impossible for someone to receive the saving water. The notion that there are “unexpected events” that can make it impossible for someone to receive Baptism is contrary to Catholic teaching and God’s providence.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 3, Chap. 1, On God the creator of all things: “EVERYTHING THAT GOD HAS BROUGHT INTO BEING HE PROTECTS AND GOVERNS BY HIS PROVIDENCE, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All things are open and laid bare before His eyes, even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures.”
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 11 on Justification, ex cathedra: “... 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. FOR GOD DOES NOT COMMAND IMPOSSIBILITIES, but by commanding admonishes you both to do what you can do, and to pray for what you cannot do…”
It’s not a surprise that the Catechism makes the aforementioned error when attempting to explain the idea of “baptism of desire.” When people articulate or defend a false doctrine, they will always be inconsistent and make numerous mistakes. In fact, the Catechism’s teaching on “unexpected” events making it impossible to receive Baptism contradicts its own teaching.
Catechism of Trent, on Transubstantiation: “The pastor should remember first of all to prepare and fortify his hearers by reminding them that no word shall be impossible with God.”
Fourth, it should also be noted that the aforementioned passage states that the person must have a “design and plan of receiving Baptism” to be saved. None of the modern-day defenders of “baptism of desire” believe that one must have a design of receiving Baptism to be saved. They believe that pagans, Jews, Muslims, etc. can be saved without the Catholic faith, belief in Christ or a design of receiving Baptism.
Fifth, the Catechism’s information about the “delay” in baptizing adult converts is completely and totally wrong. It is contradicted and refuted by the teaching of numerous popes in authoritative documents of the Apostolic See. The Catechism claims that the baptism of adults can be delayed because they can be saved without the saving font, by the design and plan to receive Baptism. Yet, the Church teaches exactly the opposite.
In A.D. 385 Pope St. Siricius issued a Decree to Himerius. It is the oldest surviving papal decree in history. The Decree to Himerius is promulgated with Siricius’ full papal authority. In it he repeatedly invokes the highest authority of the office of St. Peter. He states that his Decree is binding upon all the churches, all the bishops and all the priests. A decree on Church law cannot be any more authoritative than Pope St. Siricius’ Decree to Himerius. Here’s what he says.
Pope St. Siricius, Decree to Himerius, A.D. 385:
LATIN: “Sicut sacram ergo paschalem reverentiam in nullo dicimus esse minuendam, ita infantibus qui necdum loqui poterunt per aetatem vel his, quibus in qualibet necessitate opus fuerit sacra unda baptismatis, omni volumus celeritate succurri, ne ad nostrarum perniciem tendat animarum, si negato desiderantibus fonte salutari exiens unusquisque de saeculo et regnum perdat et vitam.”
“Therefore just as we say that the holy paschal observance is in no way to be diminished, we also say that to infants who will not yet be able to speak on account of their age or to those who in any necessity will need the holy stream of baptism, we wish succor to be brought with all celerity, lest it should tend to the perdition of our souls if the saving font be denied to those desiring it and every single one of them exiting this world lose both the Kingdom and life.”
“Quicumque etiam discrimen naufragii, hostilitatis incursum, obsidionis ambiguum vel cuiuslibet corporalis aegritudinis desperationem inciderint, et sibi unico credulitatis auxilio poposcerint subveniri, eodem quo poscunt momento temporis expetitae regenerationis praemia consequantur. Hactenus erratum in hac parte sufficiat; nunc praefatam regulam omnes teneant sacerdotes, qui nolunt ab apostolicae petrae, super quam Christus universalem construxit Ecclesiam, soliditate divelli.”
“Whoever should fall into the peril of shipwreck, the incursion of an enemy, the uncertainty of a siege or the desperation of any bodily sickness, and should beg to be relieved by the unique help of faith, let them obtain the rewards of the much sought-after regeneration in the same moment of time in which they beg for it. Let the previous error in this matter be enough; [but] now let all priests maintain the aforesaid rule, who do not want to be torn from the solidity of the apostolic rock upon which Christ constructed His universal Church.”
As we can see, he authoritatively teaches that even if those adult catechumens who desired Baptism died before receiving it, they could not be saved. That completely and totally rejects the idea of “baptism of desire.” He also teaches that the Sacrament of Baptism is the only way for them to be saved, and that if there is any danger they should be baptized at once. Those who teach that people desiring water baptism can be saved without receiving it contradict the rule of Catholic faith. Those who teach that there is a way to be saved besides receiving the saving font of water baptism contradict the rule of Catholic faith.
As the Pope’s Decree proclaims, receiving water baptism is the unico credulitatis auxilio (the unique help of faith). Unico, which is a form of unicus, means unique, one-and-only, peerless, unparalleled. There can be no alternatives, no other kinds of baptism. According to the Catholic faith, receiving water baptism is the unique (the only) way to be saved, for infants, for those who desire it or happen to be in any kind of predicament, necessity, illness, etc. That’s the teaching of Pope St. Siricius.
In this very context, the Pope speaks about the custom of delaying adult baptisms until Paschal time. Paschal time is when the Resurrection is celebrated. Since Baptism is the rising from the state of condemnation to new life in Christ (see Colossians 2:12; Romans 6:3-4; etc.), it became customary to celebrate the baptism of adult converts at Paschal time, after the unbaptized catechumens had undergone a period of testing and instruction in preparation for the Christian life. As this decree and others clearly prove, the custom of delaying adult baptisms until Paschal time was not incompatible with the position – and the Church’s infallible teaching – that all those preparing for baptism would indeed be lost if they died before receiving it. No one can be saved without Baptism, as Jesus declared in John 3:5 and the Church infallibly teaches. God can and will keep good-willed and sincere souls alive until Baptism. He is in control.
The practice of baptizing adult converts at Paschal time – and the custom of an extended catechumenate – was a disciplinary one. It was not a requirement of Apostolic Tradition, as we see in Acts chapter 8. There we read that Philip baptized the Eunuch of Candace after a very brief discussion of the basics of the Christian faith.
So, while declaring that the holy Paschal observance is to be continued, Siricius adds that if these unbaptized catechumens find themselves in any necessity at all, they are to be baptized with all celerity, that is, with all swiftness or right away. He then explains why he’s insistent on this point. He declares that they must be baptized right away in any kind of necessity, “lest it should tend to the perdition of our souls if the saving font be denied to those desiring it and every single one of them exiting this world lose both the Kingdom and life.” The Pope teaches that all those who desire water baptism, but die without receiving, will not be saved. That refutes the idea of “baptism of desire.” For a full discussion of Siricius’ decree, and how it completely refutes “baptism of desire,” see our video on that matter: The Latin Text of the Oldest Surviving Papal Decree Rejects “Baptism of Desire”.
Pope St. Siricius’ Decree proves that the Catechism of Trent’s explanation for the delay in baptizing adult converts is simply wrong. It was not part of the official teaching the Catechism says is to be communicated to the faithful.
In the following two statements, Pope St. Leo the Great repeated, in very similar language, the same teaching that we find in the Decree of Siricius. Therefore, he also refutes “baptism of desire” and the Catechism of Trent’s erroneous paragraph.
Pope St. Leo the Great, Letter 166, Oct. 24, 458, #1: “For at the instance of certain brethren we have discovered that some of the prisoners of war, on their free return to their own homes, such to wit as went into captivity at an age when they could have no sure knowledge of anything, crave the healing waters of baptism, but in the ignorance of infancy cannot remember whether they have received the mystery and rites of baptism, and that therefore in this uncertainty of defective recollection their souls are brought into jeopardy, so long as under a show of caution they are denied a grace, which is withheld, because it is thought to have been bestowed.... Consequently the same things, which have come into our mind by the Divine inspiration, have received the assent and confirmation of a large number of the brethren. And so we are bound before all things to take heed lest, while we hold fast to a certain show of caution, we incur a loss of souls who are to be regenerated. For who is so given over to suspicions as to decide that to be true which without any evidence he suspects by mere guesswork? And so wherever the man himself who is anxious for the new birth does not recollect his baptism, and no one can bear witness about him being unaware of his consecration to God, there is no possibility for sin to creep in, seeing that, so far as their knowledge goes, neither the bestower or receiver of the consecration is guilty… And so, whenever such a case occurs, first sift it by careful investigation, and spend a considerable time, unless his last end is near, in inquiring whether there be absolutely no one who by his testimony can assist the other's ignorance. And when it is established that the man who requires the sacrament of baptism is prevented by a mere baseless suspicion, let him come boldly to obtain the grace, of which he is conscious of no trace in himself. Nor need we fear thus to open the door of salvation which has not been shown to have been entered before.”
Notice that in this passage he teaches that people who were to be regenerated (unbaptized catechumens) will lose their souls if they don’t receive water baptism. There is no “baptism of desire.” Receiving the Sacrament of Baptism is the only way to be saved. That’s the teaching of the Apostolic See. The quote below articulates the same position.
Pope St. Leo the Great, Letter 16, Oct. 21, 447, #6: “Wherefore, as it is quite clear that these two seasons [Easter and Pentecost] of which we have been speaking are the rightful ones for baptizing the chosen in Church, we admonish you, beloved, not to add other days to this observance. Because, although there are other festivals also to which much reverence is due in God's honour, yet we must rationally guard this principal and greatest sacrament as a deep mystery and not part of the ordinary routine: not, however, prohibiting the license to succor those who are in danger by administering baptism to them at any time. For while we put off the vows of those who are not pressed by ill health and live in peaceful security to those two closely connected and cognate festivals, we do not at any time refuse this which is the only safeguard of true salvation to anyone in peril of death, in the crisis of a siege, in the distress of persecution, in the terror of shipwreck.”
As we can see, receiving water baptism is the only way to be saved.
SUMMARY OF THE FALSE PARAGRAPH
So, for the following reasons, the Catechism of Trent’s one paragraph, which expresses the idea that one can be justified and saved by the design and plan to receive Baptism, does not demonstrate that the Church taught “baptism of desire”:
1) The paragraph was not even part of the official teaching of the Catechism to be passed along to the faithful, and it was not infallible;
2) It has improper theological terminology about unexpected events making it impossible for someone to reach Baptism;
3) It contradicts the express (and much more authoritative) teaching of the Apostolic See on the very same issue: the delay in baptizing adult converts (see Siricius and Leo the Great above);
4) It contradicts the dogmatic teaching of the Church and the declarations of the Apostolic See on the Sacrament of Baptism, and that no one desiring water baptism can be saved without it;
5) It contradicts its own official teaching.
Is it possible that within the Catechism’s 500-plus pages of information, there is some information given to the parish priests that is not correct? Yes, as proven above. That’s clearly the case with the aforementioned paragraph in the Catechism. Yet, in those points of doctrine which the Catechism says are to be passed along to the faithful, it faithfully represents the teaching of the Catholic Church. There it declares that the faithful are to be taught that no one can be saved or be in the Church without the Sacrament of Baptism.
God allows errors to be taught by fallible men and in fallible sources because, as Scripture teaches, there must be false doctrines.
1 Cor. 11:19: “For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be manifest among you.”
Water baptism is the only way to be saved. That’s the dogmatic teaching of the Church.
Pope Clement V, The Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “Besides, only one baptism regenerating all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be the perfect remedy for salvation for both adults and children.”
Whether infant or adult, God will keep any person of good will alive long enough to receive the Sacrament of Baptism.
St. Augustine, Against Julian, Book 5, Chap. 4: “Of the number of the elect and predestined, even those who have led the very worst kind of life are led to repentance through the goodness of God… Not one of them perishes, regardless of his age at death; never be it said that a man predestined to life would be permitted to end his life without the sacrament of the Mediator [Baptism]. Because of these men, our Lord says: ‘This is the will of him who sent me, the Father, that I should lose nothing of what he has given me.’”
To complete the refutation of this objection, it’s important to note that the Catechism of Trent repeatedly makes reference to the Council of Florence. In fact, it refers specifically to the Council of Florence’s bull Exultate Deo.
In these passages notice that the Catechism refers to the teaching of the bull Exultate Deo as a “definition” and that which “no one can doubt.” The Catechism of Trent thus defers to the teaching of the bull Exultate Deo and considers it infallible. The Catechism itself recognizes the teaching of Exultate Deo as having an authority that’s higher than its own.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, “Penance – the Necessity of Confession,” p. 282: “Justly, then, do those most holy men, our Fathers, proclaim, that by the keys of the Church the gate of Heaven is thrown open, a truth which no one can doubt since the Council of Florence has decreed that the effect of Penance is absolution from sin.”
The place where the Council of Florence “decreed” the effect of Penance was in the bull Exultate Deo. Concerning that bull, the Catechism also states:
Catechism of Trent, on the Form of Baptism: “It appears, however, from the decision and definition of the Council of Florence [Exultate Deo], that those who use this form administer the Sacraments validly, because the words sufficiently express what is essential to the validity of Baptism, that is, the ablution which then takes place.”
And what teaching do we find in the bull Exultate Deo on the necessity of Baptism – the same teaching that’s found in every dogmatic and magisterial pronouncement on the issue? The teaching of the Council of Florence, to which the Catechism of Trent itself defers, is that no one can enter Heaven without the Sacrament of Baptism.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, Exultate Deo, Nov. 22, 1439:“Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
“Baptism of desire” is not consistent with that teaching.
ST. ALPHONSUS ALSO TEACHES THAT THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE’S DECREE EXULTATE DEO HAS A GREATER AUTHORITY THAN THE CATECHISM OF TRENT, AND THAT ITS TEACHING CAN PROVE WHAT THE CATECHISM’S TEACHING CANNOT
It’s also very interesting that St. Alphonsus Liguori, in History of Heresies, refers to the teaching of the bull Exultate Deo. He gives the teaching of the Council of Florence in the bull Exultate Deo an authority higher than the Roman Catechism. Consider his words.
St. Alphonsus, History of Heresies, on Confirmation, #8: “However, it is more commonly held that balsam is necessary for the validity of the sacrament: this is taught by Bellarmine, Gonet, the author of the Theology of Perigord, by Concina, and others, along with St. Thomas and the Roman Catechism. It is proved from the Council of Florence, in which it was stated that the matter of confirmation is chrism, composed of oil and balsam [Decree to the Armenians, on the sacraments].”
Referring to the position that balsam is required in Confirmation, St. Alphonsus references Bellarmine, St. Thomas and the Roman Catechism (i.e., the Catechism of Trent). Yet, he only says that the position is “proved” from the Council of Florence. The part of Florence to which he refers is the bull Exultate Deo. Clearly, according to St. Alphonsus, the Council of Florence’s bull Exultate Deo has an authority that the Roman Catechism does not. Its teaching can prove what the Roman Catechism cannot.
The teaching of the Council of Florence’s bull Exultate Deo is that no one enters Heaven without the Sacrament of Baptism.
For all of the reasons we’ve covered, the objection advanced by supporters of “baptism of desire” from the Catechism of Trent holds no merit.
The infallible teaching of the Catholic Church is that there is only one way for people to be saved: to be reborn of water and the Holy Ghost in the Sacrament of Baptism, as Jesus taught in John 3:5. Even those who desire water baptism, and find themselves in an accident, will lose the Kingdom and life if they depart life without the saving water (Pope St. Siricius). However, the all-powerful and just God can and will keep all His elect alive to receive the unique help of faith. To obstinately teach anything else in the face of these facts is to contradict and deny the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.
Pope Eugene IV, The Council of Florence, Exultate Deo, Nov. 22, 1439: “Holy baptism, which is the gateway to the spiritual life, holds the first place among all the sacraments; through it we are made members of Christ and of the body of the Church. And since death entered the universe through the first man, ‘unless we are born again of water and the Spirit, we cannot,’ as the Truth says, ‘enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]. The matter of this sacrament is real and natural water.”
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism, Sess. 7, 1547: “If anyone says that baptism [the sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema.”
Pope Clement V, The Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “Besides, one baptism regenerating all who are baptized in Christ must be faithfully confessed by all just as ‘one God and one faith’ [Eph. 4:5], which celebrated in water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit we believe to be the perfect remedy for salvation for both adults and children.”
Pope Clement V, The Council of Vienne, 1311-1312: “But since one is the universal Church, of regulars and seculars, of prelates and subjects, of exempt and non-exempt, outside of which absolutely (omnino) no one (nullus) is saved (salvatur), one is the Lord, one is the Faith and one is the baptism of all.”
Pope St. Siricius, Decree to Himerius, A.D. 385: “Therefore just as we say that the holy paschal observance is in no way to be diminished, we also say that to infants who will not yet be able to speak on account of their age or to those who in any necessity will need the holy stream of baptism, we wish succor to be brought with all celerity, lest it should tend to the perdition of our souls if the saving font be denied to those desiring it and every single one of them exiting this world lose both the Kingdom and life. Whoever should fall into the peril of shipwreck, the incursion of an enemy, the uncertainty of a siege or the desperation of any bodily sickness, and should beg to be relieved by the unique help of faith, let them obtain the rewards of the much sought-after regeneration in the same moment of time in which they beg for it. Let the previous error in this matter be enough; [but] now let all priests maintain the aforesaid rule, who do not want to be torn from the solidity of the apostolic rock upon which Christ constructed His universal Church.”
WAS VATICAN II INFALLIBLE?
BRO. PETER DIMOND
-JOHN XXIII’S OPENING SPEECH AT VATICAN II, OCT. 11, 1962
-JOHN XXIII SAYS THAT VATICAN II WILL BE AN ACT OF THE UNFAILING MAGISTERIUM
-JOHN XXIII SAYS THAT VATICAN II WILL BE THE EXTRAORDINARY FORM OF THE MAGISTERIUM
-JOHN XXIII SAYS THAT VATICAN II WILL BE A DOCTRINAL COUNCIL
-COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS AND LIES REFUTED
-JOHN XXIII DECLARES THAT VATICAN II’S PRINCIPAL DUTY WILL BE TO DEAL WITH, TRACE OUT, EXPOUND, AND PRESENT CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
-“PASTORAL” - VATICAN I CONNECTED PAPAL INFALLIBILITY WITH A POPE’S “SUPREME PASTORAL OFFICE”
-ANTIPOPE PAUL VI REFERS TO VATICAN II’S TASK OF DEALING WITH AND DEFINING DOCTRINE
-THE THEOLOGICAL NOTE ATTACHED TO LUMEN GENTIUM FURTHER DISPROVES THEIR POSITION
-REFUTING THE OBJECTION FROM PAUL VI’S DEC. 7, 1965, SPEECH
-THE DEATH-BLOW: VATICAN II, WHILE PURPORTING TO BE MAGISTERIAL, FORMALLY “DECLARED” THAT ITS FALSE TEACHING ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IS CONTAINED IN “DIVINE REVELATION” – THE VERY ACT WHICH LEO XIII TEACHES WOULD NECESSARILY BE INFALLIBLE AND PROTECTED
-PAUL VI’S DEC. 7, 1965, SPEECH IS NOT AN ACT OF THE COUNCIL
-PAUL VI’S SPEECH, BESIDES NOT BEING AN ACT OF THE COUNCIL, DOES NOT SAY THAT VATICAN II WAS NOT INFALLIBLE OR BINDING, BUT ACTUALLY INDICATES THE OPPOSITE
-WHY THE COUNCIL OF NICEA WAS INFALLIBLE – COMPARED WITH VATICAN II
-PAPAL PRIMACY AT THE COUNCIL OF NICEA
-ANTIPOPE PAUL VI’S CONFIRMATION OF EACH DOCUMENT OF THE COUNCIL ENDS ANY DEBATE
-PAUL VI REFERS TO VATICAN II AS A SOLEMN DECLARATION
-PAUL VI DENOUNCES LEFEBVRE AND LEFEBVRISTS FOR SAYING THAT VATICAN II WAS NOT BINDING
-BENEDICT XVI REPEATEDLY REFERS TO THE BINDING NATURE OF VATICAN II
-APPENDIX – PAPAL TEACHING ON HOW THE MAGISTERIUM AND THE CHURCH ARE FREE FROM ERROR
-LINKS TO MATERIALS ON THE HERESIES AND FALSE DOCTRINES TAUGHT BY VATICAN II
It is widely recognized by those who claim to be conservative or traditional Catholics that Vatican II taught errors and false doctrines. However, many of those people hold that Vatican II’s false doctrines do not pose problems for the legitimacy of John XXIII, Paul VI, etc.; for, according to them, the teaching of Vatican II was supposedly never made binding by the Vatican II “popes.” In this article we will address this issue and refute widespread misconceptions that exist on this matter. Our article and book dealt with this topic in detail. Those materials contain numerous revealing facts. However, this article contains numerous very important new quotes and points, including with regard to John XXIII’s opening speech at Vatican II.
On Oct. 11, 1962, John XXIII gave the speech that opened the Second Vatican Council. The speech is a crucial component of how many so-called traditionalists who accept the Vatican II “popes” as true popes, but have problems with the post-Vatican II Church and the teaching of Vatican II, explain their position. This article will closely examine John XXIII’s speech. False information about what John XXIII said has been disseminated for years in so-called traditionalist newspapers, publications, and magazines. As a result, countless souls have failed to see the true nature of the current crisis in the post-Vatican II period.
The question is: did John XXIII’s opening speech state that Vatican II would not be a doctrinal, dogmatic, magisterial or infallible council, but only a “pastoral” one? Does his speech allow the so-called traditionalists to reject Vatican II as erroneous or heretical, and yet accept the men who implemented and promulgated it (i.e., John XXIII, Paul VI, etc.) as true popes? Let’s examine the evidence. (Later on we will consider the manner in which Paul VI confirmed Vatican II.) Before we consider the speech, keep in mind that John XXIII was an antipope. Our material proves that he was a manifest heretic and a Freemason. Since John XXIII was not a Catholic, he was ineligible to become pope. There is also evidence that he wasn’t even canonically elected in the 1958 conclave, but rather obtained the election by fraud after someone else had already been elected. That’s in addition to his ineligibility for the office. When one considers the evidence that the Vatican II sect lacks the characteristics of the Catholic Church and represents a revolution against authentic Catholicism - a fact which has only become more clear each day under Francis - it makes sense that the line of Vatican II antipopes began with a fraudulent election in 1958.
Since the Vatican II claimants to the Papacy were not true popes but antipopes, any attempts they made to bind Vatican II and other false teachings do not – let me repeat, do not – impact or invalidate Catholic teaching on papal infallibility or Christ’s promises to the Church; for their actions were those of invalid usurpers who never sat in the Chair of St. Peter. Their false reigns were the fulfillment of the prophesied end-times apostasy and deception. However, for those who do recognize John XXIII, Paul VI, etc. as true popes, as some false traditionalists still do, the facts we will now cover definitely impact their position. These facts show that their position on Vatican II is incompatible with Catholic teaching on papal infallibility.
JOHN XXIII’S OPENING SPEECH AT VATICAN II, OCT. 11, 1962
Let’s now consider some key sections of John XXIII’s opening speech at Vatican II, in Latin and English. The Latin text of the speech is available here, on the Vatican’s website: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/speeches/1962/documents/hf_j-xxiii_spe_19621011_opening-council_lt.html. In consulting a key portion of the Latin text, and comparing it to a typical online English translation, I noticed that while the general point I’m going to be making can be proven from all English versions of the speech, the typical online translation was insufficiently faithful to the Latin original in important areas. I asked Timothy Johnson (an expert in Latin and Ancient Greek) to provide a more accurate translation of key portions of the speech and he did so. The following translation he provided is the most literal translation available of these sections. Let’s consider some of the crucial paragraphs and refute the false traditionalist myths about the speech.
Let’s begin in paragraph #2.
“2. Recentissimus humilisque eiusdem Principis Apostolorum Successor, qui vos alloquitur, amplissisimum hunc Coetum indicens, id sibi proposuit, ut iterum Magisterium Ecclesiasticum, numquam deficiens et ad finem usque temporum perseverans, affirmaretur; quod quidem Magisterium rationem habens errorum, necessitatum, rerum opportunarum nostrae aetatis, per hoc ipsum Concilium omnibus hominibus, quotquot in orbe terrarum sunt, extraordinario modo, in praesenti exhibetur.”
JOHN XXIII SAYS THAT VATICAN II WILL BE AN ACT OF THE UNFAILING MAGISTERIUM
John XXIII says:
“The most recent and lowly successor of the same Prince of the Apostles who is addressing you, in convoking this most imposing Assembly, has proposed this for himself, that the Ecclesiastical Magisterium, never failing and persevering even to the end of the times, be once again affirmed; which selfsame Magisterium, taking account of the errors, necessities and opportunities of our age, is, by means of this very Council, being presented to all men, as many as be in the world, in extraordinary form at the present time.”
John XXIII states that in convoking Vatican II, he proposed for himself that the Ecclesiastical Magisterium, which is never failing, is affirmed. He thus identifies Vatican II as an act of the Magisterium. In fact, he identifies Vatican II as an act of the unfailing (and therefore infallible) Magisterium. So much for the myth that John XXIII stated that Vatican II would not be infallible. The truth is the opposite. He states that it will enact the unfailing Magisterium. The unfailing Magisterium is infallible because if it could teach error or be deceived, it would not be unfailing or indefectible. It’s interesting that the words John XXIII uses here are almost identical to the words Vatican I used to describe papal infallibility. To express the infallibility of popes when speaking from the Chair of St. Peter, Vatican I stated:
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4, 1870 A.D.- “So, this charism of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this Chair...”
“Hoc igitur veritatis et fidei nunquam deficientis charisma Petro eiusque in hac cathedra successoribus divinitus collatum est…”
Vatican I describes the infallibility of the Chair of St. Peter as a gift or charism of truth and a never failing faith. The words it used for “never failing” are “nunquam deficientis.” That’s the very same statement that John XXIII makes to describe the alleged “magisterial” authority of Vatican II. John XXIII says “numquam deficiens.” The only difference between the two statements is that John XXIII’s deficiens is the present active participle of deficio in the nominative form, whereas Vatican I’s deficientis is the present active participle of the same verb in the genitive form. Deficientis agrees with fidei. (Also, numquam is an alternate spelling of nunquam.) So, Vatican I and John XXIII’s speech to open the Second Vatican Council use the same language. They both refer to the unfailing Magisterium of popes in the Chair of St. Peter. John XXIII says that Vatican II will exercise and represent that unfailing (and therefore infallible) Magisterium.
JOHN XXIII SAYS THAT VATICAN II WILL BE THE EXTRAORDINARY FORM OF THE MAGISTERIUM
John XXIII also says that the Magisterium, by means of this very Council or through this very Council (per hoc ipsum Concilium), is being presented to the world extraordinario modo (that is, in extraordinary form).
“2. Recentissimus humilisque eiusdem Principis Apostolorum Successor, qui vos alloquitur, amplissisimum hunc Coetum indicens, id sibi proposuit, ut iterum Magisterium Ecclesiasticum, numquam deficiens et ad finem usque temporum perseverans, affirmaretur; quod quidem Magisterium rationem habens errorum, necessitatum, rerum opportunarum nostrae aetatis, per hoc ipsum Concilium omnibus hominibus, quotquot in orbe terrarum sunt, extraordinario modo, in praesenti exhibetur.”
“The most recent and lowly successor of the same Prince of the Apostles who is addressing you, in convoking this most imposing Assembly, has proposed this for himself, that the Ecclesiastical Magisterium, never failing and persevering even to the end of the times, be once again affirmed; which selfsame Magisterium, taking account of the errors, necessities and opportunities of our age, is, by means of this very Council, being presented to all men, as many as be in the world, in extraordinary form at the present time.”
In this passage extraordinario modo is an ablative of manner. It describes the manner in which the Magisterium is being exhibited or presented to the whole world by means of this Council (Vatican II). Thus, according to John XXIII’s opening speech, Vatican II would be act of the infallible extraordinary Magisterium. As we can see, the facts about what John XXIII actually said in the speech are just the opposite of what false traditionalists have been telling people for years.
One should also keep in mind that while not everything a pope writes, approves or promulgates is magisterial, if something on faith or morals is indeed authoritatively taught by the Magisterium to the entire world, it is by that very fact infallible. The Magisterium cannot commit itself to that which is false (see the Appendix for numerous papal quotes on this matter).
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#16-18), Dec. 31, 1929: “Upon this magisterial office Christ conferred infallibility, together with the command to teach His doctrine… Hence it is that in this proper object of her mission, that is, in faith and morals, God Himself has made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and, by a special privilege, granted her immunity from error.”
Pope Leo XIII also teaches:
Pope Leo XIII, Caritatis Studium (#6), July 25, 1898: “…. a living, perpetual magisterium was necessary in the Church from the beginning, which, by the command of Christ himself, should besides teaching other wholesome doctrines, give an authoritative explanation of Holy Writ, and which being directed and safeguarded by Christ himself, could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching… For Christ when He gave the keys to Peter, gave him at the same time the power to govern those who were charged with the ministry of the word: ‘Confirm thy Brethren’ (Luke xxii. 32). And since the faithful must learn from the ‘magisterium’ of the Church whatever pertains to the salvation of their souls, it follows that they must also learn from it the true meaning of Scripture.”
Since Vatican II purported to be magisterial – and, in fact, an act of the unfailing Magisterium – either it is infallible in all of its teaching on faith, morals and the understanding of Scripture, or the men who organized and confirmed it were not true popes but antipopes. The truth is clearly the latter.
Continuing with John XXIII’s opening speech, he speaks of Vatican II in the context of ecumenical councils. He then says: “Testimonies of this Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church – that is, of its universal Synods – come constantly before Our eyes.” Since John XXIII identifies Vatican II as one of those universal Synods, he therefore once again identifies Vatican II as the testimony of the extraordinary Magisterium of the Church. The extraordinary Magisterium of the Church is infallible.
“2. Hanc coniunctionem cum Christo eiusque Ecclesia Concilia Oecumenica, quotiescumque ea celebrari contingit, sollemni quodam modo praedicant et veritatis lucem quoquoversus emittunt, vitam singulorum hominum, domestici convictus, societatis in rectas semitas dirigunt, spirituales vires excitant atque stabiliunt, ad vera et sempiterna bona continenter animos erigunt. Testimonia extraordinarii huius Magisterii Ecclesiae, scilicet universalium Synodorum, ob oculos Nostros versantur, dum varias hominum aetates per haec viginti saecula christiani aevi intuemur. Quae documenta pluribus magnique ponderis voluminibus continentur ac veluti sacer thesaurus sunt aestimanda, qui in tabulariis Urbis Romae ac totius orbis terrarum celebratissimis bibliothecis est reconditus.”
“It is this union between Christ and His Church that Ecumenical Councils proclaim in a certain solemn manner every time they happen to be celebrated; and they radiate the light of truth in all directions; they direct the life of individual men, of home-life and society along straight paths; they awaken and fortify spiritual energies; and they continually raise minds to the true and eternal good. Testimonies of this Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church – that is, of its universal Synods – come constantly before Our eyes as We scan the various ages of man over these twenty centuries of the Christian era. These documents are contained in several volumes of great weight, and they are to be esteemed as a kind of sacred thesaurus, which is stored away in the archives of the City of Rome and in the most renowned libraries of the entire world.”
JOHN XXIII SAYS THAT VATICAN II WILL BE A DOCTRINAL COUNCIL
In paragraph #5 of his opening speech, John XXIII discusses the principal or chief duty of the Council. Does he say that Vatican II will merely be a pastoral council that won’t deal with doctrine, as the false traditionalists have told so many? No, not at all.
“Praecipuum Concilii munus: doctrina tuenda ac promovenda
The Principal Duty of the Council: defending and promoting doctrine
What especially interests the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be more effectively guarded and presented.”
He says this: “The principal duty of the Council: defending and promoting doctrine.” According to John XXIII, the main purpose of the Council was to deal with doctrine. He then says: “What especially interests the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be more effectively guarded and presented.” Are people beginning to see how false traditionalists have misled the world about this speech and what it contains? The Council will concern Catholic doctrine, according to John XXIII.
In #6, he says:
“6. Hisce positis, satis manifestae sunt, Venerabiles Fratres, partes quae, ad doctrinam quod attinet, Concilio Oecumenico sunt demandatae.”
“These things having been established, sufficiently has been manifested, Venerable Brothers, the role that has been entrusted to the Ecumenical Council in regard to what pertains to doctrine.”
