The Latest Video from Michael Lofton and Robert Siscoe

Michael Lofton interviewed Robert Siscoe over the Catholic position of Sedevacantism. It was a live performance on Lofton’s Reason and Theology Youtube channel.

The entire program was full of nonsense as to be expected from two apologists of a religion that blesses Sodomite couples, condemns the death penalty as “an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, declares non-Catholics as members of Christ’s Body in the external forum, where women serve the sanctuary and read as lectors, and their popes worship in non-Catholic worship services, praise and venerate arch-heretics such as Martin Luther and celebrate the Protestant revolt, kiss Korans, and hold hands and embrace Sodomites as Sodomites. Yes, that religion they defend as the Catholic Church. 

Siscoe began with a chart explaining what the Church is but failed to mention that the gates of hell are heretics and their heresies, which will not overcome the Church. This is a huge omission because heresy cannot be taught by the Catholic Church.

Robert Siscoe is on record for publishing an article that Pope Celestine III actually taught heresy by law and promulgated that heresy as part of the teaching Church. This is precisely what can’t happen lest the gates of hell prevailed.

Three of my friends and I were censored and deleted from the chat box over making this point. My friends and I asked the simple question whether Michael Lofton agreed with Robert Siscoe that Pope Celestine III taught heresy or if a pope could teach heresy by law. It’s a simple question, but Lofton ignored it and then deleted our questions from the comments.

Robert Siscoe was asked if he agreed with Michael Lofton whether the document Fiducia Supplicans was a beautiful document. After all, blessing Sodomite couples is a moral issue. Do they agree over a matter of faith and morals or are they not one in faith? Again, the comment was deleted.

Lofton and Siscoe don’t deal with the tough questions that expose their position. They censor the questions. Think about that! All opposition is censored, and the audience only sees their echo chamber.  

Siscoe then continues by making false distinctions. He refers to old heretical sects as being sedevacantists for rejecting the pope, but the reality is the old sects rejected the papacy, not merely one claiming to be pope.

Sedevacantists are not rejecting the papacy, but only the person claiming to be pope. In reality, Siscoe rejects the papacy as taught by Vatican I. He claims the papacy can and HAS promulgated heresy.

Siscoe implies that sedevacantists redefine what the Church is. However, Vatican 2 declared that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church and that non-Catholics are members of Christ’s Body with the right to be called Christian. That’s a redefinition of the Church.

Siscoe said sedevacantists believe that to be a member of the Church, all that is needed is to be baptized and profess the faith REGARDLESS OF THE SECT YOU BELONG TO. He said we believe the Church subsists in different sects and that we hold exactly what Calvinists held about the Church. What he just described is what the Vatican 2 religion teaches, not sedevacantists.  

However, Siscoe does believe that to be a member of the Church, one only has to claim to be Catholic and be in union with Francis regardless of the dogmas that must be professed. As long as you have not left the Vatican 2 religion or been excommunicated, you are member of the Church regardless as to what you actually believe. Professing heretics are still members of the Church as he has told me that Biden and Pelosi are members of the Church.

So far I’ve covered the first 5 minutes of a video that lasted over an hour and half long.

Siscoe continued with complete misrepresentations of heresy, St. Robert Bellarmine, Nestorius, etc., which all has been dealt ad nauseam in the past. This lying of theirs has been going on for years. This is serious business and their souls are in serious jeopardy for lying about the faith, yet they never stop. How many people do they lead astray? What they are doing is pure evil! 

Instead of going over each point, I’ll simply point to articles that already deal with everything Siscoe stated in the video.

Salza and Siscoe Misrepresent 17th Century Canonist Fr. Paul Laymann

True or False Church?

Why Calling Francis ‘the Pope’ is Blasphemy

The Believe-Whatever-You-Want Religion of Bergoglio

True or False Catholic Book – The Attributes – (Part VI)

True or False Catholic Book – Contradictions (Part V)

True or False Catholic Book – Why John Salza and Robert Siscoe Get it Wrong (Part IV)

The Universal Acceptance Doctrine Not Universally Accepted – How We Can Know a True Pope Rules

The Universal Acceptance Argument Revisited

Cardinal Billot Proves a Sedevacantist Principle

The Release of the Kraken against Sedevacantism, NOT

Canon 188.4 and Defection of Faith – Why John Salza and Robert Siscoe Get It Wrong (Part III)

Where the Shepherds and Teachers Are – The Problem with the ‘Home-Alone’ Position – Part III

The Real St. Frances Xavier Cabrini

Last Tuesday, I was excited to see the new movie Cabrini. The executive producer Eustace Wolfington said it would not be another fairytale movie on a saint. Unfortunately, we got something worse.

Cabrini does have some good moments. For instance, we hear a New York Times journalist narrate two great pieces he wrote for the paper promoting the mission of the saint.

The acting was good, the music was good, and the cinematography was good. However, the portrayal of the saint was terrible. The actress did a great job doing her part, but the depiction was not of a saint but rather of an irreverent, ambitious, and somewhat bitter woman who is easily offended.

The writers and directors haven’t a clue how a saint is and must be, especially St. Frances Xavier Cabrini. They captured her compassion, work ethic, and obedience, but missed how she was enormously prayerful, joyful, full of humility, and very reverent. She was also a miracle worker, all of which was not depicted in the movie.

In one of the lines in the film (from memory), Cabrini says to her sisters “we must trust only in ourselves.” This is not what a saint or any good Catholic says under adverse conditions. We don’t trust in ourselves but in Christ.

In another scene, John Lithgow’s character as mayor of NY says to Cabrini, “It’s a shame you’re a woman, you’d be a great man.” She replies after guzzling down a whiskey, “No, men could never do what we do.” This is close to blasphemy against the wonderful saint.

In other scenes, she talks about name-calling and tells some bigwigs how racial slurs which she names “cut to the heart.” Again, no saint is worried about what someone calls them.

We see a woman walk into church without a head-covering, which is something you would not see in the late 1800’s.

Pope Leo XIII is portrayed as one in the way of Cabrini until she makes a scene with cardinals and bishops around saying “is it because I’m a woman?” 

She does not kiss his ring during her second audience, nor does she show the great reverence the real saint had for this great pope throughout.

I would like to post part of a beautiful letter (all her letters are beautiful) she wrote in 1898 to her sisters, which shows something of how she truly was towards the pope, the Church, and Christ. It alone demonstrates her love, humility, and devotion that are completely missing in the film about her:

“I was comforted by the blessing of the Holy Father, who at the end of July gave me an audience and encouraged me, with benignity, to go all over the world and carry the Most Holy Name of Jesus everywhere, thus to draw souls into the bosom of the Church, where alone there is salvation. With fatherly goodness he inquired about my programme, and noticing my poor health, he asked how I could undertake so much work. ‘I, who am so strong, could not do it,” he said. ‘It is true I am old, but I am much stronger than you.” The affability with which he deigned to speak to me, encouraged me to remark that, as I was his spiritual daughter, I possessed his moral strength which enabled me to go round the world, and I was sure I should not lose my strength by serving that dear Jesus Who chose me to be a Missionary of His Sacred Heart. Then, putting his two hands on my head, he showered blessings upon me, telling me to pray, for him, as his heart was overwhelmed with sorrow on account of the revolutions prevalent in many countries.”

“Then the Supreme Pastor, that Father of souls, not wishing to leave his little Missionary unconsoled, gave me a generous offering for my voyage, together with presents for those who helped the Missions most. He said many other nice things, but I must leave these to the Mother Superior of the House in Rome, who was with me on the occasion of that memorable audience. All I can say is, that with the blessing of the Holy Father I can go all over the world and no fear shall overcome me, no matter how difficult the way, and no matter how many the obstacles which may come before me, whether from spiritual or temporal enemies. The Pope has spoken, God has spoken through him. I shall go everywhere without fear. Oh! how powerful is the blessing of the Pope! He is the visible head of the Church on earth, he is God’s representative, the oracle of the Most Holy Trinity, the instrument of the Holy Ghost, the trumpet of the Redeemer, the mouthpiece and word of Our Lord Himself. The Pope is the shining lighthouse of Divine Wisdom, and so his words and his blessings are that true column of fire that guides me in every danger and every difficulty. Do pray, daughters, pray for the Holy Father, pray for the Ruler of Church’s destiny, pray for him in these difficult times. We must do so, as we are under obligations of filial gratitude to Leo XIIL, who loves and favours our beloved Institute as if it were his own beloved family. Speak, children, to everybody concerning the Pope. Make them unite themselves with him, for he who is united closely with the Pope, however far he may have strayed from the right path, returns to God’s ways in the end.”

“The Holy Father wishes our Institute to be prolific of Saints, as he said to the Sisters whom I presented to him after my audience. We are under an obligation to comply with the desires of this holy old man. I imagine I hear, however, someone asking how they can become Saints? Oh, daughters, do not fear difficulties; it will suffice if we follow our holy vocation faithfully. That sweet and most loving Jesus, Who has called us to follow Him, gathering us to His Divine Heart, helps us every day on our journey. It is He Himself, the good Jesus, Who has called us to follow closely in His footsteps, through the observance of the Evangelical Counsels, so that we may be holy and perfect, like unto Him.” [1]

It’s apparent that modernists and worldly people put this movie together. They should have hired the writers of the movie Nefarious, which is a far, far better movie. The one positive thing that may result from this film is hopefully people look up and find out about the real St. Frances Xavier Cabrini and become holy and faithful Catholics as she was.

Lastly, notice her true Catholic position towards the papacy. Now, imagine if she lived today.

 

Footnote

[1] Travels of Mother Frances Xavier Cabrini : foundress of the Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart of Jesus : Frances Xavier Cabrini : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Can We Recognise and Resist a Wayward Pontiff? Revisited

In 2015, I published a rebuttal to Robert Siscoe’s article in the Catholic Family News website on the recognize-and-resist position. Below is an updated and revised version of the old article, which is as relevant today as it was a decade ago. Of course, our position is not about a pope who goes wayward. However, the same principles apply insofar as how we react to one acting as pope when he’s not professing the faith.

