The U.S. Navy should play to its strength, enforcing sanctions against Iran by controlling the maritime routes Iran depends on to generate cash for its empire of terror.
The U.S. response to Hamas’ Nazi-like massacre of Israelis, Americans, and anyone else in its murderous path has been, almost without exception, robust. But U.S. officials are largely missing the larger picture and risking being drawn into an escalation — on the enemy’s terms.
Hamas and Hezbollah are the symptoms; Iran is the disease.
But President Biden’s Oval Office address to the nation on Oct. 19 danced around the core issue of Iran’s financing, training, and encouragement of violent, brutal forces across the region and beyond, as well as its nuclear missile program.
Thus, the gathering might of the U.S. Navy off the coast of Israel in the form of two aircraft carrier strike groups and a Marine Expeditionary Unit betrays unimaginative, linear thinking.
If used, American firepower would augment Israel’s own considerable military force. In theory, this threat helps to deter Hezbollah from unleashing its arsenal of 100,000 missiles on Israel, many of them sophisticated.
But, like Hamas, Hezbollah is expert at digging. They hide their missile launchers in an extensive network of tunnels and bunkers — all guarded by an air defense network that is likely to get lucky enough times to raise the specter of captured American pilots.
If the incremental addition of American airpower is helpful to the pending effort to destroy Hamas while deterring a wider conflict, that role can more than adequately be filled by the U.S. Air Force.
The U.S. Navy should instead be concentrating 2,000 miles to the east in the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. There, the U.S. Navy would be playing to its unambiguous strength, enforcing sanctions against Iran by controlling the sea lines of communication that Iran depends on to generate the cash for its empire of terror.
Unfortunately, this would require a Biden administration that was both imaginative and strategic — and not in the thrall of a recently revealed Iranian influence operation that managed to place several advisors friendly to the Iranian mullahs in key national security positions since the Obama administration. Chief among these, Robert Malley, a longtime friend of Secretary of State Antony Blinken and an architect of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, a deal that focused exclusively on Iran’s nuclear program, rewarding the mullahs with cash and sanctions relief while greenlighting their missile program and global support for terror.
Iran’s Nuclear Program
Instead, Biden’s systematic appeasement of Iran, a continuation of the Obama-era policy that weirdly sought to use Iran as a counter to perceived Israeli intransigence on the Palestinian problem, has resumed. Up until the gruesome events of Oct. 7, Biden’s national security team was willfully blind to Iran’s bloody history of sponsoring terror and its determined drive to produce nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them.
As a result, U.N. sanctions against Iran’s nuclear, missile, and drone program — never well enforced by Biden — expired on Oct. 18 with the U.S. announcing its own unilateral set of sanctions. The U.S. continues to pretend these efforts are somehow slowing Iran’s drive to push its nuclear program to completion, while Russian use of Iranian combat drones in Ukraine reveals the prior sanctions regime as inadequate to the task.
Reagan-Era Lessons
The U.S. never fully grappled with the Iranian theocracy after the shah was toppled in 1979. During the Cold War, it was assumed that the Soviet Union would come to Iran’s aid and that the military cost of defeating the regime would be too high.
Instead, the U.S. was content to see Iran tied down in a bloody stalemate against Iraq after the latter invaded in 1980.
After an escorting U.S. Navy ship struck a mine on April 14, 1988, the Reagan administration responded only four days later with Operation Praying Mantis. It was the Navy’s largest combat action since World War II, sinking an Iranian guided missile frigate, crippling a second, sinking four other boats, and destroying two militarized oil platforms at the cost of one helicopter with two crew lost.
The operation was thoroughly wargamed a year before, when it was determined that an unambiguously aggressive response to Iran would likely prevent the conflict from escalating. In other words, a disproportionate response would rob Iran of the ability to control the timing and mode of escalation, reducing U.S. casualties and preserving the peace.
Applying Force
This lesson from the Reagan era opens up a final consideration. Rather than following through on the foolish precedent of incentivizing hostage-taking via negotiation and cash payments, America should ditch the carrots and pick up the stick.
Imagine the transformative discussion over the current hostage crisis — and the forestalling of future hostage-taking by Iran and its proxies — if the U.S. were to announce that every hostage taken is worth $1 billion (or $1.171 billion if we wish to account for Bidenflation). That amount would be deducted from seized Iranian assets or taken from oil tankers filled with Iranian oil. The proceeds would compensate hostages and their families, with the remainder used to replenish the Pentagon’s waning stocks of armaments.
This is exactly the kind of naval power application the U.S. Navy was built for.
Unfortunately, the radical cadres infesting the Biden administration’s national security staff would never allow such an idea to reach the desk of our cognitively impaired commander-in-chief.
Three more philosophical arguments for the existence of God, in terms the ‘regular guy’ can understand.
This site contains the first of two arguments in favor of the existence of God that seem complicated—and are—but can be boiled down to their essentials for the amateur apologist. This post will go through three more.
3. The Argument from Consciousness
Life presents to us an extremely rich qualitative dimension, which is to say, the entire “what it is like”-ness to being you and experiencing the things you experience. The spicy scent of ginger tea, the easy sight of the flamingo, and the luscious guitar sounds of Ratt drive the point home.
The way naturalists usually tell it is that consciousness is a late and local phenomenon, something that emerges from purely mindless physical stuff. Simply put, whatever is fundamental to the naturalist is, effectively, whatever consciousness is not: it is not feeling, not sensing, and not “about” anything (the way thoughts are about things).
But the immediate problem is that it seems extremely difficult, if not outright impossible, to construct consciousness from an utterly unconscious base, as described by naturalism.
Just think about it. How does one take mindless atoms and make a unified center of conscious awareness, a subject that binds together so many different thoughts and feelings through intervals of time?
The problem is not just a matter of trying to establish sufficient material complexity, but also how one leaps, as if by magic, across profoundly different kinds of reality. Compare: just as the number and arrangement of white LEGO blocks is irrelevant to constructing a purple tower (even infinite time and number of pieces won’t help), it seems that the same problem, if not significantly worse, applies when it comes to constructing a unified conscious being from the disparate mindless blocks that the naturalistic worldview has to offer.
The problem doesn’t end there, however. For even if the naturalist can make sense of how consciousness could emerge from an unconscious base, he doesn’t have a good story for explaining why it would emerge. Consciousness seems wasteful for the naturalist, since it’s the mindless atoms that do all the work, anyway. (Remember that according to naturalism, the physical realm causes and determines the mental realm, not the other way around.) Thus, there is no good naturalistic-evolutionary account for why the emergence of consciousness would happen, even if the emergence of consciousness could happen.
Classical theism avoids both issues since theism isn’t committed to everything reducing to physics (which is absurd anyway, but whatever—set that aside). In a real sense, molecules aren’t fundamental in classical and Christian theism. Persons are. Theism starts not from a principle of indifference, but a principle of perfection, where everything in the created world is not just less than, but infinitely less than what stands at the foundation. Surely it is easier to think of how we can get something lesser from something (infinitely) greater than it is to think of how one can get something so profound as consciousness from something entirely bereft of thoughts and feelings, like atoms.
Moreover, theism gives reason to expect conscious beings. We are good to have around. God would know this and would be motivated to bring us about. So not only is our emergence possible on theism, but it is also expected. All this gives another powerful reason to accept classical theism over atheistic naturalism.
4. The Argument from Fine-Tuning
We have a basic intuition that stuff that seems “well put together”—i.e., complex stuff, with functionally interrelated parts—is the product of intelligence. This intuition is frequently applied in experience: we see a mousetrap or a Nintendo Switch or the Mona Lisa, and we naturally think some intelligent being produced it. By and large, this intuition is frequently confirmed in experience. Certain things seem to obviously be the product of forethought, which implies that creative intelligence (the ability to engage in relational thinking), not blind (unintelligent) natural forces, is responsible.
But the atheist says, “Not so fast: evolution shows us how things that appear designed are actually the product of totally unintelligent, pitiless forces of nature.”
However, as the best science informs us, evolution requires a very special physical setup to occur, and the physical setup of our universe is incredibly “fine-tuned” or “really well put together” concerning the necessary conditions for the emergence of interactive life. Physicists tell us that if things were just a teensy-weensy bit different concerning, say, the expansion rate of the universe, the strength of the strong nuclear force, the weight of the electron, or many other examples, the emergence of intelligence life would not be possible, because in many cases chemistry would not be possible, or the universe would have collapsed back in on itself, or some other catastrophic scenario. This conclusion enjoys overwhelming expert consensus, from theists and atheists alike. Where the disagreement largely lies is in what explains the fine-tuning.
From the best of what we know, scientifically speaking, evolution requires a physical system that appears “well put together,” a sort of “Goldilocks” situation, where things are just right for evolution to take hold and eventually produce beings like us. Once all that is understood, it becomes clear that evolution does not defeat our frequently confirmed intuition that stuff that appears well put together is best explained by intelligent agency, something capable of foresight.
At this point, the atheist might say the multiverse could explain fine-tuning. The theist can respond, maybe it does. But how does that help? As physicist Luke Barnes explains, any theoretically plausible model of the multiverse itself requires fine-tuning; thus, the problem is just relocated, not actually resolved. So until someone can propose a multiverse model that is predictively useful as a physical theory and does not itself appear well fit together (finely tuned), the theist is justified in maintaining his intuition that things that appear well put together are well put together because something intelligent is behind them.
The basic intuition is undefeated “all the way down.” There is thus no reason—from science, anyway—to think things that strongly appear to be the product of intelligence somehow aren’t.
Finally, when it comes to an entire physical universe being well put together, it does not take a lot of imagination to suppose whose intelligence is behind it.
(A note: Someone might worry that God is a poor explanation of the physical universe because God would be more complex than the physical universe. This is false. In the most relevant sense, God is far simpler than any physical reality, since God is an unrestricted act of understanding. In other words, God is the absolutely simple and immaterial first principle of all, a being of pure positiveness, with zero limitations or arbitrary restrictions, lacking all internal complexity, especially physical complexity. That makes God not only simpler than any possible physical explanation, but the simplest conceivable explanation there is.)
5. The Argument from Suffering
Recall the argument from consciousness. There it was made clear that the naturalistic worldview holds that our mental life is something late and local, preceded by and entirely caused by unthinking, unfeeling physical bits. Such commitments are what cause many naturalists to endorse a position called epiphenomenalism (an epiphonema is just something that is itself caused but causes nothing) when it comes to our mental life, or our thoughts and feelings. This is a spooky position and contrary to common sense, since it implies, for example, that our desiring coffee—that is, the feeling of wanting coffee—has nothing to do with our going and getting coffee. Such a feeling just coincidentally (magically?) attends to blind physical forces causing the action of “getting coffee.”
Now, to be clear, epiphenomenalism is as self-evidently false as anything in philosophy could be, and to the extent that naturalism is committed to epiphenomenalism, is even more reason to reject naturalism.
But there is yet another problem. Typically, the naturalist tells us that the vast suffering of our experience is far better expected if God does not exist and if naturalism is true, and so we should endorse naturalism over theism. But this story is way too superficial and ignores too much of what actually goes on in naturalistic research programs, including philosophy of mind. So let’s connect some dots.
Evolution selects for outcomes and functions that confer survival advantage, not feelings, per se, and human functions for the naturalist are possible without feeling. For example, the function of me pulling my hand away from the prick of a pin does not require any painful feeling—it requires no feeling at all within the naturalistic understanding, because the feeling is causally irrelevant. Further, if there is a feeling attendant to some function of human behavior, the feeling could have been literally anything; pulling my hand from the pin could have been correlated with the feeling I feel when listening to the Barney theme song, tasting a grape, or looking at my grandmother’s bunion. Why? Again, because the feeling plays no role in what “the physics” is doing, since the feelings are determined by the physics and the physics is in no way determined by the feelings. (For the naturalistic, remember, the causality is entirely in one direction.) Thus, the outcome would have been the same no matter what the feeling is, or if there is any feeling at all, because it is entirely the unconscious, unfeeling physical processes that matter, that do the functional work and that, ultimately, are selected for. Feelings don’t have anything to do with it, and so it just doesn’t seem there is any need for feelings to be there at all, or to be as “fitting” as they are, if the common naturalistic account of things is correct.
We can only scratch the surface of this argument here. The point for now is simply that once these (admittedly subtle) points concerning the mental and physical are understood, naturalism has no real story to tell for the actual distribution of suffering in our world. Things could have gotten along in just the same way they have without any feelings, good or bad. Things could have been far better or far worse, feelings-wise. The problem is that naturalism, when systematically articulated and consistent with its own inner logic, does not adequately predict any specific degree or distribution of suffering. It leaves all possibilities wide open.
However, once we grant a few plausible points about suffering, including that suffering can be spiritually medicinal (soul-healing and soul-building) alongside other plausible stories about God’s governance (particularly about letting natures play their part, including the natures of free beings), there is a strong theistic story we can tell that makes the distribution of suffering in this world not entirely surprising.
This story cannot hereby be rehearsed now, but the simple point is this: naturalism has no explanatory story to tell—ultimately—anyway, about the suffering we experience. Some story is better than no story, and so even the suffering of our experience is evidence for rather than against the existence of God.