“Scilicet Concilium Oecumenicum primum et vicesimum - quod efficaci magnique aestimando auxilio utitur eorum, qui scientia sacrarum disciplinarum, apostolatus exercendi resque recto ordine agendi excellunt - integram, non imminutam, non detortam tradere vult doctrinam catholicam, quae, licet inter difficultates et contentiones, veluti patrimonium commune hominum evasit. Hoc non omnibus quidem gratum est, tamen cunctis, qui bona voluntate sunt praediti, quasi paratus thesaurus uberrimus proponitur.”
“Namely, that the twenty-first Ecumenical Council – which utilizes the effective and highly-prized assistance of those who excel in their knowledge of the sacred disciplines, of the practice of the apostolate, and of the correct way of doing things – wishes to hand down Catholic doctrine (in an) integral, undiminished and undistorted (manner), (doctrine) which, although surrounded by difficulties and contentions, has effectively ended up as the common heritage of mankind.”
As we can see, Vatican II was intended to be a doctrinal council.
COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS AND LIES REFUTED
The facts we’ve covered thus far are clear. However, let’s now address the part of the speech that false traditionalists frequently misuse and misquote. The truth is that almost none of them have any idea what the speech (or the following part of the speech) actually said. They simply circulate and repeat myths and legends on the matter. As we will see, the following section of John XXIII’s speech does not support their position but contradicts it. This section of the speech is also found in paragraph #6. It’s important to quote a number of sentences from this paragraph.
“6… Neque opus nostrum, quasi ad finem primarium, eo spectat, ut de quibusdam capitibus praecipuis doctrinae ecclesiasticae disceptetur, atque adeo fusius repetantur ea, quae Patres ac theologi veteres et recentiores tradiderunt, et quae a vobis non ignorari sed in mentibus vestris inhaerere merito putamus.
Etenim ad huiusmodi tantum disputationes habendas non opus erat, ut Concilium Oecumenicum indiceretur. Verumtamen in praesenti oportet ut universa doctrina christiana, nulla parte inde detracta, hic temporibus nostris ab omnibus accipiatur novo studio, mentibus serenis atque pacatis, tradita accurata illa ratione verba concipiendi et in formam redigendi, quae ex actis Concilii Tridentini et Vaticani Primi praesertim elucet; oportet ut, quemadmodum cuncti sinceri rei christianae, catholicae, apostolicae fautores vehementer exoptant, eadem doctrina amplius et altius cognoscatur eaque plenius animi imbuantur atque formentur; oportet ut haec doctrina certa et immutabilis, cui fidele obsequium est praestandum, ea ratione pervestigetur et exponatur, quam tempora postulant nostra. Est enim aliud ipsum depositum Fidei, seu veritates, quae veneranda doctrina nostra continentur, aliud modus, quo eaedem enuntiantur, eodem tamen sensu eademque sententia. Huic quippe modo plurimum tribuendum erit et patienter, si opus fuerit, in eo elaborandum; scilicet eae inducendae erunt rationes res exponendi, quae cum magisterio, cuius indoles praesertim pastoralis est, magis congruant.”
JOHN XXIII DECLARES THAT VATICAN II’S PRINCIPAL DUTY WILL BE TO DEAL WITH, TRACE OUT, EXPOUND, AND PRESENT CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
John XXIII says:
“Nor does our work focus on the following as though it were a primary end: namely, that a discussion should take place about certain special articles of Church teaching or that there should be a more extensive review of those points which the Fathers and theologians, both ancient and more recent, have handed down (to us), and which, we rightly think, are not unknown to you but are firmly embedded in your minds. For there was no need that an Ecumenical Council be proclaimed for disputations solely of this kind. What is, however, needed at the present time is that Christian doctrine in its entirety, without any part removed therefrom, should here and now in our times be received by all men with new zeal, with serene and tranquil minds – (a doctrine) handed down by that precise manner of conceiving and drawing up words which especially shines forth from the Acts of the Council Trent and Vatican I. What is needed – as all sincere supporters of matters Christian, Catholic and apostolic eagerly crave – is that this same doctrine be more widely and deeply known and that minds be more fully imbued and formed by it. What is needed is that this certain and immutable doctrine, to which faithful obedience is owed, be traced out and expounded with that reasonableness which our times demand. For the Deposit of Faith itself or the truths contained by our venerable doctrine are one thing, but the manner in which they are enunciated (albeit with the same sense and the same meaning) is another. It is precisely to this latter manner that the majority (of our attention) will have to be given; and, if need arise, it will have to be patiently exerted therein. In other words, there will need to be introduced those methods of explaining things which are more in keeping with a Magisterium whose native character is primarily pastoral.”
As a careful reading of this paragraph shows, John XXIII does not say that Vatican II would not be doctrinal or infallible. He actually says the opposite. He says that Vatican II – whose primary task is to deal with doctrine, as he already told us – will concern itself with the manner in which Church doctrine is expounded. The manner or way in which Church doctrine is expounded is inseparable from doctrine itself. (Vatican I declared that we must believe Church doctrine exactly as it has been declared or expounded by the Church.) The following line in the paragraph captures the essence of his point. “What is needed is that this certain and immutable doctrine, to which faithful obedience is owed, be traced out and expounded with that reasonableness which our times demand.”
“PASTORAL” - VATICAN I CONNECTED PAPAL INFALLIBILITY WITH A POPE’S “SUPREME PASTORAL OFFICE”
According to John XXIII, Vatican II will expound and trace out Church doctrine, which the faithful must obey; but it will do so “with that reasonableness which our times demand.” In other words, it will present doctrine in a way that heretics such as Antipope John XXIII deemed more friendly, modern, and pastoral. Of course, that does not mean that the Council will not deal with doctrine. It means that it will deal with doctrine. Something can be both doctrinal and pastoral. The two are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, that which is doctrinal accompanies that which is pastoral. A pope’s pastoral office, for example, involves the power to teach faith and morals. Vatican I even stated that the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility was made precisely to clarify that the Son of God connected an infallible teaching power on faith and morals “with the supreme pastoral office” (“cum summo pastorali officio” –Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, Chap. 4, Denz. 1838).
Moreover, concerning the enunciation of the truths of the Deposit of Faith, John XXIII says: “It is precisely to this” that the majority of our attention will have to be given. Once again, the Council will deal with the enunciation of what it considers to be truths of faith.
In fact, in the one line of the speech that false traditionalists like to use, the point is confirmed. They rarely quote what John XXIII actually said, and it’s not a surprise why. They prefer, instead, to give their inaccurate summary of it. The line says: “In other words, there will need to be introduced those methods of explaining things which are more in keeping with a Magisterium whose native character is primarily pastoral.”
John XXIII refers to methods of explaining things. What things? As he already told us, the things to be explained are matters of Church doctrine. He referred to them as matters of “Christian doctrine” to which “faithful obedience is owed.” In this line he also says that Vatican II will represent the Magisterium: “in keeping with a Magisterium whose native character is primarily pastoral.” The Magisterium is infallible, as we already covered.
Therefore, this line by itself demonstrates that Vatican II will concern itself with explaining Church doctrine. It will be binding and magisterial – that is to say, infallible. When John XXIII says that Vatican II will use methods of explaining the doctrine (which people must obey) in keeping with a Magisterium whose native character is primarily pastoral, he means that Vatican II will employ methods of formulating Church doctrine that modernists such as John XXIII deemed more palatable to modern man. They will consequently be considered more friendly or “pastoral.” The reference to “pastoral” is thus to how the Church’s doctrine is being presented. It concerns doctrine and how it is expounded. It does not mean that the Council will not deal with doctrine or that it will not be magisterial or infallible.
The fact that Vatican II did deal extensively with matters of Church doctrine is obvious from the Council’s documents. They deal at length with matters of doctrine. Lumen Gentium is even called the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, and Dei Verbum is called the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. The problem is that Vatican II contains numerous heresies and false doctrines. It was a wicked council. It teaches the following heresies: that Protestants and schismatics who reject Catholic teaching are in the Body of Christ; that Jews are not to be considered rejected by God, even though they reject Christ and His Church; that Islam and other non-Christian religions are to be esteemed; that non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion; that non-Catholic religions are means of salvation; that non-Catholics are martyrs; that it’s good to participate in non-Catholic worship; that Muslims worship the one true God; that states lack the authority to prevent the public expression of false religions; and much more. Vatican II definitely dealt with doctrine, but it taught falsely on doctrine and the results were disastrous and demonic. That’s because it was a false, revolutionary, anti-Council run by heretics. It was convoked by an antipope and confirmed by an antipope. It initiated a theological revolution and a Counter Church.
Let’s now summarize the facts we’ve covered about John XXIII’s opening speech at Vatican II.
There’s simply no doubt that if John XXIII was a true pope (and he definitely wasn’t), Vatican II was intended to be an ecumenical council. It was intended to operate magisterially and infallibly, with binding doctrinal teaching on faith and morals, just as previous ecumenical councils did. Its authority and scope would be the same as a typical ecumenical council. It would simply deal with doctrine in a way the leaders of Vatican II deemed appealing to modern man.
ANTIPOPE PAUL VI REFERS TO VATICAN II’S TASK OF DEALING WITH AND DEFINING DOCTRINE
By the way, during Vatican II, Antipope Paul VI, the man who confirmed Vatican II, wrote an encyclical called Ecclesiam Suam. It was addressed to the entire Church. In #30 of Ecclesiam Suam, Paul VI stated this:
Antipope Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam (# 30), Aug. 6, 1964: “It is precisely because the Second Vatican Council has the task of dealing once more with the doctrine de Ecclesia (of the Church) and of defining it, that it has been called the continuation and complement of the First Vatican Council.”
From these facts we can see just how wrong the false traditionalists are on this matter. They have deceived countless souls about John XXIII’s speech and the authority of Vatican II. It’s obvious why. Their false position on the authority that was intended for Vatican II is an integral component of their false position on the legitimacy of John XXIII, Paul VI, etc. This is especially true of the Society of St. Pius X and its supporters, among whom myths about Vatican II run rampant. Their false position on Vatican II has been embraced by other groups as well. It’s held even by many who attend the New ‘Mass’ or an Indult ‘Mass’. It is promoted by some supporters of the Fraternity of St. Peter and like-minded groups. It is widely embraced and promoted because anyone who is even slightly conservative recognizes that Vatican II was a rotten tree that brought forth rotten fruit. Hence, the assertion that Vatican II was not binding is central to their explanation of how they can possibly reject Vatican II in whole or in part while adhering to the men who implemented and promulgated it.
We hope people consider these facts and embrace the correct position: that all the Vatican II claimants to the Papacy (John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis) are not true popes but heretical, non-Catholic antipopes. That’s the true position. That’s the Catholic position. That’s the only theologically consistent position.
So far we’ve dealt primarily with John XXIII’s opening speech and the false claims people make about it. Although his opening speech is perhaps the most common objection people raise on the issue of Vatican II’s alleged non-binding nature, there are other objections they advance on this matter. A careful examination of each one, however, only further proves their position to be false. In fact, to illustrate the point, let’s consider and refute another objection they advance.
THE THEOLOGICAL NOTE ATTACHED TO LUMEN GENTIUM FURTHER DISPROVES THEIR POSITION
Some false traditionalists cite the theological note, dated to 1964, which was attached to the document Lumen Gentium. This note, by the way, applied to the document Lumen Gentium, not to all Vatican II documents. A careful examination of the note only further refutes the false traditionalists’ claims. That’s because the note shows that the antipopes made Vatican II binding and an act of the Magisterium. If the theological note were applied generally to Vatican II, it would require people, for example, to accept Vatican II’s false teaching on religious liberty. Here’s what it says:
“Taking into account conciliar custom and the pastoral aim of the present Council, this Sacred Synod defines as binding on the Church only those matters of faith or morals which it openly declares as such. THE OTHER MATTERS WHICH THE SACRED SYNOD PUTS FORWARD AS THE TEACHING OF THE SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH, EACH AND EVERY MEMBER OF CHRIST’S FAITHFUL MUST ACCEPT AND EMBRACE ACCORDING TO THE MIND OF THE SACRED SYNOD ITSELF, WHICH IS CLEAR EITHER FROM THE SUBJECT MATTER OR FROM ITS MANNER OF SPEAKING, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NORMS OF THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION.”
According to the theological note, people must accept the teaching of Vatican II (which it calls the teaching of the supreme Magisterium) according to the mind of the Synod itself. That mind or intention, it says, is clear from the subject matter or the manner in which the Synod speaks on a topic. Well, everything in Vatican II was solemnly approved by Antipope Paul VI as binding, as we will see. Moreover, there are numerous places in Vatican II where the Synod (the Vatican II Robbers’ Synod) sets forth what it considers to be the teaching of the supreme Magisterium in language that is binding. For instance, in #9 of its heretical Declaration on Religious Liberty, Vatican II states:
#9. “Quae de iure hominis ad libertatem religiosam declarat haec Vaticana Synodus, fundamentum habent in dignitate personae, cuius exigentiae rationi humanae plenius innotuerunt per saeculorum experientiam. Immo haec doctrina de libertate radices habet in divina Revelatione, quapropter eo magis a Christianis sancte servanda est.”
Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae (# 9): “The things which this Vatican Synod declares concerning the right of man to religious liberty, have their foundation in the dignity of the person, whose needs have become more fully known to human reason through the experience of the ages. In fact, this doctrine on liberty has its roots in divine Revelation; with all the more reason, therefore, it is to be preserved sacredly by Christians.”
Remember, according to the theological note, one must accept Vatican II according to the mind of the Synod itself, which is clear from the subject matter or what it says. Here Vatican II declares that its (false) teaching on religious liberty is rooted in divine Revelation and is on that account to be preserved sacredly by Christians. In the Latin servanda est (meaning “is to be preserved”) is a gerundive agreeing with doctrina. The Council is thus directly stating that its doctrine (doctrina) concerning religious liberty (which it says comes from divine Revelation) “is to be preserved” (servanda est) sacredly by Christians. That means that each and every person who accepts Paul VI must accept Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty as sacred and rooted in divine Revelation; for that is the mind of this Synod, which is clear from what it said. And there’s more:
#12 “Ecclesia igitur, evangelicae veritati fidelis, viam Christi et Apostolorum sequitur quando rationem libertatis religiosae tamquam dignitati hominis et Dei revelationi consonam agnoscit eamque fovet…”
Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae (# 12): “The Church therefore, faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and the Apostles when it acknowledges the principle of religious liberty as in accord with human dignity and the revelation of God, and when it promotes it…”
Those who accept Antipope Paul VI as a pope are bound to accept Vatican II’s heretical teaching on religious liberty as 1) faithful to the truth of the Gospel; 2) following the way of Christ and the Apostles; and 3) in accord with the revelation of God; for that is the mind of the Synod, which is clear from what it says. As we can see, bringing up the theological note does not help the false traditionalists. It only further destroys their position by proving they are bound to the false teachings of Vatican II. Other examples could be given.
REFUTING THE OBJECTION FROM PAUL VI’S DEC. 7, 1965, SPEECH
In fact, let’s examine another popular objection false traditionalists raise on this issue. They like to quote a speech that Paul VI gave during the last general meeting of Vatican II, on Dec. 7, 1965. They think the speech proves that Vatican II did not make any extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, and therefore that Vatican II’s false teaching on various topics could not have been promulgated in what would be an infallible or binding way. But they are quite wrong, for several reasons. The facts in this section will thoroughly refute their claims on this matter.
Paul VI, Last General Meeting of Vatican II, Dec. 7, 1965: “But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man's conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force…”
First, as we already saw, John XXIII convoked Vatican II to be an ecumenical council. He stated that Vatican II would be an act of the unfailing Magisterium and would present the Magisterium “in extraordinary form”. And that is exactly how Paul VI confirmed Vatican II in the official acts of the Council, as we will see.
Second, even if one supposed, for the sake of argument, that Paul VI’s remarks on that particular day (which weren’t even an act of the Council) proved that Vatican II did not attempt any extraordinary dogmatic definitions, that would not prove that Vatican II was not promulgated with what would be the infallible authority of the Magisterium if Paul VI had been the pope. The reason is that, in addition to the solemn or extraordinary Magisterium, the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium is infallible, as Vatican I declared. Vatican II identified its own teaching as that of the supreme Magisterium, as we already saw. Vatican II was also undoubtedly universal, as it purported to be an ecumenical council and it applied to the entire Church. Whether the Magisterium teaches in an extraordinary fashion or in its ordinary and universal Magisterium or in what is simply identified as the authoritative teaching of “the Magisterium” to the entire world, it is infallible. As we already demonstrated from the teaching of Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri and Pope Leo XIII in Caritatis Studium, the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Magisterium to the entire world on faith or morals cannot be false, regardless of whether that teaching is called the extraordinary Magisterium, the supreme Magisterium, the ordinary and universal Magisterium, the unfailing Magisterium or simply “the Magisterium.” Indeed, in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus #17, Pope Leo XIII refers to the infallible Magisterium of the Church as “the proper Magisterium.”
Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (#17), Nov. 18, 1893: “To prove, to expound, to illustrate Catholic doctrine by the legitimate and skilful interpretation of the Bible, is much; but there is a second part of the subject of equal importance and equal difficulty - the maintenance in the strongest possible way of its full authority. This cannot be done completely or satisfactorily except by means of the living and proper magisterium of the Church. The Church, ‘by reason of her wonderful propagation, her distinguished sanctity and inexhaustible fecundity in good, her Catholic unity, and her unshaken stability, is herself a great and perpetual motive of credibility, and an unassailable testimony to her own divine mission.’ But since the divine and infallible magisterium of the Church rests also on the authority of Holy Scripture, the first thing to be done is to vindicate the trustworthiness of the sacred records at least as human documents, from which can be clearly proved, as from primitive and authentic testimony, the divinity and the mission of Christ our Lord, the institution of a hierarchical Church and the primacy of Peter and his successors.”
Vatican II without any doubt purported to be the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Magisterium to the entire world on matters of faith and morals. Since its teaching was false and heretical, the men who implemented and promulgated it could not have been true popes. In fact, in Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Satis Cognitum, there’s a very interesting point in this regard. Pope Leo XIII describes the infallible Magisterium of the Church as the “living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium.” He also says:
THE DEATH-BLOW: VATICAN II, WHILE PURPORTING TO BE MAGISTERIAL, FORMALLY “DECLARED” THAT ITS FALSE TEACHING ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IS CONTAINED IN “DIVINE REVELATION” – THE VERY ACT WHICH LEO XIII TEACHES WOULD NECESSARILY BE INFALLIBLE AND PROTECTED
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#9), June 29, 1896: “Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles He confirmed… As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by everyone as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man.”
Leo XIII teaches that as often as it is declared that something is contained in divine revelation, it is infallible and must be accepted. Notice the amazing specificity with which Pope Leo XIII’s description of an infallible teaching of the Magisterium matches the language used in Vatican II’s heretical declaration on religious liberty. As we quoted already, #9 of the heretical Declaration on Religious Liberty states:
Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae (# 9): “The things which this Vatican Synod declares [declarat] concerning the right of man to religious liberty, have their foundation in the dignity of the person, whose needs have become more fully known to human reason through the experience of the ages. In fact, this doctrine [doctrina] on liberty has its roots in divine Revelation; with all the more reason, therefore, it is to be preserved [servanda est] sacredly by Christians.”
In #12 of that document, Vatican II also declared that its doctrine on religious liberty is faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and the Apostles, and is in accord with the revelation of God.
Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae (# 12): “The Church therefore, faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and the Apostles when it acknowledges the principle of religious liberty as in accord with human dignity and the revelation of God, and when it promotes it…”
Vatican II thus attempts to do exactly what Pope Leo XIII says the Magisterium does when it teaches infallibly.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#9), June 29, 1896: “As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by everyone as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man.”
Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae (# 9): “The things which this Vatican Synod declares [declarat] concerning the right of man to religious liberty... this doctrine [doctrina] on liberty has its roots in divine Revelation; with all the more reason, therefore, it is to be preserved [servanda est] sacredly by Christians.”
Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae (# 12): “The Church therefore, faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and the Apostles when it acknowledges the principle of religious liberty as in accord with human dignity and the revelation of God, and when it promotes it…”
To state that a teaching declared in this way by a true pope and the Magisterium could be false is to state that God is the author of error. It is heresy. Therefore, it’s simply a fact that according to the teaching of Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum, all who hold that Paul VI was the pope CANNOT consistently hold that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty was false. When they assert that it was false and obstinately maintain that Paul VI was the pope, they assert that God is the author of error. However, know that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty (and other matters) was indeed false. That proves that Paul VI was not the pope. Vatican II “declares” that its doctrine on religious liberty is rooted “in divine Revelation” and for that reason “is to be preserved sacredly by Christians.” Leo XIII taught that “as often” as the Magisterium declares that something is contained in divine revelation, it is infallible and must be believed by everyone as true!
PAUL VI’S DEC. 7, 1965, SPEECH IS NOT AN ACT OF THE COUNCIL
The third and perhaps most important point to make in regard to Paul VI’s Dec. 7, 1965, speech is that it’s not even one of the official acts of Vatican II. It thus holds no weight in a theological analysis of the authority that Vatican II intended to exercise in its official Acts. Vatican II promulgated Constitutions, Declarations and Decrees. That was confirmed in Paul VI’s Apostolic Brief In Spiritu Sancto, which officially closed the Council on Dec. 8, 1965. The Constitutions, Declarations and Decrees of Vatican II (i.e., the 16 documents of the Council) determine the authority that Vatican II intended to enact; and, as we will see, the language contained in those official Acts of the Council – all of which Paul VI made his own by solemn approval and promulgation – without any question would have fulfilled the requirements for infallible teaching to the entire Church if Paul VI had been the pope. Those Acts were approved as solemnly and authoritatively as popes approved infallible decrees at true ecumenical councils, as we will see. It is simply impossible for a true pope to have promulgated Vatican II’s false teaching on faith and morals to the entire Church with the solemn and binding language that Paul VI did.
PAUL VI'S SPEECH, BESIDES NOT BEING AN ACT OF THE COUNCIL, DOES NOT SAY THAT VATICAN II WAS NOT INFALLIBLE OR BINDING, BUT ACTUALLY INDICATES THE OPPOSITE
Furthermore, in the aforementioned speech on Dec. 7, 1965 (which wasn’t even an act of the Council), Paul VI does not even say that Vatican II was not infallible or binding. In that speech, however, he does say that Vatican II contained “authoritative teaching,” condemned errors, and passed down the Church’s doctrine.
Paul VI, Last General Meeting of Vatican II, Dec. 7, 1965: Vatican II “has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man's conscience and activity…”
Paul VI, Last General Meeting of Vatican II, Dec. 7, 1965: “Errors were condemned, indeed, because charity demanded this no less than did truth…”
Paul VI, Last General Meeting of Vatican II, Dec. 7, 1965: “This council hands over to posterity not only the image of the Church but also the patrimony of her doctrine and of her commandments, the ‘deposit’ received from Christ and meditated upon through centuries, lived and expressed now and clarified in so many of its parts, settled and arranged in its integrity.”
He also quotes John XXIII’s opening speech, which declared that Vatican II dealt with doctrine. But the speech holds no weight anyway. The actual Acts of Vatican II are what must be considered.
WHY THE COUNCIL OF NICEA ACTED INFALLIBLY– COMPARED WITH VATICAN II
It must also be understood that when an ecumenical council meets, it already bears a solemn and universal character by virtue of the nature of the gathering. The only thing an ecumenical council lacks for its official teaching on faith or morals to be infallible and binding on the universal Church is the official confirmation of the teaching on faith or morals by the pope. That’s why, for example, the short statement of faith at the Council of Nicea in 325 is considered dogmatic and infallible, even though Pope St. Sylvester (the pope who reigned at the time) is not known to have issued any papal bull confirming it. Pope St. Sylvester did not attend the Council of Nicea, and there’s no known decree from Sylvester confirming the Council of Nicea in extraordinary language or even in his own words. Pope St. Sylvester did confirm the Council of Nicea’s statement of faith, but he only did so via his legates: the Roman priests, Vito and Vincent. The basic and simple confirmation Pope St. Sylvester gave to the Council of Nicea via his representatives was all that was necessary for the Ecumenical Council’s statement of faith to be considered authoritative, binding, and infallible for the universal Church. That’s because the setting in which it was given (an ecumenical council) already bore a universal character by virtue of the nature of the assembly. It simply awaited the papal confirmation of its acts on faith.
PAPAL PRIMACY AT THE COUNCIL OF NICEA
By the way, it’s also interesting to note the following about papal primacy at the Council of Nicea. The proceedings of the Council of Nicea were led by a Western cleric named Hosius of Cordova. Many believe Hosius served in that capacity on behalf of the pope. Gelasius of Cyzicus, who was a 5th century historian and priest in the Eastern part of the Church, spoke of "Hosius holding the place of Sylvester, the Bishop of great Rome, together with the Roman presbyters Vito and Vincent." As the presiding officer at Nicea, the signature of Hosius is the first to appear on the list of those who signed the Council of Nicea. Hosius’ signature is immediately followed by the signatures of the pope’s representatives, the Roman priests, Vito and Vincent. The names of Vito and Vincent thus appear before all the patriarchs and bishops at Nicea, just below the name of Hosius, the Council’s presiding officer. The fact that the signatures of the pope’s representatives, the Roman priests, appear before the signatures of the various patriarchs and bishops is a striking example of how the primacy and authority of the bishop of Rome (the pope) was recognized at the Council of Nicea and in the ancient Christian Church.
Pope St. Sylvester’s simple confirmation of Nicea via his legates demonstrates that when you have an ecumenical council officially teaching on faith or morals to the entire Church, that teaching is binding and infallible if confirmed by a pope - period. That’s because the gathering at an ecumenical council already bears an official and universal character. It simply awaits papal confirmation. When one considers the manner in which Paul VI confirmed Vatican II and its teaching on faith and morals, it’s not only clear that Paul VI officially and authoritatively confirmed the teaching of Vatican II, but he confirmed it with solemn language. Indeed, the language he used to confirm and promulgate the Acts of Vatican II is on a par with the language of the most celebrated ecumenical and dogmatic councils in Church history. It is thus theologically absurd for people to maintain that Paul VI was the pope, as Sylvester was, but that the acts of this alleged ecumenical council (Vatican II) dealing with faith and morals were not infallible, binding and authoritative.
ANTIPOPE PAUL VI’S CONFIRMATION OF EACH DOCUMENT OF THE COUNCIL ENDS ANY DEBATE
Perhaps the single most important fact to consider on this issue is the manner in which Antipope Paul VI confirmed Vatican II. Each document of Vatican II begins this way:
“PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY.”
This language is typical of dogmatic decrees at ecumenical councils. It corresponds to how Pope Eugene IV began the 11th session of the dogmatic Council of Florence. He stated: “Eugene, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record.” It corresponds to how Pope Leo X began the 8th session of the dogmatic 5th Lateran Council, and how Pope Pius IX began the 3rd session of the dogmatic First Vatican Council.
Each document of Vatican II ends this way:
“EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS. WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY... I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”
Antipope Paul VI invokes his so-called “apostolic authority” to authoritatively approve, decree, and establish everything set forth in each document of Vatican II. If he had been the pope, this would definitely qualify as solemn dogmatic language. In fact, the language Antipope Paul VI uses here exceeds, in terms of its solemnity, the approval that early popes gave to the Councils of Nicea, Ephesus, and others. If false traditionalists deny that this is infallible language, they must deny that the early councils were infallible.
Moreover, in regard to the aforementioned theological note, Paul VI’s declaration at the beginning and end of every Vatican II document definitely indicates, by “its manner of speaking,” “in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation” (that is, paralleling past dogmatic decrees), that he is enacting the supreme Magisterium of the Church (if he had been the pope).
PAUL VI REFERS TO VATICAN II AS A SOLEMN DECLARATION
In fact, it’s interesting to note that Paul VI referred to Vatican II’s blasphemous teaching that Muslims, together with Catholics, worship the one true God as a solemn declaration.
Antipope Paul VI, Address, Dec. 2, 1977: “… the Moslems profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day, as the Second Vatican Council solemnly declared.”
Antipope Paul VI also solemnly closed Vatican II on Dec. 8, 1965, by again declaring, with his so-called “apostolic authority”, that everything established in the Council “is to be religiously observed by all the faithful.”
Antipope Paul VI, “Papal” Brief declaring Council Closed, Dec. 8, 1965:
“At last all which regards the holy Ecumenical Council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and ALL THE CONSTITUTIONS, DECREES, DECLARATIONS, AND VOTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DELIBERATION OF THE SYNOD AND PROMULGATED BY US. Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes, WITH OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, this same Ecumenical Council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death. WE DECIDE, MOREOVER, THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… WE HAVE APPROVED AND ESTABLISHED THESE THINGS, DECREEING THAT THE PRESENT LETTERS ARE AND REMAIN STABLE AND VALID, AND ARE TO HAVE LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, ALL EFFORTS CONTRARY TO THESE THINGS BY WHOEVER OR WHATEVER AUTHORITY, KNOWINGLY OR IN IGNORANCE, BE INVALID AND WORTHLESS FROM NOW ON. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, December 8… the year 1965, the third year of our Pontificate.”
When Vatican II was officially closed on Dec. 8, 1965, its “authority” was finalized at that point. Therefore, if Paul VI was the pope (and he definitely wasn’t), then the Gates of Hell would have prevailed against the Catholic Church on Dec. 8, 1965 as a consequence of his solemn approval of each document of Vatican II. Whether or not they want to admit it, those who obstinately accept the Vatican II antipopes hold that the Gates of Hell prevailed against the Catholic Church on Dec. 8, 1965. They hold that the papal magisterium can authoritatively commit itself to false teachings, and declare that those false teachings are “rooted in divine revelation”. That is heresy. They are contradicting Catholic teaching on papal infallibility and indefectibility.
Furthermore, since the teaching of the Magisterium is “irreformable” according to Vatican I, statements made about Vatican II’s authority after the Council was promulgated, approved, and closed by Paul VI on Dec. 8, 1965 would not determine its authority. Strictly speaking, such statements aren’t even relevant to Vatican II’s authority in comparison to the facts we’ve covered. However, when we consider what the antipopes and leaders of the Counter Church stated after Vatican II, it only further confirms that Vatican II is definitely considered binding and magisterial by the Vatican II Counter Church. Some false traditionalists, for example, will cite a Jan. 12, 1966 General Audience of Paul VI. This speech was given after the Council. It is therefore comparatively insignificant to many facts we’ve covered. However, a careful consideration of the speech completely refutes their view; for in the General Audience Paul VI states that the teaching of Vatican II “has to be accepted” and constitutes the teaching of “the supreme Ordinary Magisterium”. The supreme Ordinary Magisterium is binding and infallible.
PAUL VI DENOUNCES LEFEBVRE AND LEFEBVRISTS FOR SAYING THAT VATICAN II WAS NOT BINDING
There are many other quotations one could bring forward to prove that Vatican II is considered binding and magisterial by the Vatican II Church. For example, in a May 24, 1976 Address, Antipope Paul VI denounced the idea, adopted by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his supporters, that the Second Vatican Council was not binding. He even said that the consequence of such an attitude or position is that people place themselves outside his “Church”.
Antipope Paul VI, Address, May 24, 1976: “And the fact is all the more serious in that the opposition of which we are speaking is not only encouraged by some priests, but is led by a prelate, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who nevertheless still has our respect.
“It is so painful to take note of this: but how can we not see in such an attitude – whatever may be these people’s intentions – the placing of themselves outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore outside the Church? For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, when, that is, it is held as preferable to disobey with the pretext of preserving one’s faith intact, and of working in one’s way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time refusing to give her effective obedience. And this is said openly. It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding: that the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? It is for this group, not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecumenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith! As you see, Venerable Brothers, such an attitude sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock, and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith…
“The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided, with the authorization of the Ordinary, for the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine populo. The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did our holy predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent…
“We have called the attention of Archbishop Lefebvre to the seriousness of his behavior, the irregularity of his principal present initiatives, the inconsistency and often falsity of the doctrinal positions on which he bases this behavior and these initiatives, and the damage that accrues to the entire Church because of them.” (L’Osservatore Romano, June 3, 1976, p. 2.)