The purpose of this writing is due to a recent email exchange with a notable Vatican 2 apologist who leans toward the conservative side as a type of recognize-and-resist member of the Vatican 2 religion. Since other friends and family members continue to use the same old arguments that have been thoroughly debunked, I want to show once again why the recognize- and-resist position is thoroughly anti-Catholic.

Can the Faithful recognize and resist the pope? That’s the subject of a Jan. 26, 2015 article by Catholic Family News (CFN), which confirms the stance of the SSPX, Tradition in Action, and other traditionalists who recognize and resist their pope (R&R’s).  The principle object of the resistance movement is the belief that the popes have promulgated heresies that need to be resisted.

Below are the two primary fallacies in the CFN article.

Fallacy 1: The visible Church is not One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic:

                   CFN and Siscoe wrote: Indeed, over the past 50 years the entire “face” of the Church (what is seen) has been transformed in the name of obedience… A new religion has emerged within the walls of Holy Mother Church, which has supplanted, and all but eradicated, the “old religion”. This has been accomplished, not only by a corruption of the liturgy, as found in the New Mass (the vehicle of the New Religion), but also by discouraging those aspects of Catholicism that are contrary to the New Religion (Masonry), while encouraging only those aspects of the Faith that can be reconciled with the humanistic teachings of the Masonic sect. 

 CFN and Siscoe are applying the word “recognize” in the phrase “recognize and resist”. It means acknowledging who and what is causing the problem. They publicly state that those holding to the new religion (Masonry) are the Vatican 2 pope, all the cardinals, and nearly every bishop, priest, and lay person. Believing the Catholic Church is actually Masonic and forms part (the majority) of the Church denies articles of faith and the four marks of the Church. [1]

They cite Dom Prosper Guéranger who wrote in The Liturgical Year:

“When the shepherd becomes a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself. (…) The true children of Holy Church, at such times, are those who walk by the light of their Baptism, not the cowardly souls who, under the specious pretext of submission to the powers that be, delay their opposition to the enemy in the hope of receiving instructions [to do so] which are neither necessary nor desirable.”

This quote confirms sedevacantism because wolves are not shepherds. See Acts 20:28-29 and understand that OUR LORD would not leave a wolf as head of His Flock. Christ is not a liar and He is the Good Shepherd! We are bound by Christ to beware of false teachers who according Christ are from a bad tree (or are bad trees themselves) that will be cut down and cast into the fire. Popes are not false teachers. They are not bad trees nor come from a bad tree. Fake popes are fake popes and we must be able to know which are fake and which are not by our Catholic faith that tells us what’s Catholic and what is not. We don’t follow fake popes! Pope Innocent III said of a pope who becomes a heretic, “In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled underfoot by men.’” True popes are not good for nothings to be cast out. To apply this teaching would be impossible if we couldn’t judge. Yet, the R&R’s are judging the teachings of their pope but fail to apply the logical extension of that judgment.

St. Vincent of Lerins was used as witness to the resistance movement:

“What then should a Catholic do if some part of the Church were to separate itself from communion with the universal Faith? What other choice can he make but to prefer to the gangrenous and corrupted member the whole of the body that is sound.”

CFN and Siscoe, however, missed the point. St. Vincent of Lerins taught that corrupt members have separated from communion with the universal Faith, and that the whole body is sound. By holding to the heresy that true popes have manifestly established and profess a Masonic new religion for fifty plus years, CFN, Siscoe, and their hierarchy fall under St. Vincent’s category of corrupt members separated from the universal Faith.

Next, CFN and Siscoe advanced the idea that Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio is contra sedevacantism. They omitted the full context of the apostolic constitution, which declares that popes can’t be heretics. [2] Using Pope Paul IV’s law against sedevacantism is preposterous. In fact, I deal with the absurd argument in a recent article titled, What Did Pope Paul IV Mean about the Roman Pontiff?

Another inaccuracy presented by CFN and Siscoe were their assumption that Pope Paschal II’s signing a heretical agreement while under duress is evidence that popes can fall into heresy. However, a pope freely deviating from the Faith is vastly different than a pope being forced to do so. Bellarmine himself didn’t believe Pope Pascal II fell into heresy on these grounds because falling into heresy requires obstinacy.

Fallacy 2: Ordinary magisterial teaching and general laws of the Church are not binding:

                        CFN and Siscoe wrote: “Since we are required to avoid occasions of sin, we are justified in not listening to bishops who teaching (sic) heresy. The same holds true for a Pope who deviates from the Faith by teaching novel or heretical doctrines, which is possible as long as he is not defining a doctrine to be held by the universal Church, since it is only then that the charism of infallibility will prevent him from erring.”

Here is where the word “resist” in the phrase “recognize and resist” comes into play. It translates as reject and avoid. 

The implication of the above statement is that the Catholic Church could be heretical when not teaching infallibly. As I stated in a recent article, infallibility has nothing to do with whether the Church can promulgate heresy. If the Catholic Church can promulgate heresy by law, universal catechism, papal bull, apostolic exhortation, etc., it would be the height of hypocrisy for the same church to condemn Protestantism for promulgating heresy or any other errors against the faith.

In Mortalium animos Jan. 6, 1928, Pope Pius XI declared, “#5 Admonished, therefore, by the consciousness of Our Apostolic office that We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil; for We are confident that by the writings and words of each one of you the people will more easily get to know and understand those principles and arguments which We are about to set forth, and from which Catholics will learn how they are to think and act when there is question of those undertakings which have for their end the union in one body, whatsoever be the manner, of all who call themselves Christians…

#7…There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it.”

#11…Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?

The second implication of CFN and Siscoe’s statement is that a pope can be a heretic, because any bishop who teaches heresy is by that fact a heretic. Material heresy is not presumed with top authorities because the Church must guard against heretical teaching and wolves from reaching the faithful entrusted to Her by the ruling authorities of the Church. As such, any heretical bishop would not be a member of the Church with authority to rule as a successor to the Apostles.

Also, there’s a plethora of magisterial sources teach that the charism of infallibility extends not only to solemn judgments, but to the ordinary and universal magisterium. Vatican I declared:

{I} [The object of faith]. Further, by divine and Catholic faith all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her  ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed. (Dogmatic Constitution concerning the Catholic Faith, Ch. 3, FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL, Pope Pius IX) (Denz. 1792)

When the Vatican I Fathers questioned the meaning of the word “universal,” the answer was given from reference to Pope Pius IX’s Tuas Libenter (12/21/1863):

{II} “Even limiting oneself to the submission made by the act of divine faith, this could not be restricted to those things that have been defined by the express decrees of ecumenical councils and by the decrees of this See, but must be extended also to what is passed on as divinely revealed by the Ordinary Magisterium of the whole Church spread over the world…” (Denzinger 1683)

This is why Dom Paul Nau could write:

“The theological mark of heresy has to be applied, not only to what contradicts a defined truth, but also to what conflicts with a truth clearly put forward by the Ordinary Magisterium.” (Dom Paul Nau: The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church Theologically Considered, Solesmes, 1956.)

Perhaps the most damaging papal teaching of all for the R&R position comes from Pope Pius IX who declared:

{III} “And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who “not enduring sound doctrine” [II Tim. 4:3], contend that “without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its right and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.” There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church…Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.”(Pope Pius IX Quanta Cura Dec 8, 1864)

The next damaging teaching for the R&R position comes from Pope Leo X.

{IV} “You will firmly abide by the true decision of the Holy Roman Church and to this Holy See, which does not permit errors.” (Lateran Council V, Bull ‘Cum postquam’ by Pope Leo X)

Pope Leo X was speaking on indulgences to Cardinal Cajetan who was legate to Wittenburg at the time Martin Luther was complaining about them. Martin Luther said the Church taught heresy as “traditionalists” are doing now. Keep in mind, Vatican I definitions weren’t around then. Pope Leo condemned the idea that Rome could even permit heresy, much less promulgate it. [3] 

The First Vatican Council solemnly condemns the idea that the Roman Pontiff could promulgate heresy in any fashion, much less establish, promulgate, and adhere to an entire Masonic new religious sect as part of the Church.

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

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

The “gates of hell” is defined by the Church as “tongues of heretics” and the “disputations of heretics.” [4] That’s a direct reference to heresy and heretics. CFN and Siscoe are essentially saying openly that the gates of the Church and the gates of hell are one and the same thing.

CFN and Siscoe further described how general laws of the Church command evil, which is impossible, since “General laws…bind all Catholics wherever they may be” (1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon law). St. Robert Bellarmine was used as back up, but as usual, the full content and context was left out. [5]

The recent discipline found in Fiducia Supplicans where Sodomite couples may be blessed is a universal discipline of the Vatican 2 Church. The African bishops united to Francis who reject the new discipline should realize that they are in an impossible situation if they are to be truly Catholic. Pope Pius VI condemned those who claim the Church “could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism, [as] – false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.” (Auctorem Fidei, 78 Denzinger 1578; DS 2678)

On the matter of obedience, CFN and Siscoe provided another novelty by which to get around obeying a true pope: “There is nothing un-Catholic about paying little or no attention to the currently reigning pope. For the first 1900 years, most Catholics went about their daily lives without being concerned, or even aware, of what was happening in Rome. To demonstrate this, Blessed Juniper Serra, O.F.M, (d. 1784), a missionary priest in California, was so unaware of the goings-on in Rome that he didn’t even know the Pope’s name. In a letter to a confrere in Europe, Fr. Serra asked his friend if he would be so kind as to provide him with the Pope’s name: “when you get an opportunity” wrote Fr. Serra, will you “inform me what the most Holy Father, the reigning Pope, is called, that I may put his name in the Canon of the Mass”.