Okay—there you have it: three arguments (and two before those in another post) for the existence of God, somewhat simplified.
Apology is necessary here to the reader for the length of this “simplified” summary of arguments. There is still a fair bit going on in the presentations above, to be sure, but still each argument has been distilled to the extent it is entered without omitting any seriously crucial aspect or presentation of the arguments in ways that might lead to false philosophical conceptions about God or something else, like morality.
If these arguments interest you enough to want to pursue them further, look for the forthcoming book The Best Argument for God by Pat Flynn.
The most powerful arguments for God can be pretty complicated . . . but they don’t have to be.
Here’s the problem with philosophical arguments for God (the good ones, anyway): they’re complicated.
This shouldn’t surprise us in the least. Philosophical arguments for God are supposed to reveal something about the nature of fundamental reality and can take years to puzzle through. What should cause us to think that would be easy?
So, although folks will often attempt to pass off comparatively simple arguments, they are, despite being accessible, just plain wrong, or at least poorly formulated—and neither the doubter nor the believer is served by simplistic takes for God.
All this to say that distilling philosophical arguments for God without diluting or distorting them is difficult. Fortunately, as complicated as philosophical arguments for God can be, their general thrust is, for the most part, intuitive. With that in mind, let’s present the general idea of some of the more sophisticated and convincing philosophical arguments for God and to make the presentation simple . . . but not simplistic.
When presented arguments like these are issued at an introductory level, various details will be truncated or omitted and so I must insist that this is a worthwhile tradeoff of means for initial exposition, and that the arguments below are, in fact, good arguments, though we will ultimately have to pursue their fullest development(s) elsewhere.
With those disclaimers, let’s begin.
1. The Argument from Adequate Reason
Common experience reveals stuff that doesn’t explain its own existence—that is, stuff philosophers call contingent. Here’s a list of some such stuff: Graham crackers, Yngwie Malmsteen, photons, corn. These things exist but could have been otherwise or not been at all. Reality did not have to include them, yet here they are. Why?
Philosophers have long claimed that stuff like this—that is, all the contingent things, considered collectively—must have some cause or explanation, and this cause or explanation cannot itself be contingent. That means it must be necessary, a being that must exist no matter what, a being whose nature or essence somehow guarantees its own existence.
A being like that would obviously be very special, quite unlike the beings of common experience, no matter how talented (Yngwie Malmsteen) or tasty (Graham crackers). Indeed, philosophers have argued that a necessary being would have to lack all the features that imply contingency (otherwise, it wouldn’t be a necessary being), such as being arbitrarily limited (say, in power, shape, location, knowledge) or composite (made of parts, physical or metaphysical), or changing and thus acquiring new modes of existence.
When thought through, it turns out that a necessary being would inevitably bear the traditional divine attributes: omnipotence, immateriality, immutability, eternality, simplicity, etc. Philosophers call this the Argument from Adequate (or sometimes Sufficient) Reason.
There are two main obstacles the argument from adequate reason must overcome. First, we have to support the principle that all contingent things do in fact have some adequate cause and don’t just exist as a matter of “brute fact,” with no explanation to be found. The second is closing off the so-called infinite regress objection, or making it clear that even if there were an infinite regress of contingent things—meaning each contingent thing is caused by some prior contingent thing, forever and ever—this would not provide the adequate explanation we require.
There is much that can be said to overcome these obstacles, but here are two quick rejoinders. First, it is highly rational to expect an explanation for something unless there is principled reason not to. After all, how else would we pursue science and philosophy, or increase our understanding of the world? To arbitrarily abandon this “explain everything (or at least as much as we can)” principle, particularly in the face of some fact that crucially seems to require explanation (like contingency), simply because its application converges upon theism, smacks of evasion, not objection, and is quite irrational. So, unless we have some good reason to think the fact of contingency cannot possibly find explanation—and we don’t!—it is far more rational to go with even just a conceivable explanation than no explanation at all.
As for the infinite regress objection? Is it really just turtles all the way down? Here seventeenth-century philosopher Wilhelm Gottfried Leibniz, one of the original formulators of this line of argument, offers a satisfying response: suppose there were an infinite line of geometry books, with each one having been copied from the one previous. Does this infinite regress remove all relevant mystery?
Leibniz says obviously not, and I agree. After all, we would still want to know why there is that infinite line of geometry books instead of nothing, and why the subject is geometry and not, say, biochemistry instead. Thus, according to Leibniz, even if an infinite regress of contingent causes is possible, it is irrelevant. The fact of contingency cannot be adequately explained by further contingency, no matter how much contingency there is and no matter how that contingency is arranged (in a line, circle, etc.).
Finally, a bonus consideration: While it seems that a necessary being is useful for explaining all contingent being, we should still like to know how contingency can arise from necessity. If fundamental reality is necessary, then why isn’t everything necessary? Here again, classical theism has the advantage, since we can argue that God—the single, simple, necessary being—freely chose to create the physical world. God’s act of free choice preserves the fact of contingency (that the world need not have been) while anchoring everything in necessity. Great result.
2. The Argument from Morality
Many of us take morality to be objective, which is to say, we believe that our moral statements and beliefs (e.g., that murder is wrong) are not merely describing people’s attitudes or preferences, but relating to what it means to live an objectively good life and flourish as the kinds of things we are.
If morality is objective, then specific people can be wrong in their moral beliefs, because what makes a moral belief true or false is beyond what a person happens to desire. This ought to be common sense, since most of us think desiring to love our fellow man is really good, whereas desiring to oppress our fellow man is really bad, and we think people who believe or act otherwise are gravely mistaken.
The traditional atheist, who claims that fundamental reality is just indifferent mindless stuff, and that everything about human existence reduces to atomic and evolutionary theory, veers toward nihilism. In other words, our moral sentiments, according to the atheist, are evolutionarily acquired beliefs insofar as they are useful for getting us to “have sex and avoid bears,” not because they are in any sense “true.” For the nihilist, moral beliefs are just personal preferences, mere sentiments or attitudes or tastes, like what we express when evaluating tapioca pudding or Nickelback’s “Photograph.”
It is commonly understood that many atheists, new and old, are nihilists. “There are no objective moral facts,” Nietzsche once pronounced. In modern times, naturalist philosophers like Alex Rosenberg argue that Darwinian theory (conjoined with naturalism) is an acid that dissolves our traditional understanding of morality, and that nihilism is the only consistent atheistic story about morality. As atheist philosopher Michael Ruse tells us, morality is “flimflam” . . . “an illusion” . . . “just a matter of emotions.” All fairly common atheistic commitments—and, I would add, consistent, coming from their naturalistic starting point.
On the other hand, if some atheist is reluctant to abandon objective morality, as many (thankfully) are, he must complicate his worldview to accommodate morality. Doing so invites two serious problems.
First, such complications will be suspiciously ad hoc and render the atheist’s theory less likely to be true. Why? Because simpler theories are more likely to be true, and the simpler atheistic theory is obviously the one that explains away objective morality through “blind” evolutionary forces, as many naturalists convincingly argue.
Moreover, the moral dimension appears extremely rich, which means the complications made by the atheist will have to be extensive to cover everything. For example, the atheist needs not just to explain moral facts (e.g., that rape is always wrong), but moral knowledge (e.g., how we know that rape is always wrong?). Imagine how much we would have to add to a theory that otherwise veers strongly, if not inevitably, to nihilism to accommodate these many features of moral experience. It’s a lot, building in a ton of complications, making the naturalist’s theory not very believable.
Second, recall that the mode of intellectual operation for the naturalist is scientistic, meaning, in cliché form, that we ought not “go beyond the science” in our claims to knowledge. However, moral facts are clearly not something science can tell us about, since nobody can see moral facts through a microscope or telescope, to put it crudely. This “breach of conduct” from a naturalist is problematic, since naturalists are effectively admitting that science isn’t the be-all and end-all and does not exhaust the intelligible content of reality. But if that’s the case, then what’s stopping us from running philosophical arguments for God, including as the best explanation for moral facts and knowledge and human dignity?
Once again, classical theism has considerable advantages, as theism can explain all the relevant moral features of reality with a simple and highly unified theory. For the classical theist, fundamental reality—God, who just is supreme being and supreme goodness—is where being and value converge at their climax. He provides a stable, traditional, and definitely rationally decidable way of thinking about the moral landscape. God can also equip us with reliable ways of forming moral beliefs and would be interested in doing so. So moral knowledge is expected if God exists as well.
For these reasons, if we think morality is objective, that we can know at least some moral truths, and that human beings really do have a special place in the universe, we really should endorse classical theism over atheistic naturalism.
That’s two solid arguments for God, as simple as they can be without distorting them. Hopefully more will follow.
The CDC director wants to win back your trust, she says — at the very time, on the basis of nothing and in defiance of the rest of the world, she’s urging the entire population to get the latest Covid shot.
“Trust is easily broken and, as folks know, trust takes time to rebuild,” said Cohen. “It isn’t something you can fix overnight.”
She seems to have no idea why people don’t trust the CDC or what it did wrong, so her trust-rebuilding tour is unlikely to bear fruit.
Jay Bhattacharya says that for starters, she needs to meet with lockdown critics like Jay himself and Harvard’s Martin Kulldorff. If she were really serious she would have done this within two weeks of her appointment, but of course she isn’t.
Dr. Houman David Hemmati added further steps Cohen would have to take, all of which sound good to me:
1. Open up and release ALL CDC emails, unredacted except for SSN and personal phone numbers, from November 2019 to present. No other exceptions.
2. Purge CDC of ALL employees who: pushed to censor critics, shamed critics, had connections with other government agencies or pharma companies or unions that influenced how they conducted business.
3. Announce a policy of NEVER issuing mandates or recommendations for mandates or recommendations for closures of schools and businesses.
4. Do a re-review of all emergency authorized and approved COVID vax and treatments using the SAME standards previously applied to NON COVID treatments.
5. Promise to NEVER again support the use of ANY medical product, emergency or not, that hasn’t been subject to the SAME rigorous safety/efficacy testing and the same (lengthy and detailed and objective) review by panelists that include outside experts, without exclusion of critics.
If you want trust, that’s how you get it back, otherwise it’s empty words.
Christ instituted the Catholic Priesthood at the Last Supper in Luke 22:19 See link at article’s end.
Note in the Haydock commentary to Luke 22:19 it explains why it is the actual Flesh and Blood of Christ the faithful receive at a valid Roman Missal of Pius V Mass. Such a Mass has to be celebrated by a valid and licit Catholic priest, and devoid of his including the name of an antipope in the “one with” (“una cum”) clause in the Canon (fixed) part of the Mass.
But finding such a valid and licit Catholic priest is unknown to this writer during this era of an unbroken line of antipopes since October 28, 1958. These last six false claimants to the Chair of Peter (i. e , antipopes) sustain their leading the ongoing Great Apostasy ever since Antipope John XXIII (Freemason/Rosicrucian Angelo Roncalli, “reigned Oct. 28, 1958-June 3, 1963) launched it forcefully at the beginning of 1962 . That’s when he illicitly removed the true Roman Missal of Pius V Mass – effectively globally ceasing the true Catholic faith in all once-Catholic churches under his control.
Freemason/Rosicrucian Roncalli then replaced the true Mass with the Quo Primum-condemned “1962 Latin Tridentine Mass” a/k/a ” “John XXIII Mass” that has the words “and Blessed Joseph, her spouse” inserted into the Commemoration of Saints in the Canon (fixed) part of the Mass. That may sound innocuous to the undereducated, but it automatically excommunicates anyone having anything to do with such a defective Mass, per Pope St. Pius V PapalvBull – QUO PRIMUM – issued 1570 in response to a request by the Council of Trent (1545-1563.)
Antipope John XXIII then followed removal of the true Mass with another devastating blow that same year by beginning of the illicit Second Vatican Council (October 1962-Dec. 8, 1965.) The stated purpose announced in January 1959 was to review all the previous teachings of the Church and give them “aggiornamento”:(new meaning.) Any attempt to review a judgment of a General Council or the Holy See is condemned with automatic excommunication by the Papal Bull EXECRABILIS (1460, POPE Pius II).
In reality, the Second Vatican (V2) Council introduced over 200 heresies, thereby creating a man-made sect of Modernist/Liberalism dogma & doctrine in direct opposition to those of the true Cathoiic Church.
The true Catholic Church can never fail, promised Christ, but since the beginning of these 1962 demonic actions lead by Antipope John XXIII, the true Catholic Church exists in an ongoing state of eclipsed exile worldwide.
Consequently, the apostate Vatican II Counterfeit Catholic sect today has approximately 1.5 billion followers worldwide of that man-made sect’s false god who teaches them – among hundreds of other false doctrines – that they can now get divorced (a/k/a invalid “annulments” for any reason) and remarried multiple times. The local V2 churches now shamelessly sponsor dances for divorced people to meet as a prelude to committing adultery and concubinage. This Execrabilis-condemned V2 Counterfeit Catholic sect separated themselves from God the instant they accepted or participated in its development. They departed from the true God who revealed in Matt. 19:6 :
“6 Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”
And if that wasn’t emphatic or clear enough, the true God says in Mark 10:11-12
“11 And he sayeth to them : Whosoever put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her.”