That’s also why, in the recent negotiations with the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) during the reign of Antipope Benedict XVI, it was made clear that the SSPX will not be fully accepted by the Counter Church without a recognition of Vatican II and its teaching. The Note from the Secretary of State of the Vatican, dated February 4, 2009, and published in the Vatican’s newspaper, is an example of the point. It stated:
“A full recognition of the Second Vatican Council and the Magisterium of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI himself is an indispensable condition for any future recognition of the Society of Saint Pius X…”
In his comments on Jan. 28, 2009, following his General Audience, Benedict XVI also spoke of the SSPX and the necessity for them to accept Vatican II. He said he hopes that the SSPX will “complete the necessary steps to achieve full communion with the Church, thus witnessing true fidelity to, and true recognition of, the Magisterium and the authority of the Pope and the Second Vatican Council.” (L’ Osservatore Romano, February 4, 2009, p. 9.)
BENEDICT XVI REFERS TO THE BINDING NATURE OF VATICAN II
In his book, The Ratzinger Report, he also stated:
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI), The Ratzinger Report, 1985, p. 28: “It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism’, also in its extreme forms.”
In his 2010 book, Light of the World, Benedict XVI promoted the completely heretical teaching of Vatican II that schismatic “Orthodox” sects, which reject the Papacy, are in the Church of Christ. Contrary to dozens of magisterial pronouncements, including dogmatic statements made by the First Vatican Council, Vatican II teaches that schismatic communities that reject the Papacy and papal infallibility are “true particular churches” (that is, individual churches within the Church of Christ). In his book Light of the World, Benedict XVI not only agreed with and endorsed that heretical teaching (p. 89), but he also explicitly stated that it’s binding (p. 96). He even indicated that it’s irreformable with his statement that he would have no authority to alter it.
Benedict XVI, Light of the World, 2010, p. 89: “… what I defended was the heritage of the Second Vatican Council and of the entire history of the Church. The passage [from Dominus Iesus] means that the Eastern Churches [i.e., the “Orthodox”] are genuine particular churches, although they are not in communion with the Pope. In this sense, unity with the Pope is not constitutive for the particular church.”
Benedict XVI, Light of the World, 2010, pp. 94-96: “Q. Is it really true that the Pope does not regard Protestants as a Church, but, unlike the Eastern Church, only as an ecclesial community? This distinction strikes many as demeaning. A. The word ‘ecclesial community’ is a term employed by the Second Vatican Council. The Council applied a very simple rule in these matters. A Church in the proper sense, as we understand it, exists where the episcopal office, as the sacramental expression of apostolic succession, is present –which also implies the existence of the Eucharist as a sacrament that is dispensed by the bishop and the priest. If this is not the case, then we are dealing with the emergence of another model, a new way of understanding what a church is, which at Vatican II we designated by the term ‘ecclesiastical community.’ The word was intended to indicate that such communities embody a different mode of being a church. As they themselves insist, it is precisely not the same mode in which the Churches of the great tradition of antiquity are Churches, but is based on a new understanding, according to which a church consists, not in the institution, but in the dynamism of the Word that gathers people into a congregation… Q. And not even a Pope can offer an alternative definition of a Church? A. No. He has no authority over that. The Second Vatican Council is binding on him.”
With that statement, he was referring to the teaching of Vatican II: that schismatic sects which reject the Papacy are true particular churches (that is, individual churches within the Church of Christ).
Many other statements from Antipopes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI prove that they consider Vatican II to be binding and magisterial.
Those who ignore or deny the force of these facts – and instead convince themselves that the Vatican II “popes” did not attempt to use the authority of the Catholic Magisterium to promulgate the teachings of Vatican II – are simply living in a fantasy world.
There’s no way around it: the Vatican II antipopes attempted to use the authority of the Catholic Church and the papal magisterium (which is infallible) to promulgate the false teachings of Vatican II. That proves without any doubt that they did not possess the authority of the Catholic Church and the papal magisterium because they were antipopes.
Those who obstinately accept the Vatican II “popes” in the face of the facts contradict Catholic teaching. They deny papal infallibility and acknowledge heretics as Catholics. People need to embrace the true position, which includes rejecting Vatican II as a false council and rejecting all the Vatican II claimants to the Papacy as antipopes.
APPENDIX - PAPAL TEACHING ON HOW THE MAGISTERIUM AND THE CHURCH ARE FREE FROM ERROR
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#18), Dec. 31, 1929: “… God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.”
LATIN: “… divini magisterii Ecclesiam fecit Deus ipse participem eamdemque divino eius beneficio falli nesciam.”
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#16), Dec. 31, 1929: “To this magisterium Christ the Lord imparted immunity from error...”
LATIN: “Huic magisterio Christus Dominus erroris immunitatem impertivit…”
Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus (# 4), May 17, 1835: “… the Church has, by its divine institution, the power of the magisterium to teach and define matters of faith and morals and to interpret the Holy Scriptures without danger of error.”
Pope Leo XIII, Caritatis Studium (#6) July 25, 1898: The Magisterium “could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.”
Pope Pius X, Editae Saepe (#8), May 26, 1910: “… only a miracle of that divine power could preserve the Church… from blemish in the holiness of Her doctrine…”
Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (#22), Dec. 11, 1925: “… the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic magisterium.”
LATIN: “Idem semper Ecclesiae mos, idque sanctorum patrum consentiente iudicio: qui scilicet communionis catholicae expertem et ab Ecclesia extorrem habere consueverunt,quicumque a doctrina authentico magisterio proposita vel minimum discessisset.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 10), Aug. 15, 1832: “Therefore, it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain ‘restoration and regeneration’ for her (the Church) as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to any failing health or dimming of mind or other misfortune.”
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: ‘The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”
Pope Hadrian I, Second Council of Nicaea, 787: “… Christ our God, when He took for His Bride His Holy Catholic Church, having no blemish or wrinkle, promised he would guard her and assured his holy disciples saying, I am with you every day until the consummation of the world.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 9, March 23, 1440: “…the Spouse of Christ is uncontaminated and modest, knowing only one home, and she guards the sanctity of their marriage bed with chaste modesty.”
Pope St. Siricius, epistle (1) Directa ad decessorem, Feb. 10, 385: “And so He has wished the beauty of the Church, whose spouse He is, to radiate with the splendor of chastity, so that on the day of judgment, when He will have come again, He may be able to find her without spot or wrinkle [Eph. 5:27] as He instituted her through His apostle.”
LINKS TO MATERIALS ON THE HERESIES AND FALSE TEACHINGS IN VATICAN II:
Vatican II’s Protestant Heresy (video)
I have been discussing God with several atheists. They brought up a verse I was unaware of. The passage comes from Isaias 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things. Well I know that we are born with original sin and it needs to be removed through water baptism and I realize that we have free will. Apostasy, heresy and other things keep us from good and cause sin. Brothers, how do I explain this verse to refute them, and tell them they are wrong? God does not create evil! But I know that even some of these dummy Protestants believe that God created evil…
The answer is that Isaias 45:7 (as well as a similar statement in Amos 3:6) refers to the evil of punishments: persecutions, war, calamities, famines and afflictions that God sends as a consequence of man’s sin. God is saying that He frequently creates or brings those ‘evils’ upon people who rebel against Him. The passage does not mean that God creates evil or sin in the first place. This is clear from the context.
God endows men with free will and the ability to choose good or evil. If men choose evil, He often punishes them with afflictions. Those afflictions are sometimes characterized as ‘evils.’ In fact, the first verse in Isaias 45 demonstrates that God is speaking about His power to bring down rulers and nations which oppose Him or someone He favors.
Isaias 45:1- “Thus saith the Lord to my anointed Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of, to subdue nations before his face, and to turn the backs of kings, and to open the doors before him, and the gates shall not be shut.”
It is in that context that God declares He can “make peace, and create evil” (Isaias 45:7). Peace (the absence of afflictions and persecutions) is here contrasted with evil (the presence of afflictions and persecutions). God will make peace or evil, depending upon the conduct He sees. Thus, evil in this passage refers to the afflictions God creates or sends as a consequence of sin. It does not refer to God causing people to commit sin or evil.
The same is true in Amos chapter 3, as the context likewise confirms. In Amos 3:2 God refers to the punishments He will administer to the children of Israel for their iniquities. We read:
“You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore will I visit upon you all your iniquities.”
This obviously deals with what God will send as a consequence of their evil choices and conduct. God then says:
“Shall the trumpet sound in a city, and the people not be afraid? Shall there be evil in a city, which the Lord hath not done?” (Amos 3:6)
As the context demonstrates, God is here referring to the ‘evil’ of punishments: the famines, persecutions, etc. He will send for Israel’s iniquities.
The atheists are wrong. Scripture does not teach that God is the cause of sin or the evil of fault.
Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215, Chap. 1 on the Catholic Faith: “For the devil and other demons were created by God good in nature, but they themselves through themselves have become wicked. But man sinned at the suggestion of the devil.”
Bro. Peter Dimond**This file contains portions of letters we recently sent to a man who believes that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Spirit of Wisdom (Sophia) mentioned in the Old Testament. As a result of that position and his view of what Scripture teaches about Wisdom (Sophia) in the Old Testament (e.g., that Wisdom is an emanation from God, can do all things, and was not created out of nothing), he has fallen into numerous heresies opposed to faith in the one God. We post these letters for those it might interest or benefit. They cover some interesting and important dogmatic issues. We have not included the person’s name in the hope that he will abandon his heretical views. We refer to him as ‘Q.’**
QUESTION TO Q.: Are you saying that you believe that angels and/or the spirit of Mary (whom you consider to be Wisdom) are emanations from God?
Q. Responds: Yes as regards Sophia [Wisdom], but No as regards the angels….
RESPONSE TO Q.The position that Mary (or any other creature) is an emanation from God is definitely heretical.
Vatican I, on God the Creator of All Things, Can. 4: "If anyone shall say that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least the spiritual, have emanated from the divine substance, or, that the divine essence by a manifestation or evolution of itself becomes all things, or, finally, that God is universal or indefinite being, because by determining Himself, He created all things distinct in genera, in species, and in individuals: let him be anathema." -Denz. 1804God created all things, including Mary, out of nothing. Sincerely, Bro. Peter Dimond
Q. RESPONDS – HE MAINTAINS THAT MARY, WHOM HE CONSIDERS TO BE ‘WISDOM’ (SOPHIA), IS AN EMANATION OF GOD AND WAS NOT CREATED OUT OF NOTHING
… You make a very interesting observation here, but notice that the Vatican Council, protected as always by the wonderful assistance of the Holy Spirit, does not refer to ‘created things’ but to ‘finite things’. Are these terms synonymous? No. For God can create an infinite nature, and this (as the Scriptures teach us) He has done in His perfect creation, the spirit of Sophia.
Alone of all God’s creation, Sophia was created infinite in Her essence, and that in two respects: (i) Her created co-eternity with God, as taught in Prov. 8.22-23 and Eccl. 24.9, and (ii) Her created co-omnipotence with God, as taught in Wis 7.26-27: being the immaculate mirror of God’s active power… we are told that ‘She can do all things’.
St Thomas Aquinas discusses the notion that God could create something essentially infinite in his Summa… He agrees that this is possible, but he limits it to relative infinity rather than absolute infinity. He concedes that the former term could be applied to angels given that their spiritual forms are not contracted by finite matter. However, other Scholastics like St Bonaventure held that the angels do in fact possess matter, a spiritual matter, not just a spiritual form. This is my view as well. So I would maintain that the angels, unlike Sophia, do not possess a relative infinity.
The Angels were formed on the First Day of Creation and are symbolically referred to as light and darkness. They were therefore developments of the primal ‘earth’ (both spiritual and physical prime matter), which in turn was made from nothing. Sophia, on the other hand, was created before the First Day. She is the ‘Heaven’ of the very first line of the Bible. She is quite distinct in Her infinite nature from the primal ‘earth’, and unlike it She did not come from nothing. No, She issued from the mouth of God. If Mary is Sophia, as I claim, it would be quite wrong therefore to say that ‘God made Mary out of nothing’.
To sum up, therefore, the Vatican Council’s teaching does not apply to Mary...
RESPONSE TO ‘Q.’I am disappointed and saddened to recognize, to its full extent, what you actually believe about Our Lady. The disappointment is compounded by the fact that you not only seem to be obstinate, but that, even if you weren’t, the matter at hand so closely touches on necessary faith in the Triune God that it necessarily destroys it. In charity I must tell you that your position on Mary is definitely heretical, contrary to faith in the Triune God and indeed incompatible with it. First, you hold that Mary was not created out of nothing. That is heresy. It’s a dogma that all things, visible and invisible, were created out of nothing.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ‘Cantate Domino’, 1442: “Most strongly it believes, professes, and declares that the one true God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, is the creator of all things visible and invisible, who, when He wished, out of His goodness created all creatures, spiritual as well as corporal; good indeed, since they were made by the highest good, but changeable, since they were made from nothing, and it asserts that nature is not evil, since all nature, in so far as it is nature, is good." (Denz. 706).Based on your previous responses on this issue, I fear that you will attempt to explain this away; but that won’t work. God created all things, visible and invisible, out of nothing. To hold otherwise is heresy and a rejection of God. If, in an attempt to circumvent Catholic dogma, you create a separate category for Mary, it’s another example of how your position idolatrously elevates Mary contrary to the revelation of God. Second, with regard to your position that Mary emanated from God, Vatican I indeed condemns that heresy. It is blasphemous, akin to paganism, a special form of Pantheism and Gnosticism. Vatican I clearly had in view the heretical position that any creature emanated from God. The heading for the section of canons in which that canon is found is: De Deo rerum omnium creatore. Thus, the canons deal with God as Creator of all things. The canons refer to those things [which He has created] as ‘finite.’ It presupposes that all created things are finite.
Vatican I, on God the Creator of All Things, Can. 4: "If anyone shall say that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least the spiritual, have emanated from the divine substance, or, that the divine essence by a manifestation or evolution of itself becomes all things, or, finally, that God is universal or indefinite being, because by determining Himself, He created all things distinct in genera, in species, and in individuals: let him be anathema." -Denz. 1804To escape the impact of this teaching you are, once again, forced to change the rules for Mary. You argue that Mary is an ‘infinite’ nature or essence! No, she’s not an infinite nature. Regardless of what you will say about infinite and finite, the fact that Vatican I’s canons deal with God as the Creator of all things (De Deo rerum omnium creatore) demonstrates that it’s heresy to assert that something created emanated from God. Third, you hold that Mary is ‘co-eternal’ with God. This is blasphemous. As the Athanasian Creed teaches, there is only one eternal (Father, Son and Holy Ghost). You hold that she existed ‘before time,’ and thus before movement, and that she has ‘always been with him.’ These are unique attributes of the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity: always existing with the Father. You would probably also say that the spirit of Mary is ‘immense,’ to go along with the heretical position that she is ‘co-eternal,’ ‘infinite,’ ‘omnipotent,’ ‘emanates from the substance of God,’ ‘can do all things,’ ‘she is not an angel’ (even though Catholic teaching is that there is only God, angels, and earthly creatures) etc. You hold that she is God or a form of God – period. Sadly, you don’t believe in the one God of the Gospel and the Catholic Church. The genesis of this heresy is your personal misunderstanding of Scripture. You have placed too much stock in your personal reading and exegesis of Scripture. That’s a lack of humility. As a result you have fallen into heresy and complete novelty. You have blasphemously applied to a creature that alone which is said of God. Also, consider that when you repeatedly and self-assuredly understand Wisdom as having been actually created – even though you have reluctantly acknowledged that other texts, translations and renderings might carry meanings that aren’t necessarily equivalent to ‘created’, which would thus be compatible with Catholic teaching on the Son of God and contradict your position – you are repeatedly stating that the Son of God was created, is not truly God, etc. In humility, the fact that your understanding of the text could be wrong (and it is) should have given your more pause and stopped you from falling into these blasphemies. For example, you write:
>>>She is quite distinct in Her infinite nature from the primal ‘earth’, and unlike it She did not come from nothing. No, She issued from the mouth of God.>>>These statements, among others, are blasphemous. To cling to this heresy, you not only pit yourself against the understanding of Scripture expressed by every saint, pope and doctor of the Church who addressed the issue, but the NT’s identification of Christ as the ‘wisdom of God’ (1 Cor. 1:24; Luke 11:49). According to Catholic teaching, you are not allowed to interpret Scripture the way you are interpreting it. We are not allowed to promote things that are contrary to what all Catholic authorities have taught. That’s when people fall into heresy. Also, you don’t seem to realize that your position actually detracts from Christ and His Incarnation; for, in your view, Mary’s significance must be connected with a mythical existence and position which she supposedly possessed before His Incarnation – indeed from all eternity. For you, her full impact, role and worth are only appreciated if considered in conjunction with a role before Christ’s Incarnation; whereas Catholics, who truly believe in Christ, recognize that Mary’s unique role and prerogatives are not diminished at all by the fact that she only existed when her soul and body were formed in the womb of her mother, when she first became the immaculate vessel which would contain the Son of God. Her role in the incarnation provides every bit of the significance necessary for her. I truly believe you have fallen into your heresy as a result of a resistance to faith in Christ and the Triune God. One must conclude that you are a devoid of (and resistant to) the pure, simple, correct faith in the one and only God: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. You heretically believe that Mary is connected in very substance to the one God, removing the essential distinction between Creator and creature and destroying faith in the Trinity. At this point I have no choice but to tell you, in charity, that your position is a rejection of God, Christ and the Catholic faith. You cannot be Catholic or saved holding it. Sincerely, Bro. Peter Dimond
THE NEXT LETTER TO ‘Q.’
[UNFORTUNATELY, Q. DID NOT AMEND HIS POSITION, DESPITE THE DOGMATIC TEACHING WHICH CONTRADICTS IT. HE ATTEMPTED TO FIND WAYS AROUND THE DOGMATIC TEACHING AND FELL INTO OTHER HERESIES AS A RESULT. THOSE ARE COVERED IN THE COURSE OF THIS RESPONSE.]It’s disappointing to see that you have not been swayed by the dogmatic teaching which contradicts your position. There is no doubt that the teaching of the Council of Florence proves your position to be heretical. It does make sense, however, that by adhering to your unorthodox position on Mary you have fallen into other heresies. First, in regard to Florence’s dogmatic decree on God creating all things, visible and invisible, out of nothing, you state:
>>> “God created all things, visible and invisible, out of nothing. To hold otherwise is a rejection of God.”--- That is surely an inference of yours, not what the Council of Florence actually says.>>Actually, it is what council says. It states that God created all things, visible and invisible, out of nothing. Please read it again. I simply repeated its words and condemned the contrary: that a creature, visible or invisible, was not created by God out of nothing. In an attempt to circumvent the meaning of this statement, you unfortunately fall into numerous other heresies. You state that 1) there are exceptions to [this] dogma, and 2) one of those exceptions includes the humanity of Our Lord. Both arguments are actually heretical.
You write: >>>“God created all things, visible and invisible, out of nothing. To hold otherwise is heresy and a rejection of God.”
That is surely an inference of yours, not what the Council of Florence actually says. The Council explains that creatures are mutable inasmuch as they are made de nihilo. But three creations are clearly to be excluded from this general statement: Sophia, the Humanity of Our Lord, and the Church. These special creations appear to be partly ex Deo and partly ex nihilo, and each is provided with its own unique mystical description in the Scriptures: Sophia came from the mouth of God, Our Lord’s Humanity came from the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, and the Church came from the Side of Christ (as did Eve from Adam). It is important to understand this, for how else can one reconcile the fact that the Church is divine and at the same a creation ex nihilo? How else justify our worship of Christ’s humanity, e.g. His Sacred Heart?>>>With respect to #1, it’s heretical to hold that dogmatic definitions have exceptions. Certain things can be excluded from the application of a decree, but what is excluded must be expressly stated or clear from the context. Otherwise, the dogmatic definition would not remain true as declared. If you believe there are exceptions to dogmatic statements then you can and should have no problem with salvation heretics who employ that argument. In this vein you argue:
>>>Again, when the Council of Trent remarks that ‘this sin of Adam … being transfused into all by propagation’, we make an exception for the Blessed Virgin.>>>You are not correct. The Council made an exception for the Blessed Virgin.
Council of Trent, Sess. 5, #6: “This holy Synod declares nevertheless that it is not its intention to include in this decree, where original sin is treated of, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary…”The Council’s statement here is an example of my point: dogmatic decrees must and will state any exceptions, if they exist. Exceptions could also be clearly indicated by (or built into) the context. Dogmatic magisterial decrees are not only infallible, they are the proximate rule of faith. Thus, they are true exactly as they are declared with no exceptions to what is promulgated, unless specified or contained within the context. With respect to #2, your position on the Lord’s natures is heretical.
You write: >>>Sophia, the Humanity of Our Lord, and the Church. These special creations appear to be partly ex Deo and partly ex nihilo…”Your statement is heretical and denies that Our Lord is truly man. Your position mixes, mingles and confuses the divine and human natures of Our Lord in a manner similar to the heresy of Eutyches. What you hold was directly condemned at the Council of Chalcedon. The idea that the humanity of Our Lord is divine (or that His divinity is human) was also condemned by the Second Council of Constantinople. It’s de fide that Our Lord’s humanity was created out of nothing, just as ours was. He was truly man. The divine and human natures are unconfused and unmixed; yet, they are united inseparably in the one person of the Word (the mystery of the hypostatic union). We have a video on this point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWVtqrzEpHg It contains numerous quotes that pertain to the issue. You also argue:
>>>How else justify our worship of Christ’s humanity, e.g. His Sacred Heart?>>>Your argument in this regard (which was made in an attempt to justify the heretical position on Mary) indicates that you don’t understand the dogmas on Christ’s two natures in one divine person. The reason we worship Christ in His humanity is because Christ’s humanity is inseparable from the divine person of the Word, not because it is divine. As Constantinople II made clear: there is one adoration of God the Word together with His flesh.
Second Council of Constantinople, Can. 9: “… [those who] mix together the divinity and the humanity, shall speak monstrously of one only nature or essence of the united (natures), and so worship Christ, and does not venerate, by one adoration, God the Word made man, together with his flesh, as the Holy Church has taught from the beginning: let him be anathema.”
Council of Ephesus: “Confessing the Word to be made one with the flesh according to substance, we adore one Son and Lord Jesus Christ: we do not divide the God from the man, nor separate him into parts.”Hence, Christ’s humanity is not an exception to the truth that God created all things out of nothing. You also argue that Wisdom (Sophia) is an exception to all things being created out of nothing. That obviously begs the question concerning the identity of Wisdom. If Wisdom is God (as Wisdom is), then it is not an exception since the decree of Florence concerned all things God has created. Since you are convinced that Wisdom was not created out of nothing, Catholic teaching should have persuaded you by now that Wisdom is (and therefore must be) God, as the fathers teach; for Florence teaches that every creature was created out of nothing.
[I had also previously cited the First Vatican Council’s quotation of Wisdom 8:1, which refers to Wisdom’s governance of the world. The Council identifies the 'Wisdom' of chapter 8, verse 1 as God (Deus).
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Sess. 3, Chap. 1, On God the creator of all things: “Everything that God has brought into being He protects and governs by His providence, reaching from one end of the earth to the other and ordering all things well (cf. Wisdom 8:1). All things are open and laid bare before His eyes, even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures.” (Denz. 1784)
Also, Wisdom 7:26-30 fits with a description of the Son of God.
Wisdom 7:26-30- “For she is the brightness of eternal light, and the unspotted mirror of God' s majesty, and the image of his goodness. And being but one, she can do all things: and remaining in herself the same, she reneweth all things, and through nations conveyeth herself into holy souls, she maketh the friends of God and prophets. For God loveth none but him that dwelleth with wisdom. For she is more beautiful than the sun, and above all the order of the stars: being compared with the light, she is found before it. For after this cometh night, but no evil can overcome wisdom.”
The statement ‘brightness of eternal light’ is attributed to Christ in the Litany of the Holy Name of Jesus: Jesus, brightness of eternal light. That description would also seem to connect with Hebrews 1:3: the Son is ‘the brightness of His glory.’ The statement ‘unspotted mirror of God’s majesty’ corresponds to the description of fathers of the Church: that the eternal generation of the Son is the perfect self-knowledge or reflection (‘mirror,’ if you will) of the Father. The statement ‘she can do all things: and remaining in herself the same’ seems to refer to God’s omnipotence and immutability.]Your reliance on your false analysis of Scripture in regard to Wisdom, despite the decree of Florence which proves it incorrect, is characteristic of ‘heresy’: choosing your view (especially an interpretation of Scripture) over that of the Church. The following sentence is an example of your failure to submit your interpretation of Scripture to the facts of the Church’s teaching which prove it false:
>>>As regards Sophia, the Scriptures plainly teach her non-mutability (Wis 7.27), so, if we follow the logic of the Council of Florence, we should be wary of attributing to Her an exclusively ex nihilo origin.>>>Finally on this particular point, you argue that the Church is an exception to the dogma that all things, visible and invisible, were created out of nothing. That’s incorrect. The Church is the society of the faithful. All the faithful were created out of nothing. United in Christ’s society, the faithful are given divine protection. The fact that God may grant divine protection or a special power to one of His creatures, or to a society of His creatures (as He did to prophets and saints), does not contradict the truth that He created those things out of nothing. The two issues are distinct: 1) creation out of nothing; and 2) whether God can grant divine protection or power to something He created out of nothing.
THE ‘ETERNITY OF THE WORLD’With respect to your previous comment, that Mary has a created ‘co-eternity’ with God, you defend this assertion by arguing that it’s acceptable to hold that the world created by God could be eternal. You write:
>>>It does not teach that a creature cannot be eternal. Indeed St Thomas Aquinas plainly conceives of a relative eternity of creatures, and he argues that this is perfectly possible on the logical plane. Thus, in his Concerning the Eternity of the World, he sees no logical contradiction in holding that something made by God can be eternal, and he declares that even its ex nihilo origin cannot be adduced to disprove this.>>Your position is incorrect. St. Thomas expressed that view at one time, but later apparently retracted it. It is denied in the Summa Theologiae (citation below). Interestingly, it is in this passage, in which St. Thomas teaches that God alone is eternal, that he refers to Wisdom and Proverbs 8 and correctly applies it to the eternal God. His interpretation also presupposes that this passage in Proverbs could only apply to God. I cited this previously.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt. 1, Q. 46, A. 1: "On the contrary, It is said (John 17:5), 'Glorify Me, O Father, with Thyself with the glory which I had before the world was'; and (Proverbs 8:22), 'The Lord possessed Me in the beginning of His ways, before He made anything from the beginning.' I answer that, Nothing except God can be eternal."More importantly, however, the view that the world is eternal was expressly condemned as heretical by Pope John XXII in the decree, In agro dominico, Mar. 27, 1329.
Denz. 501 (1) And when asked why God did not create the world first, he answered that God was not able to create the world first, * because He cannot make things before He is; therefore, as soon as God was, He immediately created the world. ---CONDEMNED
Denz. 502 (2) Likewise it can be granted that the world existed from eternity.---CONDEMNED
Denz. 503 (3) Likewise at the same time and once, when God was, when He begot the Son coeternal with Himself, through all things coequal God, He also created the world.----CONDEMNEDThis decision came down sometime after Aquinas. As you will find in Denz. 529, these statements were expressly denominated as ‘heretical.’ The false view of the created co-eternity of the world (which you believed was acceptable), which is condemned, is of course very similar to your view of the ‘created co-eternity’ of Mary. I also find it noteworthy that you did not deny my claim that you consider Mary to be God or a form of God.
>>>“You hold that she [Mary] is God or a form of God – period.”>>>
You write: >>>I hold to what the Scriptures teach about Sophia. They say She is an emanation of God, a breath from His Mouth, a reflection of His eternal light, a mirror of His majesty. Who am I to contest the clear teaching of the Scriptures? If Mary is to be identified with Sophia, it follows that She possesses the identical attributes.>>>I must conclude that you admit you consider her to be at least a form of God. Perhaps you also believe she is ‘immense.’ You also noted that the Scriptures clearly distinguish Sophia from God, that the transition from one to the other is apparent. That’s not a surprise, however. The New Testament frequently distinguishes between God (the Father) and Christ. That distinction, and the application of the title ‘God’ only to the Father in some passages, does not contradict the truth that Jesus (a distinct person from the Father) is also God. The same is true in regard to Sophia. I truly hope you consider these facts and change your position. I previously stated, in charity and out of a deep concern for your soul, that your belief is incompatible with necessary faith in God, Christ, and the Trinity. It most certainly is. I’m convinced that you are not a Christian, and that you need to convert to the Christian faith. Since you are so attached to this heresy, the most charitable thing to do is to state this plainly. The false position that you hold so closely touches upon the most essential truths of faith in the Triune God that it necessarily destroys it. To that I would add that your beliefs about Mary (that she is a form of God, an emanation of God, co-eternal, not created out of nothing, etc.) not only would have to be rejected and confessed, but should be anathematized with an appropriate confession of faith. Of course, that’s if and when you are convinced that they are unorthodox. You also say that Mary is a ‘sub-Redeemer.’ No, Christ alone is our Redeemer, as the Councils of Trent and Florence make clear. Sincerely, Bro. Peter Dimond
ATHANASIUS ON ‘WISDOM’
St. Athanasius, First Discourse Against the Arians, Chap. 3: “Very Son of the Father, natural and genuine, proper to His essence, Wisdom Only-begotten, and Very and Only Word of God is He; not a creature or work, but an offspring proper to the Father's essence. Wherefore He is very God, existing one in essence with the very Father…”
This is an important video and article. It could also be called, King James Onlyism Exposed. It covers the group of Protestants who believe that the 1611 'Authorized Version' of the King James Bible was perfect and infallible. The points covered in this video also have great relevance to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.
Bro. Peter Dimond
I recently studied numerous books on the King James Bible, its history, and the controversy surrounding it. There are many facts we need to consider. Knowing these facts sheds necessary light on the so-called ‘Christians’ who believe that the 1611 King James Version of the Bible is infallible (the KJV-Onlyists), the false doctrine of sola scriptura, and Protestantism in general.
There is a group of Protestants who believe that a particular version of the King James Bible (the 1611 AV or ‘Authorized Version’) is alone the perfect word of God on Earth. These people are sometimes called ‘King James Onlyists.’ Their ranks include individuals such as ‘Pastor’ Steven Anderson, Sam Gipp, Kent Hovind, Texe Marrs, Gail Riplinger, Peter Ruckman, as well as many independent Protestant ‘pastors’ and ‘churches’, especially those identifying as ‘Baptist.’
Title Page of the ‘Authorized Version’ or 1611 King James Bible
Gary Miller, Why the King James Bible – Authorized Version 1611 – Is the Perfect Word of God, pp. 36-37: “As we begin comparing verses from the different versions, remember this: there are no errors in the 1611 Authorized King James Version. It is God’s perfectly preserved words and you can trust it completely.”
Texe Marrs, Power of Prophecy: “We believe that the King James Bible is God's perfect word, is without error, and is man's authoritative guide for how we should live.”
Adherents of the ‘King James Bible Only’ position hold that the 1611 ‘Authorized Version’ of the King James Bible is infallible. As you search their materials for an explanation of why one particular Bible translation, authorized by a 17th century English King named James, produced by a committee of Anglicans and Puritans, would alone be infallible, you find one – and only one – answer.
The only answer they can offer for why one particular bible translation in 17th century England would be perfect and infallible is the following:
THE KJV IS PERFECT BECAUSE GOD PROMISED TO PRESERVE HIS WORD (PSALM 12:6-7); AND IF THE KJV IS NOT INFALLIBLE THERE ISN’T AN INFALLIBLE VERSION ANYWHERE, FOR WE NO LONGER HAVE THE ORIGINAL NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS, BUT ONLY COPIES MADE BY HAND THAT ARE LESS THAN PERFECT; AND SINCE GOD PROMISED TO PRESERVE HIS WORD (PSALM 12:6-7) HE WOULD NATURALLY DO THIS FOR THE MASSES IN A COMMON TONGUE. THEREFORE THE 1611 KJV, WHICH EVENTUALLY BECAME THE DOMINANT ENGLISH VERSION, MUST BE INFALLIBLE.
To put it more concisely, their answer is: there must be an infallible Bible version and it’s therefore the 1611 KJV. If this doesn’t strike you as circular and illogical reasoning – presuming exactly what they would need to prove – then you really need to pray for the grace of God. However, let’s consider numerous facts which show why their position is biblically, historically, and logically false.