Ignorance of a pope’s identity doesn’t permit Catholics to ignore, disregard, resist, and avoid papal laws and decrees. That’s what heretics do. Fr. Juniper Serra was a faithful Catholic.

St. Robert Bellarmine taught, “Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head?”

R&R’s acknowledge their popes but ignore, disregard, resist, and avoid them, by rejecting Vatican 2, the mass, laws, etc. and calling them heretical. Why do some R&R’s endlessly deride sedevacantism if papal laws and decrees are nothing more than suggestions and opinions?

R&R-ism is fundamentally Protestantism. It was also part of Jansenism, where popes continually condemned their resistance. 

Catholics in the past may not have known the name of the pope because of distance or slow communication. That doesn’t mean that Catholics today can totally ignore and avoid their popes by calling their laws and decrees heretical. Catholics can’t even privately believe in their hearts that a pope is heretical without privately believing in their hearts that the gates of hell actually run the Church, which is absurd!

History records proper times and places popes can be resisted.  However, none of those times and places apply today, because there is no true pope. Popes must be Catholic. 

To recover their Catholic Faith, R&R’s have one choice. Accept sedevacantism or be as Pope Pius IX declared, “reprobated, proscribed, and condemned.”

Lastly, those who insist that only a future pope can fix the problem must logically admit that a future pope could or would declare that we “sedes” are correct now. We don’t need a future pope to tell us that we are right, because we have past ones that already told us that we are right. All we need to do is follow the teachings of the Church and know that Francis is not pope. He doesn’t have a Catholic bone in his body!

Footnotes:

[1]        The Roman Catechism explains the first mark of the Church: “The faith which all are bound to believe and to profess is one.”  The Vatican 2 popes don’t say the Catholic Church is divided in faith, rather they profess division exists for the Church of Christ that extends further than the Catholic Church. CFN state that the Catholic Church is actually Masonic, since it forms part of the Church. SEE Missing the Marks: The Church of Vatican 2

R&R’s are saying the popes through an ecumenical council have lead astray with heresy, which is a total rejection of Vatican I! Their arguments render the laws of the Church meaningless.

Canon 188 n.4 declares: Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric: n. 4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith.

Fr. Henri Ayrinhac, seminary professor of canon law and moral theology, taught that this canon “applies to all offices, the lowest and the highest, not excepting the Supreme Pontificate” (Very Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac, General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law [New York, NY: Blase Benziger & Co., Inc., 1923], p. 346). [2]

[2]       Pope Paul IV further taught:

6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

(i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

(ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

(iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way;

(iv) to any so promoted to be Bishops, or Archbishops, or Patriarchs, or Primates or elevated as Cardinals, or as Roman Pontiff, no authority shall have been granted, nor shall it be considered to have been so granted either in the spiritual or the temporal domain;

(v) each and all of their words, deeds, actions and enactments, howsoever made, and anything whatsoever to which these may give rise, shall be without force and shall grant no stability whatsoever nor any right to anyone;

(vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power.

[3]       Pope Leo X was speaking on indulgences to Cardinal Cajetan who was legate to Wittenburg at the time Martin Luther was complaining about them. Martin Luther said the Church taught heresy as “traditionalists” are doing now. Keep in mind, Vatican I definitions weren’t around then. Pope Leo condemned the idea that Rome could even permit heresy, much less promulgate it.

The First Vatican Council solemnly condemns the idea that the Roman Pontiff could promulgate heresy in any fashion, much less suggesting he could establish, adhere, and promulgate an entire Masonic new religion as part of the Church.

[4]       Pope Vigilius at the Second Council of Constantinople, in 553 AD called “the tongues of heretics” the “gates of hell.” Pope St. Leo IX, In terra pax hominibus, Sept. 2, 1053, said to Michael Cerularius that “the gates of Hell” are the “disputations of heretics.”

[5]       CFN cites St. Robert Bellarmine on the issue: “St. Bellarmine cites divine law (John 10, Mt 7, Gal 1) to show that heretical bishops should not be listened to by the people. He also notes, however, that according to tradition, heretical bishops can only be deposed by the proper authorities. This shows that one can refuse to listen to a heretical bishop without, however, having to maintain that they have fallen from their office.”

St. Robert Bellarmine didn’t teach that manifest heretics keep jurisdiction of their offices until deposition. Bellarmine taught:

“It is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is “ipso facto” deposed…

For those Fathers, in affirming that heretics lose jurisdiction, did not cite any human law,…but argued on the basis of the very nature of heresy… heretics already before being excommunicated are outside the Church and deprived of all jurisdiction. For they have already been condemned by their own sentence, as the Apostle teaches (Tit. 3:10-11), that is, they have been cut off from the body of the Church without excommunication, as St. Jerome affirms…

A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head of the Church, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church.  All the early Fathers are unanimous in teaching that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction. St. Cyprian, in particular, laid great stress on this point.” (De Romano Pontifice 30).

The Nun Who Went to Hell

There are many people who claim to have near-death experiences with visions of heaven and hell. Unfortunately, nearly all of these visions seem to be deceptions of some type. Visions, apparitions, and other religious experiences must be tested against the Word of God in conjunction with the analogy of our faith in order that we’re not deceived by the experience.

For instance, when I hear about a near-death experience where the person sees all of their family and friends in heaven, I immediately think of a deception either in the mind of the person or by the devil himself. If I had such an experience and came back, I would not believe it was from God.

Then we have those who experience what they believe was hell. It shocks them out of their sinful lifestyle. The problem I have with most of these stories is the fact that they don’t turn to the sacramental life of the Catholic Church. They become Protestant pastors, missionaries in some form, or nothing at all.

They were shown the reality of hell but were kept from seeing the souls who are lost in false doctrine. See I Tim 1:2-4, 4:1-3, Eph. 4:13-15, and Gal. 1:8-9. They are also kept from seeing how men are truly saved. Satan presents a false Jesus who doesn’t expect you to receive the sacraments that He established in His Church or even listen to His Church. See Matt. 18:17.

Religion is the very substance of our relationship with God. Without the religion, the relationship is hollow. The very definition of religion is the system of belief based on faith and the outward practices of life by which men indicated their relationship with God. This means a false or wrong religion is a false or wrong relationship with one’s own God.

With that being said, there are stories of people who actually died and came back from the dead. They were not near-death experiences, but a real death experiences. Sts. Drithelm and Christine the Admirable were two that stand out and their amazing stories can be found in my favorite book, “Purgatory – Explained by the Lives and Legends of the Saints,” by Fr. FX Schouppe S.J.

Lastly, we have the Spanish nun who mystically went to hell over 100 times. Sister Josefa Menendez, born in 1890, joined the Society of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. She wrote about her experiences under obedience. The book, “The Way of Divine Love” also known as, “The Message of the Sacred Heart to the World” tell her story and Christ’s Message. Pope Pius XII, then Cardinal Pacelli, wrote:

VERY REVEREND MOTHER,

I have no doubt whatever that the publication of these pages, filled as they are with the great love which His grace inspired in His very humble servant Maria Josefa Menéndez, will be agreeable to His Sacred Heart.

May they efficaciously contribute to develop in many souls a confidence ever more complete and loving in the infinite mercy of this Divine Heart towards poor sinners such as we all are.

These are the good wishes which, with my blessing, I send you and all the Society of the Sacred Heart.

E. CARD. PACELLI

The holy nun died at the age of 33 in the year 1923. The cause for her beatification was formally opened in 1948 granting her the title of Servant of God.

Unfortunately, the message has been overshadowed and forgotten due to the dubious and false messages of the Polish nun Sister Faustina and her, “Divine Mercy in My Soul – The Diary of Sister Faustina..

“The Way of Divine Love” was always a book that I picked up. Whenever I saw it, I would grab a copy and give it away. It’s a real gem in spiritual reading!

Below is the Appendix of Josefa Menendez’s account of her many visits to hell.

A FEW SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES OF JOSEFA’S ON HELL

Sister Josefa wrote with great reticence on this subject. She did it only to conform to Our Blessed Lord’s wishes, Our Lady having told her on the October 25th, 1922: “Everything that Jesus allows you to see and to suffer of the torments of Hell, is . . . that you may make it known to your Mothers. So forget yourself entirely, and think only of the glory of the Heart of Jesus and the salvation of souls.”

Some extracts of her notes have been quoted in a former Chapter (V) and a few more are added here:

She repeatedly dwelt on the greatest torment of Hell, namely, the soul’s inability to love.

One of these damned souls cried out: “This is my torture . . . that I want to love and cannot; there is nothing left me but hatred and despair. If one of us could so much as make a single act of love . . . this would no longer be Hell . . . But we cannot, we live on hatred and malevolence . . .” (March 23rd, 1922).

Another of these unfortunates said: “The greatest of our torments here is that we are not able to love Him whom we are bound to hate. Oh! how we hunger for love, we are consumed with desire of it, but it is too late. . . . You too will feel this same devouring hunger, but you will only be able to hate, to abhor, and to long for the loss of souls . . . nothing else do we care for now!” (March 26th, 1922).

The following passage was written by obedience, though it was extremely repugnant to Josefa’s humility:

“Every day now, when I am dragged down to Hell and the devil orders them to torture me, they answer: ‘We cannot, for her members have undergone torture for Him . . . ’ (then they blasphemously name Our Blessed Lord) . . . then he orders them to give me a draught of sulfur . . . and again the reply is: ‘She has voluntarily deprived herself of drink. . . . ’ ‘Try to find some part of her body to which she has given satisfaction and pleasure.’

“I have also noted that when they shackle me to take me down to Hell, they never can bind me where I have worn instruments of penance. I write all this simply out of obedience.” (April 1st, 1922).

She records, too, the accusations made against themselves by these unhappy souls: “Some yell because of the martyrdom of their hands. Perhaps they were thieves, for they say: ‘Where is our loot now? . . . Cursed hands. . . . Why did I want to possess what did not belong to me . . . and what in any case I could keep only for a few days . . . ?’