“12 And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.”
There were 47,000+ mainline Protestant denominations, not counting the Non-Denominational and Evangelical sects, all calling each other’s sect “heretics” (per the 2015 PEW Research Report quoting the 2010 Protestant Encyclopedia.) Obvious to intelligent souls who are serious, honest, and very concerned about their eternal outcome, each sect has its own god, if not each individual who customizes his understanding of Scripture to accommodate his personal lifestyle (Liberalism,) thus personal all having differing gods (or some “spirit” and not the true God) telling them differing private interpretations of Scripture. Yet all those differing gods of these approximately one billion Protestant, Non-Denominational, and Evangelical man-made sects seem to agree it is not wrong to divorce and remarry as often as affordable. And this they do while proudly & mendaciously espousing how they live by every word in their bibles. . . In which is quoted the Matthew and Mark verses shown above.
Need you any further proof that these 2.5 billion people calling themselves “Christian” are not as they claim? They refuse to hear and obey the true Roman Catholic Church founded by Christ upon Peter. Christ commands the faithful in Matt. 18:17 as follows:
“17 And if he will not hear them (ed., witnesses), tell the Church. And if he will not hear (ed. obey completely) the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen (ed., Gentile, pagan) and the publican (ed., liar and defrauder)”
That makes it definite that there can be no salvation dying outside the true Church founded by Christ upon Peter and the Apostle. Heathens and Publicans are reprobates that are eternally damned!
But the gods of the 2.5 billion false Christians today are told by their deceiving leaders and their personal “spirit” that assists them to privately interpret & understand Scripture to just skip or completely omit such verses from their religion. Their perverted behavior and opinionated contradictions make manifest their lack of the true Christian faith.
And it is that true Christian faith practiced only by the true Roman Catholic Church, (*not those after V2) and that is the only Church that complies completely with Holy Scripture.
Therefore, no divorce is ever allowed. Only separation, when physical abuse exists is permitted, but the marriage remains in full effect until death, and the spouses are obliged to pray for each other for reconciliation.
Very rarely is sufficient cause found to declare a marriage contract as having never existed due to one party’s failure to disclose a material fact. For had that critical fact ever been previously known, the other party would have never attempted the marriage. Thus the attempt was in vain. Such valid cause exists when it becomes known that one of the parties really did not want children or was already married and divorced, while the spouse of that first marriage is still living.
These 2.5 billion fraudulent “Christians” today constitute the endtime Great Apostasy. They have abandoned, or never had, the true Catholic faith instituted by Jesus Christ through His Church built upon Peter and the Apostles two millennia ago.
Now the very few remnant Christian faithful worldwide pray the “Missa Sicca” (“Dry Mass” – i. e., no valid priest to transubstantiate the bread and wine) in their homes, and pray Spiritual Communions at the Communion time of the Mass. Many Saints prayed Spiritual Communions hourly.
Also read in Haydock Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible (1859) St. Paul in 2 Cor. 2:18-20. There he is talking of the Apostles and the priests being ambassadors of Christ by their bringing reconciliation for sins (Sacrament of Penance).
Today, in the absence of valid priests, the faithful attempt Acts of Perfect Contrition. It has not the certitude of forgiveness as when the priest says “Ego te absolve” (I absolve you [ by the power of God that passes through the priest].) But when properly done, the Roman Catholic Church – the only Christian Church founded by Christ upon Peter and the Apostles – teaches infallibly that God’s forgiveness and restoration to the state of sanctification (justification) is obtainable in the absence of a priest.
But should ever one find a valid and licit priest (which may not happen until the Second Coming of Christ, which is the end of the world,) he/she must then confess all those sins for which they had been attempting to have forgiven by Acts of Perfect Contrition in order to have certitude.
Malachi Martin’s (1921-july 27, 1999) was an Irish-born traditionalist Jesuit priest, biblical archaeologist, exorcist, palaeographer, professor and prolific writer on the Roman Catholic Church who became disillusioned by Vatican II in 1964 while serving as secretary to Cardinal Augustin Bea (Germany.) Malachi moved to NYC in 1966 and became a U.S. citizen in 1971.
Malachi Martin’s most popular book is “The Jesuits : The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church” (1987. Simon & Schuster: NYC.) If you ever read it, you will see he was not wrong about the Jesuit fall into ungodly Socialism, Secularism, and Social Justice issues, while developing an anti-Catholic “new mission” to betray & destroy Roman Catholicism in favor of Marxism by these fallen “Jesuits.” For exposing them in his book, Malachi Martin was and is greatly hated by these apostatized “Jesuits.”
The “new mission” goal of today’s apostate “Jesuits” (the true Society of Jesus was founded by St. Ignatius Loyola in 1540) is in preparing the world governments, especially today’s youth and those governments in Latin America and all third World governments, (which is why this current Latin American illicit antipope now sits in Vatican City) to soon enough accept the coming totalitarian One World Government and its One World Religion. Both will be headed by the ultimate Antichrist ruler whom the early Fathers of the Catholic Church believe will identify himself as a Jew. And it is this ruler that these youths and the world in general at that time will adore and worship.
Observe astutely the ongoing Great Apostasy from true Christianity a/k/a Catholicism as made evident by the increasing domination of Pride, Self-love, Greed, Lust, Immorality, Indifferentism, Agnosticism, Atheism, Socialism, Marxist Ideology, and Deceiving “Clergy” – none of which hear the true Church Christ founded upon Peter and the Apostles.
Given this current situation, the time when the ultimate Antichrist rules may come far sooner, and be greatly less expected, than a world presently preoccupied in irrational pursuits of power, wealth, entertainment, earthly pleasures, and sensuality might anticipate. And when it arrives by God’s Permissive Will, the horrors of its tribulations will serve as God’s Justice upon the heathens and the publicans – as Christ calls them in Matt. 18:17 – who refuse to hear & obey the true Catholic Church He founded upon Peter, and which is now in exile from the apostatized Vatican and all once-Catholic Churches globally.
Why think there is any safety in buying gold today when ninety years ago in this country FDR issued an order that made owning gold a criminal act? See link at end of this message.
The U.S. Government, including its 68% Freemason dominated Congress (as of a January 2017 survey) of both Democrats and Republicans, is currently gracing to bring into effect total government control of its citizens by replacing “money” as we know it today with “digital currency” as now used in Communist China. Every public or private transaction involving “money” will be known, approved, curtailed, or nullified by our Federal government. Facial and retina scanning will be required as identification.
Acts involving barter or precious metals (gold, silver, etc.) as mediums for exchanging values among parties in private or public transactions can be expected to again be criminalized, and such mediums banned and/or confiscated nationally. . . and globally.
People who say this cannot be done do not know U.S. history.
Please read this explanatory Wikipedia article about how FDR did make owning gold “illegal” in 1933/34, thereby diluting 40% the value of everyone owning U.S. Dollars.
In other words, 33 Degree Freemason, Pro-Communist FDR stole 40% of the nation’s monetary wealth (Latin for “Let it be made “[from nothing] ), confiscated everyone’s gold (except his et alia,) and criminalized every person who refused to turn in their gold by May 1, 1933 to any Federal Reserve Branch or member banks of the Federal Reserve System.
The Federal Reserve System (FRS) is NOT a part of the U. S. Government. It is a private, for-profit, international stockholder-owned company. The FRS was unconstitutionally established by the corrupt politicians passing the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. It is the ongoing greatest act of fraud in the history of mankind designed to make “money” from nothing so as to gradually steal a nation’s wealth and fund, thereby establishing a totalitarian, One World Government. A Federal Reserve Note (an “I Owe You”) is “legal” but not “lawful.”
(Nota Bene: There can be a diametrically opposite difference between “lawful” [i.e. complies with Divine Law] and “legal” [i.e., man-made rules]. Making “fiat money” from nothing, except the production cost of material and/or computer impulse to a digital account, constitutes one example.
Another legal vs lawful example is the “legalization” of murdering an infant in – or now even newly delivered from – the womb versus Divine Law that condemns as unlawful the willful taking of any innocent life.
Thus, anyone voting for a political party that promotes or allows funding or continuance of abortion is complicit with those murders and, thus, is himself or herself a murderer.
Ask yourself, “How would Jesus Christ vote in a political election?”.
It is coming to be that elements of all political parties today “feel” they must allow continuing to permit and/or government fund abortions so as not to lose votes. Donald Trump implied that last month by criticizing Ron DeSantis as being too restrictive by prohibiting abortion in Florida after the sixth weeks of life in the womb. Winning – even if millions of innocents have to continue to die by being murdered via abortion in order to capture the 2024 Presidential election – is necessary, in Trump’s thinking, or else the nation is lost forever.
No lawful good can ever come from legalized evil.
“The end justifies the means” is Satan-inspired irrationalism.
DeSantis is as guilty as Trump in allowing any abortion to “legally” continue in Florida. And the (Communist-principled) Democratic Party has promoted abortion since the last half of the 20th century as a major element of its political platform. And now that murderous evil is subversively active and growing in position slightly below the surface of undeniable visibility among various Republicans contending to recapture the Presidency.
So for whom would Jesus Christ hypothetically vote in this situation?
Certainly none of the above, or He would not be the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.
This apostatized, immoral, politically murderous, collapsing country was established by Protestant Freemasonry DEVOID of recognizing God in its Constitution. It is the first country founded in the history of mankind to ever do so. Even pagan countries all acknowledge some sort of a supernatural entity.
Today, the U. S. Federal and State governments are the blood lusting purveyors of “legalized” and government-funded infanticide. In just that one issue, among many others perversities, these governments are overtly antichrist institutions established and governed by perversely fallen men and women. They and their voters constitute what Christ speaks of in Matthew 18:17
“And if he will not hear them (ed., witnesses), tell the Church (ed., Note: He did not say tell Jesus, as Protestants in general feel they need not the Church because they believe they can always circumvent that command and go directly to Jesus. Here God contradicts that Protestant error of being defiant to hear [obey completely] His Church.) And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the HEATHEN (Ed., Gentile, pagan) and the PUBLICAN (ed., a liar and deceiver.)”
Thus, there is no salvation for those dying as “the heathen and the publican” outside Christ’s true Roman Catholic Church founded by Christ upon Peter & the Apostles (i.e., not the Vatican II Novus Ordo Counterfeit Catholic man-made sect that usurped the Vatican in the October 26, 1958 Papal Conclave Coup d’état, (with the invalid and illegal Vatican II) and thus a/k/a the Robber Church [L. Latrocinium, banditry, highway robbery, larceny, theft; from L. Latro, bandit.)
Note: the Declaration of Independence or the Pledge of Allegiance are NOT part of the U. S. Constitution and, therefore, do not constitute a citizen’s “contract with government.”
It is truly meet (fitting) and just, right and availing unto salvation, humbly to pray to Thee, O Lord, the eternal Shepherd, to abandon not Thy flock; but through Thy blessed apostles, to keep a continual watch over it; that it may be governed by these same rulers Thou didst set over it as Thy shepherds and vicars.
It is widely recognized by those who claim to be conservative or traditional Catholics that Vatican II taught errors and false doctrines. However, many of those people hold that Vatican II’s false doctrines do not pose problems for the legitimacy of John XXIII, Paul VI, etc.; for, according to them, the teaching of Vatican II was supposedly never made binding by the Vatican II “popes.” The following will address this issue and refute widespread misconceptions that exist on this matter. This however contains numerous very important new quotes and points, including with regard to John XXIII’s opening speech at Vatican II.
On Oct. 11, 1962, John XXIII gave the speech that opened the Second Vatican Council. The speech is a crucial component of how many so-called traditionalists who accept the Vatican II “popes” as true popes, but have problems with the post-Vatican II Church and the teaching of Vatican II, explain their position. This will closely examine John XXIII’s speech. False information about what John XXIII said has been disseminated for years in so-called traditionalist newspapers, publications, and magazines. As a result, countless souls have failed to see the true nature of the current crisis in the post-Vatican II period.
The question is: did John XXIII’s opening speech state that Vatican II would not be a doctrinal, dogmatic, magisterial or infallible council, but only a “pastoral” one? Does his speech allow the so-called traditionalists to reject Vatican II as erroneous or heretical, and yet accept the men who implemented and promulgated it (i.e., John XXIII, Paul VI, etc.) as true popes? Let’s examine the evidence. (Later on we will consider the manner in which Paul VI confirmed Vatican II.) Before we consider the speech, keep in mind that John XXIII was an antipope. Material proves that he was a manifest heretic and a Freemason. Since John XXIII was not a Catholic, he was ineligible to become pope. There is also evidence that he wasn’t even canonically elected in the 1958 conclave, but rather obtained the election by fraud after someone else had already been elected. That’s in addition to his ineligibility for the office. When one considers the evidence that the Vatican II sect lacks the characteristics of the Catholic Church and represents a revolution against authentic Catholicism – a fact which has only become more clear each day under Francis – it makes sense that the line of Vatican II antipopes began with a fraudulent election in 1958.