KJV-Onlyists hold that the 1611 King James is infallible and perfect. They emphasize that the 1611 King James is the ‘Authorized Version,’ i.e. authorized by King James I.
Dr. Samuel Gipp, An Understandable History of the Bible, Chapter 9: “I personally believe that God has perfectly preserved His Word in the King James or Authorized Version. I can at least produce a King James Bible to show what I believe in. Any person who claims that God inspired the original autographs perfectly, cannot produce those original manuscripts to prove it!... I am saying that the Authorized Version is every word of God that was in the original autographs, preserved to this day.”
This raises a number of questions:
1) Why would the ‘authorization’ of an English king (more than 1,500 years after Christ) make a translation of the Bible infallible? Obviously it wouldn’t. God never promised that English kings centuries after Christ, let alone King James I, speak infallibly or authorize without error for all of Christ’s faithful.
King James I of England
2) Moreover, was the ‘authorization’ given to the 1611 KJV even unique, or had other versions of the Bible been given a similar ‘authorization’? As we will see, other versions had received similar authorization; and therefore, if the 1611 KJV is held to be infallible because it is the ‘Authorized Version,’ then other versions authorized by English sovereigns must also be considered infallible. Yet, KJV-Onlyists illogically and inconsistently apply infallibility to the KJV alone.
3) Did King James I even ‘authorize’ the text/content of the 1611 KJV, or just that it would be permissible to print whatever was translated?
Christopher De Hamel served for a quarter century as the head of the Western Manuscripts department at Sotheby's in London. He authored and compiled a large work entitled, The Book, A History of the Bible. He explains:
Christopher De Hamel, The Book, A History of the Bible, pp. 247-248: "First, of all, the term 'Authorized' has no real historical validity. The book [the 1611 King James Bible] was dedicated to King James I, who had initiated the translation, but no legal or royal endorsement was conferred on the text itself. The privilege was associated with the printers, not the text. The royal privilege for printing Bibles goes back to the sixteenth century. In 1589, Queen Elizabeth had granted an exclusive patent for the publishing of Bibles in English to Christopher Barker. In a Bible printed in London that year, Barker first calls himself the printer to the Queen. This right was inherited by his son, Robert Barker (d. 1645), who is described on the title-page of the original Authorized Version in 1611 as 'Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie'. When monopolies were abolished in England in 1623, an exception was made for royal grants of the sole right to print certain books."
De Hamel explains that while King James I initiated the translation, and allowed it to be printed, he gave no royal endorsement or special ‘authorization’ to the content or the text itself. The ‘authorization’ was for the printers, rendering it lawful for them to proceed with whatever the translators put together.
However, let’s suppose King James I’s ‘authorization’ of the King James translation did apply to the final text/content of the 1611 KJV. Even in that case, the ‘authorization’ was not qualitatively different from the ‘authorization’ that had previously been given to earlier English bibles, such as The Great Bible under King Henry VIII or The Bishops’ Bible under Queen Elizabeth.
Dr. Laurence M. Vance, who is actually a strong supporter of the KJV, wrote a book called King James, His Bible And Its Translators. On pp. 87-88, he acknowledges facts which demolish the claim, made by KJV-Onlyists, that the 1611 KJV alone was the ‘Authorized Version.’
THE GREAT BIBLE WAS ‘AUTHORIZED’ BY KING HENRY VIII:
King Henry VIII
“In the fourth (Nov. 1540) and sixth (Nov. 1541) editions of the Great Bible, the title page is completely rewritten: ‘The Bible in English of the largest and greatest volume, authorized and appointed by the commandment of our most redoubted Prince and sovereign Lord, King Henry the viii., supreme head of this his church and Realm of England: to be frequented and used in every church within this his said realm, according to the tenor of his former Injunctions given in that behalf.’” (Vance, King James, His Bible And Its Translators)
THE BISHOPS’ BIBLE WAS AUTHORIZED BY QUEEN ELIZABETH:
“The editions [of the Bishops’ Bible] from 1574-1578 contain the phrase: ‘Set forth by authority.’ An edition of 1584 says: ‘Of that translation authorized to be read in churches.’ All editions from 1585 to 1602 include the statement: ‘Authorized and appointed to be read in churches.’” (Vance, King James, His Bible And Its Translators)
As these facts show, at the very least the 1611 King James Version was the third ‘Authorized Version’ of the English Bible. I say at the very least because one could argue that the Coverdale Bible (1535) and The Matthew Bible (1537) had also been ‘authorized.’ Yet, KJV-Onlyists wrongly contend that the 1611 Version was not only uniquely authorized, but that such ‘authorization’ by an English sovereign would for some reason contribute to its perfection and infallibility! It’s a position so illogical that it really deserves to be categorized with the position of Mormons and other cult followers.
Joseph Smith, ‘prophet’ of the Mormon sect
Mormons simply assume that their (false) ‘prophet’ Joseph Smith, whom they consider to be the greatest person besides Jesus, was given new revelations by God and divinely authorized to ‘restore the Church.’ They simply declare him to be their authority perhaps because it gives them a level of comfort and a (false) sense of security. In the same way, since KJV-Onlyists feel they must have a translation they can follow unhesitatingly, they likewise declare that the 1611 KJV must be infallible. Notice how this cult mentality is captured in the following quote from well-known KJV-Onlyist, Samuel Gipp.
Dr. Samuel Gipp, An Understandable History of the Bible, Chapter 9: “I personally believe that God has perfectly preserved His Word in the King James or Authorized Version. I can at least produce a King James Bible to show what I believe in. Any person who claims that God inspired the original autographs perfectly, cannot produce those original manuscripts to prove it!... I am saying that the Authorized Version is every word of God that was in the original autographs, preserved to this day.”
Notice the comfort he finds in being able to point to a version of the Bible into which he can put his ‘faith.’ That’s what reassures and relieves him, even if there is no logical or historical reason to conclude that this particular version has been infallibly protected by Christ. The fact that he has some Bible version to ‘believe in’ is his main concern. In the same way, it provides Mormons or other cultists comfort to have a ‘prophet’ to follow, no matter how unsubstantiated or illogical that ‘prophet’s’ claim to a divine commission might be.
Both groups (KJV-Onlyists and Mormons) operate under their respective assumptions without any proof for them and contrary to logical consistency with the revelation of Christ, which of course said nothing about Joseph Smith, King James or a King James Bible translation. In fact, in anointing, on their own authority, King James’ Bible to the status of divinely protected and even binding, the King James Onlyists actually make King James their ultimate authority and a new false Christ.
The illogical, idolatrous, and anti-Christian cult-like assumptions built in to the KJV-Only position are well illustrated by the following quotes.
Dr. Samuel Gipp, The Answer Book – A Helpbook for Christians [concerning the King James], Q. #5, pp. 28-29: “We have no reason to doubt that the Bible we hold in our hands [the KJV] is the very word of God preserved for us in the English language. The authority for its veracity lies not in the first printing of the King James Version in 1611, or in the character of King James I, or in the scholarship of the 1611 translators, or in the literary accomplishments of Elizabethton [sic] England, or even in the Greek Received Text. Our authority for the infallible words of the English Bible lies in the power and promise of God to preserve His word! God has the power. We have His Word.”
He says that the KJV is not infallible on the basis of the authority of the translators or the king or the underlying Greek text, but on the authority of God. That begs the question, of course: on what basis have you concluded that God gave His authority to, and infallibly protected, the 1611 King James Version? Where did God ever guarantee that? The answer is He never said anything about the 1611 King James Version. Hence, the conclusion that He infallibly protected this particular bible translation is nothing more than a blind faith assumption with no basis in Scripture and no consistency with history; for why is the 1611 KJV infallible and not another translation? The position is patently absurd, idolatrous, and evil. It’s equivalent to the modus operandi of Mormons or other cultists, who simply erect an authority for themselves (Joseph Smith) and ascribe infallibility to that authority, despite the fact that the infallibility or divine authority they ascribe to it has no link with Christ’s establishment or what is taught in Scripture.
James L. Melton, How I Know the King James Bible is the Word of God: “The term "Authorized" has traditionally been applied to the King James Version alone, for this is the one Book which the Holy Spirit has blessed and used for so long… The KJV translators were not like this. Their scholarship far exceeded that of modern translators, yet they remained humble and allowed God to use them in order to produce an infallible masterpiece.” (Shelton, TN)
King James I, at age 20
While it’s not necessary to prove that the King James Only position is false, it should be mentioned that many historians believe King James I was a homosexual. Non-Catholic theological historian Alister McGrath wrote a book that’s quite laudatory of the King James Bible. On the issue of King James I’s homosexuality, he states:
“Further concerns were expressed over the king’s increasingly obvious homosexual tendencies, which led to certain royal favorites being granted favors that were the subject of much comment and envy… Although James fondled and kissed his favorites in what was widely regarded as a lecherous manner in public, the court was prepared to believe that his private behavior was somewhat more restrained.” (Alister McGrath, In the Beginning – The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture, pp. 170-171.)
McGrath’s work also contains the following interesting quote, which illustrates how emotion and man-made tradition moved people to (wrongly) equate the King James translation with the infallible originals of the Bible.
Alister McGrath, In the Beginning – The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture, p. 302: “The idea of inspiration, which was traditionally applied to the biblical texts in their original languages, now came to be applied to the English translation of the King James Bible itself… Richard Whately (1787-1863), archbishop of Dublin from 1831, caused consternation at his diocesan conference of clergy when he produced a copy of the King James Bible, and declared: ‘Never forget, gentlemen, that this is not the Bible.’ Gasps of astonishment were heard throughout the auditorium. After a moment’s pause for effect, he continued, ‘This, gentlemen, is only a translation of the Bible.’”
Since they consider the KJV to be infallible, KJV-Onlyists reject the use of other Bible versions. Yet, the very translators of the 1611 King James Bible recommended using a variety of translations. That completely contradicts modern KJV-Onlyists, who place the KJV in an infallible category by itself and reject the use of other versions.
Richard Bancroft, ‘chief overseer’ of the King James Bible translation
Translators’ Preface to the 1611 King James Version: “For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”
In their preface to the 1611 King James Bible, the translators also praise St. Augustine and St. Jerome, even though Augustine and Jerome were Catholic saints whose views would be condemned as non-Christian by KJV-Onlyists in our day.
Many of the KJV translators were also Anglicans who believed in infant baptism – a position that would be rejected by many, if not most, KJV-Onlyists today.
A Protestant baptizing an infant
The translators of the KJV also acknowledged the existence and significance of the Septuagint (the Greek Translation of the Old Testament). Many KJV-Onlyists hold that the Septuagint was a myth. They claim this Greek translation of the OT never existed before the time of Christ.
Dr. Samuel Gipp, The Answer Book – A Helpbook for Christians [concerning the King James], Q. #9, p. 45: “QUESTION: What is the LXX [the Septuagint]? ANSWER: A figment of someone's imagination.”
As we see, KJV-Onlyist Gipp says that the Septuagint was a myth. In the quotation below, note that the very men who translated the King James Bible (the Bible which Gipp worships) contradict him. The King James translators acknowledged that the Apostles used the LXX (the Septuagint), and that it was ‘the word of God.’
Translators’ Preface to the 1611 KJV: “But, when the fulness of time drew near, that the Sun of righteousness, the Son of God should come into the world, whom God ordained to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, not of the Jew only, but also of the Greek, yea, of all them that were scattered abroad; then lo, it pleased the Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek Prince (Greek for descent and language) even of Ptolemy Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the translating of the Book of God out of Hebrew into Greek. This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal… The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy of the appellation and name of the word of God.”
A part of the Septuagint, from the Greek manuscript Vaticanus
Some KJV-Onlyists argue that the KJV is infallible because it has or had no copyright?! Their claim in this regard is both incoherent and illogical; for, on the one hand, they seem to acknowledge that the KJV originally carried some form of a copyright, but they contend it didn’t matter; and then they illogically conclude that a work without a copyright is for some reason protected by God?!
James L. Melton, How I Know the King James Bible is the Word of God: “BECAUSE IT HAS NO COPYRIGHT- The original crown copyright of 1611 does not forbid anyone today from reprinting the Authorized Version. It was only copyrighted then for the purpose of allowing the printer to finance the publication. For nearly four hundred years now we have been printing millions of copies of KJV's without requesting permission from anyone. Over eight-hundred million copies of the Authorized Version have been printed without anyone paying royalties. This cannot be said of any of the new translations.”
Obviously there’s nothing in Christ’s teaching or the Bible about a translation being guaranteed infallibility because it has no copyright. Moreover, the claim of KJV-Onlyists on this point is false. The original KJV did have a copyright.
Christopher De Hamel, The Book, A History of the Bible, p. 247: "Let us look first of all at the legal status of the Authorized Version, for (strangely for a text which declares itself to be the essential birthright of all people) it was protected by copyright. Only certain publishing houses were licensed to print bibles. From the seventeenth century onwards, many attempts were made by other commercial enterprises to capitalize on the Bible and eventually to dislodge it from its position as a protected commodity."
As we see, the King James Bible was protected by copyright. De Hamel explains how the non-privileged publishers even attempted to circumvent the copyright on printing the ‘Authorized Version’ by disguising the text within biblical commentaries, for the commentaries were not protected by the same copyright.
Christopher De Hamel, The Book, A History of the Bible, p. 253: “There were other ways of chipping away at the privilege of the Authorized Version… If the text of the Authorized Version was issued attached to a commentary or a collection of explanatory notes, then (they would argue) it was technically not a Bible, even though it necessarily required extracts which might amount to a complete text. From about 1720, printers without the royal privilege began to publish Bibles disguised as commentaries… The complete text of the Authorized Version was included in what pretended to be a commentary. When publishers were not prosecuted, they grew braver. The supposed commentaries become briefer and the Bible text more prominent. It became common practice for printers to include skimpy ‘notes’ simply as a device for evading copyright.”
So, yes, the KJV did carry a copyright. Once the American colonies revolted against the British, obviously the British copyright of printing the Authorized Version was of no concern to them; but in Britain itself the KJV remained under copyright for hundreds of years after 1611. Even to this day, there are some copyright restrictions on printing it in England.
Moreover, in the U.S. many works lapse into the public domain approximately 50 or 70 years after the work was created or its creator has passed away. This includes many works of history, literature and art, not just the King James Bible. The argument of KJV-Onlyists, that the KJV was infallible because it lacked a copyright, is false, absurd, and once again smacks of irrational cultism.
“… the KJV, which also had to have the worst of its errors weeded out during the early days of its existence.” (D.A. Carson, The King James Version Debate – A Plea for Realism, p. 97.)
King James Onlyists admit that the KJV contained many printing errors.
Dr. Samuel Gipp, The Answer Book – A Helpbook for Christians [concerning the King James], Q. #5, p. 16, quoting David Reagan: “The two original printings of the Authorized Version demonstrate the difficulty of printing in 1611 without making mistakes. Both editions were printed in Oxford. Both were printed in the same year: 1611. The same printers did both jobs. Most likely, both editions were printed on the same printing press. Yet, in a strict comparison of the two editions, approximately 100 textual differences can be found.”
They attempt to explain all of the printing errors and textual differences away, however. Alister McGrath expands upon some of the notable printing errors in early editions of the King James Bible.
Alister McGrath, In the Beginning – The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture, pp. 214-215: “The first printing of the King James Bible in 1611 included a number of printing errors. For example, a small slip in the typesetting of the description of the interior of the tabernacle led to the following reading (Exodus 28:11).
And for the north side the hangings were an hundred cubits, their pillars were twenty, and their sockets of brass twenty; the hoops of the pillars and their fillets of silver.
But there were probably few who noticed, let alone cared, that the pillars really bore hooks, not hoops. This error was corrected in the 1613 reprint. Some errors in the early printings of the King James Bible caused considerable distress… serious was the misprint in an edition of 1631, which rendered Exodus 20:14 as follows: ‘Thou shalt commit adultery.’ The omission of the word ‘not’ was speedily corrected, but not before this caused some consternation among the Bible’s readers. Robert Barker and Martin Lucas, the printers of this ‘Wicked Bible’ – as it came to be known – were fined severely for this unfortunate lapse. The first edition of the King James Bible to be published by Oxford University Press appeared in 1675; this was followed by a sumptuous edition prepared by Oxford printer John Baskett. The value of the edition was greatly reduced by its many printing errors. For example, it made reference to the ‘Parable of the Vinegar’ instead of the ‘Parable of the Vineyard’ – an error which led to it being nicknamed the ‘Vinegar Bible.’ Its amused critics panned it as a ‘Baskett-full of Printer’s Errors.’”
Yet, for the dedicated follower of the King James Only cult, none of this impacts the alleged ‘perfection’ of the King James Version.
Dr. Samuel Gipp, The Answer Book – A Helpbook for Christians [concerning the King James], Q. #5, p. 21, quoting David Reagan: “Almost all of the alleged changes have been accounted for. We now come to the question of actual textual differences between our present editions and that of 1611. There are some differences between the two, but they are not the changes of a revision.”
The Textus Receptus is the name for the Greek New Testament text from which the 1611 King James Version was translated. It’s typical for KJV Onlyists to describe this Greek text, the Textus Receptus, as the ‘Majority Text.’ Here are two quotes from KJV Onlyists in which they falsely refer to the Textus Receptus as the ‘Majority Text.’
A KJV-Onlyist, writing for the ‘1611 King James Bible Website,’ states: “[The] Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (over 95%) of the 5,300+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text.” (http://www.1611kingjamesbible.com/textus_receptus.html)
Another KJV Onlyist, ‘Bro. Terry,’ states: “Foremost amongst these is the Traditional Received Text (Textus Receptus), also called the Byzantine Text or the Majority Text because it is based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence.” (http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet1/textusr1.html)
Although they are closely related, the Textus Receptus is not the Majority Text. In fact, the Textus Receptus is different from the Majority Text in over 1000 passages. Some would number the total differences between the two at approximately 10,000. A number of these differences are significant, with portions of verses and whole phrases, for example, which appear in the Textus Receptus being omitted in the Majority Text.
One example of a difference between the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text is Rev. 22:19. The Textus Receptus (as reflected in the KJV translation) has “book of life”; the Majority Text has “tree of life.”
|Textus Receptus (and KJV)||
|“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”||“And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.”|
Therefore, despite what many KJV-Onlyists say, it’s quite clear that the Textus Receptus is not identical to the Majority Text. This is another example of how the King James Only movement is a sect built on misinformation and falsehoods.
The Textus Receptus was the Greek text of the NT from which the KJV was translated. The Textus Receptus was a Greek NT closely related to the Majority Text, but it was based on the combination of manuscript/textual choices made by Desiderius Erasmus, Stephanus, and Theodore Beza.
Please consider this logically: if the 1611 KJV is infallible, that would suggest that the Greek text of the NT from which the KJV was translated (the Textus Receptus) was also infallible. Well, the Textus Receptus was itself based on the Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, and not all their editions agree. In fact, some of the readings in their Greek editions of the NT have little Greek manuscript support. And, in at least one case, a reading that found its way into the Textus Receptus has no Greek manuscript support at all.
It’s interesting to consider King James Onlyists’ admiration for Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536). Desiderius Erasmus was a priest, a humanist, and a bible scholar who translated directly from Greek manuscripts. His emphasis on certain Greek manuscripts and his de-emphasis of the Latin Vulgate was not typical in the period. His manuscript choices and his Greek editions of the NT were largely responsible for the Textus Receptus, the Greek text used to translate the King James Version. The following quote is typical of how King James Onlyists describe Erasmus. They essentially consider him to be a type of hero who saved the Bible during the dominant period of the ‘wicked’ Catholic Church.
Ken Matto, Why I am King James Only: “The person behind the beginning of the manuscript series leading up to the King James was Desiderius Erasmus who was a brilliant Greek scholar whom God used to begin the process of final purification of the manuscripts which would come to be known as the Textus Receptus in 1633, 22 years after the publication of the King James Bible. Erasmus was a critic of the Latin Vulgate of Jerome…”
They think that Erasmus was tremendous. In addition to the insuperable problems we’ve been covering, the problem for King James Onlyists is that throughout his life Erasmus claimed to be a Catholic and dedicated to the Church. He said Mass (though not frequently); he believed in the Eucharist, as well as some other Catholic teachings. (I don’t believe Erasmus was a true Catholic, but it’s a fact that he purported to be a Catholic throughout his life.)
King James Onlyists typically consider the Catholic Church to be a false anti-Christ sect, even the Whore of Babylon. According to them, the Catholic Church teaches paganism, heresy, and an idolatrous false gospel of the Devil. Does it make sense that God would ‘save the Bible’ through a ‘false anti-Christian sect’ of the Devil (the Whore of Babylon) and ‘an idolatrous pagan’ like Erasmus, who was a member of such a ‘sect’? Let’s read the KJV:
Luke 6:43-44- “For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.”
Their own bible records that a corrupt tree does not bring forth good fruit. Obviously God would not save the Bible through a devilish false Church and a pagan or heretic who adhered to it. Their admiration for Erasmus, and the role they believe he played in saving the Bible, is inconsistent with their anti-Catholic rhetoric. Indeed, the fact that they must appeal to alleged ‘Catholics’ like Erasmus in documenting their Bible history reminds us again that the Catholic Church was the original and only Church of Christ, and that all Protestant denominations (including those of the King James Onlyists) are man-made sects.
While KJV-Onlyists are generally effusive in their praise for Erasmus, Erasmus himself condemned those of their ilk. Here’s what he said about Protestants: the followers of Luther, ‘Evangelicals,’ etc.
Johan Huizinga, Erasmus and the Age of Reformation, pp. 176-177: “From the cause of the Reformation he [Erasmus] was now quite estranged. ‘Pseudevangelici’, he contumeliously calls the reformed. ‘I might have been a corypheus in Luther’s church,’ he writes in 1528, ‘but I preferred to incur the hatred of all Germany to being separate from the community of the Church.’… ‘Just look,’ he exclaims, ‘at the Evangelical people, have they become any better? Do they yield less to luxury, lust and greed? Show me a man whom that Gospel has changed from a toper to a temperate man, from a brute to a gentle creature, from a miser into a liberal person, from a shameless to a chaste being. I will show you many who have become even worse than they were.’ Now they have thrown the images out the churches and abolished mass (he is thinking of Basle especially): has anything better come instead? ‘I have never entered their churches, but I have seen them return from hearing the sermon, as if inspired by an evil spirit, the faces of all showing a curious wrath and ferocity, and there was no one except one old man who saluted me properly, when I passed in the company of some distinguished persons.’”
Concerning the Protestants, who reject Mass, the Church, holy images, etc., Erasmus says they are separated from the Church. He calls them pseudo-evangelicals. He says that it’s as if they were “inspired by an evil spirit.” It of course makes no sense for King James Onlyists to hold that such an individual, who condemned their sects as devilish and adhered to what they themselves consider a devilish sect, was God’s chosen vessel to protect and transmit His sacred word.
Protestant James White, who adheres to sola scriptura but opposes King James Onlyism, pointed out that in Revelation 16:5, the King James Bible has a reading that was completely novel in Christian Tradition. It was based on no Greek manuscript support whatsoever. This is extremely significant because, as we saw earlier, King James Onlyists hold that the 1611 KJV is ‘perfect.’ If even one error is documented in the ‘Authorized Version,’ the ‘King James Only’ sect crumbles.
Dr. Samuel Gipp, The Answer Book – A Helpbook for Christians [concerning the King James], Q. #58, p. 154: “QUESTION: How many mistakes are there in the King James Bible? ANSWER: None. EXPLANATION: None.”
Notice that he also says: “EXPLANATION: None.” Since his adherence to King James Onlyism is not rooted in Christ’s teaching or logical consistency, but rather in blind faith and subservience to the false gods he has chosen for himself (namely: King James I, his bible and its translators), he feels no need to even offer an explanation for why the KJV is without error.
|The ‘Authorized Version’-The 1611 King James Bible||
The New American Standard Bible
(and other translations)
|“And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.”||“And I heard the angel of the waters saying, Righteous art You, who are and who were, O Holy One, because You judged these things:”|
“Every Greek text – not just Alexandrian texts, but all Greek texts, Majority Text, the Byzantine Text, every manuscript, the entire manuscript tradition – reads ‘O Holy One’ [in Rev. 16:5]… So why does the KJV read ‘and shalt be’? Because John Calvin’s successor at Geneva, Theodore Beza, conjectured that the original read differently… But he had no manuscript evidence in support of his conjecture. For the KJV Only advocate, there is simply no way out of this problem… So how does the AV defender respond to the documentation that the King James Version contains a reading out of the mind of Theodore Beza, one unknown to the ancient church, unknown to all Christians until the end of the sixteenth century? John did not write ‘and shalt be.’ He wrote ‘O Holy One.’ This is the united testimony of all relevant historical information. To deny this is to engage in the most egregious form of irrational thought. It is not faith to deny reality, it is deception.” (James White, The King James Only Controversy, pp. 239-241.)
White points out that Erasmus (one of the compilers of the Greek text that became the Textus Receptus), Stephanus (another compiler of the Textus Receptus), English versions before the King James, and everything else had “O Holy One.” The Vulgate also has “O Holy One” in Rev. 16:5. It was Theodore Beza who, in considering the Greek, decided to come up with his own reading for that verse; and his novel reading found its way into the KJV.
Hence, in the case of Rev. 16:5, which has no Greek manuscript support whatsoever (and which is contradicted by the Latin Vulgate), KJV-Onlyists are putting blind faith in the reading that Theodore Beza decided to come up with. In the face of the facts, KJV-Onlyists hold that not even one error could possibly be found in the KJV.
KJV-Onlyism is simply a ‘faith of man,’ an anti-Christian cult that places unfailing confidence in an Anglican king, his translators, and their bible version – none of which were promised a special protection from Jesus Christ.
Here are a few quotes from King James Onlyists in which they express their worship of this bible version, the men who put it together, and the King who commissioned it.
Dr. Samuel Gipp, The Answer Book – A Helpbook for Christians [concerning the King James], Q. #56, p. 148: “QUESTION: What should I do where my Bible and my Greek Lexicon contradict? ANSWER: Throw out the Lexicon… It must be remembered that God never claimed that He would provide us with a perfect lexicon or an inerrant Greek grammar. He said that He would provide us with a perfect Bible.”
Where exactly did God say that the King James Version, commissioned under an English sovereign more than a millennium after Christ, would be perfect? Nowhere, of course. To place blind faith in someone or something which Christ has not given any indication He will protect is to put that person or thing on a level with God – period. It is to worship that entity as another Christ: as something or someone constituting divine revelation on its OWN AUTHORITY or on the authority arbitrarily accorded to it by men. That’s exactly what we see in King James Onlyism: the elevation of the King James Bible and those involved with it to divine status. It is THEIR FALSE CHRIST.
In fact, all men who found their own ‘Churches’ are false Christs. All of the founders of Protestant sects were and are false Christs; for they have arrogated to themselves authority which only Christ had: only Jesus Christ can establish the Christian Church and reveal its teachings. While it’s true that all Protestants are following what has been established by a false Christ, this truth is exemplified in a special way in certain Protestant sects or movements, such as King James Onlyism.
With no basis in Christ’s teaching for their conclusion, KJV Onlyists illogically presume that the King James is God’s ‘perfect’ version. Without question this is to initiate a second false Pentecost, to pretend that the Church was established anew during the reign of King James I, with the Holy Spirit giving a special new commission to King James I. Undoubtedly it’s a new and false Church of man, based on their false Christ: King James I of England and the Bible translation He commissioned – just as Joseph Smith is a false Christ to Mormons, having founded a new Church and revealed new doctrines not contained in the teaching of Christ.
Here are a few more quotes illustrating the KJV Onlyists’ false-Christ/new-Pentecost mentality.
Dr. Samuel Gipp, The Answer Book – A Helpbook for Christians [concerning the King James], Q. #10, p. 45: “QUESTION: What does this statement mean? ‘The King James Bible was good enough for the Apostle Paul, so it’s good enough for me.’ ANSWER: This statement was usually made in a sarcastic manner in order to embarrass Bible believers in their belief. The FACT is, the King James Bible WAS good enough for Paul.”
After explaining that this statement has been made sarcastically, Gipp repeats it seriously. He acts as if the King James Version of the Bible was eternal, floating around during the apostolic period, serving as St. Paul’s faithful companion, existing before it was even translated in 1611. The argument is similar to how someone might say that Jesus Christ (the Son of God) was present at Old Testament events prior to His incarnation. The King James Bible is their false Christ.
Dr. Samuel Gipp, The Answer Book – A Helpbook for Christians [concerning the King James], Q. #17, p. 65: “QUESTION: If King James didn’t authorize the Bible for use in churches, who was it translated for? ANSWER: The common man… It has been said, ‘Put a beggar on horseback and he’ll ride off at a gallop.’ This best describes a common man’s reaction to being given a perfect bible.”
Dr. Samuel Gipp, The Answer Book – A Helpbook for Christians [concerning the King James], Q. #12, p. 59, ON CRITICS OF THE KJV: “ANSWER: … Then, after the student has been accepted [to Bible college]… then and only then, do they begin ever so subtly to destroy their faith in the perfect Bible and show that the ‘good old King James’ is full of errors. But they know, and God knows that they were too scared not to bend their knees to ‘the God of the land’ and His book, the King James Bible.”
The facts that we’ve considered prove without any doubt that ‘King James Onlyism’ is false. It is the disastrous and bad fruit of a heretical religious system (Protestantism) and the false doctrine of sola scriptura.
Yet, what about their primary argument: if the KJV isn’t God’s perfectly preserved Bible, then where is God’s perfectly preserved Bible?
As stated above, the primary argument made by KJV-Onlyists is one of necessity. People on both sides of this issue generally agree that the original writings of the Bible were inspired and infallible. But we no longer have the original writings. We have copies which were made by hand before printing technology existed. In the process of hand-copying the texts, some mistakes were made.
The NT manuscripts that we have supply abundant evidence for what Scripture contained in the vast majority of verses. The NT manuscript evidence we have also far exceeds the manuscript evidence we have for other celebrated and unquestioned works of antiquity. However, the manuscripts of the NT which we have are not perfect. They contain what are called ‘textual variants.’ A ‘variant’ could be a small mistake, a difference in spelling, a repeated phrase, an omission, an addition, a slightly different reading, etc.
As Protestant biblical scholar D.A. Carson explained:
“What we possess is something over 2,100 lectionary manuscripts, more than 2,700 minuscules, just over 260 uncials, and about 80 papyri. To keep things in perspective, however, it is important to remember that the vast majority of these 5,000 or so manuscripts are fragmentary, preserving a few verses or a few books. Only about 50 of these 5,000 contain the entire New Testament, and only one of these 50 is an uncial (viz., codex Sinaiticus). Most of the manuscripts, however, do contain the four Gospels.” (D.A. Carson, The King James Version Debate - A Plea for Realism, p. 18.)
He also explains that no two manuscripts agree in every detail.
“By contrast, the New Testament, as I have said, is preserved in five thousand Greek manuscripts and eight thousand manuscripts of versions. Yet despite this abundant supply of manuscript evidence, this providential wealth of material sufficient to embarrass the most industrious textual critic, it is a stark fact that no two manuscripts agree in every detail.” (D.A. Carson, The King James Version Debate - A Plea for Realism, pp. 18-19.)
Now it’s crucial to realize that working from the assumption of sola scriptura (i.e. the position that a book is the ONLY infallible rule of faith and practice for a Christian), King James Onlyism is launched in direct reaction to the aforementioned fact about the imperfection of extant biblical manuscripts. It is a frustrated and emotional response to the realization that since we no longer have the original writings, the copies of Scripture that we have are not ‘perfect’ in every way that the original writings were. Thus, while KJV-Onlyism (in light of the facts we’ve been covering) is clearly untenable, false and ridiculous, it also points us to a larger issue: namely, the error of sola scriptura.
The KJV-Onlyists reason that since the Bible is the ONLY infallible rule of faith (sola scriptura), and God promised to preserve His word forever (Psalm 12:6-7; Mt. 24:35), there must be a perfect and infallible bible version somewhere for people to use. KJV-Onlyists are quick to mention that Psalm 12 and Matthew 24 tell us that God will preserve His word forever.