“Others curse their tongues, their eyes . . . whatever was the occasion of their sin. . . . ‘Now, O body, you are paying the price of the delights you granted yourself! . . . and you did it of your own free will . . . ’ “ (April 2nd, 1922).

“It seemed to me that the majority accused themselves of sins of impurity, of stealing, of unjust trading; and that most of the damned are in Hell for these sins.” (April 6th, 1922).

“I saw many worldly people fall into Hell, and no words can render their horrible and terrifying cries: ‘Damned forever. . . . I deceived myself; I am lost. . . . I am here forever. . . . There is no remedy possible . . . a curse on me. . . . ’

“Some accused people, others circumstances, and all execrated the occasions of their damnation.” (September 1922).

“Today, I saw a vast number of people fall into the fiery pit . . . they seemed to be worldlings and a demon cried vociferously: ‘The world is ripe for me. . . . I know that the best way to get hold of souls is to rouse their desire for enjoyment. . . . Put me first . . . me before the rest . . . no humility for me! but let me enjoy myself. . . . This sort of thing assures victory to me . . . and they tumble headlong into Hell.’ “ (October 4th, 1922).

“I heard a demon, from whom a soul had escaped, forced to confess his powerlessness. ‘Confound it all . . . how do so many manage to escape me? They were mine’ (and he rattled off their sins) . . . ‘I work hard enough, yet they slip through my fingers . . . Someone must be suffering and repairing for them.’ “ (January 15th, 1923).

“Tonight,” wrote Josefa, “I did not go down into Hell, but was transported to a place where all was obscure, but in the center was a red smoldering fire. They had laid me flat and so bound me that I could not make the slightest movement. Around me were seven or eight people; their black bodies were unclothed, and I could see them only by the reflections of the fire. They were seated and were talking together.

“One said: ‘We’ll have to be very careful not to be found out, for we might easily be discovered.’

“The devil answered: ‘Insinuate yourselves by inducing carelessness in them . . . but keep in the background, so that you are not found out . . . by degrees they will become callous, and you will be able to incline them to evil. Tempt these others to ambition, to self-interest, to acquiring wealth without working, whether it be lawful or not. Excite some to sensuality and love of pleasure. Let vice blind them . . . ’ (Here they used obscene words.)

“ ‘As to the remainder . . . get in through the heart . . . you know the inclinations of their hearts . . . make them love . . . love passionately . . . work thoroughly . . . take no rest . . . have no pity; the world must go to damnation . . . and these souls must not be allowed to escape me.’

“From time to time Satan’s satellites answered: ‘We are your slaves . . . we shall labor unceasingly, and in spite of the many who war against us, we shall work night and day. We know your power!’

“They all spoke together and he whom I took to be Satan used words full of horror. In the distance I could hear a clamor as of feasting, the clinking of glasses . . . and he cried: ‘Let them cram themselves with food! It will make it all the easier for us. . . . Let them get on with their banqueting. Love of pleasure is the door through which you will reach them. . . . ’

“He added such horrible things that they can neither be written nor said. Then, as if engulfed in a whirl of smoke, they vanished.” (February 3rd, 1923).

“The evil one was bewailing the escape of a soul: ‘Fill her soul with fear, drive her to despair. All will be lost if she puts her trust in the mercy of that . . . ’ (here they used blasphemous words of Our Lord). ‘I am lost; but no, drive her to despair; do not leave her for an instant; above all, make her despair.’

“Then Hell re-echoed with frenzied cries, and when finally the devil cast me out of the abyss he went on threatening me. Among other things he said: ‘Is it possible that such weaklings have more power than I, who am mighty. . . . I must conceal my presence, work in the dark; any corner will do from which to tempt them . . . close to an ear . . . in the leaves of a book . . . under a bed . . . some pay no attention to me, but I shall talk and talk . . . and by dint of suggestion, something will remain. . . . Yes, I must hide in unsuspected places’ “ (February 7th–8th, 1923).

Josefa, on her return from Hell, noted the following: “I saw several souls fall into Hell, and among them was a child of fifteen, cursing her parents for not having taught her to fear God nor that there was a Hell. Her life had been a short one, she said, but full of sin, for she had given in to all that her body and passions demanded in the way of satisfaction. Especially she had read bad books.” (March 22nd, 1923).

Again, she wrote:” . . . Souls were cursing the vocation they had received, but not followed . . . the vocation they had lost, because they were unwilling to live a hidden and mortified life . . .” (March 18th, 1922).

“On one occasion when I was in Hell I saw a great many priests, religious and nuns, cursing their vows, their Order, their Superiors and everything that could have given them the light and the grace they had lost. . . .

“I saw, too, some prelates. One accused himself of having used the goods belonging to the Church illicitly . . .” (September 28th, 1922).

“Priests were calling down maledictions on their tongues which had consecrated, on their fingers that had held Our Lord’s sacred Body, on the absolutions they had given while they were losing their own souls and on the occasion through which they had fallen into Hell.” (April 6th, 1922).

“One priest said: ‘I ate poison, for I used money that was not my own . . . the money given me for Masses which I did not offer.’

“Another said he belonged to a secret society which had betrayed the Church and religion, and he had been bribed to connive at terrible profanations and sacrileges.

“Yet another said that he was damned for assisting at profane plays, after which he ought not to have said Mass . . . and that he had spent about seven years thus.”

Josefa noted that the greater number of religious plunged into hell-fire were there for abominable sins against Chastity . . . and for sins against the vow of Poverty . . . for the unauthorized use of the goods of the Community . . . for passions against charity (jealousy, antipathies, hatred, etc.), for tepidity and relaxation; also for comforts they had allowed themselves and which had led to graver sins . . . for bad Confessions through human respect and want of sincerity and courage, etc.

Here, finally, is the full text of Josefa’s notes on “the Hell of consecrated souls” (Biography: Ch. VII–September 4th, 1922).

“The meditation of the day was on the particular judgment of religious souls. I could not free my mind of the thought of it, in spite of the oppression which I felt. Suddenly, I felt myself bound and overwhelmed by a crushing weight, so that in an instant I saw more clearly than ever before how stupendous is the sanctity of God and His detestation of sin.

“I saw in a flash my whole life since my first Confession to this day. All was vividly present to me: my sins, the graces I had received, the day I entered religion, my clothing as a novice, my first vows, my spiritual readings, and times of prayer, the advice given me, and all the helps of religious life. Impossible to describe the confusion and shame a soul feels at that moment, when it realizes: ‘All is lost, and I am damned forever.’ ”

As in her former descents into Hell, Josefa never accused herself of any specific sin that might have led to such a calamity. Our Lord meant her only to feel what the consequences would have been, if she had merited such a punishment. She wrote:

“Instantly I found myself in Hell, but not dragged there as before. The soul precipitates itself there, as if to hide from God in order to be free to hate and curse Him.

“My soul fell into abysmal depths, the bottom of which cannot be seen, for it is immense. . . . At once, I heard other souls jeering and rejoicing at seeing me share their torments. It was martyrdom enough to hear the terrible imprecations on all sides, but what can be compared to the thirst to curse that seizes on a soul, and the more one curses, the more one wants to. Never had I felt the like before. Formerly my soul had been oppressed with grief at hearing these horrible blasphemies, though unable to produce even one act of love. But today it was otherwise.

“I saw Hell as always before, the long dark corridors, the cavities, the flames. . . . I heard the same execrations and imprecations, for—and of this I have already written before—although no corporeal forms are visible, the torments are felt as if they were present, and souls recognize each other. Some called out, ‘Hullo! you here? And are you like us? We were free to take those vows or not . . . but now! . . . ’ and they cursed their vows.

“Then I was pushed into one of those fiery cavities and pressed, as it were, between burning planks, and sharp nails and red-hot irons seemed to be piercing my flesh.”

Here Josefa repeated the multiple tortures from which no single member of the body is excluded:

“I felt as if they were endeavoring to pull out my tongue, but could not. This torture reduced me to such agony that my very eyes seemed to be starting out of their sockets. I think this was because of the fire which burns, burns . . . not a fingernail escapes the terrifying torments, and all the time one cannot move even a finger to gain some relief, nor change posture, for the body seems flattened out and doubled in two.

“Sounds of confusion and blasphemy cease not for an instant. A sickening stench asphyxiates and corrupts everything, it is like the burning of putrefied flesh, mingled with tar and sulfur . . . a mixture to which nothing on earth can be compared.

“All this I felt as before, and although those tortures were terrific, they would be bearable if the soul were at peace. But it suffers indescribably. Until now, when I went down into Hell, I thought that I had been damned for abandoning religious life. But this time it was different. I bore a special mark, a sign that I was a religious, a soul who had known and loved God, and there were others who bore the same sign. I cannot say how I recognized it, perhaps because of the specially insulting manner in which the evil spirits and other damned souls treated them. There were many priests there, too. This particular suffering I am unable to explain. It was quite different from what I had experienced at other times, for if the souls of those who lived in the world suffer terribly, infinitely worse are the torments of religious. Unceasingly the three words Poverty, Chastity and Obedience are imprinted on the soul with poignant remorse.

“Poverty: You were free and you promised! Why, then, did you seek that comfort? Why hold on to that object which did not belong to you? Why did you give that pleasure to your body? Why allow yourself to dispose of the property of the Community? Did you not know that you no longer had the right to possess anything whatsoever? that you had freely renounced the use of those things. . . . Why did you murmur when anything was wanting to you or when you fancied yourself less well treated than others? Why?

“Chastity: You yourself vowed it freely and with full knowledge of its implications . . . you bound yourself . . . you willed it . . . and how have you observed it? That being so, why did you not remain where it would have been lawful for you to grant yourself pleasures and enjoyment?