Since the Vatican II claimants to the Papacy were not true popes but antipopes, any attempts they made to bind Vatican II and other false teachings do not – let me repeat, do not – impact or invalidate Catholic teaching on papal infallibility or Christ’s promises to the Church; for their actions were those of invalid usurpers who never sat in the Chair of St. Peter. Their false reigns were the fulfillment of the prophesied end-times apostasy and deception. However, for those who do recognize John XXIII, Paul VI, etc. as true popes, as some false traditionalists still do, the facts we will now cover definitely impact their position. These facts show that their position on Vatican II is incompatible with Catholic teaching on papal infallibility.
JOHN XXIII’S OPENING SPEECH AT VATICAN II, OCT. 11, 1962
Let’s now consider some key sections of John XXIII’s opening speech at Vatican II, in Latin and English. The Latin text of the speech is available here, on the Vatican’s website: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/speeches/1962/documents/hf_j-xxiii_spe_19621011_opening-council_lt.html. In consulting a key portion of the Latin text, and comparing it to a typical online English translation, it needs noticing that while the general point being made is going to prove from all English versions of the speech, the typical online translation was insufficiently faithful to the Latin original in important areas. Timothy Johnson (an expert in Latin and Ancient Greek) was asked to provide a more accurate translation of key portions of the speech and he did so. The following translation he provided is the most literal translation available of these sections. Let’s consider some of the crucial paragraphs and refute the false traditionalist myths about the speech.
Let’s begin in paragraph #2.
“2. Recentissimus humilisque eiusdem Principis Apostolorum Successor, qui vos alloquitur, amplissisimum hunc Coetum indicens, id sibi proposuit, ut iterum Magisterium Ecclesiasticum, numquam deficiens et ad finem usque temporum perseverans, affirmaretur; quod quidem Magisterium rationem habens errorum, necessitatum, rerum opportunarum nostrae aetatis, per hoc ipsum Concilium omnibus hominibus, quotquot in orbe terrarum sunt, extraordinario modo, in praesenti exhibetur.”
JOHN XXIII SAYS THAT VATICAN II WILL BE AN ACT OF THE UNFAILING MAGISTERIUM
John XXIII says:
“The most recent and lowly successor of the same Prince of the Apostles who is addressing you, in convoking this most imposing Assembly, has proposed this for himself, that the Ecclesiastical Magisterium, never failing and persevering even to the end of the times, be once again affirmed; which selfsame Magisterium, taking account of the errors, necessities and opportunities of our age, is, by means of this very Council,being presentedto all men, as many as be in the world, in extraordinary form at the present time.”
John XXIII states that in convoking Vatican II, he proposed for himself that the Ecclesiastical Magisterium, which is never failing, is affirmed. He thus identifies Vatican II as an act of the Magisterium. In fact, he identifies Vatican II as an act of the unfailing (and therefore infallible) Magisterium. So much for the myth that John XXIII stated that Vatican II would not be infallible. The truth is the opposite. He states that it will enact the unfailing Magisterium. The unfailing Magisterium is infallible because if it could teach error or be deceived, it would not be unfailing or indefectible. It’s interesting that the words John XXIII uses here are almost identical to the words Vatican I used to describe papal infallibility. To express the infallibility of popes when speaking from the Chair of St. Peter, Vatican I stated:
Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 4, Chap. 4, 1870 A.D.- “So, this charism of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this Chair…”
“Hoc igitur veritatis et fidei nunquam deficientis charisma Petro eiusque in hac cathedra successoribus divinitus collatum est…”
Vatican I describes the infallibility of the Chair of St. Peter as a gift or charism of truth and a never failing faith. The words it used for “never failing” are “nunquam deficientis.” That’s the very same statement that John XXIII makes to describe the alleged “magisterial” authority of Vatican II. John XXIII says “numquam deficiens.” The only difference between the two statements is that John XXIII’s deficiens is the present active participle of deficio in the nominative form, whereas Vatican I’s deficientis is the present active participle of the same verb in the genitive form. Deficientis agrees with fidei. (Also, numquam is an alternate spelling of nunquam.) So, Vatican I and John XXIII’s speech to open the Second Vatican Council use the same language. They both refer to the unfailing Magisterium of popes in the Chair of St. Peter. John XXIII says that Vatican II will exercise and represent that unfailing (and therefore infallible) Magisterium.
JOHN XXIII SAYS THAT VATICAN II WILL BE THE EXTRAORDINARY FORM OF THE MAGISTERIUM
John XXIII also says that the Magisterium, by means of this very Council or through this very Council (per hoc ipsum Concilium), is being presented to the world extraordinario modo (that is, in extraordinary form).
“2. Recentissimus humilisque eiusdem Principis Apostolorum Successor, qui vos alloquitur, amplissisimum hunc Coetum indicens, id sibi proposuit, ut iterum Magisterium Ecclesiasticum, numquam deficiens et ad finem usque temporum perseverans, affirmaretur; quod quidem Magisterium rationem habens errorum, necessitatum, rerum opportunarum nostrae aetatis, per hoc ipsum Concilium omnibus hominibus, quotquot in orbe terrarum sunt, extraordinario modo, in praesenti exhibetur.”
“The most recent and lowly successor of the same Prince of the Apostles who is addressing you, in convoking this most imposing Assembly, has proposed this for himself, that the Ecclesiastical Magisterium, never failing and persevering even to the end of the times, be once again affirmed; which selfsame Magisterium, taking account of the errors, necessities and opportunities of our age, is, by means of this very Council,being presentedto all men, as many as be in the world, in extraordinary form at the present time.”
In this passage extraordinario modo is an ablative of manner. It describes the manner in which the Magisterium is being exhibited or presented to the whole world by means of this Council (Vatican II). Thus, according to John XXIII’s opening speech, Vatican II would be act of the infallible extraordinary Magisterium. As we can see, the facts about what John XXIII actually said in the speech are just the opposite of what false traditionalists have been telling people for years.
One should also keep in mind that while not everything a pope writes, approves or promulgates is magisterial, if something on faith or morals is indeed authoritatively taught by the Magisterium to the entire world, it is by that very fact infallible. The Magisterium cannot commit itself to that which is false (see the Appendix for numerous papal quotes on this matter).
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#16-18), Dec. 31, 1929: “Upon this magisterial office Christ conferred infallibility, together with the command to teach His doctrine… Hence it is that in this proper object of her mission, that is, in faith and morals, God Himself has made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and, by a special privilege, granted her immunity from error.”
Pope Leo XIII also teaches:
Pope Leo XIII, Caritatis Studium (#6), July 25, 1898: “…. a living, perpetual magisterium was necessary in the Church from the beginning, which, by the command of Christ himself, should besides teaching other wholesome doctrines, give an authoritative explanation of Holy Writ, and which being directed and safeguarded by Christ himself, could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching… For Christ when He gave the keys to Peter, gave him at the same time the power to govern those who were charged with the ministry of the word: ‘Confirm thy Brethren’ (Luke xxii. 32). And since the faithful must learn from the ‘magisterium’ of the Church whatever pertains to the salvation of their souls, it follows that they must also learn from it the true meaning of Scripture.”
Since Vatican II purported to be magisterial – and, in fact, an act of the unfailing Magisterium – either it is infallible in all of its teaching on faith, morals and the understanding of Scripture, or the men who organized and confirmed it were not true popes but antipopes. The truth is clearly the latter.
Continuing with John XXIII’s opening speech, he speaks of Vatican II in the context of ecumenical councils. He then says: “Testimonies of this Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church – that is, of its universal Synods – come constantly before Our eyes.” Since John XXIII identifies Vatican II as one of those universal Synods, he therefore once again identifies Vatican II as the testimony of the extraordinary Magisterium of the Church. The extraordinary Magisterium of the Church is infallible.
“2. Hanc coniunctionem cum Christo eiusque Ecclesia Concilia Oecumenica, quotiescumque ea celebrari contingit, sollemni quodam modo praedicant et veritatis lucem quoquoversus emittunt, vitam singulorum hominum, domestici convictus, societatis in rectas semitas dirigunt, spirituales vires excitant atque stabiliunt, ad vera et sempiterna bona continenter animos erigunt.Testimonia extraordinarii huius Magisterii Ecclesiae, scilicet universalium Synodorum, ob oculos Nostros versantur, dum varias hominum aetates per haec viginti saecula christiani aevi intuemur. Quae documenta pluribus magnique ponderis voluminibus continentur ac veluti sacer thesaurus sunt aestimanda, qui in tabulariis Urbis Romae ac totius orbis terrarum celebratissimis bibliothecis est reconditus.”
“It is this union between Christ and His Church that Ecumenical Councils proclaim in a certain solemn manner every time they happen to be celebrated; and they radiate the light of truth in all directions; they direct the life of individual men, of home-life and society along straight paths; they awaken and fortify spiritual energies; and they continually raise minds to the true and eternal good. Testimonies of this Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church – that is, of its universal Synods – come constantly before Our eyes as We scan the various ages of man over these twenty centuries of the Christian era. These documents are contained in several volumes of great weight, and they are to be esteemed as a kind of sacred thesaurus, which is stored away in the archives of the City of Rome and in the most renowned libraries of the entire world.”
JOHN XXIII SAYS THAT VATICAN II WILL BE A DOCTRINAL COUNCIL
In paragraph #5 of his opening speech, John XXIII discusses the principal or chief duty of the Council. Does he say that Vatican II will merely be a pastoral council that won’t deal with doctrine, as the false traditionalists have told so many? No, not at all.
“Praecipuum Concilii munus: doctrina tuenda ac promovenda
The Principal Duty of the Council: defending and promoting doctrine
Quod Concilii Oecumenici maxime interest, hoc est, ut sacrum christianae doctrinae depositum efficaciore ratione custodiatur atque proponatur.
What especially interests the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be more effectively guarded and presented.”
He says this: “The principal duty of the Council: defending and promoting doctrine.” According to John XXIII, the main purpose of the Council was to deal with doctrine. He then says: “What especially interests the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be more effectively guarded and presented.” Are people beginning to see how false traditionalists have misled the world about this speech and what it contains? The Council will concern Catholic doctrine, according to John XXIII.
In #6, he says:
“6. Hisce positis, satis manifestae sunt, Venerabiles Fratres, partes quae, ad doctrinam quod attinet, Concilio Oecumenico sunt demandatae.”
“These things having been established, sufficiently has been manifested, Venerable Brothers, the role that has been entrusted to the Ecumenical Council in regard to what pertains to doctrine.”
“Scilicet Concilium Oecumenicum primum et vicesimum – quod efficaci magnique aestimando auxilio utitur eorum, qui scientia sacrarum disciplinarum, apostolatus exercendi resque recto ordine agendi excellunt – integram, non imminutam, non detortam tradere vult doctrinam catholicam, quae, licet inter difficultates et contentiones, veluti patrimonium commune hominum evasit. Hoc non omnibus quidem gratum est, tamen cunctis, qui bona voluntate sunt praediti, quasi paratus thesaurus uberrimus proponitur.”
“Namely, that the twenty-first Ecumenical Council – which utilizes the effective and highly-prized assistance of those who excel in their knowledge of the sacred disciplines, of the practice of the apostolate, and of the correct way of doing things – wishes to hand down Catholic doctrine (in an) integral, undiminished and undistorted (manner), (doctrine) which, although surrounded by difficulties and contentions, has effectively ended up as the common heritage of mankind.”
As we can see, Vatican II was intended to be a doctrinal council.
COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS AND LIES REFUTED
The facts we’ve covered thus far are clear. However, let’s now address the part of the speech that false traditionalists frequently misuse and misquote. The truth is that almost none of them have any idea what the speech (or the following part of the speech) actually said. They simply circulate and repeat myths and legends on the matter. As we will see, the following section of John XXIII’s speech does not support their position but contradicts it. This section of the speech is also found in paragraph #6. It’s important to quote a number of sentences from this paragraph.
“6… Neque opus nostrum, quasi ad finem primarium, eo spectat, ut de quibusdam capitibus praecipuis doctrinae ecclesiasticae disceptetur, atque adeo fusius repetantur ea, quae Patres ac theologi veteres et recentiores tradiderunt, et quae a vobis non ignorari sed in mentibus vestris inhaerere merito putamus.
Etenim ad huiusmodi tantum disputationes habendas non opus erat, ut Concilium Oecumenicum indiceretur. Verumtamen in praesenti oportet ut universa doctrina christiana, nulla parte inde detracta, hic temporibus nostris ab omnibus accipiatur novo studio, mentibus serenis atque pacatis, tradita accurata illa ratione verba concipiendi et in formam redigendi, quae ex actis Concilii Tridentini et Vaticani Primi praesertim elucet; oportet ut, quemadmodum cuncti sinceri rei christianae, catholicae, apostolicae fautores vehementer exoptant, eadem doctrina amplius et altius cognoscatur eaque plenius animi imbuantur atque formentur; oportet ut haec doctrina certa et immutabilis, cui fidele obsequium est praestandum, ea ratione pervestigetur et exponatur, quam tempora postulant nostra. Est enim aliud ipsum depositum Fidei, seu veritates, quae veneranda doctrina nostra continentur, aliud modus, quo eaedem enuntiantur, eodem tamen sensu eademque sententia. Huic quippe modo plurimum tribuendum erit et patienter, si opus fuerit, in eo elaborandum; scilicet eae inducendae erunt rationes res exponendi, quae cum magisterio, cuius indoles praesertim pastoralis est, magis congruant.”