Psalm 12:6-7- “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” (KJV)
Matthew 24:35- “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (KJV)
They quote these passages all the time. For example, they argue thus:
Dr. Samuel Gipp, The Answer Book – A Helpbook for Christians [concerning the KJ Bible], Q. #61, p. 158: “QUESTION: What if there really ARE mistakes in the King James Bible? ANSWER: Then it’s up to you to find the Book that God was talking about in Psalm 12:6,7 and Jesus was talking about in Matthew 24:35.”
James L. Melton, How I Know the King James Bible is the Word of God: “Psalm 12:6-7 says, 'The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.'… These words state very clearly that God's preserved word MUST be available to us today, because God PROMISED to preserve it for us. There MUST be an infallible Book somewhere… If His words didn't pass away, then where are they? I want to read them. There has to be a perfect volume somewhere. I know the King James Bible is the word of God because God promised to preserve His words.”
It’s crucial to understand that the KJV-Only position is inextricably connected with the doctrine of sola scriptura. Since, they argue, the Bible is all we’ve got, God must have perfectly protected one of these Bible versions AND IT’S THE KJV! If not, FIND THE BOOK!
The error in their argument, however, is contained in the premise: they wrongly assume that the “words of the Lord” and “God’s words” (mentioned in Psalm 12 and Mt. 24) are limited to a book; but God’s promise in Psalm 12 and Matthew 24 does not mention a “book.” It mentions God’s “words.”
A common misconception among Protestants is that the “word of God” refers exclusively to the Bible. The truth is that the Bible itself teaches that the spoken word is “the word of God,” in addition to the written word. The Bible repeatedly calls the oral (spoken) tradition “the word of God.” (Jesus Christ Himself is also called the “Word of God” in John 1 and Hebrews 11:3.)
1 Thessalonians 2:13- “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”
As we see, St. Paul is referring to the oral (spoken) tradition as the word of God. By describing the oral tradition as “the word of God,” the Bible is indicating that the apostolic oral tradition is infallible, and that it represents, along with Scripture, one of the sources of Jesus Christ’s revelation which must be accepted.
In 2 Thess. 2:15, the Bible clearly teaches that one must accept both Scripture and Tradition; it even says that the Bible itself is a Tradition.
2 Thessalonians 2:15- “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”
2 Thessalonians 3:6- “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.”
The following verses also prove that the spoken word was the “word of God” which must be preserved and handed down, and it was preserved and handed down for all generations in the teaching of the Church Christ established.
1 Corinthians 11:34- “… And the rest will I set in order when I come.”
2 John 1:12- “Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full.”
2 Timothy 2:1-2- “Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.”
Therefore, even though we no longer have the original New Testament writings (‘THE AUTOGRAPHS’), but only manuscript copies which are not perfect in every detail as the originals were, God’s words are still preserved, just as He promised in Psalm 12 and Mt. 24, in the apostolic Tradition, the teaching of His Church, and what we do know about the written word from the copies that have been passed down to us.
With this realization, the entire argument of King James Onlyists is crushed. There need not be any modern book that is a perfect translation or representation of the original writings because God never promised that He would preserve His words in every generation in a book. He promised to preserve His “words,” and He does so in the teaching of His one Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), and in what we do know about the original writings.
Colossians 1:5-6- “For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel. Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth.”
The spoken word is described as “the word of truth” and the Gospel. The reference to the “word” having come into the whole world confirms that this passage is referring to the spoken word and not the Bible; for this could not have been said of the Bible at the time.
John 17:20- “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word.”
Jesus prays for those who will believe through the “word” of His apostles. But only a few of His Apostles wrote words in the Bible. Most of them did not. “Their word,” through which people will believe, must therefore be their preaching and the communication of oral tradition, not their writing.
Luke 8:11-13- “Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.”
This clearly describes the spoken word as “the word of God.”
Luke 4:44-5:1- “And he [Jesus] preached in the synagogues of Galilee. And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret.”
Luke 3:2- “Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.”
This refers to a revelation given to St. John the Baptist.
Acts 4:31- “And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spoke the word of God with boldness.”
As mentioned above, there are many Protestants who adhere to sola scriptura but reject King James Onlyism. They can of course point to problems with King James Onlyism. Yet, they remain unable to respond to the main argument King James Onlyists bring forward. The KJV-Onlyists will say that if Scripture is the only infallible rule, “Then it’s up to you to find the Book that God was talking about in Psalm 12:6,7 and Jesus was talking about in Matthew 24:35.”
The Protestant non-KJV-Onlyists are unable to refute this objection, for they hold to the unbiblical and unhistorical heresy of sola scriptura. They have no response to KJV-Onlyists on this point because they fail to recognize, as stated above, that the “words of God” are preserved in Tradition and the Church’s teaching, in addition to Scripture. Only true Christians, that is, Catholics, can fully respond to and refute King James Onlyism.
A careful and honest consideration of these facts not only demonstrates that King James Onlyism is false, but that sola scriptura – and therefore Protestantism itself, which is inextricably bound to sola scriptura – is implausible, unreasonable, and false. God did not, and never would have, intended that the ONLY infallible source of revelation and rule of faith and practice would be a book or a collection of books.
See our book, The Bible Proves the Teachings of the Catholic Church, the ‘Refuting Protestantism’ section of our website, and our other videos for more on the biblical proof for the traditional Catholic faith, the one true faith of Christ outside of which there is absolutely no salvation.
RESPONSE TO A “SEX ADDICT”
[E-mail to MHFM]
Hello, this is both hard and embarrassing for me to write this. Since late 2007 I have been a sex addict. I know a lot of people might think this is funny, but it is nothing to laugh at. I have fornicated with a lot of women since 07 to this present day. I don't consider myself an evil person, actually I consider myself a good person that just happens to be suffering from this sex addiction. I thought of getting some therapy but I don't have the money to afford it. I hope you at the MHFM can give some advice on how to overcome this addiction.
MHFM: You use the term “addiction” with the implication that you are a victim who is not responsible for your activity. No, your behavior is mortally sinful. It’s a diabolical addiction – one which arises from your own choices and refusal of God’s grace. In charity and in the interests of your salvation, we must inform you that you are not a good person, but a bad one.
However, there are a few simple remedies to your problem: First, avoid the occasions of your sin. Take drastic measures in this regard, if necessary. For example, if your fornication occurs at a particular place, stop going to that place at all costs. Or if your computer is the genesis of your sin – it shouldn’t be, but if you are continually falling into mortal sin as a result of it – get rid of it. That’s what Jesus means in Matthew 5:29-30, when He says:
“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.”
It’s not a surprise that Jesus makes these statements, about cutting things off, just one verse after saying, in Mt. 5:28: “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.” Obviously taking drastic measures to cut off sinful occasions has a particular application to people who fall into sexual sins.
For those who don’t know, the mortal sins that are sexual in nature, which place a person in a state of damnation, include, among other things, acts of fornication, the sexual acts which precede or lead up to fornication, adultery, masturbation, looking at pornography, giving full consent to impure thoughts, etc. (See our series, Rejecting the Lust and Impurity of Hell, for more on this topic).
Second, you need to pray the Rosary each day. Your problem is a spiritual one and will not be solved without prayer, the aid of God’s grace, and the proper spiritual remedies. Praying to God and cultivating a devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Hail Mary and the Rosary is essential. And, of course, if you don’t have the true Catholic faith, you need to convert to it. (The steps to do so are on our website.)
Third, and this is very important, begin (by the grace of God) to exercise your will and fear God. Though it might sound simple, this point actually cuts to the heart of your problem. You need to simply determine or resolve, by God’s grace, that you are not going to commit the sin anymore. In this regard, the following quote is relevant:
St. Alphonsus (1760): “If you neglect God’s call on this occasion, he may perhaps abandon you forever. Resolve, then, resolve! ‘The devil,’ says St. Theresa, ‘is afraid of resolute souls.’ St. Bernard teaches that many souls are lost through want of fortitude.”
That is to say, souls lacking determination or courage or, you might say, a certain degree of toughness will not be saved. Many people are lost because they are simply too weak, too compliant, too wimpy. They acquiesce; they give in; they submit – whereas others say NO. Mortal sinners engage in things which, if they simply exercised their will, they could reject without much difficulty.
When people do take the firm steps to reject sin or cut off mortally sinful occasions – while they might find it difficult at first, which is the time when God usually allows them to be most challenged – if they overcome the initial hurdle, after a very short period of time they realize that what they previously found difficult is not difficult at all. They find the statement, “out of sight out of mind,” to be a true one and refreshing one.
For instance, in regard to being determined or resolved, truly you could stop going to the place where you commit the mortal sin, but you don’t want to. Hence, you are on the road to damnation. This lack of fortitude or determination is responsible for the damnation of many souls. This truth, about the importance of possessing a certain measure of fortitude – the ability to simply say: no, I will not do this – not only has application to the spiritual life, but also to doctrinal matters and to teaching God’s truth. For this reason, people who lack fortitude or toughness should not become priests or be engaged in teaching others the truths of God. For when people who are unwilling, unable or uninclined to be combative, to refuse people, to offend people, and yes, to condemn people – when those individuals attempt to deal with or teach God’s truths, they will undoubtedly compromise those truths in order to please others. In the same way, in the spiritual life, people who can’t say “no,” and take decisive action in this regard when required, will give in to mortal sin and be damned.
Ultimately, your willingness to commit clear mortal sins arises from your lack of humility: in your pride you don’t have the requisite respect for God’s laws and the necessary fear of the punishment He can and will mete out for such behavior. You think God is a joke. You think you can engage in activity He has specifically forbidden, turn others into little more than the object of your fleeting, empty pleasures, and then claim victimhood on top of it.
Galatians 6:7-8- “Be not deceived, God is not mocked. For what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap. For he that soweth in his flesh, of the flesh also shall reap corruption. But he that soweth in the spirit, of the spirit shall reap life everlasting.”
Deuteronomy 32:35- “Revenge is mine, and I will repay them in due time, that their foot may slide: the day of destruction is at hand, and the time makes haste to come.”
We also often find that people like you, in a sad attempt to justify their sins, look to others to solve their problem. Your inclination to look to others for the solution, rather than to yourself, i.e., to the simple means God has placed solely at your disposal, is similar to how people who fall into sins of impurity are often fixated on blaming their impurity on the immodesty of dress exhibited by others. While grave immodesty of dress is clearly a sin, it’s no excuse for people to fall into impurity. Giving full consent to impure thoughts or desires is a grave sin, regardless of what is put in front of a person. People need to have, by the grace of God, the internal purity, force of will, and self-control that they do not give full consent to impurity even if they happen to be exposed to highly inappropriate things through no fault of their own. For instance, many missionaries preached to natives who were naked or almost completely naked. That was not an occasion or justification for falling into impurity, as they had, by God’s grace, the internal purity, self-control and desire for that which is natural and pure, to say no to lust and wickedness, both internally and externally.
In regard to your lack of humility being the root cause of your problem, the following quote is relevant:
St. Benedict (c. 520): “The first degree of humility, then, is that a man always have the fear of God before his eyes, shunning all forgetfulness and that he be ever mindful of all that God hath commanded, that he always considereth in his mind how those who despise God will burn in hell for their sins, and that life everlasting is prepared for those who fear God.”
The first degree of humility, which you lack at this time, involves the recognition and fear of God: that He will condemn you to burn in Hell for your sins. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom…” (Psalm 110:10). It should motivate you to action in this regard.
So, the solution to your problem, along with God’s forgiveness – which should entail a valid sacramental confession once a person is prepared – is there for you if you take these simple steps. But if you don’t, you should consider the following words:
St. Alphonsus on the damnation of the impure: “Continue, O fool, says St. Peter Damian (speaking to the unchaste), continue to gratify the flesh; for the day will come in which thy impurities will become as pitch in thy entrails, to increase and aggravate the torments of the flame which will burn thee in hell: 'The day will come, yea rather the night, when thy lust shall be turned into pitch, to feed in thy bowels the everlasting fire.’”
By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.
Video: The Antichrist Revealed: The Beast that Was, and Is Not, Has Returned (39 minutes)Article published on: 09/15/06 In reading Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Rappresentanti in terra (1929) I recently came across a quote which struck me. Pope Pius XI declares that the Catholic Church ALONE produces saints.
Pope Pius XI, Rappresentanti in terra (#99), Dec. 31, 1929: “It stands out conspicuously in the lives of numerous saints, whom the Church, and she alone, produces, in whom is perfectly realized the purpose of Christian education…”I immediately thought of John Paul II’s heresy in Ut Unum Sint. Remember, John Paul II says in Ut Unum Sint (when referring to non-Catholic “Churches”) that saints come from all the “Churches”! Notice how directly the two contradict each other!
|John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 84), May 25, 1995:“[Speaking of non-Catholic “Churches”] Albeit in an invisible way, the communion between our Communities, even if still incomplete, is truly and solidly grounded in the full communion of the saints - those who, at end of a life faithful to grace, are in communion with Christ in glory. These saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial CommunitiesWHICH GAVE THEM ENTRANCE INTO THE COMMUNION OF SALVATION.”||Pope Pius XI, Rappresentanti in terra (#99), Dec. 31, 1929: “It stands out conspicuously in the lives of numerous saints, whom the Church, and she alone, produces, in whom is perfectly realized the purpose of Christian education…”|
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, ex cathedra: “… no one, even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Denz. 714)
THE SAME ENCYCLICAL TEACHES US THAT CANONIZED SAINTS ARE NOT MERELY IN HEAVEN, BUT THEY ARE ALSO MODELS OF DEDICATION TO GOD AND THE CATHOLIC FAITHIn our material we’ve pointed out that, among the many proofs that the Vatican II sect is not the Catholic Church, there is the fact that it has “canonized” (and will continue to “canonize”) individuals who are not worthy of canonization. We have covered the fact that canonizations are infallible (see appendix). Therefore, the man who “canonizes” someone like Josemaria Escriva (who accepted ecumenism and the New Mass) or Mother Teresa or John Paul II (who both promoted false religions) could not be a true pope. But some among the false traditionalists, especially among groups such as the SSPX, etc. – who espouse an independent but not sedevacantist position vis-à-vis the New Church – attempt to explain it away. They say that all a canonization means is that a person is in Heaven, nothing more. They argue that Mother Teresa and John Paul II could be canonized by a true pope because they may have converted at the very end, and therefore could be in Heaven. This is ridiculous, of course, since there is no evidence that Mother Teresa or John Paul II repudiated their horrible and well-documented teachings and actions of apostasy. But mark my words: this is how the false traditionalist will attempt to schismatically explain away the fact that Benedict XVI will “canonize” the public heretics Mother Teresa and John Paul II. So it’s important to refute this heretical excuse in advance.
Pope Pius XI, Rappresentanti in terra (#99), Dec. 31, 1929: “Indeed, the saints have ever been, are, and ever will be the greatest benefactors of society, and perfect models for every class and profession, for every state and condition of life, from the simple and uncultured peasant to the master of sciences and letters, from the humble artisan to the commander of armies, from the father of a family to the ruler of peoples and nations, from simple maidens and matrons of the domestic hearth to queens and empresses.”Notice, the Catholic Church teaches that saints are not merely in Heaven, but they have been, are, and ever will be “perfect models” for every class of person! They are perfect models because their lives (after their conversions, in the case of converts) provide something we can emulate and, in so doing, attain the ultimate end: Heaven. But a person who exhibited the worst kind of rejection of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Faith (as John Paul II and Mother Teresa did), even if that person were to privately abjure all of the heresy at the very end and be forgiven (something that would be an extremely rare and extraordinary grace), would never be and could never be canonized for the veneration of the whole Church. That’s because that person’s life is not a model for how to get to Heaven and dedicate oneself to God and the Catholic Faith, but on how to go to Hell and reject Christ. There must be something in the saint’s life – even among those who have converted from a life of sin, such as St. Augustine – that testifies to and provides the Church with a model of extraordinary virtue and dedication to the Catholic Faith. In the case of John Paul II and Mother Teresa, of course, we are dealing with two of the worst heretics in Church history who gave no evidence whatsoever before their deaths that they converted from their apostasy. Yet, the way for the “canonization” of these individuals is being paved in the New Church.
Mother Teresa, 1989 Time Magazine Interview, with Edward Desmond: “Time: What do you think of Hinduism? Mother Teresa: I love all religions, but I am in love with my own. No discussion. That's what we have to prove to them. Seeing what I do, they realize that I am in love with Jesus. Time: And they should love Jesus too? Mother Teresa: Naturally, if they want peace, if they want joy, let them find Jesus. If people become better Hindus, better Moslems, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there. They come closer and closer to God. When they come closer, they have to choose.” Mother Teresa: “I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic…Some call Him Ishwar, some call Him Allah, some simply God, but we have to acknowledge that it is He who made us for greater things: to love and be loved. What matters is that we love. We cannot love without prayer, and so whatever religion we are, we must pray together.”The point is that any sect which would “canonize” such individuals – thereby declaring solemnly that they are in Heaven and that their lives provide models of extraordinary dedication to God and the Catholic Faith – proves by that very fact that it is a non-Catholic sect and that the man proclaiming such a “canonization” is not a true pope. It’s a deathblow to the claims of the Vatican II antipopes, as well as to the position of the false traditionalists who obstinately accept them as valid popes. So, we’re pointing this out now. Saints are not only in Heaven; they are also models of extraordinary dedication to God and the Faith. If Benedict XVI “canonizes” Mother Teresa or John Paul II, which he will, that will be absolute proof (on top of all the rest) that he is not the pope. It will be a “canonization” of apostasy by the New Church. The false traditionalists have been refuted in advance, and if (after this occurs) they come up with some schismatic excuse to attempt to maintain their false position of allegiance to the non-Catholic antipope, they will simply be piling up damnation on themselves and increasing the severity of the torments which await them in Hell if they continue on their Faith-rejecting path.
The form of canonization used by the true popes before Vatican II, and the false antipopes after Vatican II: “In honor of the Blessed Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the growth of Christian life, with the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and Our Own, after lengthy reflection, having assiduously invoked God’s assistance and taken into account the opinion of many brothers of ours in the episcopate, we declare and define “x” to be a saint, and we enroll him in the Catalogue of the saints, and we establish that in the whole Church he should be devoutly honored among the saints. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” Pope Benedict XIV: "If anyone dared to assert that the Pontiff had erred in this or that canonization, we shall say that he is, if not a heretic, at least temerarious, a giver of scandal to the whole Church, an insulter of the saints, a favorer of those heretics who deny the Church’s authority in canonizing saints, savoring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous opinion and liable to very grave penalties.” [Quoted by Tanquerey, "Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae Fundamentalis," (Paris, Tournai, Rome: Desclee, 1937) new edition ed. by J.B. Bord, Vol. I. p. 624, footnote 2.] St. Alphonsus Liguori, The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection, 1759, p. 23:“To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.” St. Francis De Sales: (+1602): “…to say the Church errs is to say no less that God errs, or else that He is willing and desirous for us to err; which would be a great blasphemy.” (The Catholic Controversy, p. 70.)
Failure to respond to this e-mail will imply an inability to sufficiently defend your position on these issues.
Dear Dimond Brothers,
By claiming that all who acknowledged Paul VI as the pope were heretics, you condemn Padre Pio. Not only did Padre Pio accept Paul VI; he wrote a private letter to him applauding the latter’s defense of human life. Moreover, since you do not believe that John XXIII was ever a valid pope, you cannot say that Paul VI was ever a valid pope either. So, for Padre Pio to accept Paul VI as the pope at any time would have placed him outside the Church.
You also must necessarily, though indirectly, claim that Thomas Aquinas and Augustine, along with many of the other theologians and Doctors of the Church, were outside the Church for holding that the Baptisms of Desire and of Blood were legitimate substitutes for Water in invincible cases or in cases of martyrdom. Moreover, you cannot compare Thomas Aquinas’ denial of, or rather ignorance of, the Immaculate Conception, with his acceptance of accidental substitutes for Water Baptism, on account of the fact that the Immaculate Conception was not declared a dogma until the 19th century, while the dogma of the necessity of Water Baptism, even as you claim, has always been held by the Church (seeing as it is related in Scripture itself).
In Christ, Ian
Basically everything you have written in your short e-mail is wrong. We do not say that everyone who believes that the Vatican II antipopes are true popes is ipso facto a heretic. We say that after a person becomes familiar with the heresies of the V-2 antipopes and doesn’t denounce them – and after one becomes familiar with the teaching on loss of papal office and continues to insist that they are popes – they become heretics. In addition, one who imbibes the Vatican II theology of ecumenism would become a heretic, even before he or she has seen any teaching on loss of office, etc. That’s because an acceptance of false religions is directly incompatible with true faith in Christ.
So, your first accusation is totally wrong and constitutes a misrepresentation of our position. It’s certainly the case that not everyone who considers the V-2 antipopes to be popes is ipso facto a heretic. That’s because it’s the duty of a Catholic to accept the man who purports to be the Bishop of Rome as the pope, until there is clear evidence of an invalid election or manifest heresy. Some radical schismatics have adopted the theologically absurd position that it’s impossible to be in the Church while recognizing an antipope (even if one hasn’t seen the heresies or the evidence to conclude otherwise), and this leads them into a whole range of ridiculous and outrageously schismatic errors.
Regarding the objection concerning St. Thomas, these are old and tired arguments that we have already refuted many times. If people spent the time reading our book on salvation, they would see that there is an entire section dedicated to this very objection. Outside the Catholic Church There is No Salvation and refuting baptism of desire – book, audio program, articles. It’s found in Section 17, “Other Objections.” To disprove that very objection, we give an analogous example from Pope John IV and Honorius. Moreover, it’s addressed in our debates on baptism of desire:
It’s addressed in this second one and in the fourth one.
Debate on baptism of desire with sedevacantist Ken [1 hr. 46 min. audio – Jan. 2009]
Furthermore, that particular false objection (which you raise concerning doctors of the Church, etc.) is best addressed, and frankly demolished, in our article on Geocentrism and “Baptism of Desire.” In this article, we show that a doctor of the Church and popes have considered something heretical which in fact later popes did not even consider necessarily wrong. If that’s the case, then a doctor of the Church (e.g., St. Thomas, etc.) can be unaware of (or confused about) a Church teaching or a dogmatic definition which disproves a certain position.
Examining the Theological Status of Geocentrism and Heliocentrism and the Devastating Problems this creates for Baptism of Desire Arguments *very important article which demolishes popular baptism of desire arguments, contains a new quote from a pope on geocentrism and much more
This article clearly shows that doctors of the Church and popes can make mistakes on matters that are dogmatic (or which they think are dogmatic) without being heretics. To quote one paragraph from the article: “… if heliocentrism has not been infallibly condemned by the Holy See, then numerous popes (e.g., Paul V and Urban VIII) and a Doctor of the Church (St. Robert Bellarmine) acted like it had been and thus were unaware of the true theological status of this issue. If they could have been completely wrong about the true theological status of this controversial point [one about which accusations of heresy were being launched], then certainly St. Alphonsus and others could have been as well concerning the dogmatic status of the absolute necessity of water baptism. Thus, either way our point is proven.”
To put it another way, baptism of desire is a theological error which becomes a heresy when it is carefully matched up with the dogmatic definitions on salvation. This is analogous to the minutiae (finer points) of the Incarnation, etc., such as the dogma that Christ has two wills. This false idea is, strictly speaking, a heresy; but it would only be only an error for some until they see the specific Church teaching against the false position.
In conclusion, your objection demonstrates a superficial knowledge of Church history and the teaching of the Magisterium, as if a doctor of the Church is always perfectly aware of the theological status of every Catholic truth. It’s an objection that sounds good, but crumbles when more facts are brought forward. Your false objection is regurgitated by countless bad willed false traditionalists who consider themselves knowledgeable and Catholic (but actually aren’t), including priests, bloggers and forum hosters who love “baptism of desire.” They are completely wrong and their position is refuted by the aforementioned facts. It’s distressing that these people won’t more carefully look at the information; for just a few days ago one radical schismatic wrote to us demanding an answer to this very objection. We pointed out to him that we’ve already addressed the issue, and he (in his pride and bad will) refused to believe it. He was convinced it was such an original objection that we could not have addressed and refuted it before.
[P.S. Your other false statements about Padre Pio were addressed in our audio: Answering Objections Against Padre Pio (42 min. audio discussion)]
This is a 42-minute audio discussion which answers objections against Padre Pio. We discuss and respond to the claims that he endorsed the heresies of Vatican II, Humanae Vitae and salvation outside the Church.