“And the tortured soul responds: ‘Yes, I vowed it, I was free. . . . I could have not taken the vow, but I took it and I was free. . . . ’ What words can express the martyrdom of such remorse?” wrote Josefa, “and all the time the jibes and insults of other damned souls continue.

“Obedience: Did you not fully engage yourself to obey your Rule and your Superiors? Why, then, did you pass judgment on the orders that were given you? Why did you disobey the Rule? Why did you dispense yourself from common life? Remember how sweet was the Rule . . . and you would not keep it . . . and now,” vociferate satanic voices, “you will have to obey us not for a day, or a year, or a century, but forever and ever, for all eternity. . . . It is your own doing . . . you were free.

“The soul constantly recalls how she had chosen her God for her Spouse, and that once she loved Him above all things . . . that for Him she had renounced the most legitimate pleasures and all she held dearest on earth, that in the beginning of her religious life she had felt all the purity, sweetness and strength of this divine love, and that for an inordinate passion . . . now she must eternally hate the God who had chosen her to love Him.

“This forced hatred is a thirst that consumes her . . . no past joys can afford her the slightest relief.

“One of her greatest torments is shame,” added Josefa. “It seems to her that all the damned surrounding her continually taunt her by saying: ‘That we should be lost who never had the helps that you enjoyed is not surprising . . . but you . . . what did you lack? You who lived in the palace of the King . . . who feasted at the board of the elect.’

“All I have written,” she concluded, “is but a shadow of what the soul suffers, for no words can express such dire torments.” (September 4th, 1922).

THE TEACHINGS OF PURGATORY

Josefa never went down into Purgatory, but she saw and spoke with a number of souls who came to solicit her prayers, and some told her that, thanks to her sufferings, they had escaped Hell.

These souls, as a rule, humbly accused themselves of the faults for which they were in Purgatory (see Ch. V. of Biography). A few facts are here added.

“ . . . I had a vocation, but lost it by reading bad books; I also had discarded my scapular, out of contempt” (July 27th, 1921).

“ . . . I was given up to a great deal of vanity and on the point of marrying. Our Lord made use of very severe measures to prevent my falling into Hell.” (April 10th, 1921).

“My religious life was wanting in fervor. . . .”

“I had a long religious life, but I spent my last years rather in taking care of my health than in loving Our Lord. Thanks to the merits of a sacrifice you made, I was able to make a fervent death, and I owe it to you that I escaped the long years in Purgatory I had deserved. The important thing is not so much entrance into religion . . . as entrance into eternity.” (April 7th, 1922).

“ . . . I have been a year and three months in Purgatory, and were it not for your little acts I should have remained there long years. A woman of the world has less responsibility than a religious, for how great are the graces the latter receives, and what liabilities she incurs if she does not profit by them. . . . How little nuns suspect the way their faults are expiated here . . . a tongue horribly tortured expiates faults against silence . . . a dried-up throat, those against charity . . . and the constraints of this prison, the repugnance in obeying! In my Order, pleasures were few and comforts still fewer, but one can always manage to secure some . . . and the smallest immortifications have to be expiated here. To restrain one’s eyes, to refuse oneself the gratification of a little curiosity may at times cost a big effort . . . and here . . . the eyes are tormented by the impossibility of seeing God.” (April 10th, 1922).

“Another nun accused herself of failings against charity, and of having murmured at the election of one of her Superiors.” (April 12th, 1922).

“ . . . I have been in Purgatory till now . . . because during my religious life I talked a great deal and with little prudence. I often communicated my impressions and complaints, and these indiscretions were the cause of faults against charity which my Sisters then committed.”

“Let all learn from this,” commented Our Lady, who was present at the apparition, “for many souls fall into this danger.”

Our Lord stressed this grave warning by these words: “That soul is in Purgatory because of her faults against silence, for this kind of fault leads to many others: first, the Rule is broken; secondly, there often occur in such failings sins against charity or religious spirit, personal satisfaction, outpourings of heart that are ill-placed among religious, and all this, without a feeling of responsibility not only for oneself but for one or many others who are led into the same faults. That is why this soul is in Purgatory, and burning with desire to see My face.” (February 22nd, 1923).

“I am in Purgatory because I did not care enough about the souls confided to me, and because I did not sufficiently realize their value and the devotedness called for by so precious a charge.” (August 1922).

. . . I was in Purgatory a little under an hour and a half to expiate a certain want of confidence in God. True, I always loved Him very much, but not without fear. It is true also that the judgments of religious are severe and rigorous, for we are judged not by our Spouse, but by our God. Nevertheless, during life our confidence in His mercy ought to be boundless, and we should trust His goodness. How many graces are lost by religious who have not enough trust in God.” (September 1922).

“ . . . I am in Purgatory because I did not treat the souls that Jesus entrusted to me with the care they deserved. . . . I allowed myself to be influenced by human motives and natural likes, not seeing in them God, as I should have, and as all Superiors must. For if it is true that all religious should see in their Superior the Person of God Our Lord, the Superior also ought to see Him in her daughters. . . .”

“Thanks be to you who have helped to free me from Purgatory. . . . O! if nuns realized how far they can be led by unruly feelings . . . how vigorously they would strive to conquer themselves and master their nature and passions.” (April 1923).

“My Purgatory will be a long one, for I did not accept God’s Will for me, nor make the sacrifice of my life generously enough during my illness. Illness is a great grace of purification, it is true, but unless one is careful, it may cause one to stray away from religious spirit . . . to forget that one has made vows of Poverty, Chastity and Obedience, and that one is consecrated to God as a victim. Our Lord is all love, certainly, but also all justice.” (November 1923).

The Council of Chalcedon and Baptism of Desire and Blood

Feeneyites try to use Pope St. Leo the Great’s letter against the advocates of baptism of desire. I answered this objection in 2009 in my book Baptism of Desire or Blood. 

The letter reads:

“Let him heed what the blessed apostle Peter preaches, that sanctification by the Spirit is effected by the sprinkling of Christ’s blood (1 Pet. 1:2); and let him not skip over the same apostle’s words, knowing that you have been redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your fathers, not with corruptible gold and silver but by the precious blood of Jesus Christ, as of a lamb without stain or spot (1 Pet. 1:18). Nor should he withstand the testimony of blessed John the apostle: and the blood of Jesus, the Son of God, purifies us from every sin (1 Jn. 1:7); and again, This is the victory which conquers the world, our faith. Who is there who conquers the world save one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? It is He, Jesus Christ, who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony – Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. (1 Jn. 5:4-8) In other words, the Spirit of sanctification and the Blood of redemption and the water of Baptism, these three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others. The reason is that it is by this faith that the Catholic Church lives and grows, by believing that neither the humanity is without true divinity nor the divinity without the true humanity.” (Pope St. Leo the Great, dogmatic letter to Flavian, Council of Chalcedon, 451)

In the letter, Pope St. Leo was supporting St. Flavian against the heresiarch Eutyches who held to a version of the Monophysite heresy.

The great Pope was saying those three things give testimony to the true Faith and it is true that you can’t separate any of them for it is through these “that the Catholic Church lives and grows.” Baptism of desire and blood does not say otherwise. The three are inseparable.

We don’t isolate one truth as if it’s the only truth needed. Every dogma is inseparable with the others on what’s necessary to believe to be Catholic.

BOD or BOB doesn’t have anything to do with the Church Militant living and growing as it journeys through time. It has nothing to do with monophysite heresy and the implication thereof. Rather, BOD or BOB is the explanation for the extraordinary situations on how one might enter the Church Suffering (purgatory) or Church Triumphant (Heaven) at death.

How is it that so many popes, saints, and doctors of the Church taught Baptism of Desire? Was it because they were unaware of this teaching by Pope St. Leo and thought the three were separable, which means they all were heretics? What about Rome when it promulgated the Roman Catechism or when it issued the 1917 Code of Law, which both teach Baptism of Desire?

The implication that the 1917 Code of Law and the Roman Catechism are heretical with its support of Baptism of Desire making the Catholic Church heretical. Feeneyites use the same R&R argument that they’re not infallible, therefore, they can be heretical.

I’ve said it dozen times over the past 15 years. Infallibility has nothing to do with whether the Church can promulgate heresy. Protestant churches are not infallible and don’t claim to be infallible. Does that mean they aren’t really heretical religions since they didn’t promulgate their heresy as if they had infallibility? If the Catholic Church can promulgate heresy by law, universal catechism, papal bull, apostolic exhortation, etc., it would be the height of hypocrisy for the same church to condemn Protestantism for promulgating heresy or any other errors against the faith. 

Baptism of desire and blood are the applications on how Our Lord will deal with certain situations in extraordinary conditions.

Some Feeneyites are just R&R sedevacantists, who pick and choose what teachings and laws of the Church they will accept. Neither are Catholic and both are ultimately in the same boat who will end up in hell if they don’t convert and repent. 

What Did Pope Paul IV Mean about the Roman Pontiff?

Pope Paul IV declared in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio:

“1. In assessing Our duty and the situation now prevailing, We have been weighed upon by the thought that a matter of this kind [i.e. error in respect of the Faith] is so grave and so dangerous that the Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God and our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the fulness of power over peoples and kingdoms, who may judge all and be judged by none in this world, may nonetheless be contradicted if he be found to have deviated from the Faith.”

There are folks of the Vatican 2 religion (I won’t mention their names) who argue that because Paul IV did not say “fake pope” or “nonpope” or “antipope”, he must be referring to a true pope. Therefore, they conclude that pope can be heretical and remain pope, the Church is still one in faith with a heretical pope, and that disobedience may be given to a true pope when he deviates.

First of all, if Pope Paul IV had replaced the term Roman Pontiff with “Fake Roman Pontiff” “imposter Roman Pontiff” or “fake pope” “nonpope” “antipope” the sentence becomes nonsense.  “If an impostor Roman Pontiff, who is the representative upon earth of God….” “An impostor pope…may be contradicted….” No one talks like that.