JOHN XXIII DECLARES THAT VATICAN II’S PRINCIPAL DUTY WILL BE TO DEAL WITH, TRACE OUT, EXPOUND, AND PRESENT CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
John XXIII says:
“Nor does our work focus on the following as though it were a primary end: namely, that a discussion should take place about certain special articles of Church teaching or that there should be a more extensive review of those points which the Fathers and theologians, both ancient and more recent, have handed down (to us), and which, we rightly think, are not unknown to you but are firmly embedded in your minds. For there was no need that an Ecumenical Council be proclaimed for disputations solely of this kind. What is, however, needed at the present time is that Christian doctrine in its entirety, without any part removed therefrom, should here and now in our times be received by all men with new zeal, with serene and tranquil minds – (a doctrine) handed down by that precise manner of conceiving and drawing up words which especially shines forth from the Acts of the Council Trent and Vatican I.What is needed – as all sincere supporters of matters Christian, Catholic and apostolic eagerly crave – isthat this same doctrine be more widely and deeply known and that minds be more fully imbued and formed by it. What is needed is that this certain and immutable doctrine, to which faithful obedience is owed, be traced out and expoundedwith that reasonableness which our times demand. For the Deposit of Faith itself or the truths contained by our venerable doctrine are one thing, but the manner in which they are enunciated (albeit with the same sense and the same meaning) is another. It is precisely to thislatter manner that the majority (of our attention) will have to be given; and, if need arise, it will have to be patiently exerted therein. In other words, there will need to be introduced those methods of explaining thingswhich are more in keeping with a Magisterium whose native character is primarily pastoral.”
As a careful reading of this paragraph shows, John XXIII does not say that Vatican II would not be doctrinal or infallible. He actually says the opposite. He says that Vatican II – whose primary task is to deal with doctrine, as he already told us – will concern itself with the manner in which Church doctrine is expounded. The manner or way in which Church doctrine is expounded is inseparable from doctrine itself. (Vatican I declared that we must believe Church doctrine exactly as it has been declared or expounded by the Church.) The following line in the paragraph captures the essence of his point. “What is needed is that this certain and immutable doctrine, to which faithful obedience is owed, be traced out and expoundedwith that reasonableness which our times demand.”
“PASTORAL” – VATICAN I CONNECTED PAPAL INFALLIBILITY WITH A POPE’S “SUPREME PASTORAL OFFICE”
According to John XXIII, Vatican II will expound and trace out Church doctrine, which the faithful must obey; but it will do so “with that reasonableness which our times demand.” In other words, it will present doctrine in a way that heretics such as Antipope John XXIII deemed more friendly, modern, and pastoral. Of course, that does not mean that the Council will not deal with doctrine. It means that it will deal with doctrine.Something can be both doctrinal and pastoral. The two are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, that which is doctrinal accompanies that which is pastoral. A pope’s pastoral office, for example, involves the power to teach faith and morals. Vatican I even stated that the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility was made precisely to clarify that the Son of God connected an infallible teaching power on faith and morals “with the supreme pastoral office” (“cum summo pastorali officio” –Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, Chap. 4, Denz. 1838).
Moreover, concerning the enunciation of the truths of the Deposit of Faith, John XXIII says: “It is precisely to this” that the majority of our attention will have to be given. Once again, the Council will deal with the enunciation of what it considers to be truths of faith.
In fact, in the one line of the speech that false traditionalists like to use, the point is confirmed. They rarely quote what John XXIII actually said, and it’s not a surprise why. They prefer, instead, to give their inaccurate summary of it. The line says: “In other words, there will need to be introduced those methods of explaining things which are more in keeping with aMagisterium whose native character is primarily pastoral.”
John XXIII refers to methods of explaining things. What things? As he already told us, the things to be explained are matters of Church doctrine. He referred to them as matters of “Christian doctrine” to which “faithful obedience is owed.” In this line he also says that Vatican II will represent the Magisterium: “in keeping with a Magisterium whose native character is primarily pastoral.” The Magisterium is infallible, as was already covered.
Therefore, this line by itself demonstrates that Vatican II will concern itself with explaining Church doctrine. It will be binding and magisterial – that is to say, infallible. When John XXIII says that Vatican II will use methods of explaining the doctrine (which people must obey) in keeping with a Magisterium whose native character is primarily pastoral, he means that Vatican II will employ methods of formulating Church doctrine that modernists such as John XXIII deemed more palatable to modern man. They will consequently be considered more friendly or “pastoral.” The reference to “pastoral” is thus to how the Church’s doctrine is being presented. It concerns doctrine and how it is expounded. It does not mean that the Council will not deal with doctrine or that it will not be magisterial or infallible.
The fact that Vatican II did deal extensively with matters of Church doctrine is obvious from the Council’s documents. They deal at length with matters of doctrine. Lumen Gentium is even called the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, and Dei Verbum is called the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. The problem is that Vatican II contains numerous heresies and false doctrines. It was a wicked council. It teaches the following heresies: that Protestants and schismatics who reject Catholic teaching are in the Body of Christ; that Jews are not to be considered rejected by God, even though they reject Christ and His Church; that Islam and other non-Christian religions are to be esteemed; that non-Catholics may lawfully receive Holy Communion; that non-Catholic religions are means of salvation; that non-Catholics are martyrs; that it’s good to participate in non-Catholic worship; that Muslims worship the one true God; that states lack the authority to prevent the public expression of false religions; and much more. Vatican II definitely dealt with doctrine, but it taught falsely on doctrine and the results were disastrous and demonic. That’s because it was a false, revolutionary, anti-Council run by heretics. It was convoked by an antipope and confirmed by an antipope. It initiated a theological revolution and a Counter Church.
Summarizing the facts as covered about John XXIII’s opening speech at Vatican II.
John XXIII’s opening speech repeatedly states that Vatican II will be an act of the Magisterium.
It states that Vatican II will be an act of the unfailing and therefore infallible Magisterium.
It states that Vatican II will enact the Extraordinary Magisterium.
It states that Vatican II’s principal duty will be to deal with doctrine.
It states that Vatican II will expound and trace out, in a manner they consider reasonable or pastoral for our times, Church teaching to which faithful obedience is owed.
There’s simply no doubt that if John XXIII was a true pope (and he definitely wasn’t), Vatican II was intended to be an ecumenical council. It was intended to operate magisterially and infallibly, with binding doctrinal teaching on faith and morals, just as previous ecumenical councils did. Its authority and scope would be the same as a typical ecumenical council. It would simply deal with doctrine in a way the leaders of Vatican II deemed appealing to modern man.
ANTIPOPE PAUL VI REFERS TO VATICAN II’S TASK OF DEALING WITH AND DEFINING DOCTRINE
By the way, during Vatican II, Antipope Paul VI, the man who confirmed Vatican II, wrote an encyclical called Ecclesiam Suam. It was addressed to the entire Church. In #30 of Ecclesiam Suam, Paul VI stated this:
Antipope Paul VI, Ecclesiam Suam (# 30), Aug. 6, 1964: “It is precisely because the Second Vatican Council has the task of dealing once more with the doctrine de Ecclesia (of the Church) and of defining it, that it has been called the continuation and complement of the First Vatican Council.”
From these facts can be seen just how wrong the false traditionalists are on this matter. They have deceived countless souls about John XXIII’s speech and the authority of Vatican II. It’s obvious why. Their false position on the authority that was intended for Vatican II is an integral component of their false position on the legitimacy of John XXIII, Paul VI, etc. This is especially true of the Society of St. Pius X and its supporters, among whom myths about Vatican II run rampant. Their false position on Vatican II has been embraced by other groups as well. It’s held even by many who attend the New ‘Mass’ or an Indult ‘Mass’. It is promoted by some supporters of the Fraternity of St. Peter and like-minded groups. It is widely embraced and promoted because anyone who is even slightly conservative recognizes that Vatican II was a rotten tree that brought forth rotten fruit. Hence, the assertion that Vatican II was not binding is central to their explanation of how they can possibly reject Vatican II in whole or in part while adhering to the men who implemented and promulgated it.
It is hoped that people consider these facts and embrace the correct position: that all the Vatican II claimants to the Papacy (John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis) are not true popes but heretical, non-Catholic antipopes. That’s the true position. That’s the Catholic position. That’s the only theologically consistent position.
So far this message has dealt primarily with John XXIII’s opening speech and the false claims people make about it. Although his opening speech is perhaps the most common objection people raise on the issue of Vatican II’s alleged non-binding nature, there are other objections they advance on this matter. A careful examination of each one, however, only further proves their position to be false. In fact, to illustrate the point, let’s consider and refute another objection they advance.
THE THEOLOGICAL NOTE ATTACHED TO LUMEN GENTIUM FURTHER DISPROVES THEIR POSITION
Some false traditionalists cite the theological note, dated to 1964, which was attached to the document Lumen Gentium. This note, by the way, applied to the document Lumen Gentium, not to all Vatican II documents. A careful examination of the note only further refutes the false traditionalists’ claims. That’s because the note shows that the antipopes made Vatican II binding and an act of the Magisterium. If the theological note were applied generally to Vatican II, it would require people, for example, to accept Vatican II’s false teaching on religious liberty. Here’s what it says:
“Taking into account conciliar custom and the pastoral aim of the present Council, this Sacred Synod defines as binding on the Church only those matters of faith or morals which it openly declares as such. THE OTHER MATTERS WHICH THE SACRED SYNOD PUTS FORWARD AS THE TEACHING OF THE SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH, EACH AND EVERY MEMBER OF CHRIST’S FAITHFUL MUST ACCEPT AND EMBRACE ACCORDING TO THE MIND OF THE SACRED SYNOD ITSELF, WHICH IS CLEAR EITHER FROM THE SUBJECT MATTER OR FROM ITS MANNER OF SPEAKING, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NORMS OF THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION.”
According to the theological note, people must accept the teaching of Vatican II (which it calls the teaching of the supreme Magisterium) according to the mind of the Synod itself. That mind or intention, it says, is clear from the subject matter or the manner in which the Synod speaks on a topic. Well, everything in Vatican II was solemnly approved by Antipope Paul VI as binding as will be sees. Moreover, there are numerous places in Vatican II where the Synod (the Vatican II Robbers’ Synod) sets forth what it considers to be the teaching of the supreme Magisterium in language that is binding. For instance, in #9 of its heretical Declaration on Religious Liberty, Vatican II states:
#9. “Quae de iure hominis ad libertatem religiosam declarat haec Vaticana Synodus, fundamentum habent in dignitate personae, cuius exigentiae rationi humanae plenius innotuerunt per saeculorum experientiam. Immo haec doctrina de libertate radices habet in divina Revelatione, quapropter eo magis a Christianis sancte servanda est.”
Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae (# 9): “The things which this Vatican Synod declares concerning the right of man to religious liberty, have their foundation in the dignity of the person, whose needs have become more fully known to human reason through the experience of the ages. In fact, this doctrine on liberty has its roots in divine Revelation; with all the more reason, therefore, it is to be preserved sacredly by Christians.”
Remember, according to the theological note, one must accept Vatican II according to the mind of the Synod itself, which is clear from the subject matter or what it says. Here Vatican II declares that its (false) teaching on religious liberty is rooted in divine Revelation and is on that account to be preserved sacredly by Christians. In the Latin servanda est (meaning “is to be preserved”) is a gerundive agreeing with doctrina. The Council is thus directly stating that its doctrine (doctrina) concerning religious liberty (which it says comes from divine Revelation) “is to be preserved” (servanda est) sacredly by Christians. That means that each and every person who accepts Paul VI must accept Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty as sacred and rooted in divine Revelation; for that is the mind of this Synod, which is clear from what it said. And there’s more:
#12 “Ecclesia igitur, evangelicae veritati fidelis, viam Christi et Apostolorum sequitur quando rationem libertatis religiosae tamquam dignitati hominis et Dei revelationi consonam agnoscit eamque fovet…”
Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae (# 12): “The Church therefore, faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and the Apostles when it acknowledges the principle of religious liberty as in accord with human dignity and the revelation of God, and when it promotes it…”
Those who accept Antipope Paul VI as a pope are bound to accept Vatican II’s heretical teaching on religious liberty as 1) faithful to the truth of the Gospel; 2) following the way of Christ and the Apostles; and 3) in accord with the revelation of God; for that is the mind of the Synod, which is clear from what it says. Again, as can be seen, bringing up the theological note does not help the false traditionalists. It only further destroys their position by proving they are bound to the false teachings of Vatican II. Other examples could be given.
REFUTING THE OBJECTION FROM PAUL VI’S DEC. 7, 1965, SPEECH
In fact, let’s examine another popular objection false traditionalists raise on this issue. They like to quote a speech that Paul VI gave during the last general meeting of Vatican II, on Dec. 7, 1965. They think the speech proves that Vatican II did not make any extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, and therefore that Vatican II’s false teaching on various topics could not have been promulgated in what would be an infallible or binding way. But they are quite wrong, for several reasons. The facts in the following will thoroughly refute their claims on this matter.