Answering Objections Against Padre Pio [42 min. audio discussion]
Bro. Michael Dimond
-Is it ever permissible to go to a validly ordained priest for the sacraments who claims to be Catholic but prays in union with Benedict XVI or holds to some other heresy?-Many people have asked the question: “Does a person commit sin or cooperate in evil by being present at a traditional Mass or receiving sacraments from a priest at a church where Benedict XVI is prayed for as the pope?” The answer to that question is not an easy one, and we have written some other articles in the past on this difficult subject. The following is my opinion on the matter, and some common sense on this issue. People often have disagreements and debates about whether someone is cooperating in evil by working for or being present at places where evils take place. For example, some time ago a person I know would buy groceries at a supermarket which prominently displayed the blasphemous book The Da Vinci Code at the checkout counter. This book denies the divinity of Jesus Christ and contains other blasphemies that don’t need to be repeated. Essentially every supermarket today sells evil books and videos, and highly immodest magazines where you check out. Is it permissible to enter these places that display these evil things and expose people to evil without committing sin? Are you supporting or accepting evil by going there or by giving the store business? Can you get the food you need to sustain your physical health? The answer is that you can go to the store and buy the food you need without committing any sin. I believe that, on a certain level, this point relates to the issue of whether a person may go to certain churches to receive the sacraments where Benedict XVI is prayed for as the pope in order to receive the spiritual food which is necessary for your spiritual health. I will first answer some questions from those who believe you may not go to these churches for the Mass or the sacraments. I will later state my position on how a person could possibly attend these churches. I will also discuss whom I believe should be considered a notoriously heretical priest, as opposed to a heretical priest. Some might phrase the question of going to these churches this way: “If Benedict XVI is so clearly a heretic, how can a person go to churches where he is prayed for as the pope in the Mass?” I would respond by saying that virtually every Mass that has been offered anywhere for the last century has been offered by a priest who prayed in union with a bishop who was clearly heretical. For example, more than fifty years ago, every single priest in the Boston area was praying for the arch-heretic “Cardinal” Richard Cushing, who boasted that he had never made one convert in his entire life. Cushing declared that the infallible Catholic dogma, Outside the Church There is No Salvation, is “nonsense.” He was also given the Jewish Freemasons’ B’nai B’rith Man-of-the-Year award. Could you go to the Masses at the churches where Cushing was prayed for as the “Cardinal” of Boston? Was everyone bound under pain of mortal sin to avoid all the Masses in the Boston area during the 1940s and 1950s? No. If you didn’t go, you would have been pretty much without Holy Communion for your whole life. A “traditionalist” priest named Fr. Anthony Cekada recently wrote an article about why he believes that a Catholic may not assist at a Mass where Benedict XVI is prayed for as the pope. But what gets lost in the discussion about whether Catholics may go to the Mass where Benedict XVI is prayed for as the pope is the fact that the very authors promoting and writing articles on this issue are themselves horrible heretics. The point I will attempt to demonstrate is that there isn’t that much of a difference between the heretic Benedict XVI and the heretic Fr. Cekada. If you may go to a Mass which is offered by a heretic (which amounts to almost all Masses for the last century), then you may go to a place where a heretic prays for another heretic as the pope. Benedict XVI, Cekada, and almost all sedevacantist priests are unfortunately heretics Most people who hold that no one may attend any “una cum” Masses believe that you may attend the Masses of other sedevacantist priests. But I would ask them: “Why do you believe that you may go to a priest who is himself a heretic, as long as he doesn’t pray for a heretic (Benedict XVI)?” This brings me to my point about Fr. Cekada and other sedevacantists priests who say that you should not go to a Mass where the priest prays for Benedict XVI. Benedict XVI, Fr. Cekada and almost all other sedevacantist priests are arch-heretics and even antichrists because they don’t believe that Jesus Christ, His faith, and baptism are necessary for salvation. They wouldn’t openly admit this, but they foster the idea that Jesus is not the only Savior. They basically all hold that men can be saved by their desire, blood or wish. The late Marcel Lefebvre said that men can be saved by “the practice of their religion, perhaps of what they understand in their religion.” Catholic teaching states that the only way a person can be put into the state of justification (the state of grace) is by receiving the merit of Jesus Christ’s redemption in holy baptism. All who promote salvation for people in other ways (outside this one way) are promoting a false Christ of baptism of desire, salvation by invincible ignorance, etc. The bottom-line is that Benedict XVI, Cekada and virtually every priest in the world believe that an individual practicing and dying in a false religion can be saved. This is something that no canonized saint of the Church ever believed or promoted. It’s a blatant denial of the dogma that without the Catholic faith you cannot be saved. In fact, almost all of the heresies that have been promoted by Vatican II and the last five antipopes deal with the denial of this dogma. Almost every priest for the last one hundred years (with almost no exceptions) believed that a Jew who rejects Jesus Christ can be saved while practicing Judaism. The difference between Cekada and Benedict XVI is that Cekada (and other sedevacantists priests) wouldn’t promote Judaism or encourage the practice of Judaism or meet with Jews in ecumenical meetings. But the bottom-line is that Benedict XVI, Cekada and almost every priest today believe that individual Jews and others, who are practicing and dying in their false religions, can be saved. Therefore, they’re all horrible heretics. In fact, in the case of Cekada, he will not even let you receive the sacraments if you hold the position that to be saved you must be “born again of water and the Holy Ghost.” Both Benedict XVI, and virtually all the priests and bishops throughout the world are antichrists Both Benedict XVI and the priests and bishops throughout the world who promote salvation for non-Catholics are antichrists. Benedict XVI is an antichrist to a greater degree; the others are to a lesser degree. While Benedict XVI might be having another meeting with members of Protestant churches, the heretical sedevacantist priest might be busy at work writing a new article which will try to convince people that it’s heresy to believe that all men need to be baptized to be saved. Whose activity is worse? The fact is that basically every sedevacantist priest and Benedict XVI hold to the worst heresy that one could hold. They almost all believe that non-Catholics can be saved and that “natural” birth control may be used by couples to limit the size of their families. Ask yourself this question: is it worse to meet with members of false religions, or to believe that they can be saved while practicing their false religions? Many people (incorrectly) believe that by meeting and being friendly to members of false religions, Benedict XVI might encourage them to become Catholics. If nothing else, they believe that they will hear some Catholic things or get a chance to hear more about the Catholic religion. Fr. Cekada begins his article with these words: “The Grain of Incense.” The reference to the “grain of incense” is of course meant to imply that to go to a Mass where the priest prays in union with Benedict XVI is equivalent to giving a grain of incense to a false god. Ironically, Fr. Cekada himself believes that people who practice a false religion in which incense is thrown to a false god can be saved. Not very long ago, Fr. Cekada stated in an audio sermon (which I listened to) that he has “friends” who are priests and pastors in the Novus Ordo. I wonder if Cekada has ever shared his article with his “friends,” in which he states that going to their Masses is a mortal sin and equivalent to throwing incense to a false god? I doubt it. Speaking about Benedict XVI, Cekada stated: “they all place him (Benedict XVI) in the Church, where, as a heretic, he cannot be.” He cannot be in the Church, according to Fr. Cekada? But Cekada believes that people who practice false religions can be in the Church somehow and be saved. I would like to find out how sure Cekada is that Benedict XVI is not inside the Church. It would also be interesting to ask the heretic Cekada and other sedevacantist priests if Benedict XVI and the priests who pray for him as the pope are definitely in a state of mortal sin and will definitely spend eternity in Hell if they continue on their path. You might be very surprised at how few, if any, will tell you that Benedict XVI, or the priests who believe he is pope, are definitely in mortal sin and on the road to Hell. In fact, Cekada would have to believe that Benedict XVI might be in the Church. For he believes that a Jew who rejects Jesus Christ can be justified and united to the Church by an unconscious desire. This was confirmed in numerous conversations with him. If a Jew who rejects Christ Himself, the author of faith, can be inside the Church, according to Cekada, why can’t Benedict XVI (who only rejects Christ’s dogmas) also be in good faith and inside the Church? Cekada’s beliefs require him to admit that it’s possible. Someone like Fr. Cekada is maybe only slightly better than Benedict XVI. In some ways, Cekada is more evil and dangerous than Benedict XVI. This is because Cekada is deceiving people who claim to be traditional Catholics, whereas Vatican II “Catholics” don’t take their faith seriously. Yes, apostates like Cekada spend much time and thought on how you don’t absolutely need baptism or Christ to be saved. They are the kind of heretics that would be telling missionaries that it isn’t absolutely necessary to risk everything to convert and baptize people. They would say that men can be saved who are in invincible ignorance or who have some kind of desire for baptism. So, to have a faithless, apostate priest giving people advice on where people should go to Mass is not something real Catholics should look for. Some other people, who can see that Cekada and the rest are heretics, hold the position that you shouldn’t go to any priest who believes that people can be saved in other religions. Well, this would mean that you could not have received the sacraments almost anywhere for the last one hundred years. They conveniently ignore this fact. The unfortunate fact is that almost every priest has been believing – and most catechisms have been teaching – the worst heresy: that non-Catholics who practice false religions can go to Heaven. This has been taught or implied in almost every catechism since the late 1880s. These catechisms would also contradict this by declaring that the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. As you can see, there isn’t a big difference between the sedevacantist priests today, the pre-Vatican II heretical priests, and the “traditionalist” priests who currently believe Benedict XVI is the pope. Some other people (although fewer in number) hold that you must not go to any churches today for the sacraments because some or many of the people going there are heretics. Well, that was the case before Vatican II. Most of the people in the pews from approximately 1900 to 1950 believed in salvation outside the Church. Were the Catholics who did not believe in any heresy “praying with heretics” if they showed up at church before Vatican II because many of the people in the pews (not to mention the priest) were already modernists and heretics? No. Some of the aforementioned individuals take their false theology to its radically false conclusion and argue that no one may go to any Mass or receive sacraments at any church without first questioning every person in the church to make sure he’s in agreement on every issue. Well, the Church has never once stated that this is an obligation of a person who is going to receive sacraments; nor has the Church ever once taught that a Catholic receiving a sacrament is responsible for the sacrilegious Communions that someone else in the church might make. Some other people hold that you may not go to any of these churches because they are “non-Catholic” churches – equivalent to Protestant or Eastern “Orthodox” churches. They think they have become non-Catholic churches by recognizing a manifest heretic and an antipope. If that were true, then they were all non-Catholic churches in the 1960s and 1970s – during Padre Pio’s and Fr. Feeney’s time – because they recognized Paul VI (a manifest heretic and an antipope) as the pope. Were all the churches under Paul VI, which offered a traditional form of Mass, non-Catholic churches and thus equivalent to Protestant or Eastern “Orthodox” churches? Obviously not. The notion is ridiculous. Certainly the people and the priests who agreed with and/or obstinately defended the heresies of Vatican II, even at that time, put themselves outside the church as much as Protestants or Eastern “Orthodox”; but the building itself was categorically different from a notorious non-Catholic church by virtue of its celebration of a traditional Catholic liturgy and by virtue of its public profession that it holds all the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Nevertheless, in trying to prove this point, some of these individuals fall into the most absurd positions. They wind up arguing that everyone above reason at every church since 1965 or even 1958 became a non-Catholic by virtue of going to “a non-Catholic church.” By such absurd conclusions, which anyone with any Catholic sense can see are ridiculous, they demonstrate that their premise – that all of these churches are the equivalent of notorious non-Catholic churches, such as Protestant and Eastern “Orthodox” churches – is false. The attempted justifications which priests under Benedict XVI use In his article, Fr. Cekada makes reference to the teaching of theologians that praying in union with a pope is what a Catholic priest must do. To fail to do so is to separate yourself from the Catholic Church. The priests who pray for Benedict XVI argue that they must pray for him to be faithful to Catholic teaching. They say that everything (in their opinion) seems to indicate that he is the pope; and therefore to not pray for him is not the right Catholic thing to do. As a side note - who the priest prays for in the Mass is a minor part of the Mass or liturgy. Most of the priests are too cowardly to say anything about Benedict XVI publicly. Maybe some priests realize that once they begin to attack Benedict XVI, they will probably end up saying he is not the pope. Some priests who believe Benedict XVI is the pope might answer your question on the issue this way: 1) “Catholics must believe that the man who is widely accepted as pope should be accepted as the valid pope. To determine that a claimant to the papacy is not the pope is not a judgment that a Catholic has the authority to make, and certainly not one that he must make. It would be a rash and dangerous decision to decide that Benedict XVI is not the pope. I can’t be held responsible if he is somehow not the pope. The safer position is to assume he is the pope.” 2) “Benedict XVI may be bad, evil or doing things that are harmful to the church, but this is something that a valid pope is capable of doing, according to Catholic teaching and theologians. Pope Martin V even stated that a true pope could be wicked and of the devil. Also, Benedict XVI’s words and actions do not rise to the level of making him a formal heretic.” 3) “I have to pray for Benedict XVI as the pope in the Mass. To not do so would be to deny the dogma of the papacy, or the solemn teaching of Vatican I. I would then be like the ‘Orthodox,’ who deny the supreme jurisdiction of the pope. It would be denying the Catholic faith.” 4) “The heresies from Benedict XVI are taken out of context and Benedict XVI’s goal is really to convert these non-Catholics.” 5) “If these recent claimants to the papacy are not true popes, then there are no cardinals left (who in recent history have elected the pope) and we could never get another pope.” 6) “It would not be possible for God to allow the pope to become a heretic; it would mean the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church.” In short, the priest claims to be holding the right Catholic position during this crisis, and using good Catholic common sense. These attempted justifications by priests who accept Benedict XVI are false and they are answered in our material. But the important thing to be considered here is that the priest is attempting to defend or justify his position by quoting what he deems to be Catholic teaching and good Catholic common sense on this issue. While this is not good enough for this priest to escape being a heretic, it is important from the standpoint of determining whether a person could receive sacraments from this priest. My present position on this issue would be that a Catholic may go and receive the sacraments from a validly ordained priest who accepts Benedict XVI as the pope under the conditions explained below. My personal position on this issue, at this point in the apostasy, is that you are not going for the Mass. You are merely going to the church to receive Communion and confession. I have advised people to deliberately arrive at the Mass late because you are there merely to receive the sacraments and for nothing else. As far as praying with the people, I have told people that they should pray by themselves until Communion is given. When you see that the priest is about to give Communion, one could then go into the main part of the church to receive Communion. To determine if a particular priest is an option for receiving Communion, you should call the priest and ask him the following questions: 1) Was he ordained in the eastern rite or in the traditional roman rite by a bishop who was consecrated in the traditional rite? If he says yes to either question, you are dealing with a validly ordained priest. If he answers that he was not ordained in the eastern rite or the traditional roman rite, then you are not dealing with a validly ordained priest, so you cannot go to him. 2) How does he view the modern-day ecumenical movement? Does he like the fact that Benedict XVI is visiting mosques, synagogues and praising false religions, or does he have a problem with it? The priest must express that he has some problems with this kind of ecumenism. If he doesn’t have any problems with it and/or likes the kind of ecumenical activity that Benedict XVI is engaged in, then you cannot go to him for Holy Communion. Priests who either like ecumenism, or don’t believe we should attempt to convert non-Catholics, or don’t accept you as a Catholic for holding the correct teachings, should be considered notoriously heretical. (Heretical priests like Cekada, who condemn people who don’t believe in “baptism of desire,” would also be off-limits for the latter reason.) Holy Communion should not be received from notoriously heretical priests. 3) Does he believe we should attempt to convert non-Catholics? The question is not whether he believes non-Catholics can be saved in their false religions, for almost every priest for the last 100 years has believed in that heresy. The question is whether he believes we should evangelize and attempt to convert and lead people into the one true Catholic Church. If he says no, then you may not go to him for Holy Communion. If he says yes, then you may go to him for the sacraments (provided he meets the other conditions). As a side note on this issue, when a person deals with an eastern rite priest, you should specifically ask him about the members of the “Orthodox” religion. Many eastern rite priests have an especially soft spot in their hearts for these schismatics. One of the reasons for this is that the recent antipopes have been quite explicit in issuing directives which state that there is to be no proselytism of the “Orthodox.” The so-called leaders of the eastern rite churches have also been quite explicit in following the no-conversion-for-the-“Orthodox” line. 4) You need to tell the priest that you believe that a person has to be a Catholic to be saved, and that you hold that Benedict XVI is a manifest heretic for many reasons and therefore is not the pope, according to the teachings of the Catholic Church. If he tells you that he doesn’t believe you are a Catholic for holding these positions, you cannot receive the sacraments from him. If he still respects you as a Catholic, even though he doesn’t agree, you could receive the sacraments from him. Confession While we would say that the notoriously heretical priest may not be approached for Holy Communion, we believe that those priests who are notoriously heretical because they like ecumenism and praying with and respecting other religions may be approached for confession, if you cannot find any better options for confession within a reasonable distance. If he is a notoriously heretical priest who doesn’t think you are a Catholic because of what you believe, we would say you may only go to him for confession in danger of death. When you go to a priest for confession, you do not have to begin the confession with the words: “Forgive me father, for I have sinned.” You can begin the confession with: “It has been (insert time) since my last confession, I ask forgiveness for,” then start your confession. If you were attending the New Mass, you need to mention in confession that you attended a non-Catholic or Protestant service for many months or years. You need to mention that you supported heretical priests or groups. You will also need to re-confess any mortal sins that were confessed to invalidly ordained priests, or any Catholic dogmas that you denied. On our website, we also have the profession of faith from the Council of Trent. All who have been away from the traditional Catholic faith should make this profession before receiving sacraments. How One Could Attend These Churches While there isn’t an obligation to go to any heretic to receive Communion, here is my personal opinion on how a person could go to a church to receive the sacraments where they believe and pray for Benedict XVI as pope. As stated earlier, at this point in the present apostasy, you are really not going for the Mass, but only to receive the sacraments. If you decide to go to him to receive Communion and confession, I would not recommend going to the priest’s Mass on time. A person could arrive late, maybe about 10 minutes before Communion is given. It might even be better to go on Monday through Saturday, instead of on Sunday. There is no Sunday obligation to go to a heretic. Also, as we have stated many times before, no one may give donations to these heretical priests. If a person does support them, he or she commits a grave sin and is directly supporting a heretical priest and/or a heretical organization. A person should not pray with the other people at the Mass or liturgy. A person should say the rosary or other prayers privately by themselves and not join in with the prayers or singing of the others present. When you go to these churches, many have clear glass windows when you enter in the back. A person could pray the rosary out there until they see Holy Communion is about to be distributed. If a person does go into the main part of the church, he or she should sit in the very back. The only people who can fruitfully receive the sacraments are those who agree with what the Catholic Church teaches. Therefore, a person needs to be in full agreement with Catholic teaching on the following issues: 1) You agree that you must be a Catholic to be saved. You absolutely agree that anyone who is not a Catholic will sadly be lost forever. 2) You agree that Benedict XVI is a heretic, and therefore cannot be a true Catholic pope. You do not go to the New Mass. 3) If you are a married person, you don’t use artificial or “natural” birth control (Natural Family Planning) to deliberately limit the size of your family. The benefits of receiving Communion are obviously great, for it is to receive the body, blood, soul and divinity of God himself. It’s the greatest action in which a person can take part during his brief earthly existence. The absolute power and graces derived from worthily receiving valid Communion is usually something that is not given much or any weight by those who dogmatically declare that you may not go to a Mass where Benedict XVI is prayed for as pope. The truth is that Communion is the most necessary thing for a Catholic outside of baptism. We see this from the words of God Himself, “Amen, amen, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whosoever eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” (John 6) Jesus threatens us, by telling us that we cannot have everlasting life unless we receive Him in communion. Our Lord swears to it. Therefore, if there is a validly ordained priest who meets the criteria mentioned earlier, a person may take advantage and receive the sacraments from him. If not, then a person has to stay home.
Rejecting the Lust and Impurity of Hell video series We regret that we have to address these issues. However, due to the fact that we have received a high number of queries on this issue, it must be addressed. Since so many are coming out of mortal sin and are convincing themselves that certain things are not sins, we must preach against those sins with some specificity lest people perish in their ignorance.
Galatians 5:19-21- “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-11- “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” Ephesians 5:5-8- “For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them. For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:”Well, some time back one of us came across the following point in St. Thomas Aquinas. St. Thomas Aquinas identifies masturbation as the biblical “uncleanness” and “effeminacy.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Pt. II-II, Q. 154, A. 11: “I answer that, As stated above (A6,9) wherever there occurs a special kind of deformity whereby the venereal act is rendered unbecoming, there is a determinate species of lust. This may occur in two ways: First, through being contrary to right reason, and this is common to all lustful vices; secondly, because, in addition, it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called "the unnatural vice." This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of "uncleanness" which some call "effeminacy." Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called "bestiality." Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Romans 1:27): and this is called the "vice of sodomy." Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.”Thus, not only is masturbation a mortal sin, but it’s a mortal sin which is identified in three different places in Scripture as one which excludes from the Kingdom of God. It’s also classified by St. Thomas as one of the sins against nature, for it corrupts the order intended by God. That’s probably why it’s called “effeminacy.” Though it’s not the same as the abomination of Sodomy, it’s disordered and unnatural. We believe that this sin – since it’s contrary to nature and is classified as “effeminacy” and “the unnatural vice” – is the cause of some people being given over to unnatural lusts (homosexuality). Therefore, people who are committing this sin need to cease the evil immediately and, when prepared, make a good confession. If people are really struggling in this area, then they are not near the spiritual level where they need to be. God’s grace is there for them; but they need to pray more, pray better, avoid the occasions of sin and exercise their wills. They need to put out more effort spiritually and then it shouldn’t be a problem.
The video above is a must-see for anyone familiar with John Vennari.
By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.
There is a very specific and very simple answer to this question. Every honest person will agree with this, since it is an undeniable fact. John Vennari holds that one can reject the Catholic Faith and still be a Catholic. Here’s the proof:
John Vennari, Catholic Family News, “Father Ratzinger’s Denial of Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus,” July 2005, Editor’s Postscript, p. 11: “This is not the first time Father Ratzinger denied the dogma ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation’. In his 1966 book Theological Highlights of Vatican II, which was a commentary on the Second Vatican Council, Father Ratzinger rejoices that the true teaching of the Council document Lumen Gentium, according to the minds of the progressivists who drafted the document, (Ratzinger was one of them) was that conversion is now an option for the non-Catholic, not an obligation. He writes: ‘…A basic unity – of churches that remain churches, yet become one Church – must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivate to seek it.’ Cardinal Ratzinger admitted on numerous occasions that he had not changed since the time of the Council when he wrote these heterodox statements. In 1984, Ratzinger said that since the Council he ‘has not changed.’”
John Vennari fully admits that Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) has rejected the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation for years and still rejects it. Yet, he holds that Ratzinger is a Catholic. It is a fact, therefore, that John Vennari holds that one can reject the Catholic Faith and still be a Catholic. John Vennari is a complete heretic and is not a Catholic. The same applies to “Tradition in Action,” who wrote the article entitled “Father Ratzinger’s Denial of Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus” yet still holds that he is a Catholic. By continually admitting that people whom they still regard as Catholics reject Catholic dogma, they are simply mocking and denying the necessity of accepting Catholic dogma to be part of the Church.
The truth is that Ratzinger does reject Catholic dogma and is therefore not a Catholic.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic."
By Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.Click here for important update on Bishop Tom -7/16/05- VINDICATED- OUR ANALYSIS OF BISHOP TOM, THOUGH REJECTED AND CRITICIZED AS UNCHARITABLE BY SOME, PROVED TO BE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT
I have read your articles with great interest! I would like to know more about Father Dennis M… and Bishop Thom S…. Both groups uphold the teaching of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. What is your opinion of them? Is a Catholic safe to approach them for the Sacraments? In Jesus and Mary, -A. Y.Introductory Note:
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos #9, Jan. 6, 1928: “Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love, who seems to reveal in his Gospel the secrets of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and who never ceased to impress on the memories of his followers the new commandment ‘Love one another,’ altogether forbade any intercourse with those who professed a mutilated and corrupt form of Christ’s teaching: ‘If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him: God speed you.’ (II John 10).”Charity is not tolerating heresy, sowing confusion or failing to denounce evil. St. John himself, the Apostle of love, wouldn’t even let a heretic into his house. So those who claim that the treatment of Bishop Tom in the following article is uncharitable simply cannot perceive evil; they don’t love the Faith and they don’t know what true charity is. What is said below is not based on one instance or two. It based on years worth of considering the issue, personal experience and obstinate activity that leads one to an undeniable conclusion. What is said below must be brought out because it is true and because false pastors who demonstrate obstinate bad will and mislead Catholics must be exposed.
BISHOP TOM WENT FROM BEING A LAYMAN TO A BISHOP WITHIN A FEW DAYS, ALL AT THE HANDS OF A NON-CATHOLICBishop Tom is an independent Bishop who claims to be a Traditional Catholic. He received ordination (presumably validly in the traditional rite) from a non-Catholic schismatic, and then was made a Bishop by the same schismatic. Tom was made a Bishop within a few days after his ordination by the non-Catholic Bishop. This means that, in a few days, Tom went from being a layman to a Bishop – all at the hands of a non-Catholic schismatic who doesn’t even profess to be Roman Catholic.
BISHOP TOM HAS, SADLY, SHOWN AGAIN AND AGAIN THAT HIS WORD AND BELIEFS MEAN NOTHINGWhen we first got in contact with Bishop Tom, he sounded like a very strong Catholic. He told us that he was fully in agreement that the Vatican II imposters were in fact Antipopes. He spoke adamantly against the SSPX and other heretical groups. I distinctly recall him telling me over the telephone that we must pull people out of the Vatican II schism and that the SSPX bishops were schismatics for their non-sedevacantist position. Yet, to our dismay, we quickly discovered that Tom’s word means basically nothing, and that he is unfortunately a complete phony. Shortly after the time I spoke with him (when Tom claimed to be a strong Sedevacantist), Bishop Tom held a Conference with the non-sedevacantist “Fr.” Gregory Hesse. Why would Bishop Tom hold a Conference with Gregory Hesse when Gregory Hesse had consistently attacked the position of Sedevacantism –the position that Bishop Tom claimed to espouse? The answer is because Tom is, unfortunately, a phony who doesn’t stand for the truth. In his talk at the Conference, “Fr.” Gregory Hesse even denounced Sedevacantism (the position of Bishop Tom) and Bishop Tom said that God was speaking through Hesse! During the same Conference which featured Bishop Tom and Gregory Hesse, Bishop Tom specifically mentioned the Bishops of the SSPX in a positive way as if they were true Catholics. This was well after he told me categorically that he felt that the SSPX was schismatic. This proved that Bishop Tom was a complete phony. On top of all of this, Bishop Tom, who claimed to be totally against the New Rite of Ordination allowed Gregory Hesse (a “priest” “ordained” in the New Rite) to offer “Mass” for his people at his chapel! To our dismay, we were figuring out that Bishop Tom is a phony who stands for basically nothing.
BISHOP TOM HAS CLAIMED TO BE SEDEVACANTIST FOR YEARS BUT DOES NOT ENFORCE THE FAITH AT HIS CHAPELBefore and after the Conference with Hesse, Bishop Tom claimed to be a Sedevacantist, though his policy was not to speak publicly and specifically to his people about this from the pulpit. That is to say, Bishop Tom never clearly told the people at his chapel that this was his position and that it must be the position of all the people at his Chapel. He either: 1) was too cowardly to stand for the truth because he feared the reaction of the people; or 2) he didn’t think that the issue of the Vatican II apostasy was important enough to warrant a specific discussion about exactly what Catholics must think of it to receive the sacraments. So, his policy was – and is to this day – to allow people to come to Communion who may be Sedevacantists and who may not be. He doesn’t know what they believe since he doesn’t specifically instruct them on what they must hold to come to Communion. As he told me himself, he tells them that they “must be Catholics in the state of grace,” which even John Kerry would consider himself to be. Sorry, but that is not good enough. Bishop Tom’s policy is not that of a true Catholic. A true Catholic, and especially a priest and a Bishop, must specifically instruct Catholics on what they must hold in this time of apostasy. Those who refuse to accept it must be cleaned out of the Chapel to preserve the unity of the Faith. “One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism.” (Eph. 4:5) A good example of this is when we met a person outside a chapel who told us that he believes that “all religions are important” – utter apostasy. People like this go right to Communion unless the priest specifically instructs people on what they must not hold.
BISHOP TOM’S PARISHIONERS DENY THE SALVATION DOGMAThe heretical nature of Tom’s policy was shown just a few months ago when we got a call from one of Bishop Tom’s parishioners. This woman has been attending Bishop Tom’s Mass for years. She is a very loyal parishioner of Tom’s; and she is also familiar with our material. In fact, our material was heavily responsible for her being a traditionalist. But now she won’t even look at our material because her “Bishop” Tom won’t give her permission! In my conversation with this woman, I discovered that she believes that there are exceptions to Outside the Church There is No Salvation (heresy) and she holds that Fr. Feeney was condemned by the Church. [Now, to avoid any confusion I must point out that it is certainly possible that even with a priest who is preaching the Faith (and even if he got all of his parishioners to sign a statement of Faith), there may still be some who dishonestly stay at the chapel and remain heretics. So, I am not asserting that just because one heretic was discovered at his chapel Bishop Tom is at fault.] But in this case, the woman’s denial of the salvation dogma is evidence of Bishop Tom’s heretical negligence because Bishop Tom admittedly doesn’t discuss specifically what one must hold on salvation and Sedevacantism from the pulpit. Hence, this woman’s heresy and reception of Communion at his chapel is, in this case, evidence of the bad fruit of his heretical policy. Bishop Tom is saying nothing at his church to disabuse her of her heretical position. And what’s most revealing about this is that Bishop Tom recently changed his position on the salvation dogma: he would now claim to hold the position that only baptized Catholics can be saved. Nevertheless, this woman didn’t even know that Bishop Tom’s position had changed. She didn’t know it because Tom doesn’t instruct the people at his chapel in these issues; and he allows heretics to commune with him at his chapel on his watch. Thus, Bishop Tom doesn’t preserve the unity of the Faith. He does not uphold the teaching of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (more on this soon).
BISHOP TOM’S STUNNING HYPOCRISY AND BAD WILLBishop Tom also has a severe dislike for us because we have brought his failure to be consistent and stand for the truth to his attention. In response, he attacks us and implies that we are schismatics for not working with him. In fact, in one response to us, which truly revealed his utter dishonesty, hypocrisy and bad will, Tom actually implied that we are excommunicated for teaching the Faith without the permission of a Bishop! This shows Tom’s hypocrisy and bad will because Bishop Tom FULLY AGREES that Catholics have a right and a duty in necessity to teach the Faith in this time, even without the normal Episcopal imprimaturs on books. These are merely ecclesiastical laws which don’t bind in this situation. As we will see from the following e-mail, we are dealing with a deeper level of insincerity in Bishop Tom. Below is what he actually wrote to us in an e-mail. And what is most disappointing about this is not that the phony Bishop Tom could make this charge, but that Fr. M. (whom he works with) tacitly agreed with it!
Bishop Tom to us via Fr. M.:>>>>Who has granted them [the Dimond Brothers]… the power to teach, preach or publish, which according to the Councils of Trent and Lateran V, as well as Canon Law, sentences them to excommunication reserved to the Holy See.>>>Here was my response to this outrageous hypocrisy:
Bro. Peter Dimond to Bishop Tom: “First, I must say that when one considers this question carefully one easily picks up the hypocrisy at the heart of it. This is because Canon Law forbids not only laymen from preaching the Faith, but anyone without a mission from a legitimate Superior (Canon 1328). Specific mention is also made that religious (1385.3) and secular clerics (1386) are forbidden to publish materials teaching the Faith without permission of their Superiors or Ordinaries. Thus, you and Fr. M… would be in violation of these canons as much as anyone. So, for one to take your charge seriously is to acknowledge your own excommunication and see your own condemnation in your words. It’s astounding to me that you, Bishop Tom, who are in direct violation of numerous canon laws which I will list, presume to bind this canon to others – a canon that clearly doesn’t apply in this state of necessity and which you also would be in violation of. I also find it outrageous that you, Fr. M…, can present this question to us from Bishop [Tom]… as if we are excommunicated for teaching the Faith and not offer any objection to such a false assertion, as you know very well that it is totally without merit and runs contrary to the whole tenor of your position (e.g. “How the Church functions in a time of Crisis”). Frankly, Fr. M…, this is quite hypocritical on your part to imply that we are excommunicated for teaching the Catholic Faith in this crisis, which you know is not true, but is what you clearly imply by presenting this ridiculous question without offering any objection to [Bishop Tom] about it… … since you bring up the matter of ecclesiastical laws and attempt to criticize us in this regard, let’s look at the facts. It is true to say that your Episcopal Consecration at the hands of a notorious schismatic a day or two after getting Ordained by the same schismatic is probably the most scandalous and irregular of any in the traditional movement.In this exchange, we can see the utter dishonesty and hypocrisy of Bishop Tom, as well as (unfortunately) the hypocrisy of Fr. Denis M. for participating in and not condemning Tom’s action. Fr. M. offered no objection to such an outrageous and hypocritical charge on the part of Bishop Tom when he sent the e-mail to us, which condemns them both out of their own mouth; nor did he condemn the phony Tom afterwards. Fr. M. continues to work with this total phony and promote his website, which indicates that he shares his views.
Canon 2372- “They incur upon the fact a suspension from divine things, reserved to the Apostolic See, who presume to receive orders from one excommunicated or suspended or interdicted after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence, or from a notorious apostate, heretic, or schismatic; but whoever in good faith was ordained by such a one as these lacks the exercise of the orders thus received until he is dispensed.”According to Canon 2372, you [Bishop Tom] are suspended from divine things and lack the exercise of your orders; i.e., you are for all practical persons to be considered a layman. You will surely respond by saying that in this state of emergency such a prohibition doesn’t apply. Then why do you imply that we are excommunicated for teaching the Faith? With what measure you give to others, it shall be given to you. Are you totally blinded to your stunning hypocrisy?
Canon 2365- “A presbyter who does not have, either by law or by concession of the Roman Pontiff, faculty to administer the sacrament of confirmation but who dares to administer it is suspended….”I could list other canons, but I think my point is clear.
BISHOP TOM PROMOTES AS “TRADITIONAL APOLOGISTS” THOSE WHO REJECT THE FAITH AND HIS POSITIONSOn his website, Bishop Tom has a Photo Gallery. In the Photo Gallery, he has a picture of himself with “Fr.” Gregory Hesse. Remember, this is the same Gregory Hesse who, as stated above, is not a validly ordained priest (“ordained” in the New Rite of Paul VI) and who attacks Sedevacantism. And remember, Bishop Tom claims to be a Sedevacantist and claims to hold that the New Rite of Paul VI is not valid! “Fr. Hesse” also said that Fr. Feeney may have been a heretic. Yet, he is pictured and mentioned as “Rev.” on Tom’s website! On his website, Bishop Tom also has a picture of himself with Atila Guimaraes and Marian Horvat, who sell a pamphlet denouncing Sedevacantism and hold that non-Catholics can be saved. Bishop Tom calls them “traditional apologists.” The picture also seems to indicate that he gave the Sacraments to these heretics. All of this shows that Bishop Tom is an insincere phony and a heretic. On his website, Bishop Tom also has a completely unnecessary mention of Fr. Kevin Vaillancourt. Fr. Vaillancourt teaches in his book that there is salvation “outside” the Catholic Church; and he condemns those who reject baptism of desire. Yet, there is a completely unnecessary mention of Fr. Vaillancourt on Bishop Tom’s website. Bishop Tom is a heretic who promotes heretics and stands for nothing. When I pointed out to Tom the problem with promoting such heretics on his site, he didn’t agree. But then he added a note of sorts that said: “NOTE: THIS IS A "PHOTO GALLERY," AND THEREFORE NOT A "COMPENDIUM OF THOSE WHOSE THEOLOGICAL OPINIONS ARE SHARED BY THE MEMBERS OF …," OBVIOUSLY.” But his heretical mentality was already shown when he posted the pictures without any clarification; and it was shown when he adamantly disagreed with us that there is any problem with promoting such men after we pointed it out to him. Further, his note is not sufficient because he presents Gregory Hesse as a validly ordained priest and doesn’t state that he doesn’t regard these people as Catholics. His true colors as a compromising, liberal phony are clear.
BISHOP TOM AND FR. DENNIS M. BOTH PRAY FOR THOSE WHO DIE OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCHWhen Fr. Paul Wickens died last year, both Bishop Tom and Fr. M. prayed for and requested prayers for this deceased heretic. Fr. Wickens was a promoter of the heretical SSPX; he rejected the Sedevacantist position for years; he promoted Natural Family Planning; and he willed his church to the apostate Archdiocese of the Vatican II sect! Nevertheless, both Bishop Tom and Fr. M. prayed for the soul of this deceased heretic as if he can be considered faithfully departed; and, on top of that, neither one (at least in e-mails that I saw in which they requested such prayers) mentioned to their flock that Wickens was a heretic or even that he held heretical positions. They gave their flock the impression that Wickens can be regarded as a Catholic; and thus that one can be regarded as a Catholic while… supporting the SSPX, willing his church to the diocese, etc. As a Catholic, I fully acknowledge that anyone, including Fr. Wickens, could convert to the true Faith on his deathbed; but unless there is evidence of such conversion or adherence to the true Faith in the external forum, such a one is presumed to have died as he lived (as a heretic) and cannot be prayed for.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Q. 71, A. 5: “Gregory says (Moral xxxiv. 19): There is the same reason for not praying then (namely after the judgment day) for men condemned to everlasting fire, as there is now for not praying for the devil and has angels who are sentenced to eternal punishment, and for this reason the saints do not pray for dead unbelieving and wicked men, because, forsooth, knowing them to be already condemned to eternal punishment, they shrink from pleading for them by the merit of their prayers before they are summoned to the presence of the Judge.”To pray for one who gave no evidence of conversion or adherence to authentic Catholic truth – but rather, in the case of Wickens, a man who gave evidence of rejection of the Faith by willing a church to heretics as one of his last acts – is to tear asunder the unity of Faith and the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. Fr. Dennis M. did so after I specifically mentioned it to him. In fact, Fr. Denis M. revealed to us that he spent time with Fr. Wickens shortly before Wickens’ death. Fr. M. admitted that he didn’t specifically bring up with Wickens the Sedevacantist issue or his support the SSPX. It is obvious, therefore, that Fr. M. doesn’t believe that these issues are integral to one’s salvation, which is probably why he shares a similar policy to the heretic Bishop Tom of not addressing these issues with specificity at his chapel. In fact, when the non-Catholic schismatic Bishop Simmons died – the man who ordained and Consecrated Bishop Tom – Bishop Tom said “Rest in Peace.” I asked Bishop Tom if this non-Catholic Bishop converted to the Catholic Faith before his death. Bishop Tom responded that he had no evidence of this at all. Thus, Tom again prayed for one who must be considered as having died a non-Catholic. Bishop Tom believes that those who die as notorious non-Catholics can have eternal rest. He shows again that doesn’t believe that the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation.