Secondly, Pope Paul IV goes to great lengths in the document to prevent a heretic from being elected pope, so it makes little sense that he would think a pope could be a heretic anyway. Why would it matter if God protects the Church regardless whether a heretical pope is elected and we can contradict him anyway? Notice how I used conventional language in the question. Cardinals are elected popes. Popes aren’t elected popes.

There’s only two possible ways at looking at this phrase in Cum ex that makes sense.

Pope Paul IV perhaps did mean a true Roman Pontiff can deviate from the faith, which was the common opinion. However, he did not mean that such a pope would remain pope. After all, he just stated that the pope can be judged by no one, but may nonetheless be contradicted. This means he can be judged, because to contradict a pope due to his falling into error requires a judgment that he’s a false teacher, which a true pope is not. We know that Pope Paul IV did not mean that a pope could be a false teacher because a few sentences later, he writes,

“We have been concerned lest false prophets or others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place.”

Popes don’t drag men into perdition, destruction, and damnation as teaching popes. The First Vatican Council infallibly declared it so.

Less than 30 years later after Pope Paul IV promulgated his Apostolic Constitution, St. Robert Bellarmine taught that a pope can’t be a heretic, which would contradict Pope Paul IV if he meant what the Vatican 2 folks think he meant.

Pope Innocent III made a similar teaching in Sermo 4:

“The pope should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. Still the less can the Roman Pontiff glory, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy, because he who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: ‘If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under foot by men.’” 

Notice that Pope Innocent qualified his statement by saying “or rather, can be shown to be already judged.”

A pope who is already judged is not pope, that’s why he can be judged. St. Robert Bellarmine said just that in De Romano Pontifice:

“Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church.”

The only other possible way of understanding Pope Paul IV is that he’s simply using conventional language. When he says the Roman Pontiff is ever found deviating, he’s talking about someone who is recognized as pope such as one of the 3 popes during the Great Western Schism (I used that conventional language again).

For instance, John XXIII (Baldassare Cossa) was the Pisa pope and Benedict XIII was the Avignon pope. They both couldn’t be true popes at the same time and they were not actually the true popes. However, they are referred to as Pope John and Pope Benedict in their day by everyone. 

In fact, Pope Martin V ratified statements of the Council of Constance using conventional language to refer to Antipope John XXIII as “former Pope” and Antipope Benedict XIII as Pope. [1]

The Catholic Encyclopedia refers to antipopes as popes using conventional language many times. [2]

Pope Paul IV was not saying a true pope can be a heretic that can be contradicted or else he would be advocating formal schism and a church divided in Faith. We can’t contradict a true pope when he teaches as the pope on faith and morals, which is the guarantee that we are one in Faith.

The Church would not be one in faith if the pope rejected the faith in doctrine or if he himself was schismatic.

If Pope Paul IV is interpreted as the Vatican 2 folks would have it, we would have doctors and saints contradicting papal teaching and law, a divided church in Faith, formal schism by anyone and everyone as legitimate orthodox practice, and a papal law that contradicts itself and undermines its own mission. In other words, you would have the Vatican 2 novus ordo religion and that’s why they interpret Pope Paul IV as they do. It justifies their satanic religion.

 

Footnotes

[1] The Council of Constance that was ratified by Pope Martin V:

Headline: Uniting of the followers of pope Gregory XII and of the former pope John XXIII, now that both men have abdicated.

“In order that the two obediences—namely the one claiming that the lord John XXIII was formerly pope and the other claiming that the lord Gregory XII is pope—may be united together under Christ as head,

“That letters are to be despatched regarding the graces granted by the former pope John, except expectative and exceptional graces; ambassadors to Italy are appointed.”

“That the letters regarding provisions to patriarchal, metropolitan and other churches, which were granted by the former pope John before his suspension, shall be despatched.”

Headline: Definitive sentence whereby Peter de Luna, pope Benedict XIII, is divested of the papacy and deprived of the faith.

[2] “Owing to the obstinacy of the contestants, the Council of Pisa had really left the Church with three popes instead of one.” CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Jean-Allarmet de Brogny (newadvent.org)

“In its attempt to restore to the Church her immemorial unity of headship the Council of Pisa in 1409 had only added to the confusion and scandal that afflicted all Christendom since 1378 (see WESTERN SCHISM). There were now three popes, the two deposed by the council (Gregory XII and Benedict XIII) and its own creation, Alexander V; the latter soon died (3 May, 1410) and was succeeded by Cardinal Baldassare Cossa as John XXIII.” CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Council of Constance (newadvent.org)

“He played an important part in the Council of Pisa (1409), and, when the two popes, Gregory XII of Rome and Benedict XIII of Avignon, were deposed, he conducted the election of Pietro Philarghi, who was elevate to the papacy and crowned as Alexander V.” CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Antipope John XXIII (newadvent.org)

“All this time the confusion in the affairs of the Church had continued to grow worse, and it was now proposed to put an end to the schism by means of a council. The cardinals of the two rival popes called a council at Pisa which deposed Popes Gregory XII and Benedict XIII and elected Alexander V, but Gregory and Benedict could still count on some supporters, and the world thus saw three popes. The greater part of Germany held to the new pope, Alexander V, but the party of the Count Palatine and of the Bishop of Trier held to Gregory.” CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Germany (newadvent.org)

The Catholic Church According to Holy Scripture

Many so-called Catholics think the Catholic Church promulgates errors, either through canon law, worship, or general disciplines. This is a far cry from the Catholic teaching found in the Holy Bible. It obviously goes against the Dogma that the Church is holy.

According to the Holy Scriptures, to profess an erroneous Church of Christ is another gospel not first handed down by Christ and the Apostles and is totally anti-Catholic (antichrist).

The Holy Bible is very clear that the Church does not promulgate error and heresy as doctrines to be believed and practiced.

“These things I write to thee, hoping that I shall come to thee shortly. But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” (I Timothy 3:14-15)

The Church is the House of God. A pillar and ground is something that holds something else up. In this case, it is the Church which holds up the Truth. If something is not true, then it is a lie. The Church cannot lie. Everything the Church teaches must be true or this passage is meaningless or false. Yet, many think the Church does lie at times. All Protestants reject this verse in the plain meaning of the words. They all have to conjure up some ridiculous understanding on what constitutes the Church and how it holds up the truth, but also error.

“Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it: That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish.” (Ephesians 5:25-27)

The Church is the model that Our Lord is using. Therefore, it must be perfect in how it’s being referred. We see then, that the Church is ever obedient to Christ. It will not and can not fall away from Him. It will always be faithful to Him perfectly forever. If not, then these verses make no sense.

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.” (Galatians 1:8-9)

St. Paul implies that the Church is without error. Any heresy would ultimately constitute another gospel.

“I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. (II Timothy 4:1-4)

“And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.” (Matthew 18:17)

The Church has real authority because Christ tells us that we must listen and obey the Church. If the Church didn’t have sound doctrine, then how could we be commanded to hear it as Christ tells us in Matthew 18? These verses coupled together clearly imply that the Church must have sound doctrine only. However, there will be day when people won’t hear the Church. St. Paul tells us of a great revolt that will happen at the end of time in II Thessalonians 2:3.

Which Church and what authority in the Church must we hear in order that we obey and follow?

Jesus gives his Authority to His Apostles and the Church of the Apostles must be that Church. First in Matthew 16, we see Jesus give Peter the keys to the kingdom and in the very next verse in Matthew 18. He grants all the Apostles the power of binding and loosening.

“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matthew 16:18-19)

“Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Matthew 18:18)

Notice Christ stating “my church” which means that it is His. Would He create an organization that taught error and led people astray?

Jesus sends the Apostles out with His Authority.

“He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” (John 20:21-22)

The Apostles in turn sent others with the same authority. Both St. Clement (Philippians 4:3) and St. Linus (II Timothy 4:21) were sent out and later became Popes in succession of St. Peter. St. Peter sent out St. Ignatius of Antioch. St. John sent out St. Polycarp. St. Paul is also an authority and he charges others such as Timothy and Epaphroditus.

“19 And I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy unto you shortly, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know the things concerning you. 23 Him therefore I hope to send unto you immediately, so soon as I shall see how it will go with me.” (Philippians 2:19, 23)

“But I have thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and fellow labourer, and fellow soldier, but your apostle, and he that hath ministered to my wants.” (Philippians 2:25)

It is understood that the successors of the Apostles are ultimately the authorities of the Church.

“One of them a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slothful bellies. This testimony is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; Not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men, who turn themselves away from the truth.” (Titus 1:12-14)

“These things speak, and exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.” (Titus 2:15)

The Church has all authority to speak, exhort, and rebuke.

“We are of God. He that knoweth God, heareth us. He that is not of God, heareth us not. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.” (I John 4:6)

St. John is letting us know the Church does not carry with it the spirit of error. Again, this verse with Matthew 18 mean the Church is without error.

St. Paul also tells us wolves will enter the Church.

“Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock.” (Acts 20:28-29)

St. Paul was echoing the words of Our Lord: 

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

These wolves in sheep’s clothing appear to be Catholic bishops, etc. They are not part of the Church but only appear to be. We are commanded to judge and reject them for what they are, wolves and not shepherds.

“Every one that is of the truth, heareth my voice.” (John 18:37)

“But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Father also seeketh such to adore him. God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:23-24)

The worship of the Church is of the spirit and truth. There can be no error in the worship or else it would not be in spirit and truth. The Council of Trent, Pope Gregory XVI, Pope Leo XIII, and Pius XII taught that Catholic worship is “absolute perfection”, “spotless”, and “untainted”; “the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.”