Paul VI, Last General Meeting of Vatican II, Dec. 7, 1965: “But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force…”
First, as already seen, John XXIII convoked Vatican II to be an ecumenical council. He stated that Vatican II would be an act of the unfailing Magisterium and would present the Magisterium “in extraordinary form”. And that is exactly how Paul VI confirmed Vatican II in the official acts of the Council, as will be seen.
Second, even if one supposed, for the sake of argument, that Paul VI’s remarks on that particular day (which weren’t even an act of the Council) proved that Vatican II did not attempt any extraordinary dogmatic definitions, that would not prove that Vatican II was not promulgated with what would be the infallible authority of the Magisterium if Paul VI had been the pope. The reason is that, in addition to the solemn or extraordinary Magisterium, the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium is infallible, as Vatican I declared. Vatican II identified its own teaching as that of the supreme Magisterium, as already explained. Vatican II was also undoubtedly universal, as it purported to be an ecumenical council and it applied to the entire Church. Whether the Magisterium teaches in an extraordinary fashion or in its ordinary and universal Magisterium or in what is simply identified as the authoritative teaching of “the Magisterium” to the entire world, it is infallible. As already demonstrated from the teaching of Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri and Pope Leo XIII in Caritatis Studium, the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Magisterium to the entire world on faith or morals cannot be false, regardless of whether that teaching is called the extraordinary Magisterium, the supreme Magisterium, the ordinary and universal Magisterium, the unfailing Magisterium or simply “the Magisterium.” Indeed, in his encyclical Providentissimus Deus #17, Pope Leo XIII refers to the infallible Magisterium of the Church as “the proper Magisterium.”
Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus (#17), Nov. 18, 1893: “To prove, to expound, to illustrate Catholic doctrine by the legitimate and skilful interpretation of the Bible, is much; but there is a second part of the subject of equal importance and equal difficulty – the maintenance in the strongest possible way of its full authority. This cannot be done completely or satisfactorily except by means of the living and proper magisterium of the Church. The Church, ‘by reason of her wonderful propagation, her distinguished sanctity and inexhaustible fecundity in good, her Catholic unity, and her unshaken stability, is herself a great and perpetual motive of credibility, and an unassailable testimony to her own divine mission.’ But since the divine and infallible magisterium of the Church rests also on the authority of Holy Scripture, the first thing to be done is to vindicate the trustworthiness of the sacred records at least as human documents, from which can be clearly proved, as from primitive and authentic testimony, the divinity and the mission of Christ our Lord, the institution of a hierarchical Church and the primacy of Peter and his successors.”
Vatican II without any doubt purported to be the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Magisterium to the entire world on matters of faith and morals. Since its teaching was false and heretical, the men who implemented and promulgated it could not have been true popes. In fact, in Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Satis Cognitum, there’s a very interesting point in this regard. Pope Leo XIII describes the infallible Magisterium of the Church as the “living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium.” He also says:
THE DEATH-BLOW: VATICAN II, WHILE PURPORTING TO BE MAGISTERIAL, FORMALLY “DECLARED” THAT ITS FALSE TEACHING ON RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IS CONTAINED IN “DIVINE REVELATION” – THE VERY ACT WHICH LEO XIII TEACHES WOULD NECESSARILY BE INFALLIBLE AND PROTECTED
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#9), June 29, 1896: “Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles He confirmed… As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by everyone as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man.”
Leo XIII teaches that as often as it is declared that something is contained in divine revelation, it is infallible and must be accepted. Notice the amazing specificity with which Pope Leo XIII’s description of an infallible teaching of the Magisterium matches the language used in Vatican II’s heretical declaration on religious liberty. As quoted earlier, #9 of the heretical Declaration on Religious Liberty states:
Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae (# 9): “The things which this Vatican Synod declares [declarat] concerning the right of man to religious liberty, have their foundation in the dignity of the person, whose needs have become more fully known to human reason through the experience of the ages. In fact, this doctrine [doctrina] on liberty has its roots in divine Revelation; with all the more reason, therefore, it is to be preserved [servanda est] sacredly by Christians.”
In #12 of that document, Vatican II also declared that its doctrine on religious liberty is faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and the Apostles, and is in accord with the revelation of God.
Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae (# 12): “The Church therefore, faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and the Apostles when it acknowledges the principle of religious liberty as in accord with human dignity and the revelation of God, and when it promotes it…”
Vatican II thus attempts to do exactly what Pope Leo XIII says the Magisterium does when it teaches infallibly.
COMPARISON
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#9), June 29, 1896: “As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by everyone as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man.”
Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae (# 9): “The things which this Vatican Synod declares [declarat] concerning the right of man to religious liberty…this doctrine [doctrina] on liberty has its roots in divine Revelation; with all the more reason, therefore, it is to be preserved [servanda est] sacredly by Christians.”Vatican II document, Dignitatis Humanae (# 12): “The Church therefore, faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and the Apostles when it acknowledges the principle of religious liberty as in accord with human dignity and the revelation of God, and when it promotes it…”
To state that a teaching declared in this way by a true pope and the Magisterium could be false is to state that God is the author of error. THAT is heresy. Therefore, it’s simply a fact that according to the teaching of Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum, all who hold that Paul VI was the pope CANNOT consistently hold that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty was false. When they assert that it was false and obstinately maintain that Paul VI was the pope, they assert that God is the author of error. However, know that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty (and other matters) was indeed false. That proves that Paul VI was not the pope. Vatican II “declares” that its doctrine on religious liberty is rooted “in divine Revelation” and for that reason “is to be preserved sacredly by Christians.” Leo XIII taught that “as often” as the Magisterium declares that something is contained in divine revelation, it is infallible and must be believed by everyone as true!
PAUL VI’S DEC. 7, 1965, SPEECH IS NOT AN ACT OF THE COUNCIL
The third and perhaps most important point to make in regard to Paul VI’s Dec. 7, 1965, speech is that it’s not even one of the official acts of Vatican II. It thus holds no weight in a theological analysis of the authority that Vatican II intended to exercise in its official Acts. Vatican II promulgated Constitutions, Declarations and Decrees. That was confirmed in Paul VI’s Apostolic Brief In Spiritu Sancto, which officially closed the Council on Dec. 8, 1965. The Constitutions, Declarations and Decrees of Vatican II (i.e., the 16 documents of the Council) determine the authority that Vatican II intended to enact; and, as we will see, the language contained in those official Acts of the Council – all of which Paul VI made his own by solemn approval and promulgation – without any question would have fulfilled the requirements for infallible teaching to the entire Church if Paul VI had been the pope. Those Acts were approved as solemnly and authoritatively as popes approved infallible decrees at true ecumenical councils, as we will see. It is simply impossible for a true pope to have promulgated Vatican II’s false teaching on faith and morals to the entire Church with the solemn and binding language that Paul VI did.
PAUL VI’S SPEECH, BESIDES NOT BEING AN ACT OF THE COUNCIL, DOES NOT SAY THAT VATICAN II WAS NOT INFALLIBLE OR BINDING, BUT ACTUALLY INDICATES THE OPPOSITE
Furthermore, in the aforementioned speech on Dec. 7, 1965 (which wasn’t even an act of the Council), Paul VI does noteven say that Vatican II was not infallible or binding. In that speech, however, he does say that Vatican II contained “authoritative teaching,” condemned errors, and passed down the Church’s doctrine.
Paul VI, Last General Meeting of Vatican II, Dec. 7, 1965: Vatican II “has made thoroughly knownits authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity…”
Paul VI, Last General Meeting of Vatican II, Dec. 7, 1965: “Errors were condemned, indeed, because charity demanded this no less than did truth…”
Paul VI, Last General Meeting of Vatican II, Dec. 7, 1965: “This council hands over to posterity not only the image of the Church but also the patrimony of her doctrine and of her commandments, the ‘deposit’ received from Christ and meditated upon through centuries, lived and expressed now and clarified in so many of its parts, settled and arranged in its integrity.”
He also quotes John XXIII’s opening speech, which declared that Vatican II dealt with doctrine. But the speech holds no weight anyway. The actual Acts of Vatican II are what must be considered.
WHY THE COUNCIL OF NICEA ACTED INFALLIBLY– COMPARED WITH VATICAN II
It must also be understood that when an ecumenical council meets, it already bears a solemn and universal character by virtue of the nature of the gathering.The only thing an ecumenical council lacks for its official teaching on faith or morals to be infallible and binding on the universal Church is the official confirmation of the teaching on faith or morals by the pope. That’s why, for example, the short statement of faith at the Council of Nicea in 325 is considered dogmatic and infallible, even though Pope St. Sylvester (the pope who reigned at the time) is not known to have issued any papal bull confirming it. Pope St. Sylvester did not attend the Council of Nicea, and there’s no known decree from Sylvester confirming the Council of Nicea in extraordinary language or even in his own words. Pope St. Sylvester did confirm the Council of Nicea’s statement of faith, but he only did so via his legates: the Roman priests, Vito and Vincent. The basic and simple confirmation Pope St. Sylvester gave to the Council of Nicea via his representatives was all that was necessary for the Ecumenical Council’s statement of faith to be considered authoritative, binding, and infallible for the universal Church. That’s because the setting in which it was given (an ecumenical council) already bore a universal character by virtue of the nature of the assembly. It simply awaited the papal confirmation of its acts on faith.
PAPAL PRIMACY AT THE COUNCIL OF NICEA
By the way, it’s also interesting to note the following about papal primacy at the Council of Nicea. The proceedings of the Council of Nicea were led by a Western cleric named Hosius of Cordova. Many believe Hosius served in that capacity on behalf of the pope. Gelasius of Cyzicus, who was a 5th century historian and priest in the Eastern part of the Church, spoke of “Hosius holding the place of Sylvester, the Bishop of great Rome, together with the Roman presbyters Vito and Vincent.” As the presiding officer at Nicea, the signature of Hosius is the first to appear on the list of those who signed the Council of Nicea. Hosius’ signature is immediately followed by the signatures of the pope’s representatives, the Roman priests, Vito and Vincent. The names of Vito and Vincent thus appear before all the patriarchs and bishops at Nicea, just below the name of Hosius, the Council’s presiding officer. The fact that the signatures of the pope’s representatives, the Roman priests, appear before the signatures of the various patriarchs and bishops is a striking example of how the primacy and authority of the bishop of Rome (the pope) was recognized at the Council of Nicea and in the ancient Christian Church.
Pope St. Sylvester’s simple confirmation of Nicea via his legates demonstrates that when you have an ecumenical council officially teaching on faith or morals to the entire Church, that teaching is binding and infallible if confirmed by a pope – period. That’s because the gathering at an ecumenical council already bears an official and universal character. It simply awaits papal confirmation. When one considers the manner in which Paul VI confirmed Vatican II and its teaching on faith and morals, it’s not only clear that Paul VI officially and authoritatively confirmed the teaching of Vatican II, but he confirmed it with solemn language. Indeed, the language he used to confirm and promulgate the Acts of Vatican II is on a par with the language of the most celebrated ecumenical and dogmatic councils in Church history. It is thus theologically absurd for people to maintain that Paul VI was the pope, as Sylvester was, but that the acts of this alleged ecumenical council (Vatican II) dealing with faith and morals were not infallible, binding and authoritative.
ANTIPOPE PAUL VI’S CONFIRMATION OF EACH DOCUMENT OF THE COUNCIL ENDS ANY DEBATE
Perhaps the single most important fact to consider on this issue is the manner in which Antipope Paul VI confirmed Vatican II. Each document of Vatican II begins this way:
“PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY.”
This language is typical of dogmatic decrees at ecumenical councils. It corresponds to how Pope Eugene IV began the 11th session of the dogmatic Council of Florence. He stated: “Eugene, bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record.” It corresponds to how Pope Leo X began the 8th session of the dogmatic 5th Lateran Council, and how Pope Pius IX began the 3rd session of the dogmatic First Vatican Council.
Each document of Vatican II ends this way:
“EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS. WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY… I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”
Antipope Paul VI invokes his so-called “apostolic authority” to authoritatively approve, decree, and establish everything set forth in each document of Vatican II. If he had been the pope, this would definitely qualify as solemn dogmatic language. In fact, the language Antipope Paul VI uses here exceeds, in terms of its solemnity, the approval that early popes gave to the Councils of Nicea, Ephesus, and others. If false traditionalists deny that this is infallible language, they must deny that the early councils were infallible.
Moreover, in regard to the aforementioned theological note, Paul VI’s declaration at the beginning and end of every Vatican II document definitely indicates, by “its manner of speaking,” “in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation” (that is, paralleling past dogmatic decrees), that he is enacting the supreme Magisterium of the Church (if he had been the pope).
PAUL VI REFERS TO VATICAN II AS A SOLEMN DECLARATION
In fact, it’s interesting to note that Paul VI referred to Vatican II’s blasphemous teaching that Muslims, together with Catholics, worship the one true God as a solemn declaration.
Antipope Paul VI, Address, Dec. 2, 1977: “… the Moslems profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day, as the Second Vatican Council solemnly declared.”