BISHOP TOM SAYS THAT IT’S A “GRAVE ERROR” TO CONSIGN ANTIPOPE JOHN PAUL II TO THE FLAMES!When Antipope John Paul II died, Bishop Tom sent out a public letter which reveals what kind of a liberal, heretical and schismatical phony he actually is. He writes:
“This day Karol Wojtyla, usurper of the Papal Throne, has passed to his own personal judgment. This day he stands before the Divine Tribunal and must make an accounting of his life and ministry.Over the past several days I prayed for his soul – I prayed that he could repent of his error and heresy and offer up his tremendous suffering for misleading so many millions of souls. Would even that be enough to save his soul? I am content in knowing that it is not for me to know – it is not for anyone to know. There are those who have already canonized him, a grave error; and there are those who have consigned him to the flames, another grave error. Rather, the true Catholic prays that God will have mercy on his soul, and those of all sinners, heretics, and schismatics.”John Paul II was one of the worst heretics ever – in our view, he was the worst ever. So, what does Bishop Tom say about indisputably one of the worst heretics and apostates to have ever lived? He says that it is a “grave error” to say that he is in the eternal flames! And Tom says that Catholics should pray for his soul! Now, what kind of faithless heretic would say something like that? Only a faithless heretic who doesn’t believe that the Catholic Faith is necessary for salvation and rejects that all who die as non-Catholics go to the eternal flames.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives….”A real Catholic says that John Paul II’s countless acts of heresy and apostasy merited for him what all those who die as heretics suffer: eternal flames. And since there is no evidence of his conversion and repudiation of his manifest apostasy, he is considered to have died as he lived (as a non-Catholic); and a true Catholic cannot pray for his soul, which is considered damned in the eternal flames of Hell. Read the Saints of the Church:
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Suppl. Q. 71, A. 5: “Gregory says (Moral xxxiv. 19): There is the same reason for not praying then (namely after the judgment day) for men condemned to everlasting fire, as there is now for not praying for the devil and has angels who are sentenced to eternal punishment, and for this reason the saints do not pray for dead unbelieving and wicked men, because, forsooth, knowing them to be already condemned to eternal punishment, they shrink from pleading for them by the merit of their prayers before they are summoned to the presence of the Judge.” St. Francis Xavier, Nov. 5, 1549: “The corsair who commanded our vessel died here at Cagoxima. He did his work for us, on the whole, as we wished… He himself chose to die in his own superstitions; he did not even leave us the power of rewarding him by that kindness which we can after death do to other friends who die in the profession of the Christian faith, in commending their souls to God, since the poor fellow by his own hand cast his soul into hell, where there is no redemption.” (The Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier by Henry James Coleridge, S.J.Originally published:London: Burns and Oates, 1874 Second Reprint, New Delhi: Asian Educational Services, 2004, Vol. 2, p. 281.)
BISHOP TOM PUBLICLY CONDEMNS AS SCHISMATICS THOSE WHO SAY WE ARE IN THE LAST DAYS! HE ALSO QUOTES ANTIPOPE JOHN XXIII WITHOUT KNOWING IT
Tom writes: “This is also a time to publicly and clearly condemn those who clamour Antichrist and Perusia: these false prophets of doom and gloom have again been proven wrong. The nonsense of declaring Wojtyla the Antichrist and that we are in the end times has been proven completely false. Unless those who have “proclaimed” these errors retract and repent, they too must take an accounting of leading others into error and schism.”First, since Bishop Tom is a phony with no supernatural Faith, he totally rejects the idea that we are in the last days of the world. Now, let’s think about this: Bishop Tom agrees that the Chair of St. Peter has been vacant since 1958. That is 47 years. He also agrees that the New Mass is an invalid, non-Catholic service. This means that he agrees that idolatry (worshipping an invalidly consecrated piece of bread) is occurring at almost every so-called “Catholic” church in the world today. He also believes that the Vatican II sect is an apostate, false church which poses as the Catholic Church, but is not. But even though he believes that all of this is occurring – a vacancy of the Chair of Peter for 47 years; idolatry in almost every “Catholic” church; and a false church posing as the true Church which has been reduced to a tiny remnant – he utterly rejects that these are the last days! Does this make any sense whatsoever? No. On top of that, Tom not only rejects that we are in the last days, but he holds that those who say we are in the last days are schismatics who must repent. But there is another revealing point about Tom’s words above. In examining his words carefully, one can see the wicked spirit which moves Bishop Tom. Notice that Bishop Tom’s words are exactly what Antipope John XXIII, the Freemasonic Conspirator who called Vatican II, said at the opening speech of Vatican II, in ridicule of the Message of Fatima.
Antipope John XXIII, Opening Speech of Vatican II, Oct. 11, 1962: “We feel that we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand.”Notice the incredible parallel between John XXIII’s words and Bishop Tom’s words. They say the same thing, both in ridicule of those who say that we are in the last days. Frankly, they are both moved by the same wicked and unbelieving spirit, which scoffs at those who say we are in the last days. So without knowing it Bishop Tom is uttering the same words as the Freemasonic Antipope John XXIII, who ridiculed the Fatima children and the apocalyptic significance of their message. Furthermore, when Bishop Tom says that it is “nonsense” and schismatic to say that we are in the last days he is condemning Sister Lucia as a schismatic, who told Fr. Fuentes in 1957 that we are in the last days. Sister Lucia to Fr. Fuentes, 1957:
“Father, the Most Holy Virgin did not tell me that we are in the last times of the world but she made me understand this for three reasons. The first reason is because she told me that the devil is in the mood for engaging in a decisive battle against the Virgin. And a decisive battle is the final battle where one side will be victorious and the other side will suffer defeat. Hence from now on we must choose sides. Either we are for God or we are for the devil. There is no other possibility…”Sister Lucia also stated before Vatican II that the Third Secret is in the Gospel and in the Apocalypse; and she specifically mentioned chapters 8 to 13. All of this shows us what “schismatic nonsense” his own views are. But Bishop Tom is also condemning as schismatic Pope St. Pius X, who said that he believed we were probably in the last days in 1903, and that the Son of Perdition may already be in the world.
Pope St. Pius X, E Supremi #4, Oct. 4, 1903: “When all this is considered there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may already be in the world the ‘Son of Perdition’ of whom the Apostle speaks (2 Thess. 2:3).”All of this just shows us again what a wicked, faithless phony Bishop Tom is; he condemns those who say we are in the last days because he doesn’t like what they are bringing to his attention: the necessity of vigorously combating this apostasy. In regard to Tom’s assertion that it is “nonsense” to say that John Paul II is the Antichrist, one can only say that a faithless, dishonest, insincere phony like Bishop Tom – who allows people “ordained” in the New Rite to say Mass for his people when he doesn’t even believe that the New Rite is valid – would certainly have trouble believing that John Paul II could be the Antichrist. Those who are evil, such as Bishop Tom, cannot perceive it themselves, being mired in their own darkness. Bishop Tom doesn’t have the Faith to perceive that John Paul II’s distinguishing teaching is exactly what St. John described as the distinguishing teaching of the Antichrist, as we proved; and he doesn’t have the Faith to perceive that “Rome has lost the Faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist,” as Our Lady of La Salette prophesied, as soon as the Vatican publicly endorsed that Jews don’t need Christ (which it has). Tom desires to belittle the evil and the significance of the Vatican II apostasy to justify his failure to combat it and instruct against it. He admitted to us that mentioning John Paul II from the pulpit “once a year” is sufficient – and even then he doesn’t specifically explain why Catholics must hold that John Paul II was not the Pope to come to Communion. Someone with this heretical outlook certainly is hoping to belittle the significance of the Vatican II sect. In response to some of our criticism that he doesn’t address these issues from the pulpit, Tom said that he was distributing our flyer on the heresies of Vatican II. Well, we got a copy of the flyer from a person who was attending his chapel. We discovered that he was distributing the flyer alright, but with our name and contact information removed. It’s one thing to remove the name; but for him to give the impression that he is in support of our material when he is simultaneously removing our name from our flyer shows again that he is a phony.
BISHOP TOM PUBLICLY CALLED A HERETIC NAMED JOE S. “THE PROPHET” WHEN JOE S. WAS SUPPORTING HIMTom publicly called a man named Joseph Saraceno “the prophet” at a Conference a few years ago. At the time, Saraceno was attending and supporting Tom’s chapel. Compare this fact with what Tom writes now:
Tom writes: “This is also a time to publicly and clearly condemn those who clamour Antichrist and Perusia: these false prophets of doom and gloom have again been proven wrong. The nonsense of declaring Wojtyla the Antichrist and that we are in the end times has been proven completely false. Unless those who have “proclaimed” these errors retract and repent, they too must take an accounting of leading others into error and schism.”He says that these “false prophets of doom and gloom” have been proven wrong again, when he not long ago publicly endorsed this heretical false prophet Joseph Saraceno who said that we are in the last days! Here’s the key: when Saraceno was supporting Bishop Tom he called him “the prophet”; but now that Saraceno doesn’t go to his chapel Tom condemns him as a false prophet! Saraceno definitely is a false prophet who thinks that he is one of the witnesses of the Apocalypse because he has put forth the invaluable (?) theory that Christ will return on Pentecost of some year. Saraceno also denies the salvation dogma and is a heretic. But the point is that Tom, who doesn’t believe that we are in the last days (and who totally condemns those who say that we are!), called this man “the prophet” when he was supporting his chapel. Here is what Saraceno wrote to me when I asked him recently if Bishop Tom called him a “prophet.”
Bro. Peter Dimond: … Yes it is true when he [Bishop Tom] quoted my booklet he publicly stated "The Prophet Joseph Saraceno states...." Now let me ask you, do you accept him as a Bishop????? In Christ, the Prophet, JosephI know this is true because I heard Bishop Tom call this false prophet “the prophet” on audio tape. This really shows us all about how much of a fraud Bishop Tom actually is.
CONCLUSION ABOUT BISHOP TOM AND FR. DENNIS M.More could be said about Bishop Tom, and if we must say more in the future we will. But the fact of the matter is that Bishop Tom doesn’t have the Catholic Faith. Bishop Tom is a schismatic because he condemns those who say that we are in the last days. He denies the salvation dogma by saying it is a “grave error” to declare that John Paul II must be considered lost to eternal hellfire. He prays for those who die outside the Church and thus tears asunder the necessity of the Faith. He allowed a “priest” ordained in the New Rite to offer “Mass” at his chapel when he doesn’t even accept the New Rite as valid. He promotes heretics who reject his own positions, including Gregory Hesse, Fr. Vaillancourt, Atila Guimaraes and Marian Horvat, on his website. He allows anyone to come to receive Communion at his chapel, including those who deny the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation and the Sedevacantist position or even those who may go to the Novus Ordo. He doesn’t tell people that they must reject the salvation heresies and the Vatican II Antipopes if they want to be Catholic and receive the sacraments. Bishop Tom is a heretic. This is not a question; this is a fact. Tom’s actions have shown him to be a complete phony and a false shepherd. He is an example of why Bishops normally couldn’t be consecrated without a Papal Mandate, and why Popes tell us that it is better to have few priests than bad priests. Now, we hold that a priest who is sincerely Catholic could be consecrated a Bishop without a Papal Mandate in a crisis such as this. But the candidate must be sincere; he must have his glory in God and in the Catholic Faith; otherwise the evil spirit will take over and help construct a false sect. Bishop Tom went from being a layman to a Bishop within a few days, all at the hands of a non-Catholic. He has shown again and again that his glory is not in God and the Catholic Faith, but in himself. And while he denies the Catholic Faith and is definitely a heretic, he is enthralled by externals and his trappings as a “Bishop.” He acts as if he is a lawfully appointed Bishop of the Catholic Church with authority to command people. He wrote to us “My sons” as if he had authority over us; he dresses fully as if he were a legitimate Bishop with jurisdiction; he is called by the priests “His Lordship or His Excellency,” etc. Since Bishop Tom received orders at the hands of a notorious non-Catholic, he is to be considered a layman according to the strict letter of canon law in normal circumstances. Since he was raised to the Episcopate under such ignominious circumstances in this unusual crisis of the Faith, he should dress as a regular priest. I believe that if he did become fully Catholic he could exercise his orders in this crisis, even though under normal circumstances he would lack the exercise of his orders; but he absolutely does not deserve the trappings of Bishop or to be called “His Excellency” even if he were fully Catholic, which he is not. Nevertheless, the priests working “under him” call him “His Lordship or His Excellency,” while this heretic is a total disgrace before God and makes a mockery of the Catholic Faith. Bishop Tom is all about himself, as proven when he condemned as schismatics those who say we are in the last days. This has to be one of the most ridiculous statements ever made in the traditional movement. But he didn’t care about the accuracy of his ridiculous charge; he was primarily concerned with vindicating himself against others. To the heretic Bishop Tom the words of Pope St. Pius X apply:
Pope St. Pius X, Iucunda Sane #30, March 12, 1904: “Of such apostles the Church has no need; they are not apostles of Jesus Christ Crucified but of themselves.”No Catholic can give any financial support whatsoever to this false pastor, Bishop Tom, who is definitely a heretic who denies the dogma Outside the Church There is No Salvation. He is also a schismatic for condemning those who hold that we are in the last days. He is also a schismatic for acting as if he possesses some ruling authority in the Church, when he has none. And because Bishop Tom condemns true Catholics as schismatics (and thus imposes heresy upon them), no Catholic should even receive the sacraments from him at all or attend his chapel at all. Related: What About Fr. Dennis M?
First, if you’re not a Catholic, you need to become a traditional Catholic as soon as possible, since there is no salvation outside the one Church Christ has established. The information in this book shows that the Devil’s assault in the final days is on the one Church established by Christ; it is the Devil’s attempt to establish a counterfeit of the true Church. This counterfeit Church has reduced the true Catholic Church to a remnant in the last days. Non-Catholics should contact us for more information about how to convert; the profession of faith for converts to the Catholic Faith is given below.
Where to go to Mass or Confession?
This is probably the most frequent question that we receive and it is the hardest to answer. This is because there is hardly a solid Catholic priest to be found in the entire country today. We offer some guidelines here, and our opinion. Obviously, no Catholic may attend the New Mass under any circumstances. No Catholic may receive sacraments from a “priest” ordained in the new rite of ordination of Paul VI.
Attending Mass on Sunday and Holy Days is the Church’s law, which is only obligatory if the Church provides you with a true traditional Mass and a truly Catholic priest within a reasonable distance. Many Catholics throughout history were in situations where they had no Mass to attend or no Mass which was offered by an acceptable priest. They were thus forced to stay home. Hence, it’s not a sin to stay home on Sundays and sanctify the day by praying your Rosary if there is no acceptable traditional Mass option in your area, which is the case for many Catholics today in this time of the Great Apostasy. Those who only have a New Mass in their area would therefore have to stay home on Sundays. Contact us for more information on this question about possible traditional Mass locations, and consult our website (www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com).
If a person has committed mortal sin and needs to go to Confession, he can go to a Novus Ordo priest who was ordained in the Traditional Rite of Ordination (before 1968) as long as the priest says “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.” This can be done if a person needs to go to Confession.
Profession of Faith for New Converts and People Leaving the Novus Ordo (the New Mass)
If you are a convert, make the Council of Trent’s Profession of Faith for converts.
Promulgated solemnly by Pope Pius IV and the Council of Trent
If there is a specific sect to which you belonged, add at the end that you also reject that heretical sect. If you are a person who has been involved in the Vatican II/Novus Ordo apostasy, you should also make that same profession of Faith from the Council of Trent. If there were particular dogmas that you denied (such as Outside the Church There is No Salvation), then add at the end of the Profession that you reject anything contrary to that particular dogma. The convert would then need to make a Confession to a validly ordained priest (see New Rite of Ordination section) mentioning all mortal sins that he or she has committed, including belonging to and/or spreading and supporting a non-Catholic sect.
People leaving the Novus Ordo also need to make a Confession (to a validly ordained priest, see New Rite of Ordination section) that they attended a non-Catholic service and for however long they attended. If they participated in other things at the Novus Ordo (e.g. were a lay-minister, dressed immodestly, etc.) or accepted false ecumenism or denied some other dogma, these things should also be mentioned in Confession. This must be done before receiving Communion at the Traditional Mass (if there is an acceptable one for you to attend in your area).
Baptism and Conditional Baptism: The form of baptism is: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
If there is some doubt about the validity of your baptism, the conditional form of baptism is: “If you are baptized, I do not baptize you again, but if you are not yet baptized [pour water on the head, making sure it touches the skin] I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Since there are barely any true Catholic priests in the whole country, you can have a Catholic friend perform a conditional baptism, and you can baptize your own children.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” 1439: “In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention of doing what the Church does.”
Also, please contact us if you need a summary of the Catholic Catechism.
For those who are Catholic, devotion to Our Lady and the Hail Mary are essential. Catholics must come to learn and understand the power of devotion to Our Lady and the Hail Mary. This will give them the spiritual armor to ward off the attacks of the Devil, and the light to see the truth of what’s really going on.
St. Louis De Montfort (+1710): “Blessed Alan de la Roche who was so deeply devoted to the Blessed Virgin had many revelations from her and we know that he confirmed the truth of these revelations by a solemn oath. Three of them stand out with special emphasis: the first, that if people fail to say the Hail Mary (the Angelic Salutation which has saved the world) out of carelessness, or because they are lukewarm, or because they hate it, this is a sign that they will probably and indeed shortly be condemned to eternal punishment.” (The Secret of the Rosary, p. 45)
St. Louis De Montfort (+1710): “… there are some very sanctifying interior practices for those whom the Holy Ghost calls to high perfection. These may be expressed in four words: to do all things by Mary, with Mary, in Mary and for Mary; so that we may do them all the more perfectly by Jesus, with Jesus, in Jesus and for Jesus.” (True Devotion to Mary #257)
St. Louis De Montfort (+ c. 1710): “By this practice [the True Devotion to Mary which he teaches], faithfully observed, you will give Jesus more glory in a month than by any other practice, however difficult, in many years…” (True Devotion to Mary #222)
St. Louis De Montfort: “… many others have proved invincibly, from the sentiments of the Fathers (among others, St. Augustine, St. Ephrem, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Germanus, St. John Damascene, St. Anselm, St. Bernard, St. Bernardine, St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure), that devotion to Mary is necessary to salvation, and that… it is an infallible mark of reprobation to have no esteem and love for the holy Virgin.” (True Devotion to Mary # 40)
Regarding the Holy Rosary, Sister Lucia told Father Fuentes in a famous 1957 interview:
"Look, Father, the Most Holy Virgin in these last times in which we live has given a new efficacy to the recitation of the Holy Rosary. She has given this efficacy to such an extent that there is no problem, no matter how difficult it is, whether temporal or above all, spiritual, in the personal life of each one of us, of our families, of the families of the world, or of the religious communities, or even of the life of peoples and nations that cannot be solved by the Rosary. There is no problem I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we cannot resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary. With the Holy Rosary, we will save ourselves. We will sanctify ourselves. We will console Our Lord and obtain the salvation of many souls."
We recommend that Catholics pray the entire 15-decade Rosary each day, if possible. One set of mysteries at three different times in the day is the recommendation of St. Louis De Montfort as a good way to get that accomplished. Frankly, many Catholics who are home most of the day are not getting this accomplished, when they easily could. They are missing out on tremendous graces and the opportunity to help save other souls by their prayers.
We also urge all Catholics to obtain and read the following books. If one reads and meditates upon the four last things (Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell), one will most likely avoid sin. He will avoid the occasions of sin and live a good life. We consider the following books to be essential for a proper spiritual formation; we believe that one will gain more from reading them than many other books.
-True Devotion to Mary by St. Louis De Montfort
-The Secret of the Rosary by St. Louis De Montfort
-Preparation for Death by St. Alphonsus (abridged version)
-Our Lady of Fatima by William Thomas Walsh (get to know and live the message Our Lady delivered at Fatima)
 Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, no. 696.
 St. Louis De Montfort, The Secret of the Rosary, Rockford, IL: Tan Books, 1999, p. 45.
 St. Louis De Montfort, True Devotion to Mary, Bay Shore, NY: The Montfort Fathers, 1946, p. 188.
 St. Louis De Montfort, True Devotion to Mary, p. 167.
 St. Louis De Montfort, True Devotion to Mary, p. 26.
“Each and every one of the things set forth in this Decree has won the consent of the fathers. We, too, by the Apostolic Authority conferred on us by Christ, join with the venerable fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in synod [council] be published to God’s glory… I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.”  (Paul VI, solemnly closing every document of Vatican II)
We have exposed in detail the heresies of Vatican II. We have also shown that the men who implemented this non-Catholic Council were not true popes of the Catholic Church, but antipopes. Despite all of the evidence, some people remain unconvinced. They hold that there are indeed doctrinal problems with Vatican II; but, according to them, this is no problem for Paul VI because he did not infallibly promulgate any of the Vatican II heresies. “The heresies of Vatican II don’t matter,” they say, “because Vatican II was not infallible!” We will now show that if Paul VI had been a true pope, the documents of Vatican II would have been promulgated infallibly. This will prove, again, that Paul VI (the heretic who promulgated the apostate documents of Vatican II, changed the rites to all seven sacraments, changed the Mass into a Protestant service, oversaw the systematic and world-wide dismantling of Catholicism, ruined the world-wide Catholic school system, and initiated the greatest apostasy from Catholicism in history) was not and could not have been a true pope. He was an antipope.
There are three conditions that need to be met for a pope to teach infallibly:  the pope must carry out his duty as pastor and teacher of all Christians;  he must teach in accord with his supreme apostolic authority; and  he must explain a doctrine of faith or morals to be believed by the universal Church. If a pope fulfills these conditions, he, through the divine assistance promised him as successor of Peter, operates infallibly, as the following definition of Vatican Council I teaches.
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4: “… the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is,  WHEN CARRYING OUT THE DUTY OF THE PASTOR AND TEACHER OF ALL CHRISTIANS  IN ACCORD WITH HIS SUPREME APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY  HE EXPLAINS A DOCTRINE OF FAITH OR MORALS TO BE HELD BY THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable. But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathema.”
We will now prove, point by point, that Paul VI’s promulgation of the documents of Vatican II fulfilled all three of these requirements, which would make the documents of Vatican II infallible if he had been a true pope.
The first requirement for a pope to teach infallibly is that he must act as pastor and teacher of all Christians. If he was the true pope, Paul VI fulfilled this requirement.
EACH ONE OF THE 16 DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II BEGINS WITH THESE WORDS:
“PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY.”
Pope Eugene IV began the 9th session of the dogmatic Council of Florence with these words: “Eugene, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record.” Pope Julius II began the 3rd session of the dogmatic 5th Lateran Council with these words: “Julius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record.” And Pope Pius IX began the 1st session of the dogmatic First Vatican Council with these words: “Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the sacred council, for an everlasting record.” This is the customary way in which the decrees of general/dogmatic/ecumenical councils are solemnly begun by popes. Paul VI began every document of Vatican II in the very same way, with the very same words!
By beginning each document of Vatican II in this way, Paul VI (if he was a true pope) clearly fulfilled the first requirement to teach infallibly.
The second requirement for a pope to teach infallibly is that he must teach in accord with his supreme apostolic authority. If he was the pope, Paul VI fulfilled this requirement.
EACH ONE OF THE 16 DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II ENDS WITH THESE WORDS (OR WORDS BASICALLY IDENTICAL TO THESE):
“EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS. WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY... I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”
Wow! This little known fact is utterly devastating to any claim that Paul VI could have been a true pope. Paul VI ended each Vatican II document by invoking his “apostolic authority,” followed by his signature! He clearly fulfilled the second requirement for infallibility. In fact, this paragraph in itself fulfills not just the second requirement for Papal Infallibility, but all three; for in it we see Paul VI is “approving, decreeing and establishing” in “the holy Spirit” and “by his apostolic authority” all the things contained in each document! This is infallible language. Anyone who would deny this simply doesn’t know what he is talking about.
The approval given to Vatican II by Paul VI (quoted above) is even more solemn than the approval given to the infallible Council of Nicaea (325) by Pope St. Sylvester. It’s more solemn than the approval given to the infallible Council of Ephesus (431) by Pope St. Celestine. In other words, in approving the true councils of the Catholic Church, these true popes approved the documents of these councils in ways that were even less extraordinary than the way in which Paul VI approved Vatican II; and yet their approval of these true councils was sufficient to qualify as infallible and binding – a fact which no Catholic questions.
It is, therefore, a fact that each Vatican II document is a solemn act of Paul VI. Each document is signed by him; each one is begun with him speaking as “pastor and teacher of all Christians”; and each one finished with him “approving, decreeing and establishing” all of the document’s contents in virtue of his “apostolic authority.”
This proves that if Paul VI was the pope the documents of Vatican II are infallible! But the documents of Vatican II are not infallible; they are evil and heretical. Consequently, this DESTROYS ANY POSSIBILITY that Paul VI was ever a true pope; for a true pope could never promulgate the evil documents of Vatican II in this authoritative manner.
We’ve already proven that Paul VI fulfilled all three requirements to teach infallibly at Vatican II if he were the pope. For the sake of completeness, however, we will finish the point-by-point proof by noting that the Vatican II documents are filled with teachings on faith and morals (part of the third requirement). And they must be held by the universal Church, if Paul VI was the pope, because Paul VI solemnly approved, decreed and established them, in virtue of his “apostolic authority,” ordering that they be published.
Therefore, the third requirement for infallibility was also fulfilled by Paul VI in his promulgation of Vatican II. But there’s still more!
In his brief declaring the council closed, Paul VI again invoked his “apostolic authority” and acknowledged that all the constitutions, decrees and declarations of Vatican II have been approved and promulgated by him. He further stated that all of it must be “religiously observed by all the faithful”! He further declared all efforts contrary to these declarations null and void.
Paul VI, “Papal” Brief declaring Council Closed, Dec. 8, 1965: “At last all which regards the holy Ecumenical Council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and ALL THE CONSTITUTIONS, DECREES, DECLARATIONS, AND VOTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DELIBERATION OF THE SYNOD AND PROMULGATED BY US. Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes, WITH OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, this same Ecumenical Council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death. WE DECIDE MOREOVER THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… WE HAVE APPROVED AND ESTABLISHED THESE THINGS, DECREEING THAT THE PRESENT LETTERS ARE AND REMAIN STABLE AND VALID, AND ARE TO HAVE LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, ALL EFFORTS CONTRARY TO THESE THINGS BY WHOEVER OR WHATEVER AUTHORITY, KNOWINGLY OR IN IGNORANCE, BE INVALID AND WORTHLESS FROM NOW ON. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, December 8… the year 1965, the third year of our Pontificate.”
There you have it. The apostate Second Vatican Council is to be “religiously observed,” if you accept Paul VI. There can be no doubt that if Paul VI was a true pope the gates of Hell prevailed against the Catholic Church on Dec. 8, 1965. If Paul VI was the pope, Jesus Christ’s promises to His Church failed. If Paul VI was the pope, all of Vatican II’s teaching on faith or morals was promulgated infallibly (ex cathedra). But this is impossible – and anyone who would say that it is possible doesn’t believe in Catholic teaching on the indefectibility of the Catholic Church. Thus we know that Giovanni Montini (Paul VI) was not a true successor of Peter, but an invalid antipope – which we already proved so clearly in exposing his incredible heresies which showed that his “election” – since he was a manifest heretic – was invalid.
And if you are not convinced of this, ask yourself this question: Is it possible for a true Catholic pope to “approve, decree and establish” all of the heresies of Vatican II “in the Holy Spirit” and by his “apostolic authority”? Your Catholic sense tells you the answer. No way. Therefore, those who recognize the heresies of Vatican II and the facts that we are presenting here, and yet still maintain that it was possible that Antipope Paul VI was a true pope, are unfortunately in heresy for denying Papal Infallibility and for holding a position which means that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church.
Some people will erroneously argue that for a pope to speak ex cathedra he must condemn the opposing view or set forth penalties for non-observance. This is not true. Nowhere in the definition of Pope Pius IX on papal infallibility does he say that the pope must condemn in order to operate infallibly. There are a number of infallible definitions where popes don’t condemn or set forth any penalties.
Objections- We will now refute the common objections made by those who argue that Vatican II wasn’t infallibly promulgated by Paul VI even if he was the pope.
Objection #1) At his speech to open Vatican II, John XXIII said that Vatican II was to be a “pastoral council.” This proves that Vatican II was not infallible!
Response: This is not true. John XXIII did not say in his opening speech at the council that Vatican II was to be a pastoral council. Here is what John XXIII actually said:
John XXIII, Opening Speech at Vatican II, Oct. 11, 1962: “The substance of the ancient deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions OF A MAGISTERIUM WHICH IS PREDOMINANTLY PASTORAL IN CHARACTER.”
Here we see that John XXIII did not say that Vatican II would be a pastoral council. He said that it would reflect the Church’s Magisterium, which is predominantly pastoral in character. So, despite the incredibly widespread myth, the truth is that John XXIII never even called Vatican II a pastoral council in his opening speech. By the way, even if John XXIII had called Vatican II a pastoral council in his opening speech, this wouldn’t mean that it is not infallible. To describe something as pastoral does not mean ipso facto (by that very fact) that it’s not infallible. This is proven by John XXIII himself in the above speech when he described the Magisterium as “pastoral,” and yet it’s de fide (of the faith) that the Magisterium is infallible. Therefore, even if John XXIII did describe Vatican II as a pastoral council (which he did not) this would not prove that it is not infallible.
Most importantly, however, the fact that John XXIII did not actually call Vatican II a pastoral council in his opening speech at Vatican II doesn’t actually matter. This is because, as we saw already, it was Paul VI who solemnly confirmed the heresies of Vatican II; and it is Paul VI’s confirmation (not John XXIII’s) which proves that Vatican II is binding upon those who accept him.
Objection #2) Paul VI said in his General Audience on Jan. 12, 1966, that Vatican II “had avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas affected by the mark of infallibility.”
Response: It is true that Paul VI stated in 1966 (after Vatican II had already been solemnly promulgated) that Vatican II “had avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas affected by the mark of infallibility.” However, Antipope Paul VI’s statement in 1966 is irrelevant. It does not and cannot change the fact that he solemnly promulgated (in a way that would be infallible if he were the pope) all of the documents of Vatican II on Dec. 8, 1965. Paul VI had already signed and sealed Vatican II long before Jan. 12, 1966. Vatican II was solemnly closed on Dec. 8, 1965. This means that if Paul VI was the pope (which he wasn’t), the gates of Hell prevailed against the Church on Dec. 8, 1965 because of his solemn and final promulgation of all the heretical Vatican II documents on that day.
The Magisterium is a teaching authority whose teachings are “irreformable” (de fide definita, Vatican I, Denz. 1839). Since they are irreformable, they are unalterable from the date on which they are declared. If Antipope Paul VI had been a true Pope, Vatican II was irreformable and infallible on Dec. 8, 1965. Nothing said or done after Dec. 8, 1965 could undo (if Paul VI were a true pope) that which was done already, for then the Magisterium’s teaching would become reformable. Hence, the speech of Antipope Paul VI in 1966 (after the council was closed) has no relevance to whether or not Vatican II was infallible.
But why, then, would Antipope Paul VI make such a statement? The answer is simple. The diabolical (satanic) intelligence guiding Antipope Paul VI knew that, eventually, everyone with a traditionally Catholic mindset would not accept these decrees of Vatican II as infallible, since they are filled with errors and heresies. Consequently, if he hadn’t made this statement in 1966 that Vatican II had avoided extraordinary definitions with infallibility, a vast body of people would have come to the immediate conclusion that he (Giovanni Montini - Antipope Paul VI) was not a real pope. So the Devil had quite a bit riding on this statement.
The Devil had to propagate among “traditionalists” the idea that Paul VI did not “infallibly” promulgate Vatican II. It was essential to the Devil’s entire post-Vatican II apostasy; he was scared to death that millions would have become sedevacantists denouncing Antipope Paul VI, his false Church and his false mass (the Novus Ordo). Hence, the Devil inspired Antipope Paul VI to say (well after Vatican II had been solemnly promulgated by him) that Vatican II didn’t issue dogmatic statements. This assurance, the Devil hoped, would give Paul VI the appearance of legitimacy among those who maintained some attachment to the traditional Faith. But this diabolical ploy collapses when one considers the fact that Vatican II had already been closed in 1965.
Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, it must be pointed out that in the same Jan. 12, 1966 General Audience, Paul VI said:
Paul VI, General Audience, Jan. 12, 1966: “The Council is a great act of the magisterium of the Church, and anyone who adheres to the Council is, by that very fact, recognizing and honoring the magisterium of the Church…”
If people are going to quote Paul VI’s Jan. 12, 1966 General Audience to attempt to prove that Vatican II wouldn’t have been infallible even if Paul VI was the pope, then logically they must accept other statements about Vatican II which Paul VI made in that General Audience, such as the one quoted above and the one quoted below. In this quotation above, we clearly see that Paul VI says (in the very same General Audience) that Vatican II is an act of the Magisterium and that anyone who adheres to Vatican II is “honoring the magisterium of the Church”! [The Magisterium is the infallible teaching authority of the Church.]
Pope Pius XI, Rappresentanti in Terra (# 16), Dec. 31, 1929: “Upon this magisterial office Christ conferred infallibility, together with the command to teach His doctrine to all.”