“[7] But I tell you the truth: it is expedient to you that I go: for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. [13] But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you. (John 16:7, 13)

“[17] Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. [19] And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.” (John 17:17,19)

These verses tell us that the Church is of the truth and absent of error. The Holy Spirit teaches the Church all truth, not mostly truth with some error. A church that has error is not of the Holy Spirit and is not the true Church. The Holy Spirit is not given to men apart from the Church or else there would be a contradiction between men and the Church. How could individuals with Holy Spirit go against the Church that must be heard? The Holy Spirit can’t be at odds with Himself.

The Church guards all truth and keeps all false teachings out. Imagine if the Church of Christ is guilty of the very things being warned against. It’s preposterous!

“Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour. Whom resist ye, strong in faith: knowing that the same affliction befalls your brethren who are in the world.” (I Peter 5:8-9)

Is the Church ever on the side of the devil? It would make Christ out to be the devil.

“And you, whereas you were some time alienated and enemies in mind in evil works: Yet now he hath reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unspotted, and blameless before him: If so ye continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and immoveable from the hope of the gospel which you have heard, which is preached in all the creation that is under heaven, whereof I Paul am made a minister. (Colossians 1:21-23)

If the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, can individuals continue in faith, grounded and settled, and immoveable from the hope of the gospel apart from the Church? The very idea is nonsense!

“As I desired thee to remain at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some not to teach otherwise, Not to give heed to fables and endless genealogies: which furnish questions rather than the edification of God, which is in faith. Now the end of the commandment is charity, from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and an unfeigned faith. From which things some going astray, are turned aside unto vain babbling: Desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither the things they say, nor whereof they affirm. But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully: Knowing this, that the law is not made for the just man, but for the unjust and disobedient, for the ungodly, and for sinners, for the wicked and defiled, for murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For fornicators, for them who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine, Which is according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, which hath been committed to my trust.” (I Timothy 1:3-11)

The Church can never work against its mission from Christ. Yet, this is the very accusation made by so many so-called Catholics. It’s blasphemy!

“Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me in faith, and in the love which is in Christ Jesus. Keep the good thing committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost, who dwelleth in us.” (II Tim 1:3-14)

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice.” (Romans 1:18)

“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.” (Romans 1:25)

Certainly not the Church! We couldn’t apply the following biblical verses if the Church errors. We make up the Church and are in union with the authorities.

“Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing. If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, you shall ask whatever you will, and it shall be done unto you. In this is my Father glorified; that you bring forth very much fruit, and become my disciples. As the Father hath loved me, I also have loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; as I also have kept my Father’s commandments, and do abide in his love. (John 15:4-10)

“If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.” (I Corinthians 16:21-23)

“But we renounce the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor adulterating the word of God; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience, in the sight of God.” (II Corinthians 4:2)

“7 Now we pray God, that you may do no evil, not that we may appear approved, but that you may do that which is good, and that we may be as reprobates. For we can do nothing against the truth; but for the truth.” (II Corinthians 13:7-8)

If the Church could teach evil, we could not be obliged to hear and obey it. Therefore, it can’t teach evil ever!

“O senseless Galatians, who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been set forth, crucified among you?” (Galatians 3:1)

“Guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.” (II Timothy 1:14)

The Holy Spirit doesn’t operate against Itself!

“In this we know that we are of the truth: and in his sight shall persuade our hearts.” (I John 3:19)

“We are of God. He that knoweth God, heareth us. He that is not of God, heareth us not. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.” (I John 4:6)

“For the sake of the truth which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever.” (II John 1:2)

“I have no greater grace than this, to hear that my children walk in truth.” (III John 1:4)

“We therefore ought to receive such, that we may be fellow helpers of the truth.” (III John 1:8)

We must hear the Church in order that we walk in truth!

“But this I confess to thee, that according to the way, which they call a heresy, so do I serve the Father and my God, believing all things which are written in the law and the prophets.” (Acts 24:14)

The Church is the way! It doesn’t lead astray!

Three New Books in Print

We may not always have the internet or our free speech may be completely eradicated from the internet. Therefore, I decided to put most of my articles into three separate books. Also, it’s easier to find the related materials in a book rather than searching the website to find what you need on each topic.

They are large books 8.5″ x 11″ in size with large print. They are expensive but when Amazon and others get it, the net profit is $5 a book. Every $5 that’s made from each book will be used to buy more books and given away to those less fortunate. That’s what I’ve been doing for the past 15 years with the other books. I’ve given away far more than what’s been made. The bottom line is to spread the word and save souls.

Click here for Essays on Sedevacantism

This book is a defense of sedevacantism. I cover all the main arguments including the most difficult ones, such as the hierarchy, visibility, and universal acceptance. 422 pages at $46.06

Click here for Essays Against the Counterfeit Catholic Church

This book exposes the main errors of Vatican 2 and the Vatican 2 popes. 288 pages at $36.66

Click here for Essays of a 21st Century Catholic Crusader

This book covers basic Catholic life and beliefs, including the end times. It also deals with the problems with Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Feeneyism, and Feminism. 240 pages at $33.28

 

 

 

The ‘Blessing’ of Sodomite Couples

Rev. Richard Watson of St. Paul’s Catholic Church in Lexington, Ky under pro-LGBTQ bishop John Stowe “blessed” the 22 year civilly married couple. Picture was sent to me.

The Vatican 2 religion has vindicated us again with its new blessing of sodomite couples.

Astonishingly, Vatican 2 apologists think the new document on the blessing of sodomite couples is an orthodox and beautiful document. Even their explanations are as ridiculous as the document itself. It reminds me of their defense of their catechism’s teaching on the death penalty. [1]

We can easily turn to Holy Scripture and Catholic teaching to demonstrate that Rome’s new apostate discipline is an abomination and another psyop to condition the thinking of its sheeple.

Sodomy is one of the four abominations listed in Scripture as a crime that cries to heaven for vengeance. At one time, the Church handed sodomites to the state to be burned. [2]

Just like the other dogmas and morals, the Vatican 2 religion does a complete 180 degree turn and welcomes them to be blessed. Everyday Rome becomes more and more inline with Satan’s worldly dominion.

However, God tells us how to behave in His Household:

“If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. For he that saith unto him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works (II John 10-11).”

What Rev. Cornelius À Lapide writes in his Great Biblical Commentary on these verses is very telling:

“Ver. 10.—lf any one come to you, and bring not this doctrine, &c. S. John in this place not only advises, as some think, but also commands Electa and all the rest of the faithful not to receive to hospitality, nor say Hail, to any one who brings another doctrine, i.e. one which is contrary to the orthodox faith of Christ. For he who saith hail to such is partaker of their evil deeds. That is, he seems to favour and applaud the heretical teacher.

Observe, not only by human and canon laws, as since the time of S. John they have been enacted by Pontiffs and Councils, heretics are to be avoided in three cases. The first is, when there is danger lest you or yours should be perverted by them, which is a thing which ordinarily happens. For, as S. Paul saith, “Their word doth creep as doth a cancer.” (2 Tim. ii. 17.)

2d. When, by receiving, you would seem to favour his heresy, and tacitly profess or encourage it. As, for example, if you were to receive to your house and table a recognised Calvinistic minister, who came for the purpose of propagating his heresy. In the same way it would be wrong to be present at his preaching, or eucharists, or to communicate with him in sacris.

3d. When you give scandal to others, so that they, thinking you to be a host and patron of heretics, should be by your example emboldened to do the same.

These cases being excepted, intercourse with heretics is not forbidden by the Divine and natural law, especially if necessity, or mercy, or grave benefit counsels it.

What S, John here teaches by way of precept he enforced by his example. For having entered into a bath, as soon as he saw Cerinthus there, he sprang out, crying, “Let us flee quickly lest the bath in which is Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, should fall upon us!”

S. John’s disciple, S. Polycarp, followed his master, saying in his Epistle to the Philippians, in allusion to these words of S. John, “Abstain,” he says, “from scandals, and from false brethren, who bear the name of the Lord in vain, who cause foolish men to go astray. For every one who confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, he is antichrist: and he who confesses not the mystery of the Cross is a devil.” Thus wrote holy Polycarp, and he acted accordingly. For meeting the heretic Marcion, and being asked by him if he knew him, he answered, “I know thee to be the devil’s first-born.”

Thus S. Hermenegild was slain by command of his father, Levvigild, king of the Goths, because he would not receive the Eucharist at Easter from an Arian bishop. This is related by S. Gregory (3 Dial. 31), who calls him a martyr of the Church.

Eusebius of Vercelli, being taken by the Arians, preferred to die of hunger rather than take food from those heretics.

S. Paphnutius took Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem by the hand when he was through simplicity associating with heretics, and led him away from them, saying, “I cannot suffer so venerable a bishop to sit in the seat of pestilence, and to communicate with unclean heretics even by a word.”

When S. Martin communicated with the Bishops of the Ithacian sect, in the hope of saving them, he was warned by an angel not to do so. And although he repeated, he experienced a diminution of grace, so that he did not work so many miracles as he had previously wrought. (Sulp. Sever. lib. 3 Dial)

Still more are heretical books to be avoided. For these pestilent productions conceal their heresy like a plague under an appearance of elegance and wisdom, and instil it into the minds of the readers. In this present age the heresy of Luther and Calvin has been dispersed through so many kingdoms by means of their books. If you wish to take away their heresy, take away their books and their ministers. In truth you will have taken it away as soon as you have substituted pious and learned priests and preachers.

Neither say godspeed (ave) to him. The Syriac has, ye shall not say either hail to him or farewell. The ancient Romans said ave, or salve at coming in, vale at going out. Ave then here means the same as the Greek χαὶζειν, rejoice.

For he who saith to him Ave (Syriac rejoice) is a partaker in his evil deeds. For he who salutes a heretical teacher seems to approve his heresy. Some Latin copies add here, Lo, I have told you beforehand, that ye may not be confounded in the day of the Lord.”