Antipope Paul VI also solemnly closed Vatican II on Dec. 8, 1965, by again declaring, with his so-called “apostolic authority”, that everything established in the Council “is to be religiously observed by all the faithful.”
Antipope Paul VI, “Papal” Brief declaring Council Closed, Dec. 8, 1965:
“At last all which regards the holy Ecumenical Council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and ALL THE CONSTITUTIONS, DECREES, DECLARATIONS, AND VOTES HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE DELIBERATION OF THE SYNOD AND PROMULGATED BY US. Therefore, we decided to close for all intents and purposes, WITH OUR APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY, this same Ecumenical Council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death. WE DECIDE, MOREOVER, THAT ALL THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED SYNODALLY IS TO BE RELIGIOUSLY OBSERVED BY ALL THE FAITHFUL, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church… WE HAVE APPROVED AND ESTABLISHED THESE THINGS, DECREEING THAT THE PRESENT LETTERS ARE AND REMAIN STABLE AND VALID, AND ARE TO HAVE LEGAL EFFECTIVENESS, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, ALL EFFORTS CONTRARY TO THESE THINGS BY WHOEVER OR WHATEVER AUTHORITY, KNOWINGLY OR IN IGNORANCE, BE INVALID AND WORTHLESS FROM NOW ON. Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, December 8… the year 1965, the third year of our Pontificate.”
When Vatican II was officially closed on Dec. 8, 1965, its “authority” was finalized at that point. Therefore, if Paul VI was the pope (and he definitely wasn’t), then the Gates of Hell would have prevailed against the Catholic Church on Dec. 8, 1965 as a consequence of his solemn approval of each document of Vatican II. Whether or not they want to admit it, those who obstinately accept the Vatican II antipopes hold that the Gates of Hell prevailed against the Catholic Church on Dec. 8, 1965. They hold that the papal magisterium can authoritatively commit itself to false teachings, and declare that those false teachings are “rooted in divine revelation”. THAT IS OUTRIGHT HERESY. They are contradicting Catholic teaching on papal infallibility and indefectibility.
Furthermore, since the teaching of the Magisterium is “irreformable” according to Vatican I, statements made about Vatican II’s authority after the Council was promulgated, approved, and closed by Paul VI on Dec. 8, 1965 would not determine its authority. Strictly speaking, such statements aren’t even relevant to Vatican II’s authority in comparison to the facts covered here. However, when what the antipopes and leaders of the Counter Church stated after Vatican II is considered, it only further confirms that Vatican II is definitely considered binding and magisterial by the Vatican II Counter Church. Some false traditionalists, for example, will cite a Jan. 12, 1966 General Audience of Paul VI. This speech was given after the Council. It is therefore comparatively insignificant to many facts covered here. However, a careful consideration of the speech completely refutes their view; for in the General Audience Paul VI states that the teaching of Vatican II “has to be accepted” and constitutes the teaching of “the supreme Ordinary Magisterium”. The supreme Ordinary Magisterium is binding and infallible.
PAUL VI DENOUNCES LEFEBVRE AND LEFEBVRISTS FOR SAYING THAT VATICAN II WAS NOT BINDING
There are many other quotations one could bring forward to prove that Vatican II is considered binding and magisterial by the Vatican II Church. For example, in a May 24, 1976 Address, Antipope Paul VI denounced the idea, adopted by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and his supporters, that the Second Vatican Council was not binding. He even said that the consequence of such an attitude or position is that people place themselves outside his “Church”.
Antipope Paul VI, Address, May 24, 1976: “And the fact is all the more serious in that the opposition of which we are speaking is not only encouraged by some priests, but is led by a prelate, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who nevertheless still has our respect.
“It is so painful to take note of this: but how can we not see in such an attitude – whatever may be these people’s intentions – the placing of themselves outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore outside the Church? For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, when, that is, it is held as preferable to disobey with the pretext of preserving one’s faith intact, and of working in one’s way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time refusing to give her effective obedience. And this is said openly. It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding: that the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? It is for this group, not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecumenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith! As you see, Venerable Brothers, such an attitude sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock, and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith… “The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful.
The instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided, with the authorization of the Ordinary, for the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifice sine populo. The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council. In no different way did our holy predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent…
“We have called the attention of Archbishop Lefebvre to the seriousness of his behavior, the irregularity of his principal present initiatives, the inconsistency and often falsity of the doctrinal positions on which he bases this behavior and these initiatives, and the damage that accrues to the entire Church because of them.” (L’Osservatore Romano, June 3, 1976, p. 2.)
That’s also why, in the recent negotiations with the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) during the reign of Antipope Benedict XVI, it was made clear that the SSPX will not be fully accepted by the Counter Church without a recognition of Vatican II and its teaching. The Note from the Secretary of State of the Vatican, dated February 4, 2009, and published in the Vatican’s newspaper, is an example of that point. It stated:
“A full recognition of the Second Vatican Council and the Magisterium of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI himself is an indispensable condition for any future recognition of the Society of Saint Pius X…”
In his comments on Jan. 28, 2009, following his General Audience, Benedict XVI also spoke of the SSPX and the necessity for them to accept Vatican II. He said he hopes that the SSPX will “complete the necessary steps to achieve full communion with the Church, thus witnessing true fidelity to, and true recognition of, the Magisterium and the authority of the Pope and the Second Vatican Council.” (L’ Osservatore Romano, February 4, 2009, p. 9.)
BENEDICT XVI REFERS TO THE BINDING NATURE OF VATICAN II
In his book, The Ratzinger Report, he also stated:
“Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger (he himself a heretic) (now Benedict XVI), The Ratzinger Report, 1985, p. 28: “It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism’, also in its extreme forms.”
In his 2010 book, Light of the World, Benedict XVI promoted the completely heretical teaching of Vatican II that schismatic “Orthodox” sects, which reject the Papacy, are in the Church of Christ. Contrary to dozens of magisterial pronouncements, including dogmatic statements made by the First Vatican Council, Vatican II teaches that schismatic communities that reject the Papacy and papal infallibility are “true particular churches” (that is, individual churches within the Church of Christ). In his book Light of the World, Benedict XVI not only agreed with and endorsed that heretical teaching (p. 89), but he also explicitly stated that it’s binding (p. 96). He even indicated that it’s irreformable with his statement that he would have no authority to alter it.
Benedict XVI, Light of the World, 2010, p. 89: “… what I defended was the heritage of the Second Vatican Council and of the entire history of the Church. The passage [from Dominus Iesus] means that the Eastern Churches [i.e., the “Orthodox”] are genuine particular churches, although they are not in communion with the Pope. In this sense, unity with the Pope is not constitutive for the particular church.”
Benedict XVI, Light of the World, 2010, pp. 94-96: “Q. Is it really true that the Pope does not regard Protestants as a Church, but, unlike the Eastern Church, only as an ecclesial community? This distinction strikes many as demeaning. A. The word ‘ecclesial community’ is a term employed by the Second Vatican Council. The Council applied a very simple rule in these matters. A Church in the proper sense, as we understand it, exists where the episcopal office, as the sacramental expression of apostolic succession, is present –which also implies the existence of the Eucharist as a sacrament that is dispensed by the bishop and the priest. If this is not the case, then we are dealing with the emergence of another model, a new way of understanding what a church is, which at Vatican II we designated by the term ‘ecclesiastical community.’ The word was intended to indicate that such communities embody a different mode of being a church. As they themselves insist, it is precisely not the same mode in which the Churches of the great tradition of antiquity are Churches, but is based on a new understanding, according to which a church consists, not in the institution, but in the dynamism of the Word that gathers people into a congregation… Q. And not even a Pope can offer an alternative definition of a Church? A. No. He has no authority over that. The Second Vatican Council is binding on him.”
With that statement, he was referring to the teaching of Vatican II: that schismatic sects which reject the Papacy are true particular churches (that is, individual churches within the Church of Christ).
Many other statements from Antipopes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI prove that they consider Vatican II to be binding and magisterial.
Those who ignore or deny the force of these facts – and instead convince themselves that the Vatican II “popes” did not attempt to use the authority of the Catholic Magisterium to promulgate the teachings of Vatican II – are simply living in a fantasy world and thety themselves becoming heretics.
There’s no way around it: the Vatican II antipopes attempted to use the authority of the Catholic Church and the papal magisterium (which is infallible) to promulgate the false teachings of Vatican II. That proves without any doubt that they did not possess the authority of the Catholic Church and the papal magisterium because they were antipopes.
Those who obstinately accept the Vatican II “popes” in the face of the facts contradict Catholic teaching. They deny papal infallibility and acknowledge heretics as Catholics. People need to embrace the true position, which includes rejecting Vatican II as a false council and rejecting all the Vatican II claimants to the Papacy as antipopes.
Therefore, it can be stated that there are currently no valid clergy or churches at this time and the only possible infallible and true clergy are either in nursing homes or buried. Period.
APPENDIX – PAPAL TEACHING ON HOW THE MAGISTERIUM AND THE CHURCH ARE FREE FROM ERROR
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#18), Dec. 31, 1929: “… God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.”
LATIN: “… divini magisterii Ecclesiam fecit Deus ipse participem eamdemque divino eius beneficio falli nesciam.”
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#16), Dec. 31, 1929: “To this magisterium Christ the Lord imparted immunity from error…”
Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus (# 4), May 17, 1835: “… the Church has, by its divine institution, the power of the magisterium to teach and define matters of faith and morals and to interpret the Holy Scriptures without danger of error.”
Pope Leo XIII, Caritatis Studium (#6) July 25, 1898: The Magisterium “could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.”
Pope Pius X, Editae Saepe (#8), May 26, 1910: “… only a miracle of that divine power could preserve the Church… from blemish in the holiness of Her doctrine…”
Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (#22), Dec. 11, 1925: “… the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.”
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic magisterium.”
LATIN: “Idem semper Ecclesiae mos, idque sanctorum patrum consentiente iudicio: qui scilicet communionis catholicae expertem et ab Ecclesia extorrem habere consueverunt,quicumque a doctrina authentico magisterio proposita vel minimum discessisset.”
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 10), Aug. 15, 1832: “Therefore, it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain ‘restoration and regeneration’ for her (the Church) as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to any failing health or dimming of mind or other misfortune.”
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: ‘The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”
Pope Hadrian I, Second Council of Nicaea, 787: “… Christ our God, when He took for His Bride His Holy Catholic Church, having no blemish or wrinkle, promised he would guard her and assured his holy disciples saying, I am with you every day until the consummation of the world.”
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 9, March 23, 1440: “…the Spouse of Christ is uncontaminated and modest, knowing only one home, and she guards the sanctity of their marriage bed with chaste modesty.”
Pope St. Siricius, epistle (1) Directa ad decessorem, Feb. 10, 385: “And so He has wished the beauty of the Church, whose spouse He is, to radiate with the splendor of chastity, so that on the day of judgment, when He will have come again, He may be able to find her without spot or wrinkle [Eph. 5:27] as He instituted her through His apostle.”
Here at the end of this message is the Haydock Douay-Rheims Bible & Commentary (1859). This is an exact meaning translation of the Jerome’s Latin Vulgate written in late 18th./early19th. century British English of Vulgate – the first complete Bible compiled & translated from the original 73 Books or their earliest copies available to Jerome in the 4th century A.D.
True Roman Catholic faithful use only B.C. / A.D. and not the corrupted version B.C.E. for “before common era”. B.C.E. is but a secular way of saying it and does not follow true Roman Catholic Christianity and rules.
That some of which original Books or earliest copies had been available to Jerome no longer survive is the reason why Protestants have had to go back to the Vulgate and/or use copies made many A. D. centuries later subjected to human errors – when writing their 16th.-21st. century unauthorized “bibles” with diverse meanings and contradictory translations, additions, and omissions.
One such Protestant addition to “Scripture” is the ending of the Lord’s Prayer stated in the King James Version in Matt. 6:13 where they added “for Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever.” That’s NOT the WORD of God. That is NOT in the early Greek manuscripts (Sinaiticus or the Vaticanus – 4th. century manuscripts.)
However, it was in a monk’s gloss – i.e., the monk’s personal commentary he made in the margin of text of a copy he was making many centuries later. Only now – after six centuries in the KJV – are some Protestant “bibles” deleting it. But how many people today still use the corrupted King James Version – probably the most popular “bible” – believing it is the true WORD? It is NOT.
ALL “bibles” produced outside the authority of the true owner/protector of the true WORD of God are invalid and the only true Bible is from the Roman Catholic Church which is the Haydock Douay-Rheims copies of those written prior to Vatican II. All other sources and those re-written by the RCC thereafter to reflect Vatican II changes are demonic frauds.
[Note: The Vatican II Counterfeit Catholic man-made sect that emerged from the illicit Second Vatican Council (October 1962-December 8, 1965) is the product of the October 26, 1958 Papal Conclave coup d’état that illicitly positioned Freemason/Rosicrucian Angelo Roncalli onto the Chair of Peter as Antipope John XXIII (“reigned” October 28, 1958 – June 3, 1963) ]
After Jerome completed this Latin Vulgate work in 395 A.D., the Roman Catholic Church meticulously examined it for the next ten years to assure that the meaning was precisely that of the originally inspired writers of Holy Scripture. Finally, it was released in 405 A.D. to Catholic monks in order to carefully make hand copies.