Therefore, Paul VI’s speech means that, according to him, Vatican II is infallible – since he says that it is the teaching of the Magisterium, which is infallible. His speech further says that anyone who accepts Vatican II’s teaching (i.e., its heresies) – such as that non-Catholics may receive Holy Communion or the heresies on religious liberty or that Muslims and Catholics worship the same God, etc. – is honoring Catholic teaching. Anyone who wants to “go by” this speech, therefore, must admit that those who accept these heresies honor Catholic teaching! This is clearly absurd and false; it proves that, no matter which way one wants to look at this issue in conjunction with this General Audience of Paul VI, Vatican II is binding upon all who hold that Paul VI was a valid pope – which proves that Paul VI definitely was not a true pope. You cannot quote this General Audience to say one is not bound to accept Vatican II, when the same General Audience says that anyone who follows it is honoring the Magisterium! Paul VI goes on to say in the same speech:
“…it [the Council] still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual documents.”
This part of the speech is almost never quoted by the defenders of Paul VI, probably because they know that the teaching of the Supreme Ordinary Magisterium is infallible, which means that even this General Audience of Antipope Paul VI affirms the infallibility of Vatican II. In the same General Audience, Paul VI also said this:
“It is the duty and the good fortune of men in the post-Conciliar period to get to know these documents, to study them and to apply them.”
Furthermore, Paul VI stated in his encyclical Ecclesiam Suam (addressed to the entire Church) that Vatican II had the task of defining doctrine.
Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam (# 30), Aug. 6, 1964: “It is precisely because the Second Vatican Council has the task of dealing once more with the doctrine de Ecclesia (of the Church) and of defining it, that it has been called the continuation and complement of the First Vatican Council.”
This means that Vatican II had the task of teaching infallibly. And in the next section we will quote from Paul VI’s 1976 speech where he addresses the very subject of whether Vatican II and the New Mass are binding and specifically rejects the claims of false traditionalists who want to be able to hang on to Paul VI’s legitimacy while rejecting his Mass and council.
Objection #3) Vatican II was not infallible because there was a note attached to the document Lumen Gentium that said it was not infallible.
Response: [Note: the response to this objection is in-depth and involved, and some might not find it interesting. If you are not looking for the answer to this objection, you might want to skip this one.]
Some defenders of Paul VI make reference to a theological note that was attached to the document Lumen Gentium. They think this clarification proves that Paul VI didn’t promulgate Vatican II infallibly or authoritatively. But this argument doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. Here is the crucial portion of the theological note that was attached to the document Lumen Gentium:
“Taking into account conciliar custom and the pastoral aim of the present council, this holy synod defines as binding on the Church only those matters of faith and morals which it openly declares to be such. THE OTHER MATTERS WHICH THE SYNOD PUTS FORWARD AS THE TEACHING OF THE SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH, EACH AND EVERY MEMBER OF THE FAITHFUL SHOULD ACCEPT AND EMBRACE ACCORDING TO THE MIND OF THE SYNOD ITSELF, WHICH IS CLEAR EITHER FROM THE SUBJECT MATTER OR THE WAY IT IS SAID, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION.”
First, this note is not even part of the actual text of the document Lumen Gentium; it’s an appendix to the text of Lumen Gentium.
Second, this note is attached only to Lumen Gentium, not the rest of the documents. In other words, even if this theological note did “save” Paul VI’s promulgation of the heresies in Lumen Gentium (which it didn’t), it still did not “save” his promulgation of the rest of the Vatican II heresies.
Third, if one reads the above note one can see that it declares that the subject matter, or the way something is said within Vatican II, identifies that Vatican II is enacting the supreme Magisterium of the Church, in accordance with the rules of theological interpretation – that is to say, as the Church in the past has enacted the supreme Magisterium. Paul VI’s declaration at the beginning and end of every Vatican II document (quoted already) definitely indicates, by “the way it is said,” “in accordance with the rules of theological interpretation” (that is, paralleling past dogmatic decrees), that he is enacting the supreme Magisterium (if he had been a pope). Therefore, this theological clarification attached to the document Lumen Gentium does not diminish or negate the solemn language of Paul VI found at the end of every Vatican II document. Rather, his language at the end of every Vatican II document fulfills the requirements of the theological note.
Fourth, those who attempt to use this note in order to “save” all of the documents of Vatican II from compromising Papal Infallibility don’t pay much attention to what it actually said. The note clearly stated that “the other matters which the synod (Vatican II) puts forward as the teaching of the supreme Magisterium of the Church, each and every member of the faithful should accept and embrace according to the mind of the synod itself, which is clear either from the subject matter or the way it is said, in accordance with the rules of theological interpretation.”
This is a very important point! There are numerous instances in Vatican II where Vatican II is setting forth what it believes to be the teaching of the supreme Magisterium, which “each and every member of the faithful should accept and embrace according to the mind of the synod itself, which is clear either from the subject matter or the way it is said…” For instance, in its heretical Declaration on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae), Vatican II says this:
Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae (# 9): “The statements made by this Vatican synod on the right to religious freedom have their basis in the dignity of the person, the demands of which have come to be more fully known to human reason from the experience of centuries. But this teaching on freedom also has its roots in divine revelation, and is for that reason to be held all the more sacred by Christians.”
Here Vatican II explicitly indicates that its heretical teaching on religious liberty is rooted in divine revelation and is to be held sacred by Christians. This clearly fulfills the requirements of the theological note for a teaching that “each and every member of the faithful should accept and embrace according to the mind of the (Vatican II) synod itself, which is clear either from the subject matter or the way it is said…” And there is more:
Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae (# 12): “Hence the Church is being faithful to the truth of the Gospel and is following the way of Christ and the apostles, when it sees the principle of religious freedom as in accord with human dignity and the revelation of God, and when it promotes it. Throughout the centuries it has guarded and handed on the teaching received from the master and the apostles.”
Here Vatican II explicitly indicates that its heretical teaching on religious liberty is: 1) faithful to the truth of the Gospel; 2) follows the way of Christ and the apostles; and 3) is in accord with the revelation of God! We remind the reader again of the wording of the theological note, which stated that “the other matters which the (Vatican II) synod puts forward as the teaching of the supreme Magisterium of the Church, each and every member of the faithful should accept and embrace according to the mind of the synod itself, which is clear either from the subject matter or the way it is said, in accordance with the rules of theological interpretation.”
Therefore, according to the theological note itself, those who accept Paul VI as a pope are bound to accept Vatican II’s heretical teaching on religious liberty as the teaching of the supreme Magisterium of the Church! The theological note binds them to accept Vatican II’s heretical teaching on religious liberty as: 1) faithful to the truth of the Gospel; 2) following the way of Christ and the apostles; and 3) in accord with the revelation of God because this is “the mind of the synod itself (Vatican II), which is clear from the subject matter or the way it is said…” It’s very simple: those who believe that Antipope Paul VI was the pope are bound to the heretical document on religious liberty.
To summarize all of the points made so far: 1) the theological note attached to Lumen Gentium does not apply to every document; 2) the theological note attached to Lumen Gentium does not diminish or negate the language of Paul VI at the end of every Vatican II document, but rather proves that his language at the end of every document fulfills the requirements for infallible teaching of the Magisterium; 3) even if the theological note did apply to every document – and somehow did make Paul VI’s solemn language at the end of each document non-binding (which it most certainly doesn’t) – the theological note itself still proves that various documents in Vatican II are infallible and binding by the way Vatican II presents its teaching on these matters. No matter which way one tries to escape the reality that Antipope Paul VI could not have been a true pope and at the same time promulgate Vatican II, he fails.
St. Peter vs. Anti-Peter
In his dogmatic encyclical Quanta Cura, Pope Pius IX infallibly condemned the heretical doctrine of religious liberty (which had also been condemned by numerous other popes). Pope Pius IX explicitly anathematized the heretical idea that religious liberty should be a civil right in every rightly constituted society. The Catholic Church teaches that a government which recognizes the right to religious liberty - like the U.S.A. – is, of course, preferable to one which suppresses Catholicism. Nevertheless, this situation is only the lesser of two evils. The ideal is a government which recognizes the Catholic religion as the only religion of the state and does not give every person the “freedom” to practice and propagate his/her false religion in the public domain. Therefore, the idea that religious liberty should be a universal civil right is heretical, as Pope Pius IX infallibly defined in Quanta Cura.
Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra: “From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, NAMELY, THAT ‘LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN’S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY… But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition… Therefore, BY OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR AND EVIL OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, AND WILL AND COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE CHILDREN OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND CONDEMNED.”
Pope Pius IX condemned, reprobated and proscribed (outlawed) by his apostolic authority the heretical idea that every state should grant the civil right to religious liberty. But watch this! Whereas Pope Pius IX condemned, reprobated and proscribed (outlawed) this doctrine by his apostolic authority, Antipope Paul VI approves, decrees and establishes this condemned teaching by his “apostolic authority.” In other words, that which Pope Pius IX solemnly condemns by his apostolic authority is exactly what Antipope Paul VI solemnly teaches by his “apostolic authority”!
Antipope Paul VI, Vatican II Declaration on Religious Liberty: “PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY… This Vatican synod declares that the human person has the right to religious freedom … THIS RIGHT OF THE HUMAN PERSON TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM SHOULD HAVE SUCH RECOGNITION IN THE REGULATION OF SOCIETY BY LAW AS TO BECOME A CIVIL RIGHT… Each and every one of the things set forth in this decree has won the consent of the Fathers. WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in synod be published to God’s glory… I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.”
The Authority of St. Peter vs. The Authority of Anti-Peter
|Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura (#’s 3-6), Dec. 8, 1864, ex cathedra:“From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity, NAMELY, THAT ‘LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND WORSHIP IS EACH MAN’S PERSONAL RIGHT, WHICH OUGHT TO BE LEGALLY PROCLAIMED AND ASSERTED IN EVERY RIGHTLY CONSTITUTED SOCIETY… But while they rashly affirm this, they do not understand and note that they are preaching liberty of perdition… Therefore, BY OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, WE REPROBATE, PROSCRIBE, AND CONDEMN ALL THE SINGULAR AND EVIL OPINIONS AND DOCTRINES SPECIALLY MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER, AND WILL AND COMMAND THAT THEY BE THOROUGHLY HELD BY ALL THE CHILDREN OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS REPROBATED, PROSCRIBED AND CONDEMNED.”||Antipope Paul VI, Vatican II Declaration on Religious Liberty: “PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY… This Vatican synod declares that the human person has the right to religious freedom … THIS RIGHT OF THE HUMAN PERSON TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM SHOULD HAVE SUCH RECOGNITION IN THE REGULATION OF SOCIETY BY LAW AS TO BECOME A CIVIL RIGHT… Each and every one of the things set forth in this decree has won the consent of the Fathers. WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in synod be published to God’s glory… I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.”|
Is it possible for Paul VI to possess the same “apostolic authority” as Pope Pius IX? Does the apostolic authority of St. Peter contradict itself? No way! It is heresy to say so! (Lk. 22:32; Vatican I, Sess. 4, Chap. 4.)
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “… Christ instituted a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed… As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man.”
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4, ex cathedra: “So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair… that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of Hell.”
With these facts in mind, one can see why those who obstinately maintain that Paul VI was a true pope deny Papal Infallibility. They deny the indefectibility of the Church; they assert that the apostolic authority conferred by Christ upon the successor of Peter contradicts itself; and they assert that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church.
The truth is that Antipope Paul VI was never the validly elected pope of the Catholic Church; and therefore his solemn promulgation of the heresies of Vatican II did not infringe upon Papal Infallibility. As we saw already, the Catholic Church teaches that it’s impossible for a heretic to be elected pope, since a heretic is not a member of the Catholic Church. This was defined in Pope Paul IV's Apostolic Constitution Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.
*For more information on Vatican II’s primary heresies, consult our article: The Heresies in Vatican II located on our website.
 Walter M. Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II, The America Press, 1966, p. 366, etc.
 Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, B. Herder Book. Co., Thirtieth Edition, 1957, no. 1839.
 Walter M. Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II, pp. 137, 199, etc.
 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Sheed & Ward and Georgetown University Press, 1990, Vol. 1, p. 559.
 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 597.
 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 802.
 Walter M. Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 366, etc.
 Walter M. Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II, pp. 738-739.
 Walter M. Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 715.
 The Papal Encyclicals, by Claudia Carlen, Raleigh: The Pierian Press, 1990,Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 355.
 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 5, p. 140.
 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 898.
 Walter M. Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 97.
 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, p. 1006.
 Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 2, pp. 1008-1009.
 Denzinger 1690, 1699.
 Walter M. Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II, pp. 675, 679, 696.
 Denzinger 1690, 1699.
 Walter M. Abbott, The Documents of Vatican II, pp. 675, 679, 696.
 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 2 (1878-1903), p. 394.
 Denzinger 1837.
Chris Ferrara, Catholic Family News, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part II,” Oct. 2005, p. 8: “Now that which is manifest – i.e., plain, evident, obvious, unmistakable and undoubted – requires no explanation. The very quality of not needing to be explained is what makes a thing manifest. Thus, before the Enterprise can even get to first base, it must show us not merely papal statements made openly, but statements whose alleged heresy requires no explanation to demonstrate. The papal words themselves – not sedevacantist interpretations of those words – must denote heresy.
“If a Pope were to proclaim to the whole Church in some document or public pronouncement ‘There is no Holy Trinity. There is only God the Creator, just as the Muslims believe!’ his heresy would be manifest in the full and correct sense of the word.”
Answer: The one making this objection, Chris Ferrara, is completely wrong, as usual. First, there are many examples of manifest heresies from the post-conciliar antipopes which require no explanation or commentary, as we have seen. Second, papal authority teaches us that some heresies do require explanation, deep study and analysis to uncover and condemn, as we will also see.
Before we expand on those two points, it is necessary for the reader to examine the example of heresy that Ferrara gives. Ferrara gives the example of heresy: “There is no Holy Trinity.” According to Ferrara, this is an undeniable example of manifest heresy. He is correct that this statement is heretical, but notice that even in this example we are not dealing with an exact word-for-word denial of a dogmatic definition. As far as we’re aware, there is no dogmatic definition on the Holy Trinity which states “There is a Holy Trinity.” There are definitions, such as the following:
Pope Gregory X, Council of Lyons II, 1274, ex cathedra: “We believe that the Holy Trinity, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is one God omnipotent…”
Of course, Catholics immediately recognize that the statement “There is no Holy Trinity” equates to a direct denial of this dogmatic definition, even though it doesn’t deny the dogmatic definition verbatim. So, in giving his single example of heresy – a single example Ferrara probably concocted because he feels confident that that the sedevacantists can produce no equivalent heresy on the Trinity from Benedict XVI – Ferrara proves our point: statements that equate to a direct denial of dogma, even though they are not exact word-for-word denials of a dogmatic definition, are examples of manifest heresy.
So, just as Catholics immediately recognize that the statement “There is no Holy Trinity” is a manifest heresy, even though there is no dogma declaring exactly the opposite word-for-word, they likewise immediately recognize that Benedict XVI’s declaration that Protestantism is not heresy is, of course, a direct denial of the Catholic dogmas which condemn Protestant teachings as heresies. Thank you for proving our point again, Mr. Ferrara.
We will now quote more than 10 statements from Benedict XVI (and just one from John Paul II) and give no commentary whatsoever. Everyone who is sincere and honest will see that they equate to direct rejections of Catholic dogma without any analysis being required.
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pp. 87-88: “The difficulty in the way of giving an answer is a profound one. Ultimately it is due to the fact that there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value… Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message… The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.”
No comment necessary.
Joseph Ratzinger, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, pp. 61, 68: “… Meantime the Catholic Church has no right to absorb other Churches. The Church has not yet prepared for them a place of their own, but this they are legitimately entitled to… A basic unity – of Churches that remain Churches, yet become one Church – must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivated to seek it.”
No comment necessary.
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 197-198: “Against this background we can now weigh the possibilities that are open to Christian ecumenism. The maximum demands on which the search for unity must certainly founder are immediately clear. On the part of the West, the maximum demand would be that the East recognize the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the full scope of the definition of 1870 and in so doing submit in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted by the Uniate churches. On the part of the East, the maximum demand would be that the West declare the 1870 doctrine of primacy erroneous and in so doing submit, in practice, to a primacy such as has been accepted with the removal of the Filioque from the Creed and including the Marian dogmas of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. As regards Protestantism, the maximum demand of the Catholic Church would be that the Protestant ecclesiological ministers be regarded as totally invalid and that Protestants be converted to Catholicism… none of the maximum solutions offers any real hope of unity.”
No comment necessary.
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, 2000, p. 209: “It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ. And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus. Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance. There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said. And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.”
No comment necessary.
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 377: “…There is an obsession with the letter that regards the liturgy of the Church as invalid and thus puts itself outside the Church. It is forgotten here that the validity of the liturgy depends primarily, not on specific words, but on the community of the Church...”
No comment necessary.
“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 202: “It means that the Catholic does not insist on the dissolution of the Protestant confessions and the demolishing of their churches but hopes, rather, that they will be strengthened in their confessions and in their ecclesial reality.”
No comment necessary.
John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (# 84), May 25, 1995:
“…[Speaking of non-Catholic “Churches”] These saints come from all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities WHICH GAVE THEM ENTRANCE INTO THE COMMUNION OF SALVATION.”
No comment necessary.
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, p. 381: "If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus… As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution was, to a large extent, corrected via facti, especially in Central Europe, but there was still no basic statement of the relationship that should exist between the Church and the world that had come into existence after 1789."
No comment necessary.
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Co-Workers of the Truth, 1990, p. 217: “The question that really concerns us, the question that really oppresses us, is why it is necessary for us in particular to practice the Christian Faith in its totality; why, when there are so many other ways that lead to heaven and salvation, it should be required of us to bear day after day the whole burden of ecclesial dogmas and of the ecclesial ethos. And so we come again to the question: What exactly is Christian reality? What is the specific element in Christianity that not merely justifies it, but makes it compulsorily necessary for us? When we raise the question about the foundation and meaning of our Christian existence, there slips in a certain false hankering for the apparently more comfortable life of other people who are also going to heaven. We are too much like the laborers of the first hour in the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Mt. 20:1-16). Once they discovered that they could have earned their day’s pay of one denarius in a much easier way, they could not understand why they had had to labor the whole day. But what a strange attitude it is to find the duties of our Christian life unrewarding just because the denarius of salvation can be gained without them! It would seem that we – like the workers of the first hour – want to be paid not only with our own salvation, but more particularly with others’ lack of salvation. That is at once very human and profoundly un-Christian.”
No comment necessary.
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Co-Workers of the Truth, 1990, p. 29: “To borrow Congar’s cogent phrase, it would be both foolish and perverse to identify the efficacy of the Holy Spirit with the work of the ecclesial apparatus. This means that even in Catholic belief the unity of the Church is still in the process of formation; that it will be totally achieved only in the eschaton [the end of the world], just as grace will not be perfected until its effects are visible – although the community of God has already begun to be visible.”
No comment necessary.
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, 2004, p. 349: “It now becomes clear that the real heart of faith in the resurrection does not consist at all in the idea of the restoration of bodies, to which we have reduced it in our thinking; such is the case even though this is the pictorial image used throughout the Bible.”
No comment necessary.
The Jewish People and the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible, Section II, A, Prefaced by Benedict XVI: “Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain... to read the Bible as Judaism does necessarily involves an implicit acceptance of all its presuppositions… which exclude faith in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God… Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one…”
There are many others, but these constitute more than ten examples of manifest heresies which equate to a direct denial of Catholic dogma without any commentary being necessary.
CHRIS FERRARA VS. POPE PIUS VI ON AMBIGUITY IN HERESY = A KNOCKOUT FOR POPE PIUS VI
In addition to the fact that there are manifest heresies which require no commentary from the Vatican II antipopes, as we saw above, WHAT UTTERLY DESTROYS FERRARA’S POINT is the fact that Pope Pius VI teaches exactly the opposite of Ferrara on heresy and ambiguity. Pope Pius VI declares that heretics, such as Nestorius, have always camouflaged their heresies and doctrinal errors in self-contradiction and ambiguity!
Pope Pius VI, condemning the Synod of Pistoia, Bull “Auctorem fidei," August 28, 1794: “[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.
"Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up to the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.
"It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions which are published in the common language for everyone's use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.
"In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: WHENEVER IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO EXPOSE STATEMENTS WHICH DISGUISE SOME SUSPECTED ERROR OR DANGER UNDER THE VEIL OF AMBIGUITY, ONE MUST DENOUNCE THE PERVERSE MEANING UNDER WHICH THE ERROR OPPOSED TO CATHOLIC TRUTH IS CAMOUFLAGED.”
Pope Pius VI teaches us that if someone veils a heresy in ambiguity, as heretics have done throughout the ages, a Catholic must hold him to the heretical meaning and denounce the heretical meaning which is camouflaged in ambiguity! This alone blows Chris Ferrara’s entire series of articles and objections against sedevacantism out of the water. (And please note an important distinction: we are not asserting that documents or statements that are merely ambiguous, but which teach no clear doctrinal contradiction of Catholic Faith, are heretical; no, we are asserting with Pope Pius VI that documents which contain heretical statements or assertions which clearly contradict Catholic dogma (“shocking affirmations,” according to Pius VI) but which also contain self-contradiction and ambiguity along with those heretical statements, are still just as heretical despite the ambiguity and self-contradiction that accompanies the heresy. An example would be an alleged “Catholic” who consistently supports abortion, but sometimes says that he accepts Church teaching on abortion. This person is a manifest heretic, despite the self-contradiction and ambiguity that his position implies. Another example would be a man who states that we shouldn’t convert Protestants (a manifest heresy), but who also states that the Catholic Church alone is the fullness of the Christian Faith which all should embrace. He is a manifest heretic, despite the fact that the latter statement seems to some to contradict the former statement. Heretics are dishonest and liars, so they often attempt to contradict or mitigate the offensiveness of their heresies through subtle tactics of self-contradiction and accompanying ambiguity; that is the point of Pope Pius VI.)
Notice how directly Chris Ferrara contradicts the teaching of Pope Pius VI.
Chris Ferrara, Catholic Family News, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part II,” Oct. 2005, p. 25: “Thus, we are dealing with a document [Dignitatis Humanae of Vatican II] that contains apparent self-contradictions, which seem to have resulted from the Council’s attempt to appease both conservative and liberal factions among the Council Fathers. A document that contradicts itself by appearing to uphold and negate the traditional teaching at one and the same time can hardly be said to constitute a manifest contradiction of the traditional teaching… For what is at issue are ambiguities, internal inconsistencies, and novelties…”
Pope Pius VI: "Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up to the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.
" It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity…”
Obviously, Pope Pius VI is correct and Chris Ferrara is completely wrong. Notice that Pius VI also says that some of these doctrinal errors (which are also heresies in this case, since he is referring to the heresies of the arch-heretic Nestorius) were only uncovered through careful study and analysis!
Pius VI: “It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.”
But we thought that such analysis and study wouldn’t be needed for manifest contradictions of Catholic teaching? That’s what Chris Ferrara said.
Chris Ferrara, The Remnant, Sept. 30, 2005, p. 18: “…where are the objectively heretical statements? If they exist, it should be a simple matter to quote the heretical propositions uttered… The ‘heresies’ should speak for themselves without any helpful ‘commentary’ by sedevacantist accusers.”
Chris Ferrara couldn’t be more wrong. Heretics deceive through contradictions and ambiguity because heresy itself is a lie and a contradiction.
Pope Pius XI, Rite expiatis (# 6), April 30, 1926: “…heresies gradually arose and grew in the vineyard of the Lord, propagated either by open heretics or by sly deceivers who, because they professed a certain austerity of life and gave a false appearance of virtue and piety, easily led weak and simple souls astray.”
Notice, heresies arise both through open and undeceiving heretics as well as by sly deceivers, such as Benedict XVI, who mixes in conservative statements and actions among his astounding and undeniable heresies. Illustrating this point again is the fact that the arch-heretic Arius got himself approved by Constantine by giving him an ambiguous profession of faith. St. Athanasius was not fooled, however, and refused to consider him a Catholic.
“Arius presented himself with Euzoios, his ally in doctrine and exile. He left with the Emperor [Constantine] a wary profession of Faith which could be interpreted either in the Arian or the orthodox sense but which did not contain the word ‘consubstantial.’ Constantine was content, revoked his sentence of exile, and ordered that Arius should be readmitted to his rank in the clergy. Arius’ ecclesiastical superior, Athanasius, however, refused to accept him.”
According to Chris Ferrara, Catholics should have accepted the Christ-denier Arius as a Catholic, as Constantine did, since his profession was ambiguous. Chris Ferrara is the perfect dupe of Satan; all the Devil needs to have the heretic do after teaching his heresy is spice in a little ambiguity, and pepper in a little contradiction, and he will be telling the world to follow the heretic and remain under his aegis. And that is exactly how the Devil has been so successful in keeping people in the apostate, manifestly heretical Vatican II sect. People see a few conservative statements or actions from the heretics, and they convince themselves that they couldn’t be malicious heretics, even though they are denying and destroying the Faith all around them, as we’ve shown. In this way, the Devil wins.
To further illustrate the “patent absurdity” of Chris Ferrara’s “theology” John Doe could write a document which denies that Our Lady is immaculate over and over again, and then state at the end that he upholds Church teaching on the Immaculate Conception, and the document wouldn’t be manifestly heretical because it contains “self-contradiction.” Could anything be more stupid? Ferrara applies this false theology, which is directly contrary to the teaching of Pope Pius VI (as we saw above), to his analysis of Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty.
Chris Ferrara, Catholic Family News, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part II,” Oct. 2005, p. 25: “The [Sedevacantist] Enterprise’s claim of manifest heresy in DH [Dignitatis Humanae, Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty] becomes even weaker when one considers that Article 1 of DH states that the Council ‘leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.’”
Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty contains clear heresy against the Church’s dogma that the State has the right to repress the public expression of false religions. The fact that Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Liberty claims to “leave untouched traditional Catholic doctrine” means absolutely nothing. The “Old Catholics” said exactly the same, as did heretics throughout history.
Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (# 2), March 23, 1875: “They [the ‘Old Catholics’] repeatedly state openly that they do not in the least reject the Catholic Church and its visible head but rather that they are zealous for the purity of Catholic doctrine… But in fact they refuse to acknowledge all the divine prerogatives of the vicar of Christ on earth and do not submit to His supreme Magisterium.”
According to Ferrara, then, the case that the “Old Catholics” are heretics is invalid, for they repeatedly state that they are zealous for the purity of Catholic doctrine, and they openly declare that they don’t reject Catholic teaching. But no, the Catholic Church teaches that they are manifest heretics, and all who adhere to their teachings and sect are considered heretics.
Pope Pius IX, Graves ac diuturnae (#'s 1-4), March 23, 1875: "… the new heretics who call themselves 'Old Catholics'... these schismatics and heretics... their wicked sect... these sons of darkness... their wicked faction… this deplorable sect… This sect overthrows the foundations of the Catholic religion, shamelessly rejects the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Vatican Council, and devotes itself to the ruin of souls in so many ways. We have decreed and declared in Our letter of 21 November 1873 that those unfortunate men who belong to, adhere to, and support that sect should be considered as schismatics and separated from communion with the Church." 
Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (# 6), Jan. 6, 1873: “It has always been the custom of heretics and schismatics to call themselves Catholics and to proclaim their many excellences in order to lead people and princes into error.” 
We can see that Chris Ferrara’s “theology” is directly at variance with not only the teaching of the popes, but common sense. In fact, the satanic idiocy of Ferrara’s (and many others’) position – that the Vatican II apostates and antipopes are not manifest heretics because they sometimes contradict themselves and employ ambiguity along with their astounding heresies – is perhaps best exemplified by looking at the case of the apostate John Kerry.
We would doubt that almost anyone reading this article believes that John Kerry is a Catholic. Even the people at Franciscan University admit that: “You cannot be a Catholic and be pro-abortion,” as their signs declared in protest when he spoke in Ohio. But John Kerry states that he accepts Catholic teaching, even though he consistently votes in favor of abortion.
During the 2004 Presidential Debate with George W. Bush, John Kerry stated: “I cannot impose my article of faith on someone else.” Did you get that? John Kerry has stated publicly that the Church’s teaching against abortion is his article of faith, but that he simply cannot apply that or impose that in the public sphere. His argument is absurd, a lie, a contradiction, of course – as all heresies are. But according to Chris Ferrara, John Kerry must be considered a Catholic, for something that:
“… contradicts itself by appearing to uphold and negate the traditional teaching at one and the same time can hardly be said to constitute a manifest contradiction of the traditional teaching…”
We can see that this statement is pure nonsense. If it were true, then John Kerry can hardly be said to be a manifest heretic when he publicly affirms that Church teaching against abortion is his article of faith, but contradicts that by adamantly supporting abortion. John Kerry must be considered a Catholic, according to the despicable perversion of Catholic teaching, inspired by Satan, that the heretic Chris Ferrara is peddling in “traditional” publications. This conclusion would also put Ferrara at variance with another of his colleagues and good friends, Michael Matt, who declared unequivocally (on his own authority, since this has not been declared by his “pope”) that John Kerry is an apostate.
Michael Matt, The Remnant, April 15, 2004, p. 5: “Take Senator John F. Kerry, for example, the first Catholic nominated for the presidency by either major party since 1960. Kerry, whose paternal grandparents were Jewish, by the way, is doing a remarkably good Kennedy impersonation these days: ‘We have a separation of Church and state in this country,’ Kerry recently told Time magazine. ‘As John Kennedy said very clearly, I will be a President who happens to be Catholic, not a Catholic president.’ On that, at least, we can agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts! In fact, we would take it one step further by noting that presidential candidate Kerry isn’t Catholic at all.
“Oh, yes, the former altar boy says he’s Catholic; he allegedly complains when his staff doesn’t leave adequate time on his schedule for Sunday Mass; his official web site announces that ‘John Kerry was raised in the Catholic faith and continues to be an active member of the Catholic church.’ But he’s not Catholic, and neither is his wife – another anti-Catholic who claims to be a practicing one. John Kerry’s description of himself and his wife is simply untrue: ‘[I’m a] believing and practicing Catholic, married to another believing and practicing Catholic.’ Sounds nice. Trouble is, John Kerry is an apostate.’”
It seems that Ferrara and Matt have some talking to do. And really, the case of John Kerry proves the point, for if you cannot say that Benedict XVI, who takes active part in Jewish worship, doesn’t believe that Jesus is necessarily the Messiah and Son of God, teaches that we shouldn’t convert Protestants, was initiated into Islam, etc. can’t be considered a heretic – then you have no justification whatsoever to label John Kerry one. In fact, the dogmas that Benedict XVI denies have been defined far more times than the dogma that Kerry denies.
 Chris Ferrara, Catholic Family News, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part II,” Oct. 2005, p. 8.
 Denzinger 461.
 Benedict XVI, The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pp. 87-88.
 Benedict XVI, Theological Highlights of Vatican II, New York: Paulist Press, 1966, pp. 61, 68.
 Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), pp. 197-198.
 “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, God and the World, Ignatius Press, 2000, p. 209.
 “Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 377.
 “Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 202.
 The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 965.
 “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 381.
 “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Co-Workers of the Truth, Ignatius Press, 1990, p. 217.
 “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Co-Workers of the Truth, p. 29.
 “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, Ignatius Press, 2004, p. 349.
 The Jewish People and the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible, Section II, A, Prefaced by Benedict XVI, www.vatican.va.
 Chris Ferrara, The Remnant, Forest Lake, MN, Sept. 30, 2005, p. 18.
 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 294.
 Abbot Ricciotti, The Age of Martyrs, Tan Books, p. 275; see also Fr. Laux, Church History, Tan Books, 1989, p. 113; Warren H. Carroll, A History of Christendom, Vol. 2 (The Building of Christendom), p. 18.
 Chris Ferrara, Catholic Family News, “Opposing the Sedevacantist Enterprise, Part II,” Oct. 2005, p. 25.
 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 451.
 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), pp. 451-452.
 The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 1 (1740-1878), p. 414.
 Chris Ferrara, Catholic Family News, Oct. 2005, p. 25.
 Michael Matt, The Remnant, April 15, 2004, p. 5.