Sodomites don’t come to get blessed in order to help them get out of their sin of sodomy. They come to get blessed in order to be recognized as legitimate believing and equal professing members of the Church.  The priests of Vatican 2 will oblige because they’re in union with the couples they “bless.” It is the epitome of what is condemned in part 2d of À Lapide’s commentary on St. John’s teaching.

The Vatican is now being inundated with sodomite couples to be blessed. See  Fiducia supplicans: Between a rock and a hard place – Catholic World Report

The scandal of Vatican 2’s new “blessing” is par for the course for the counterfeit religion. Even African and French bishops of the ape religion see how flawed the new “blessing” is. Too bad they don’t see how this can’t be the Catholic Church.

I put bless and blessing in quotations because they aren’t really blessings at all, but rather curses. [3]

The Catholic Encyclopedia explains blessings: “Blessings may be divided into two classes, viz: invocative and constitutive. The former are those in which the Divine benignity is invoked on persons or things, to bring down upon them some temporal or spiritual good without changing their former condition. Of this kind are the blessings given to children, and to articles of food. The latter class are so called because they permanently depute persons or things to Divine service by imparting to them some sacred character, by which they assume a new and distinct spiritual relationship.” 

My wife’s favorite saint, St. Benedict gave us a Rule about not blessing grave sinners.

“CHAPTER XXV: CONCERNING GRAVER FAULTS

But that brother who is found guilty of a grave fault, let him be excluded from the table and likewise from the oratory. Let not any of the brethren consort with him nor talk to him. When at the work assigned him let him be alone, continuing in penitence and sorrow, having in mind that terrible denunciation of the Apostle who says: “A man of such a kind as is this handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.” And by himself let him partake of his food, in quantity and at the hour that the abbot may see to be suitable for him: and neither let him be blessed by anyone who happens to be passing him, nor yet the food that is given to him.”

Lastly, the blessing of sodomite couples undercuts other biblical principles. For instance, the Old Testament tells us in Leviticus 18 that certain persons shall perish from the midst of God’s people.

St. Paul tells the Church of Corinth and the whole Church, “I wrote to you in an epistle, not to keep company with fornicators. I mean not with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or the extortioners, or the servers of idols; otherwise you must needs go out of this world. But now I have written to you, not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, not so much as to eat. For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not you judge them that are within? For them that are without, God will judge. Put away the evil one from among yourselves (I Cor. 5:11-13.”

St. Paul declared, “From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves (I Thess. 5:22).”

The principle of blessing those couples who reject God’s law is clearly seen to be condemned by those with eyes of faith. Even those without the Catholic faith see that’s it’s wrong, because the sin of sodomy goes against the Natural Law written on the hearts of all men. Therefore, reason alone is enough to know why Rome’s new “blessing” of sodomite couples is ridiculous.

 

Footnotes:

[1] Jimmy Akin, Patrick Madrid, and Christopher Ferrara in the same Boat of Stupid

[2] The Death Penalty for Sodomites

[3] Malachi 2:1-2: “And now, O ye priests, this commandment is to you. If you will not hear, and if you will not lay it to heart, to give glory to my name, saith the Lord of hosts: I will send poverty upon you, and will curse your blessings, yea I will curse them, because you have not laid it to heart.” 

Of course, the Vatican 2 priests aren’t valid priests, but the principle applies regardless.

True or False Church?

After years of defending the Avignon papacy, St. Vincent Ferrer withdrew his allegiance to the Avignon Pope Benedict XIII. He declared it on the Feast of the Epiphany, 1416 A.D., at the Castle of Majorca.

Today is the Feast of the Epiphany and Fr. Gabriel Lavery recently posted on Twitter something St. Vincent Ferrer wrote in 1380 in support of the Avignon Pope Clement VII, who was elected in 1378.

“Those who adhere to one as pope, who is not pope, offering him papal reverence, transgress the first commandment of the first tablet, in which is enjoined upon man: ‘Thou shalt not worship a strange god, nor an idol, nor a statue, nor a ny likeness of the sky.’ For what is a false pope, but a certain strange god in this world, and an idol, or statue, or a fictitious likeness of Jesus Christ? It is manifest, however, that it is very dangerous for any Christian soul to transgress the aforesaid two divine precepts, even ignorantly.” (Tractatus de Moderno Ecclesiae Schismate, Pars I, Cap. III.)

Was St. Vincent Ferrer guilty of his own teaching since he adhered and defended the Avignon antipopes for at least 36 years, or were the Avignon popes true popes after all? If he was right, then St. Catherine of Siena was wrong and guilty for adhering to the other “pope.”

Saints, even the great miracle working Doctor of Theology, can be seriously wrong on certain points. St. Vincent held that Judas was saved, Antichrist was alive in a man during his time, and the end of the world was going to happen within his generation.

The above quote from St. Vincent is not going to convince many R&R folks. They don’t even listen to their own popes.

The issue is not about a false pope as much it is about a false religion. The true Catholic Church has had many antipopes. Sure, when the second John XXIII was acting as pope from 1958 to 1963, talking about whether he was true pope or not was more fitting.

However, when Fr. Saenz Y Arriaga published his 1971 book about Paul VI, he didn’t call it “Is Paul VI a True Pope?” or “How Montini is a Fake Pope.” He called it, “The New Montinian Church.”

He correctly identified the foundational problem. Fr. Saenz Y Arriaga pointed to the changes and how it’s a new religion altogether. He later added the chapters on whether Paul VI was pope along with his heresies. A true pope is not the head of a false religion.

We need to start making the point that the religion of Bergoglio aka “Pope” Francis is not the Catholic Church.

When John Salza and Robert Siscoe published their book “True or False Pope,” they failed to deal with the problems with the religion their popes have created. When I argued that the Vatican 2 popes have defected from the faith, which Can. 188.4 says is the cause for the tacit resignation of office, Salza and Siscoe argued that it’s talking about leaving the Church for another religion, not merely for heresy.

However, I’d been arguing that the Vatican 2 religion is another religion, which the Vatican 2 popes have defected to by creating and promulgating it. They most certainly meet the qualification of Can. 188.4 presuming they ever had some office to resign from. The issue is the religion they created by reversing key doctrines and practices. 

The Catholic Church doesn’t reverse doctrines and morals. 

Infallibility is irrelevant to the changes. No false religion is infallible, yet all false religions are guilty of teaching heresy and other falsehoods. If the Catholic Church is heretical in non-infallible teachings, then it would be the biggest hypocritical religion for condemning other religions for teaching heresy in their non-infallible teachings.

The Catholic Church does not teach heresy in any capacity but maintains the deposit of faith and expounds the faith in definitions, laws, and practices. Never can the Church violate Divine law in faith and practice.

John XXIII and Vatican 2 reversed the historic Catholic teaching that only the Catholic religion has a God-given civil right to be practiced publicly and that false religion and other evils may be tolerated by the state only. For example, Pope Clement V and the Council of Vienne forbade Muslims from publicly invoking the name of Mahomet each day. According to John XXIII and Vatican 2, Muslims have a God-given right to do so. If they are right, the Catholic Church would have been guilty of violating man’s God-given rights by law and practice in the past for condemning the public practice of false religion in Catholic nations. In fact, Vatican 2 abolished the Catholic State precisely on this point. The implication is that it makes the Church out to be an evil force during certain periods in history.

Vatican 2 did a complete 180 turn on the teaching that only Catholics are members of Christ’s Body in the external forum. Now it proclaims that all baptized persons are members having a right to be called Christian. [2] The implication is that the Church was wrong for 1900 plus years until Vatican 2. 

Vatican 2 was a revolution against the historic Catholic understanding of the world, other religions, and itself.

Since the destructive council was ratified in 1965, the Vatican 2 religion continued on in its path of destruction and changed the form and/or matter of the sacraments. It radically changed the liturgy, calendar, and architecture. It reversed the Catholic teaching that it’s intrinsically evil for women to serve the sanctuary. Now women serve and it’s considered a pious practice and not an evil practice as three true popes declared and forbade it. [3] 

The Vatican 2 religion reversed the Biblical and Catholic teaching on the death penalty and now declares it “inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.” [4]

It’s lax in Church disciplines such as fast and abstinence, the attitude towards the sanctuary and sacraments, and especially head coverings for women (women are considered equal in authority with men unlike the past). The Communion rails are gone and Communion is handed down by lay folks on the hands of the others. Everything that was once sacred is now profane. It’s so Protestant and disgusting!

There are many more problems, but the above examples are good ones to use with your family and friends.

The members of the new religion are conditioned to think contrary to the Catholic Faith as it has always been believed and practiced. The more traditionally minded members of the new religion rationalize away the supremacy and teaching authority of the papacy. They know they can’t be fully united in faith with their pope. They hold that a heretical pope is just a bad pope but pope nonetheless.

Still worse is the fact that they rationalize away the indefectibility and purity of the Church. They hold that the Catholic Church is perfect in dogma only and literally everything else can be erroneous, heretical, and even abominable. It’s really no different from any other religion except having infallible dogmas and even those are not absolutely needed to be professed to be a member of the Church united to Christ with the right to be called a true Christian.

We need to emphasize the religion aspect and the pope issue will follow. If they claim we left the Church, tell them we have left the counterfeit church of nonsense because it’s not Catholic for the reasons above. The Catholic Church is one and holy, which their religion is not. Again, the Vatican 2 religion is really no different from any other religion and according to the same religion, it doesn’t really matter in the end anyway. In other words, it’s missing the mark of Catholic, too. [5]

 

Footnotes:

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

[2] A Perfect Example of Modernism in Vatican 2

[3] Altar Girls are Impossible for the True Catholic Church

[4] ‘Pope’ Francis’ Heresy on the Death Penalty

[5] The Roman Catechism:

“She is also called universal, because all who desire eternal salvation must cling to and embrace her, like those who entered the ark to escape perishing in the flood. This (note of catholicity), therefore, is to be taught as a most reliable criterion, by which to distinguish the true from a false Church.”