And that is why the true Roman Catholic Church is the Holy Bible’s sole Inspired Authorship (NT), Translator, Interpreter, Authorized Preacher, Teacher, and Publisher to All Nations.
All other non-Roman Catholic claimants, preachers, teachers of the “bible” and Bibles changed after Vatican II (11 October 1962 – 8 December 1965) to reflect those changes are condemned heathens and publican as frauds and deceivers refusing to hear the true Catholic Church teachings and who were neither authorized nor sent by Jesus Christ or His Church, as very clearly stated in Holy Scripture Romans 10:14-17
“14 … And how shall they hear, without a preacher?
“15 And how can they preach, unless they be sent?…
“16 But all do not obey the Gospel. …
“17 Faith then comes by hearing: and hearing by the word of Christ. …”
Non-Catholic denominations, especially Protestant, Non-Denominational, and Evangelical sects today would not have a Bible were it not for the New Testament Books all written by inspired Catholic writers, and for St. Jerome’s opus, Latin Vulgate Bible, as authorized, published, interpreted, taught, and declared by the Roman Catholic Church as the only official Holy Bible. Jesus Christ gave no man-made religion that authority. Therefore, every non-Catholic sect or individual making and teach other “bibles” are fraudulent deceivers. Or, as Jesus Christ states in Matt. 18:17
” And if he will not hear them, tell the church. And if he will not hear (eg., totally obey) the church, let him be to thee as the HEATHEN and the PUBLICAN.” (emphasis added)
That applies to every person calling themself “Christian” who refuse to “hear” that one, true Church Christ founded upon Peter and the Apostles. It is obvious that anyone dying while refusing to hear His true Catholic Church that Jesus Christ is judging them as “heathen”:(i.e., Gentile, pagan) and as a “publican”:(publican i.e., a civil servant in the employ of the Romans usually as tax collectors known as liars and cheaters when collecting taxes).
Thus, dying “as a the heathen and the publican,” there is no salvation outside His true Roman Catholic Church founded upon Peter.
Yes, Christ in Matt 18:17 here is referring two millennia ago to the one and only true Church He founded upon Peter and the Apostles, which the Roman occupation forces derisively called “Christian”.
The 1st. century A.D. Greeks gave it the name “Katholikos” (universal) – noting that wherever the faithful followers of Christ were found being in the Middle East, Africa (particularly Ethiopia because Philip had converted the Ethiopian Minister of Finance who, in turn, converted the Queen of Ethiopia) or Europe – they held a universal Faith, where all were of one Fold, and acknowledged one earthly chief Shepherd, Peter and his successors, and it was a religion for all mankind from infant to adult.
As you know or should know from reading various unauthorized and corrupted “bibles” produced from non-Catholic Church sources, what truths do appear in them were plagiarized because Jesus Christ commissioned only the Church He founded upon Peter, to whom He gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven with the power to bind or loose on earth what would then be bound or loosed in heaven. Christ also commissioned the Apostles (i e. Bishops subordinated to the chief Bishop, Peter and his successors) and to go TEACH ALL NATIONS ALL that He had taught and done. . . not just what is recorded in the Bible.
The divine, unwritten Revelation is about which the Apostle John wrote when he stated that so many other things did Christ say and do that he did not think there was room on earth to put all the books that could be written about them. This knowledge is what is called DIVINE TRADITION protected by the Holy Spirit, and how the Christian faith had been taught orally for most people until nearly the 16th. century after invention of the commercial printing press (circa 1485) and after the population in general had become literate (circa 16th. century).
Martin Luther (1483-1546) whom historians call the “Father of Protestantism”, stated that the only church which can be traced back to that founded by Christ is the Roman Catholic Church founded in Peter and the apostles. And in that part, Luther spoke the truth. But then Luther continued by saying that the same Roman Catholic Church founded by Christ failed.
Either Luther lied, or scripture is wrong when Matt 1:18 states:
“18 Thou art Peter: and upon this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell (eg., the forces of darkness and all powers of Satan) shall not prevail against it.”
So His Church can never fail, but what does fail is its once-faithful members. Today, nearly all, with very few exceptions worldwide, have failed during this era of the Great Global Apostasy.
Protestants prefer to disregard this Scripture by following in Martin Luther’s Revolt against Christ and His true Roman Catholic Church (existing now in an eclipsed exile state status since Vatican II.)
Prior to the 1990s, the birth ‘control’ pill invented by a “Jewish” doctor (98+% lacking Israeli tribal DNA) in1959 originally contained high amounts of estrogen to prevent the male and female gametes from joining. But when it was found that such a high dose of estrogen causes cancer in women using the pill, all pharmaceutical companies globally but quietly reduced the amount of estrogen, resulting in the allowance of conception. So they introduced chemicals that would either make the uterus wall so slick that the new baby could not attach to it for nourishment, thus starving it to death or they used other chemicals that killed the new developing child by the 12th. day after conception.
Yet, women still refer to these murder pills as “birth control” or “contraception” pills, yet ask any pharmacist and he or she will tell you that they call them abortifacients (Latin facient, they make; aborti – abortion).
The sinfulness of all “clergy” today is they generally know this but refuse to mention it in their “preaching.” To do so might hurt their cash flows. This growing infanticide via pills – as globally promoted by Hillary Clinton & Mrs. Obama – is just another result of living in the ongoing Great Apostasy from true Christianity.
The goal of certain proponents today of a One World Government is to reduce the earth’s population to 500 million. That’s an achievable number because what these abortifacient pills don’t kill, a nuclear war with China et alia just may.
How are we supposed to establish unity in this country when the mainstream media is showing their liberal bias on a daily basis? We’ve known for a while that the New York Times leans to the left. However, we never expected them to provide an actual definition of “crime,” according to the Republicans.
You see, David Firestone, a member of the editorial board with the NYT believes that crime is defined differently between the Republicans and Democrats. It’s no longer about the fact that people are breaking the law. Instead, it’s about the TYPE of crime being committed as well as WHO is being blamed.
Sounds a bit crazy, doesn’t it? But that’s liberal logic for you.
Firestone starts out by talking about the riots that were taking place in 1968 and how President Nixon called for “a return to law and order.” However, according to Firestone, that simple campaign is also layered with racial coding.
He goes on to point to Florida and Governor DeSantis calling the state a “law and order state.” And Nikki Haley said that “We must have law and order.”
Apparently, establishing law and order is only something desired by Republicans. It shows that there are too many Democratic cities that have completely run amok. It’s as if they forgot that there are laws and that order can be established by making sure that those laws are being followed.
That is where Firestone really takes a liberal power pose. He writes, “But the crimes they want to get tough on are always of the same kind: ‘violent’ crimes on the streets of American cities, preferably cities run by Democrats. The kind of crimes that make suburban residents install doorbell cameras, stock up on guns, and vote for the politician who says ‘lock them up’ the loudest.”
So, you’re saying that the Democrats don’t want to handle the crimes that are violent? That doesn’t sit well with me. In fact, it’s no wonder why so many people are moving out of liberal-run cities. After all, mainstream media is essentially touting that the Democratic Party doesn’t care to address violent crimes.
Firestone thinks that he makes a win for the Democrats – and instead, he perpetuates the fact that the liberals don’t have a true grasp on what crime is.
Democrats focus on crimes that “pollutes a river.” He also goes on to talk about hate groups and tax cheats, but that’s not really accurate. After all, the sitting president is the one turning Republicans into a hate group by calling us extremists. And tax cheats? If the Democrats focused on crimes like that, Joe and his whole damn family would be sitting in a white-collar prison somewhere.
The idea that we can ever establish unity in this country is a joke – especially when one of the heaviest circulated publications is releasing dribble like this.
As people reject Christianity and other organized religions and check the “agnostic” or “none of the above” or “New Age” box on belief surveys, witchcraft is on a noticeable rise. In 2019, Pam Grossman declared that “more and more women than ever are choosing the way of the witch, whether literally or symbolically.” Last month, former Disney Channel star Vanessa Hudgens, whom Variety calls a “self-taught student of witchcraft,” released Dead Hot: Seasons of the Witch to inspire viewers to “open their hearts, minds, and soul.” And there are other examples, including hip witchcraft and fears that witchcraft is now too mainstream.
What exactly is witchcraft? This folksy spirituality is a branch of neo-paganism, a return to the worship of gods of all stripes and a turning away from what looks or feels like arbitrary, outdated, patriarchal rules, especially in Christianity.
Witches aim to unleash power from within themselves or harness natural or elemental power to achieve certain goals. Womanhood, the modern witch claims, is mighty, and identifying as a witch, whether by performing spells or hexes, keeping crystals on hand, or merely “tapping into” her inner witch, makes her more genuinely “woman,” someone to be in awe of, or perhaps even to fear. She (or these days, it might even be he) probably won’t look like the warty, green-skinned witches on Halloween decorations, but rather a creature who deals in a concept of womanhood that is dark and mysterious, dynamic and glamorous. She is a woman of the world who holds a fascination for the supernatural, seeking meaning for herself through herself.
Do her efforts pay off? There is no definitive yes or no, and certainly, the efficacy of spells and hexes may be retroactively determined by confirmation bias. But even if they ever do work, let us not be naïve; it is only ever through the permission of the Lord that there might be any worth, or appearance thereof. Not that the witch would agree.
But try as we might to eschew organized religion, the Spirit of the Lord calls to us. Many folks, unfortunately, misinterpret this as an invitation to explore false religions. It feels bizarre to type this, but here it goes: there are witches among us, and it is a problem.
The more people try to turn away from God, the more they go seeking him, and in all the wrong places. So neo-paganism, with Wicca, witchcraft, nature worship, and the like, alongside its counterpart, New Age, have seen a rush of interest. Folks look to the stars, to nature, to crystals, cards, and potions for meaning, answers, and rooting.
It seems, too, that the rise in witches corresponds with the feverish whooping up of late that women’s rights are on the line. What better time to tap into our inner goddess or divine nature than now, when “women’s rights” are under attack?
The dangers of witchcraft are not negligible. Traditionally, witches have been said to pay honor “to the Prince of Darkness, and in return receive from him preternatural powers.” Whether this is the case, over the centuries, there have been recorded confessions of accused witches confirming their involvement with demonic forces.
We mustn’t downplay why these women (and some men) feel the need to practice witchcraft. These people are seeking, and they are restless, and we know that the restlessness they experience will not cease until they find rest in the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
But first, they need to be introduced to Jesus in a genuine and heartfelt way—and it is up to Catholics to do the introducing.
How can we reach out to practitioners of witchcraft? As with any impactful evangelization effort, asking meaningful questions is always a good place to start.
Is the witch interested in deepening her understanding and love of the natural world? The Catholics have saints for that!
Is she looking to understand or tap into the divine? Jesus offers himself intimately and beautifully in the Eucharist, giving us the means to “be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48).
Is she looking to ascend, through the use of sorcery, from the seemingly endless troubles and woes that afflict her and her loved ones in this life? Prayer and fasting are both powerful ways to align ourselves with God’s plan and make a real impact on those around us.
Is she searching for meaning and power in the use of crystals, potions, or other material objects? The Lord understands humans’ needs for the physical and has provided us with sacraments and sacramentals that we can touch, smell, see, taste, and hear to elevate our bodies and minds to the divine.
Does she want to live more attuned to the ebb and flow of the different seasons and stages of life? The liturgical calendar has it all, from feasts to ember days to entire seasons dedicated to various aspects of our faith, helping us to live a good and holy life.
Is she concerned for “the poor, the downtrodden and disenfranchised”? That is what the invitation to hex Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh a few years ago suggested witchcraft is really for. Well, Catholic charities have cared for and upheld the dignity of millions of people whom the world seems to have otherwise forgotten—and no one has to get hexed.
Does she believe she needs magic as a weapon on the battleground that is our fallen world? In Padre Pio’s words, “the rosary is the weapon against the evils of the world today.”
Is the witch desiring a community of like-minded seekers, especially other women who strive to lead holy, beautiful lives? Hi! Welcome to the One True Church!
We can see that much of what someone interested in witchcraft seeks can be found in the Catholic tradition—but in its full and God-given form, not in a creature-oriented product that has the witch worshiping, relying on, or otherwise misusing creation (including demons), when she could and should be worshiping and relying on the Creator and Sustainer of all things.
The witch puts inordinate power in herself or seeks to harness power that is not granted humans according to their nature. She wants to affect the world and people around her through subversive and often destructive means. She is dissatisfied by the fullness of the humanity given to her by God. She holds typical feminist grievances and finds womanhood infinitely powerful but sadly chained by “the big bad patriarchy.”
The witch is a woman who is broken, lost, and oftentimes angry. She is in pain, whether she will admit it or not, and it isn’t a pain caused by the patriarchy or the injustice du jour. It is pain caused by missing out on God. She is seeking validation for her goodness, value, and beauty as a woman outside how God supports and nourishes womanhood through the Catholic Church. We ought to pray for her—that she might turn, with all the energy she has put into her false spirituality, to love the One who loves her unconditionally and won’t ever stop calling her home to him.
fox files 
Recent Comments